The emphasis here is on “marriage” because it is a step beyond simple support for homosexual behavior itself. As such, one must also conclude that a majority of American Muslims support homosexuality:
Opposition to same-sex marriage has decreased across a broad swath of religious groups in the United States, with white evangelical Christians one of the few movements for which a majority remains in opposition. Three years on from the Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, the findings from the Public Religion Research Institute’s 2017 American Values Atlas, published Tuesday, showed growing support for LGBT rights, including a majority of U.S. Muslims backing same-sex marriage for the first time.
Muslims, by a margin of 51 percent to 34 percent, favor same-sex marriage, compared to just four years ago when a majority, 51 percent, were opposed. There were similar results for black Protestants, with 54 percent opposing gay marriage in PRRI’s 2014 American Values Atlas, compared with 43 percent in the latest findings.
Indeed, opposition to same-sex marriage is now limited almost entirely to white conservative Christians. Fifty-eight percent of white evangelical Christians and 53 percent of Mormons—an overwhelming majority of whom are white—are opposed to allowing gay couples to marry. The group with the most opposition, though, is Jehovah’s Witnesses, a group which is 36 percent white, 32 percent Hispanic and 27 percent black in the U.S. Just 13 percent support the law.
As a whole, 63 percent of Americans now back allowing same-sex couples to marry, up from 52 percent four years ago. All major racial groups now have a majority in favor. Republicans, though, remain opposed, 51 percent to 42 percent.
In its platform ahead of the 2016 election, the Republican Party declined to soften its language on the right of same-sex couples to wed from four years previously when it called the act “an assault on the foundations of our society.” (source)
As we have written before here on Shoebat.com, Islam actually permits homosexuality per its own theology. There is nothing “anti-gay” about Islam, and the punishments which Islam prescribes against the LGBT are connected to violations of the Sharia regarding homosexuality. Muslim men can sodomize other Muslim men, but it has to be in accordance with Islamic theology. So long as this is followed, then anything is possible:
The issue of homosexuality and Islam is as confused as the confused individuals who are confused about their gender. Western media is also confused since Islam does not prohibit all forms of homosexuality. Shoebat.com maintained that Islam permits the transgender type.
The Independent for example is beginning to get it when it wrote “Radical Islamists convinced Omar Mateen that being gay is never compatible with being a Muslim – but that’s not necessarily true”.
The Independent has a point. Actually half a point. In IslamMukhannathun (مخنثون “effeminate ones”, “men who resemble women”, singular mukhannath) is allowed for people who would now be called transgender women (reality they are men).
In other words, the bottom line is that Islam prohibits and permits homosexuality. Islam’s author of confusion is notorious for using play on words. In Islam a homosexual (Liwati) is banned but if he is effeminate (Mukhannath) he is not. Adultery is forbidden in Islam, of course, but not with concubines, alcohol is forbidden, but not in heaven, prostitution Bagha’ is forbidden but not when its Misyar (marriages where one can contract with a rental overnight wife). Patricide and matricide are forbidden until the parents oppose the son to go on Jihad … you name the sin and Islam becomes the religion of loopholes. (source)
None of this should come as a surprise. Turning to Islamic Sacred, Tradition, Bukhari and Muslim both state that Mohammed was a cross-dresser and it was a fact known to his wives. Mohammed is even reported by Dawud (4910) as having protected a “transgender”- a mukhannath- during his lifetime. Later Islamic commentators addressed and supported this issue, and as one study noted:
According to Ibn Habib, “a mukhannath is an effeminate (mu’annith) man, even if he is not known to be guilty of immoral acts, the derivation being based on the idea of languidness in gait and in other ways.” Later commentators make less historically based, but nevertheless interesting, distinctions. Al-Kirmani, defining a mukhannath as a man who imitates women in his speech and acts, distinguishes between constitutional (khilqi) and affected (takallufi) effeminacy, only the latter being blameworthy. Al-‘Ayni himself speaks specifically of imitation of women in dress and adornment (listing veils and several types of ornament as examples) and in acts, “such as languidness of body and feminine modes of speeching and walking.” Bothal-‘Ayni and Ibn Hajar repeat al-Kirmani’s distinction between involuntary and voluntary effeminacy, but go on to say that the man who is constitutionally, as opposed to affectedly, effeminate must make efforts (takalluf) to stop being so; if he does not do so, he becomes blameworthy, “especially if he seems to take pleasure in (his effeminacy).” Al-‘Ayni further adds that “in our time” mukhannath means simply the passive partner in homosexual intercourse, and makes both male and female homosexual activity a more heinous extension of takhannuth and tarajul; he also claims that the difference between mukhannath and mukhannith (generally considered simply variants) is that the first signifies “effeminate” and the second “catamite. ” (source)
What this suggests is that in Islam, there is the implicit acknowledgment that differentiates between homosexuality as a “choice” and a homosexuality that is “innate,” that latter of which is the mukhannath and would therefore be worthy of permission, whereas the former is considered “sodomy” and condemned. With the movement in the world today to legitimize homosexuality and the repeated attempted to use “genetics” and the idea that some people are “born gay”, one could argue that as a Muslim, support of homosexuality is an attempt to support a man’s nature as Allah has created him. Therefore, the opposition to homosexuality could be reconstituted into theological terms by which the refusal to support the mukhannath type of homosexuality is to oppose the created nature of the person itself.
In American politics, the difference is a mix of social politics between the “left” and the “right.” The left supports a feminized homosexuality, the right supported a masculinized homosexuality, but both sides end with another man masturbating into another man’s rectum and God hates all of it and it all results in the same end.
Both Islam and homosexuality are evil, and it should not be a surprise that the two groups support each other and would in time work with each other. The real scandal in the USA is that a majority of American Christians support the act, because Christian teaching is opposed to homosexuality on the basis of theological reasons that have been explained in great detail.
Comments are closed.