Quranic Values as an Inspiration for Gay Marriage

Like the Bible, and most other religious texts, the Qur’an doesn’t have any verse that says, “God has made you … Continued

Like the Bible, and most other religious texts, the Qur’an doesn’t have any verse that says, “God has made you black and white, male and female, straight and gay. Be you as brothers to one another, working, eating, praying, loving as one family.” On the other hand, it also does not say “Marriage is only between one man and one woman,” or even “between one man and up to four women.”

There is a clear assumption in many passages in the Qur’an that marriage is between men and women. Passages that talk about how a couple should decide when to wean a child, what times of day it is permissible to have sexual relations during Ramadan, or what to do when conflict arises and a divorce seems the best solution.

But other passages — passages that talk about the fundamental nature of human relationships as a duality — do not have a gender dichotomy. The word “zauj,” often translated as mate or spouse, signifies one half of a partnership, both husband and wife. This is a powerful concept which affirms the fundamental equality of both spouses and leaves room for a genderless conception of human partnering.

This fundamental pairing of human beings is described in several passages which talk about the creation of humanity as a people. The initial human entity — the word in Arabic is grammatically feminine and is often translated as soul, though it can mean self, person, or ego — is given a mate of like nature, created from her own substance.

4:1 O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from her created her mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women.

30:21 And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your hearts: verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.

I acknowledge that it is radical to interpret these verses as providing a vision of human pairing that does not discriminate on the basis of gender, and that traditionalist Muslims would frown on such an interpretation. However, it remains a fact that the Qur’an is a living document, Islam is a living religion, and while there are those who would like to continue interpreting the Qur’an as it was interpreted five hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, I believe that the Qur’an must continually be understood in light of current information about human nature, race, gender, and class, and with reference to modern understandings of what is just, what is compassionate.

This process is going on in other areas of Qur’anic interpretation — take for instance the verses which talk about human development in the womb. There were some quite amusing interpretations of these verses over the years — at least from the point of modern gynecology. No Muslim in his or her right mind would say we should stick with the old interpretations and ignore modern science, especially when modern science gives us a picture that is very much in keeping with the Qur’anic verses.

Modern science has also shown that the brains of gay men and women are different, structurally, from the brains of straight men and women. Other studies point to factors in the womb that affect sexual orientation. And many studies point to a genetic bases for homosexuality. Our experiences of gay couples show us that gays find the same love, mercy and tranquility with others of the same sex that the majority of us find in heterosexual pairings.

How then can we fail to interpret the Qur’an in light of these understandings, this knowledge of human nature and physiology that simply did not exist in the 600s or the 900s?

Equally important, the Prophet teaches us to want for our brothers and sisters what we want for ourselves. The Qur’an teaches us to exemplify justice, mercy and compassion. If I want a warm, loving, fulfilling marriage with a person I choose, how can I deny that to my brother or sister? If social circumstances favor those who are married — and in our society married couples have special benefits and/or rights in terms of economics, inheritance, visitation during sickness, adoption, etc — how can we justify denying those rights and benefits to an entire segment of our society? If the Qur’an teaches that sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin (and it does), how can I condemn a significant portion of the population to sin or to a life of celibacy (which the Qur’an frowns upon as well)?

It may be a radical reading to use the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet to justify gay marriage, but to me it is the only one which upholds the fundamental Islamic ideals of fairness, equality of all human beings, compassion and mercy.

Written by

  • starjack

    Ma’sh’Allah! Wonderful statement, Pamela. Thank you so much!

  • TommyTstars

    What a wonderful statement of the nature and role of a living, transformative document.Your comment is applicable to a wide range of fundamental papers from the Old Testament to the U.S. Constitution.This should be required reading in school classes from literature to civics to philosophy.

  • sidneyselt

    Pamela, as always you speak to Quranic truths which moves humankind forward. Thanks for your support for GLBTQ Muslims and the GLBTQ movement worldwide.

  • FTTsA

    Salaamu alaikum Pamela,How would you interpret the story of Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) in light of your position?

  • momtotsan

    FTTSA — traditionally the Lot story has been understood to refer to homosexuality, but I believe the story is not about being gay so much as expressing one’s sexuality in unacceptable ways. First and foremost, the men who came out of the town were clearly not in a marital relationship with the messengers, and had no intention to be. They were interested only in what we now call a one-night stand. The Qur’an is quite clear about extramarital sex being a sin, thus a priori their relationship with Lot’s guests is out of bounds.Second, there is an element of coercion. A couple of the passages that tell this story list “waylaying strangers” as part of their sin. The conversation makes it quite clear that the townsmen plan to have what they want whether or not the guests want to, and against Lot’s will as well. Scott Kugle has written an essay elucidating this point of view, which you can find in Progressive Muslims, and is certainly worth the read. Third, the men have abandoned their wives in order to come out and have their way with Lut’s guests. The narration makes it clear that pretty much all the townsmen are participating in male to male sex (the entire town was destroyed, not just certain streets there of, or particular neighborhoods. Thus the townsmen were predominantly heterosexual men engaging in homosexual sex. Current analysis suggests that 6-10% of the population is gay. The remaining 90-94% of Sodom were thus acting contrary to their orientation.We see a similar situation in Muhammad’s time, when the men who were going out for battle asked Muhammad if they could satisfy their desires with one another since their wives mostly had stayed in the town. Muhammad told them not to do so. These were not gay guys doing what comes naturally to them, but straight guys making do with whatever was at hand. I believe this was the sin of Lot’s people, not being gay, but acting gay when they weren’t.Finally, two of the narrations say that Lot’s people did things that no people before them had ever done. While it’s difficult to place Lot in history, best estimates place the story around 4000 to 3800 BCE. References to homosexual activity date as far back as 6000 BCE. The idea that the sin of Lot’s people was not being gay, but rather acting contrary to their orientation makes more sense with the known history of humanity than the notion that they were the first gay people ever to walk the face of earth, which would directly contradict that history.Pamela

  • jamil51

    Pamela K. Taylor very shameful article by you. you are explaining something from Quran which is not there.

  • fcs25

    “Compassion”,Cutting someones head off because they change religions is compassion? Killing over 3000 Americans because you don’t like their lifestyle is compassion? Give me a break!! Enough of this political correctness crap.Islam is what it is….a religion of pure hate and violence.

  • CCNL

    And Pamela calls herself a Muslim??

  • Tatler

    I am not sure of Pamela Taylor’s theological qualifications to discuss this topic nor , given the the teachings of the Koran and Hadith how she reached her conclusions. Unless Taylor is a scholar in Islamic law her opinion while may some feel good is not so much controversial as much as it is misleading and irrelevant as far as Islamic law is concered.Among Muslim scholars,of all schools and sects,there is consensus that the homosexual act is a sinful cursed abomination.The standards of Muslim law, morals ,values and ethics cannot be corrupted accommodate what the Koran and Prophet Mohammad describe as sinful.

  • jamil51

    PamelaHere is abstract on this issue from Al-Azhar.Gay marriage is totally prohibited in Islam as well as in all the divine religions. Gay marriage is an atrocious and obscene act which belongs to unsound nature. Islam teaches that believers should neither do the obscene acts nor in any way indulge in their propagation. Allah says, “Those who love (to see) obscenity published broadcast among the Believers will have a grievous Penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: Allah knows, and you know not.” (An-Nur: 19) Responding to the question, Dr. Muhammad M. Abu Laylah, professor of Islamic Studies and Comparative Religions at Al-Azhar University, states the following: “In the very beginning, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this act is an ugly sin which Allah forbids in all religions, even in the most primitive ones. It is against the ordinances of Allah and against the law of nature. I wonder how in this age of advanced knowledge, science, technology, we allow such things to take place in our human society, how someone allows or gives a legal sanction to such a widespread act that poses a threat to the whole human race and destroys our fabric of society like cancer.”In Quran, we read: ‘The people of Lot rejected the messengers. Their brother Lot said to them: ‘Will you not fear God? I am to you a messenger worthy of all trust. so fear God and obey me. No reward do I ask of you for it. My reward is only from the Lord the of worlds. Of all the creatures of the world will you approach males, and leave those whom God has created for you as mates? Nay. You are people transgressing all limits.’ They said: ‘If you desist not O Lot, you will surely be cast out!’. He said: ‘I do detest your doings. O my Lord! Deliver me and my family from such things as they do.’ So we delivered him and his family, all except an old woman lingered behind. The rest we destroyed utterly. We rained down on them a shower; and evil was the shower on those who were admonished.’ (Ash-Sh`ara’: 160-173)

  • Travis8

    Modern science has also shown that the brains of gay men and women are different, structurally, from the brains of straight men and women. Other studies point to factors in the womb that affect sexual orientation. And many studies point to a genetic bases for homosexuality. Our experiences of gay couples show us that gays find the same love, mercy and tranquility with others of the same sex that the majority of us find in heterosexual pairings.”Pamela, if you or any of the commenters could send me links to studies that you mention here. It is my understanding that most of the research in this area is poor, or incomplete. Furthermore, most of this work ends up getting mixed in with politics and desires of the different groups that are looking for their own outcome. So if anyone knows of reputable studies that would be great. Thanks!

  • Tatler

    SIDNEYSELT-What is very clear is that you do not know what you are talking about, especially ,when it comes to discussing Islam whose morals are based on Judeo Christian values. Voters in over 30 States have rejected the homosexual lifestyle, not because Christians are bigots but because the Bible teaches them better. As far as Muslims are concerned according to Hadith “Whenever you find doing the deed of the people of Loot, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.” MOMTOTSAN-Thank you for the clarification regarding your academic background so I am sure you are familiar with the Prophet saying “Whoever has intercourse with a woman and penetrates her rectum, or with a man, or with a boy, will appear on the Last Day stinking worse than a corpse; people will find him unbearable until he enters hell fire, and God will cancel all his good deeds”God is Loving, Forgiving ,Merciful etc but God also uses His might against those who disobey God . Scholars using the same sources can,within reason, reach somewhat differing conclusions however, your conclusions have no basis in Islamic sources.Even the most liberal of Scholars reject what you promote.

  • alltheroadrunnin

    Life on Mars was quite wonderful. On Mars there is only one nation and one religion, and everybody is a citizen of the nation and a firm believer in the religion.I disobeyed many of the commandments of our religion. I died and my soul was banished to your Earth. Not so bad, but my offenses were like your extreme mortal sin type. So, part of my punishment is having to read “On Faith,” morning, noon and night. This particular day was very bad for me, very bad, indeed.Where does “On Faith” find such writers? Certainly not on Mars.

  • Paganplace

    “I disobeyed many of the commandments of our religion. I died and my soul was banished to your Earth. Not so bad, but my offenses were like your extreme mortal sin type. So, part of my punishment is having to read “On Faith,” morning, noon and night. This particular day was very bad for me, very bad, indeed.”Well, to quote the ‘Handbook for the Newly Deceased,’ …. What do you want to do now?

  • Paganplace

    CCNL “And Pamela calls herself a Muslim??”*You’re* the one, Concerned Christian, who keeps demanding Muslims ‘work out the flaws,’ but you wouldn’t know it if you saw it, would you?

  • Manoo

    THE NEO-ATHEISTS and their “innocent” quest for religious knowledgeThe neo-atheist which is a new “religion” is a form of “militant atheism” which is against all the religions. There questions to you on this forum are not as innocent and they seem to be. They come here with a mission to create doubts about all religions may it be Islam, Christianity or Judaism.Before you answer their questions about your religion is it not befitting to have the introduction of the person i.e. what he himself believes in. Internet do not mean you hide a dagger to attack other religions while you hide yourself.Atheism is a rejection of all religion, or at least of all theistic religion, and since Islam is usually considered a theistic religion, atheism is in principle opposed to it. However, as a phenomenon with its roots in Europe, atheism has concentrated its opposition to religion on Christianity. The new atheism, by contrast, emphasizes Islam as a particularly virulent form of religion that must be opposed. Often, the new atheists claim that because of the events of 9/11, they feel compelled to take a strong stand against religion in general and Islam in particular. Because of this, atheists who focus primarily on Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, may also be considered to be a part of, or at least allied with, the neo-atheists.Atheists do not have anything new to offer. The neo atheists tend to show no interest in professional philosophy, religion, or theology and target the mass market. The arguments against the existence of God are generally versions of scientism, the view that all of life’s problems may be solved by appeal to the natural sciences, and the moral argument against religion, that religion brings out the worst in people. They hide under humanism and pretend to be kinder species. There aim is just to confuse those who have faith in God and religion.

  • momtotsan

    Tatler — I have a Master’s of Theological Studies. My coursework was mostly in Qur’an, Hadith and Tafsir, although I had a few topical courses such as punishment in Islamic law, women in Islam, and Islamic philosophy. My independent research was a translation of Musnad Aishah, the earliest collation of hadith, which was written down by one of her students.I have tried to make clear in this essay and in others where my opinions differ from traditionalist views. As for methodology, I try to adhere to the fundamental values that are repeated over and over in the Qur’an — compassion, honesty, justice, making the world a more peaceful place, and always always always remembrance of God’s Love. It seems to me that many of the issues in the Muslim world stem from an obsession with God’s punishment, but God tells us that His Mercy outweighs his Wrath. The Prophet’s family were visited regularly by a gay man who was a personal friend, yet some of our nations imprison, torture and execute people simply for being gay. In this climate, some one needs to remind people that God’s Love is preeminent, and we should strive to emulate that.

  • sidneyselt

    Tatler, I disagree with your commentary as it lacks any “support” that you have asked of Pamela. It is clear to me that you prefer to be told what to think rather than reflect (tadabber) upon the facts at hand. It is apparent you can only read Quran from a heterosexual normative (heterosexuality is the norm for all human beings and homosexuals cannot read Quran and have a differing opinion on Allah’s message to all of humankind). Of course, as you have demonstrated, anything that does not support your view on Quran and ahadith is therefore suspect or speculation. Rather than question Pamela’s background on Islamic law, you should state you do not know Islamic history nor Islamic law. To make my point more clear, are you aware Prophet Mohammed, SAWS, never spoke to the subject of homosexuality during his lifetime and never codified any ill-will or punishment for homosexuality(and Islamic legal scholars support this historical point)? Furthermore, the consensus to which you speak (1) occurred during the reign of Abu Bakr and the sahaba, and (2) the ahadith that supports Shari’ah’s criminalization of homosexuality were designed by Islamic scholars and governmental leaders (all human beings). I note these events occurred after the death of Prophet Mohammed, so the Prophet was not “available” to state his position on homosexuality. Generally speaking, the majority of Muslims know neither the history of Islamic theological thought nor Islamic political history, and as a result remain dependent upon taqlid–an oral tradition based upon hearsay linked to Prophet Mohammed, SAWS, and recorded about 200 years after his death, even when such hearsay is dayyef (weak or non-existent). Talk about the blind leading the blind.In my humble opinion, Pamela’s duty as a Muslim is to question things where there is plenty of room for misunderstanding–since she has the right to question or seek knowledge where none may exist. On the other hand, Tatler, you submit to consensus from which you have no idea whether such statements are true or not–so who should I believe? Good thing I have studied and continue to study Quran and Shari’ah to know what I am talking about, how about you? When you get your historical facts together, get in touch and we can have a thorough discussion on these anti-homosexual rulings to which you speak.

  • abhab

    Daisy says:Why then he allowed Muslim men to marry four women, while allowed himself nine at one time, while limiting women only one man at most . Or why he allowed men to marry a Christian or Jew but denied that to Muslim women. Why is it when his son in law contemplated getting a co wife with Fatima , Mohammad’s daughter, he would not allow it. Do you call having one law for himself and another for his daughter and yet a third law for the rest of his followers “ wanting for his brothers and sisters what he wanted for himself?” Again she assures us: Is alleging that the stars are closer to earth than the moon or that the sun sets in a murky well or meteors are missiles thrown by the angels to thwart the Jinn from listening to Allah’s council is in keeping with modern science? Or maybe that camel urine is a wonder drug that the American Chemical Society failed to recognize?

  • onofrio

    Momtotsan, Your erudition in your faith tradition is most impressive to this outsider. It’s fascinating to glimpse your dialectic, unfolding at what I assume is the margins of Islam. I imagine Jamil and Tatler are more representative of the mainstream with which you contend. You’re brave for staying in that stream, and striving in it. Part of me wonders why you bother. I see Christians doing the same thing in their traditions, arguing about what an ancient text actually does or does not permit, finding chinks that allow new persepctives and implications, and fine shades of inconclusivity. You must deeply love this difficult crag from which you fly.

  • CCNL

    Au Contraire dear Paganplace!!! Kisses and hugs all around for all you good witches out there (with permission by the way of my good wife).

  • atwan_05

    I think the world should not judge people whether they are staight, gay or bisexual. It is just a question of consent. They did it because they want it and no religion or beliefs should hinder peoples choices. As long as they are in their sound state of mind, why bother, it is just a question of love, so why fear about it. In the constitution itself, people are granted equal protection of law, as well as freedom and their pursuit of happiness. Pursuit of happiness is paramount and no religion shall serve as impediment over peoples choices in life. The constitution itself does not recognize any religious affiliations and no religions shall move to hamper an individual freedom. Neither shall norms and morals as their is no such thing as standard norms or morals.Any move to stop it is anything that violates the pursuit of happiness clause in the constitution and is illegal. Love knows no religion and crosses bounderies.

  • DGSPAMMAIL

    Thank you for the statement! Frankly, I’m not really concerned about what religions think about gay marriage. The government should not discriminate against it’s taxpayers.

  • mightysparrow

    Ms. Taylor is a very compassionate and rational person. I would hope that people of all faiths would follow her example in shaping their religious beliefs and lives, but I am not holding my breath for it to happen! Many people are still very closed-minded about such things.

  • alltheroadrunnin

    PAGANPLACE.What do I want to do now? I already did it, played Willie Nelson’s “You Were Always On My Mind” on my guitar, and tried to sing it like he does.And right now, after posting this, I’ll go back to Bob Dylan’s lyric, “I can’t even remember what it was I came here, to get away from.”

  • WmarkW

    I’m sure this is right.

  • CCNL

    Jamil, Jamil, Jamil,Islam/koran has no foundation since its “rules” were transmitted by a mythical “pretty, wingie thingie”. Perceptions of said koran are therefore mute on any scale.

  • anaselghafari

    Dear Ms.Taylor,I am an Arab muslim. What I would like to say about your argument: it is outrageous. More importantly: it is wrong.I believe you are twisting Islamic law to try to “fit” the law of God into whatever the social/cultural winds of the day dictate. Here is where that attempt goes wrong:1) The point of Islam is that it is the legal code by which one must live. It dictates our obligations to the Creator, and delineates our obligations to each other. The obligations to God are the supreme obligations; other desires have to yield to God’s law, not the other way around.2) semantic games get you nowhere: By your method of “interpretation”, you would also be able to say that the Qura’an doesn’t prohibit a marriage between a man and a horse. Fact: Homosexual relations are *unambigiously* and strongly denounced by God (see, among others, Qura’an 27: 53-58), that to argue that God’s law doesn’t prohibit such relations is to be selectively blind.3) The question of nature vs. choice is irrelevant in the context of obidenance to God’s law: As far as I understand matters, what is prohibited is not being gay, but rather engaging in gay sex (analogously, a man’s attraction to a woman who is not his wife is not -AFAIK- prohibited. However, engaging in extra-marital sex IS prohibited by the Creator). So, while one may or may not be able to control towards whom he feels attracted, one certainly has control over whether or not to act upon his desires in a manner that transgresses against God’s law. This is the test.I would beseech you, Pamela, not to take too many liberties with God’s words; we will have to stand before the Creator on judgment day and -depending on what we have believed, SAID and done- be punished or rewarded. And I would advise you to read, with careful eyes and mind, the words of God in 3: 1-8Best regards.

  • Tatler

    Atwan_05– People are free to pursue their happiness any way they please however, they shall not expect their lifestyle of choices to receive acceptance by people whose faiths consider their choices to be an abomination and an affront to God. The position of Judaism, Christianity and Islam regarding engaging in homosexuality is absolute.

  • FUZZYTRUTHSEEKER

    Bravo, Pamela, this is excellent. You are right that ” … it is radical to interpret these verses as providing a vision of human pairing that does not discriminate on the basis of gender, and that traditionalist Muslims would frown on such an interpretation.”I am myself a rather socially-conservative Muslim (though politically very liberal!), and I think that it is stretching it a little to interpret the verses as you do. But that interpretation does not do violence to the general spirit of the teachings of the Glorious Quran. As you so eloquently say : “It remains a fact that the Qur’an is a living document, Islam is a living religion, and while there are those who would like to continue interpreting the Qur’an as it was interpreted five hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, I believe that the Qur’an must continually be understood in light of current information about human nature, race, gender, and class, and with reference to modern understandings of what is just, what is compassionate”.Continue with your courageous exegesis of the teachings of the Holy Quran and the narrative of the Life of The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and the ahaadith (his sayings and doings). And may Allah Subhaana-wata’aala bless you!

  • aia4

    As a muslim, I found this article to be a great read. I would like to commend you, Pamela, for your courage and strong sense of justice. These are the sorts of debates that will open up over the next few generations as government controlled Islamic seminaries such as Al-Azhar lose their influence because of their pathetic subservience to corrupt authorities. Whether or not Pamela is right, it is MOST DEFINITELY a very important debate. The Qur’an passages quoted by some of the commenters in opposition to Pamela can be argued to be directed at homosexual relations that are not based on reciprocal love (aka marriage), but hedonistic gay sex (such as the bath-house sex of the 1970’s). Such an interpretation seems to be consistent with the Qur’an’s general message and the specific message of the relevant passages. Furthermore, even if the consensus always remains that homosexuality is forbidden by Islamic law, that does not mean that the sort of society most consistent with Islam would be one in which homosexuality is prohibited by society’s laws. It may very well be the case that religious law may forbid something, but muslims SHOULD STILL support the rights of homosexual individuals because that is more consistent with Islamic principles (as opposed to oppressing those individuals, which is very un-Islamic). For those who are interested in one of the first articles to report structural differences between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals, see “A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men,” S LeVay, Science, 1991. And there are a slew of articles, in many different organisms, that show a genetic component to sexual orientation and behavior. And where are the usual anti-muslim message board trolls today? I think maybe this article fried their brains – sort of a “DOES NOT COMPUTE.”

  • gwymer

    What nonsense. As a gay man I certainly find it rather funny to find all these theologians, imams and rabbis running around trying to make their ancient and strange texts, held as holy by them, into a statement of politically correct hermeneutics. And I always love the morally irrelevant reference to scientific evidence that, basically, we just can’t help it because our brains are fundamentally different from the straights. Please, just give it up and realize that truly intelligent people don’t really care about what the clerical class thinks in their convoluting and irrational attempts to reconcile their metaphysical imaginings with the real world we are continually discovering and making for ourselves.

  • onofrio

    Jamil,Your posts demonstrate your heartfelt devotion to a rigorously defined, conservative Islamic faith. You clearly have a thorough knowledge of the Qur’an, hadith, etc. I imagine that your views would be shared by a broad mainstream of fellow Muslims. About Pamela Taylor you write:”There is bunch of new born “scholars”aka munafkeen like her who want to corrupt the teachings of Islam, but they will never succeed in their evil designs.”This is a strong allegation about Pamela’s motives. You have shown quite clearly why you disagree with her interpretations of Islamic teaching – fair enough, you know Islam. But how do you justify your implication that she has actively “evil designs”? I can understand from your point of view that it may be misguided, foolish, and just plain wrongheaded for a Muslim to seek Qur’anic sanction for homosexuality. But that doesn’t mean that the intention is “evil”, or that she is consciously plotting to “corrupt” Islam. Surely, Jamil, being incorrect does not make someone diabolical! So here’s another annoying question from me, Jamil: in your learned view, is Pamela Taylor actually a Muslim, or is she among the unbelievers? Since Islam gives clear and comprehensive guidance on the essential issues of faith, you should be able to answer this directly.Or will you will demur that “Allah alone knows”?

  • FUZZYTRUTHSEEKER

    Thanks GWYMER. VERY, VERY intelligent, indeed, as you say, and VERY tolerant on the part of the gay man that you are.All tolerant people should take example from you, no doubt.

  • abhab

    Anasel pontificates:The above is according to Muslims the exact words of the Creator.

  • onofrio

    Sorry, addressee typo…I meant ABHAB.

  • jamil51

    OnofrioVery rightly Sir, a person is known by the views he keeps.

  • halozcel1

    Dear Pamela K.Taylor,How can we interprete 7.81,26.165-166,27.55-56 and 29.28-29 which strongly and clearly condemn Homosexuality ?You say *modern science gives us a picture that is very much in keeping with the Qur’anic verses*Dartmouth College,Motto *The Voice of one crying in desert*I thank you to share your time to read my post.

  • abhab

    Mono1 philosophizes thus:

  • Paganplace

    Eh, Abhab, talk like that and monotheists just tend to choose ‘God says I can have nine wives without even growing a social skill.’ Look at CCNL: wants the whole rest of the world to adhere to his ideas and I see no indication he ever *kissed* anyone. People wanting *control* always think they’re about perfect reason. Spirit, I’d say, is under no such kinds of obligations. Maybe that’s why things you can’t write rules about seem to result in so much darn violent indignance. 🙂

  • onofrio

    Anaselghafari, OK, so Abhab is trenchantly citing Qur’anic difficulties, in what is clearly attack-mode. Instead of refuting him, taking him on, winning the rest of us to your cause, you withdraw to some bogus high ground and opine that you won’t debate his points unless he sincerely searches for God and acknowledges the sacrality of the Qur’an, i.e. becomes a Muslim! I, for one, would like to read a learned Islamic reply to Abhab’s contentions – but you imply that only INSIDERS can be privileged with such responses. The prevailing tone of your post is overbearing and sanctimonious. You lay down imperatives of what other people MUST do, the hoops they must jump through before you will deign to ENGAGE. And correspondingly, the image of God you project is that of an inscrutable despot who demands abject obeisance. The epithets of Merciful and All Wise and the rest that are ascribed to him thereby appear as mere flattery, designed to mollify an ineffable, arbitrary tyrant. If God is really like that, hell has already begun. If there is a God, and I – as a searching unbeliever – think there very well may be, who are YOU to limit its dealings with the world to your 7th century Arabian recital? You say that the Qur’an is the Word of God, yet you dismiss opportunities to show HOW. Not all of us who post here are just trying to win arguments.

  • ango

    Taylor’s is a clear case of misinterpretation of the Qur’an for some selfish purpose. Certainly the Qur’an describes severe punishment for the people of Lut that indulged in gay sex. Similarly there is a standing instruction for the killing of any person or persons that engage in such distardly acts. Please endure to learn more of the Qur’an before making refrences to it.

  • ThomasBaum

    hobwahid : You wrote, ” Either way, you know what Christian Arabs were calling God before Islam came and before most of Europe was even Christian? Allah,”This is true, but Allah is a generic Arabic word meaning God, just like God is a generic American or English word meaning God.Whereas Yahweh is a Hebrew word that translates as I AM or I AM WHO AM or the equivalent of this.You wrote this in response to halozcel1 writing, “1-The God of Bible is completely different from Allah of Quran.”.Then you wrote, “I know a few million Jews who would disagree with you on that point. It’s not the God of the Bible who has a son, but the God of the New Testament.”Jesus was a Jew and He was referring to Yahweh when He said, “I and the Father are One” and also when He said to Phillip, “Phillip how long have you been with Me, when you see Me, you see the Father”. So yes, according to Jesus, the God of the Torah, the law and the prophets, the psalms and Jesus are One and the Same.Since the god of islam disputes this, then the god of islam and the God of the bible are not the same, even the god of islam speaks the truth sometimes, as we all know the best liars use some truth.Sometimes something that is almost the truth is harder to see thru than something that is a total lie, but that does not make it the truth.The New Testament is a continuation and unfolding of the Plan of God which God has had since before creation and God’s Plan will come to Fruition.As I have said before, “The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereos.I have also said, “It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • halozcel1

    Anaselghafari,1-The God of Bible is completely different from Allah of Quran.2-*Marriage* is a wrong word and concept.If a man can *take* four women and whenever he likes kicks them or one of them out,this shouldnt be called as contemporary marriage act.If woman has no right to divorce her master,it is an enslavement(sex slave),how can you call *marriage* ?3-What written in quran can not be the Creator’ word or rules etc.,because;

  • hobwahid

    “halozcel1Anaselghafari,1-The God of Bible is completely different from Allah of Quran.I know a few million Jews who would disagree with you on that point. It’s not the God of the Bible who has a son, but the God of the New Testament. Either way, you know what Christian Arabs were calling God before Islam came and before most of Europe was even Christian? Allah, so I’d be careful with your attempts to use Allah because of some perceived pejoration.

  • Usama1

    Truly an unacceptable proposition by Taylor which calls into question her intellect and comprehension. The secular humanist capitalist ideology appears to be te basis of her thought and Islam is merely the religious trapping in which she presents her thought. As for the conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East: religion is NOT the basis of the struggle. The Jews are motivated by Zionism, ethnic nationalism. They are empowered by Capitalism which ignited ethnic nationalist movements around the world to offset existing states, empires, colonies. At this very moment, according to US Congress report, Israel is unable to sustain itself without billions from America, the most powerful Capitalist nation. So the heart of the matter is ideological and Capitalism, as in Democratic capitalism which empowers ethnica nationalism, is the heart of the matter in the Middle East. In fact, the Muslim world was divided into tiny poor nation states NOT according to popular movements, but according to imperial designs in order to create ethnic nationalist enclaves which in turn are enforced by brutal militaries supported by Capitalism. So the problem in the world is Capitalism.

  • saidpharmd

    what a shame. I highly doubt this lady is a Muslim remeber that a Muslim is one who submit to God. Allah had made it clear for us that Prophet Mohammed PBUH is our rolemodle and perfect example and he tells us (interpitation) the believing men and women shall not have an option when Allah and his Prophet have decided on somthing. our job is to say we hear and we obey

  • saidpharmd

    if her argument is true then pedofiles should be allowed to sleep with little boys and girls or even animals like cows and sheeps and lamas it is their desire after all as we would say in the islamic world

  • avp_65

    If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all. – NOAM CHOSKY