Talk:LGBT people and Islam

Suppressed query about what was meant by "homosexuality"

Today in most of the Islamic world homosexuality^Sodomy? is not socially or legally accepted.

Since this seemed unclear, I inserted the query in the sentence above. This was removed by user:flyer22. deisenbe (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sentence I added removed

At the end of the same paragraph as the preceding note, I added the following:

However, in no case do these prohibitions antedate colonialism and other extensive contact with Europeans, which began in the nineteenth century.

This was deleted ad "unsourced" by user:flyer22. deisenbe (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Deisenbe here and here; reasons why are noted in those edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Another reversion by user:flyer22

This was reverted three minutes after I put it in:

However, in no case do these prohibitions antedate colonialism and other extensive contact with western Europeans, which began in the nineteenth century.

The persecution of homosexuals in the Islamic world is very recent, and it is a result of colonization and the influence of Western culture. There is abundant evidence that until colonization, homosexuality was widely accepted. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, Morocco was "a paradise for homosexuals", who fled puritan Europe in search of the sexual freedom one enjoyed in Islamic lands. In fact, homosexuality was legal in Morocco until 1972, and it was Saudi pressure that led to its banning. In Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country) it has never been prohibited, since the shafi'i school of law was dominant. The acceptance of homosexuality in the history of Islam is well documented, in different lands and in different periods. It was not something hidden or marginal, but socially accepted. Western researchers on homosexuality have pointed out, with astonishment, the attitude toward this topic in dar al-Islam. One should consult the views of John Boswell on homosexuality in al-Andalus in his works Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality and Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.

deisenbe (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Deisenbe here and here; reasons why are noted in those edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

___

}

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150114231950/http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545556 to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545556
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141026153913/http://www.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_map_2009_A4.pdf to http://www.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_map_2009_A4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140705120228/http://www.islamonline.net:80/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212925140273&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FPrintFatwaE+ to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212925140273&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FPrintFatwaE+
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150109080152/http://www.irshadmanji.com/im-do-homosexual-muslims-deserve-happiness to http://www.irshadmanji.com/im-do-homosexual-muslims-deserve-happiness

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nom in order to reach some consensus before renominating. (non-admin closure) PanchoS (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

---

• LGBT in Islam → Sexual orientation in Islam
• Christianity and sexual orientation → Sexual orientation in Christianity
• Buddhism and sexual orientation → Sexual orientation in Buddhism
• Sikhism and sexual orientation → Sexual orientation in Sikhism
• LGBT topics and Hinduism → Sexual orientation in Hinduism
• Hare Krishna movement and sexual orientation → Sexual orientation in the Hare Krishna movement
• Unitarian Universalism and LGBT topics → Sexual orientation in Unitarian Universalism
• Haitian Vodou and sexual orientation → Sexual orientation in Haitian Vodou
• LGBT topics and Wicca → Sexual orientation in Wicca
• Zoroastrianism and sexual orientation → Sexual orientation in Zoroastrianism

– These topics's titles are in need of a somewhat consistent terminology, especially after there has been a number of page moves without debate.
Now, we use "x and y" in titles only if a more precise relation cannot be established. However, in all of these cases, sexual orientation is discussed within the discourses of the respective faith, not the other way around. In some cases this may be an omission, as the LGBT discourse occasionally covers religion. However it doesn't hold doctrines or a set of views on religion, apart from where a religion interfers with the rights of LGBT people. Therefore we can clearly speak of a discourse within the particular religion, without subordinating the general LGBT discourse under the respective religious discourses. And while the acronym "LGBT" is widely used within LGBT discourses, it is not sufficiently common within general religious discourses. Therefore "Sexual orientation in x" clearly seems to be the best definition of these topics. PanchoS (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose mass move, because gender identity ≠ sexual orientation.
  I just looked at the first item on the list, and found a whole section LGBT in Islam#Gender_variant_and_transgender_people. Similarly, there is LGBT_topics_and_Hinduism#The_third_gender. Neither of those sections is about sexual orientation.
  The proposed renaming doesn't reflect the actual scope of the articles, and a requested-moves discussion is not the place to discuss a restructuring of the articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed text amendment

Propose amending the first sentence of the third paragraph from:

"Today, in most of the Islamic world, homosexuality is not socially or legally accepted."

To:

"Prejudice remains, both socially (edit: or) and legally, in most of the Islamic world against people who engage in homosexual acts."

Beyond a problem of a clear generalization being presented in regard to LGBT people not being "socially accepted", the issue here, that has already received a lengthy introduction in the previous two paragraphs, is one of prejudice. As the next sentence clearly demonstrates, the issue may frequently be a matter of life and death.

"... In Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty."

In other Wikipedia articles such as those on the treatment of Jews, gypsies and black people in WWII Germany, and article would not merely say that these people were "not ... accepted" not least because that would not be true. Wikipedia even present: Category:Rescue of Jews in the Holocaust. People in such circumstances were taken into homes, hidden, protected and certainly accepted. In a similar way it seems to me that Wikipedia goes too far with its unsubstantiated claim that "homosexuality is not socially ... accepted" "in most of the Islamic world". As with all similar issues, it depends on the extent of their prejudice of the people concerned.

I will leave a link to this thread at WP:LGBT and WP:Islam and Ping recent contributors to the article: Alexis Ivanov, AstroLynx, BethNaught, Bgwhite, BorgQueen, Chrisdike95, Contaldo80, Deisenbe, DMacks, Dialectric, Erodes43, Flyer22 Reborn, GermanJoe, GorgeCustersSabre, I dream of horses, Ibrahim Husain Meraj, Instantpancakes350, JCO312, Jeff5102, Lutipri, Maplestrip, Nematsadat, Nøkkenbuer, Philip Trueman, Rupert loup, Serols, Tadeusz Nowak, Talebhaq, Tymon.r, Winner 42

GregKaye 10:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter at hand, but would like to note that there's a difference between simply "homosexuality" and "homosexual acts". Is a homosexual identity also not socially/legally accepted? How about a homosexual person who is celibate, or a bisexual person in a monogamous heterosexual relationship? It is something to keep in mind when changing this sentence as proposed. ~Mable (chat) 10:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly agree with the proposed amendment. Greg's suggested sentence is much better than the existing wording. I suspect that a few other Muslim editors won't like the word "prejudice" but it is accurate and we shouldn't be nervous. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

In line with the above comment and after further thought it seems clear to me that Wikipedia should directly comment on situations that exist. It makes for poor and indirectly presented content to comment on conditions that don't exist as in "... homosexuality is not ... accepted". Different people are treated in starkly differing ways and the prejudice involved could not be any more clear. GregKaye 17:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Concur I agree that the proposed amendment is better worded and more accurate. JCO312 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no particular predilection for either option, not only because my total contributions to this article have consisted of minor edits and cleanup, but I have some concerns with the proposal. First, one of the reasons for the change appears to be that the current text generalizes the global Muslim community's willingness to accept homosexuality. In the article itself, at LGBT in Islam § Public opinion among Muslims, there is substantial statistical evidence supporting the conclusion that in general, homosexuality is not accepted among Muslims internationally. This does not mean that acceptance of homosexuality and LGBT people does not exist within the global Muslim community—it does and the article discusses LGBT movements within Islam—but it does mean that it is statistically true to claim that "in most of the Islamic world, homosexuality is not socially [...] accepted". Perhaps adding a qualifier of "generally" may be appropriate, but it otherwise appears to be an accurate statement and I wouldn't personally categorize it as a generalization—at least, no more generalizing than your proposal.
  Secondly, "homosexuality" and "homosexual acts" are logically distinct from each other, particularly in matters of theology. If we do change the current text by adopting your proposed sentence, Greg, I think we ought to make sure that we use the correct term. Though I doubt there is much distinction between the two in most of the statistical data available on this topic, let alone cited in this article, I would recommend using whichever term is strictly supported by the evidence. Do Muslims generally consider homosexuality itself unacceptable, or just homosexual acts? Many may find both unacceptable, but it would be inaccurate to conflate the two, especially given just how important the distinction can be in theology. If "homosexual acts" are the topic of most data gauging acceptability ratings among Muslims, then we should use that term. If it's "homosexuality", then it should be that. If both occur, either distinctly or interchangeably, perhaps we should include both terms.
  My third concern is a minor one: if both social and legal prejudice against homosexuality (or homosexual acts) exists, then it would be best to use "and" rather than "or" in connecting the two. Unless "social" and "legal" are meant to be mutually exclusive conditions, in which case it should be "either" rather than "both", the conjunction should be "and". I bring this up because the conjunction used in the current text is an inclusive or, whereas the conjunction in your proposal appears to be an exclusive or.
  Regarding whether this trend in the Muslim community constitutes prejudice, I think it's more than just that, but I don't know whether it's Wikipedia's place to categorize it as such and I have no strong opinion either way. I'm fine with either text, since both accurately describe the current relationship between the acceptability of homosexuality (or homosexual acts) and the global Muslim community. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer From what I have seen the passages of the quran that I have seen focus on homosexual acts. The article quotes a narration of Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:72:774 to state that: "The Prophet cursed effeminate men; those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, "Turn them out of your houses." The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman."

There is clearly a potential for this to be interpreted in a number of ways. It may be a matter of "theology" to decide whether the passage's condemnation is against those who are unintentionally "in the similitude" of the opposite (sex perhaps due to their innate sexuality) or who actively choose, if that is the right word, to "assume the manners of women"

It is the acts that are typically condemned.

I would be interested to know more in regard to the potential justifications used in regard to the widely reported use of Bacha bazi and wonder whether there may be a link between this and the situation that contributed to the page boy image at the beginning of the article. It seems to me that the situation surrounding activities that are excused and activities that are condemned may be complex in some cultures.

When the Pew Research Center did their international survey they choose to sample views on "homosexuality" which may not have been the most relevant reference to have solely used in gathering information from people who ascribe to a quran referenced doctrines. It is people who perform homosexual (as opposed to heterosexual) acts that are scripturally prejudiced against. A potential threat certainly hangs over many people with homosexual inclinations who might otherwise want to engage on or just explore forms of homosexual activities but it may be interpreted that the prejudice against non practitioners may be indirect. GregKaye 04:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Greg. When I brought up the issue of whether to use "homosexuality" or "homosexual acts" in the sentence, my concern was about whether it accurately reflected the polling data, not whether it accurately reflected Quranic texts regarding homosexuality and homosexual acts. Unless I'm mistaken, the sentence in question is meant to summarize the general degree of acceptance that the global Muslim community currently has toward LGBT people, particularly homosexuals, so I think it would be better for us to check the polls and see what term they use than look to the Quran. It may be true that the Quran specifies homosexual acts but not homosexuality (I have no idea), but I doubt that changes the polling data. Unless the polls on public and international opinions specify "homosexual acts" rather than just "homosexuality", I would personally be hesitant to change it from the latter.

Quranic verses are definitely relevant to this article, though they may be better suited for LGBT in Islam § Scripture and Islamic jurisdprudence. In my opinion, Quranic verses have no bearing on whether to change the sentence in question to your proposed text because the sentence is about general acceptance toward homosexuality within the Muslim world, not about whether homosexuality is acceptable in accordance to Quranic scripture. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that the lead section is supposed to be somewhat of a summary of the article, and that the content of the Quran is described by a different sentence in the lead section. ~Mable (chat) 16:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Nøkkenbuer The sentence content as it has been set up addresses the social and legal position of homosexuality in Islam with the second of these having an even closer association with the content of quranic text than the first. The legal position, in cases where the law is defined as Islamic, is Sharia. As mentioned, if the polls failed to present both issues (responses to homosexuality and responses to people who performed homosexual acts), I think that the polls are flawed as the poll question might be interpreted in either way.

A representation of the existent prejudiced situation legally within many Islamic majority contexts should also be directly presented - and the fact that the foundations of the laws, within these contexts, have a basis of sharia interpretations of the quran is also of pertinent relevance. GregKaye 22:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point, Greg. I'd personally use whichever term is found in the polling data simply because that's the only concrete evidence I would consider relevant in the determination, but I don't see much problem with changing "homosexuality" to "homosexual acts". I'm fine with both your proposal and the current text, so I'll let you and the others decide. If there is no substantive opposition to your proposal, feel free to consider my opinion as an Agree. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Summoned by bot I agree that Greg's proposed wording is an improvement on the current version, given the source material I've seen in the article and elsewhere. However, I think we could improve on it further. I think we should move to something like "In countries such as XYZ, which are governed by Sharia law, as well as countries such as ABC which have a Muslim majority, legal restrictions on homosexuality still exist. Social prejudice against homosexuality also exists in most of the Islamic world." This is wordier, but it separates legal restrictions (which we can clearly say exists in some places and not others) from social prejudice (where some generalization is unavoidable). Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

  This division of the legal and social aspects seems to me to be a definite improvement. I would remove the word "still" from "legal restrictions...still exist," as this implies an inappropriate judgement about the (implicitly inevitable) direction of these cultures' progress. I wonder if "social condemnation" might also be clearer than "social prejudice."

  Also: later in the article I find the sentence "The Muslim community as a whole, worldwide, has become polarized on the subject of homosexuality." This is immediately followed by statistics that show an extremely small proportion of Muslims accept homosexuality. To describe this as a polarized situation seems to stretch a point, unless I'm missing something here. HGilbert (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  In my opinion, HGilbert, polarization in public opinion occurs when more moderate or less extreme positions disappear and the constituents of those formerly moderate positions begin to join the more extreme positions, i.e. polarizing. While general acceptability of homosexuality among Muslims may be a minority position, general opinion among Muslims could nevertheless still be described as polarized if there is a trend of a shrinking center, especially in conjunction with increasing contrast between the two outer positions. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)