Talk:Sexuality in Islam

The state of this article

This move from a year ago seems to have worsened a problem with this article (pinging @Iskandar323 and @Firefangledfeathers for this reason); it treats "Islamic legal discourse/fiqh" as equivalent to "Islam". This is a fairly frequent problem, but in a high-exposure article like this, it is unacceptable; this article is not about sexuality in Islam; LGBT people and Islam does a better job at that despite being of a different scope. This is about the classical fiqh-related opinions on sexuality. That is not coextensive with Islam (or Muslims) of any period, and in some periods legalistic opinions were actively marginalized in many contexts. This is a grave issue of systemic bias, and in my opinion is enough to draftify an article if it was not so highly-viewed, but right now another move or rewrite might be in order. Uness232 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Uness232: Perhaps. I take your point about the greater specificity of the current content. I still don't like the prior title, but how does Sexuality in Islamic jurisprudence sound? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a major problem to me that an article about "Sexuality in Religion" is about that religion's teachings about sexuality. LGBT people and Islam is a discrete topic, but maybe a hatnote would be in order, based on the multiple possible meanings of "sexuality". I agree that the article needs some expansion, and I particularly would love to see Uness232 add some content on the legalistic opinions that were marginalized, or remove some content if it's so marginal that it's undue. I don't think would be warranted; I understand that wasn't really on the table, but just saying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The alternative is that this page be renamed to reflect its current more specific scope and then "Sexuality in Islam" could be created as a parent for this, LGBT and Islam and other content. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: The problem is that Islam (much like Christianity and Judaism) does not have one coherent body of interpretation on many things; sexuality included. While classical faqihs would probably agree with most of the interpretation of this article, in many periods these rulings were simply not carried out or respected by the general public. Ubayd Zakani's gay-lovers-on-a-mosque, sexually-explicit songs being performed in front of government apparatus (see for. ex. Saçbağı Takar Başına, or Gelibolu'da Bir Gelin), or the wealth of supposedly "illicit" material on bahnâmes, could not be widely produced in even the most secular countries of today's Muslim world without censorship or crackdowns; though they were done so half a millennium ago. The most correct title for this page then, would be 'Sexuality in classical Islamic jurisprudence', but that seems unwieldy, and @Iskandar323's suggestion seems to be the best alternative.

An even better thing to do would be to just start over on this article, but that simply doesn't seem realistic. Uness232 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there is such a problem with the article, among many others. I just think it can be improved as is. The content you propose to add about e.g. sexually-explicit songs would not fit in an article that is just about jurisprudence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I am aware, and an article on traditional Islamic jurisprudence should not include historical non-legalistic realities. I am contrasting two things; if this is a Sexuality in Islam article, then it should include those, if it isn't and is about jurisprudence, it shouldn't, but it should be titled accordingly. Uness232 (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The article already includes some non-jurisprudential content, and more can be added. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

But it is mainly jurisprudential content isn't it? Absorbing Uness232's critique, I see two paths forward: either we juice the jurisprudential content out into a Sexuality in Islamic jurisprudence child article, OR, we rename this page and construct a new "Sexuality in Islam" parent above this and other pages such as LGBT people and Islam, removing non-jurisprudential content to the parent, and summarizing the jurisprudential content there. If, for the sake of argument, we suggest that jurisprudential content is the majority of the content here, the latter is more pragmatic; if not, then perhaps the contrary is more pragmatic. But I think the process of teasing the two apart would be productive. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against the existence of a parent-child article structure like the one you propose. That said, much of the proposed content to be added would still need to be added to an article focused solely on jurisprudence. It still needs to talk about which laws or legal opinions were marginalized, and how Islamic cultures have accepted/ignored/re-interpreted the laws. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Totally disagree with your opinion, you can't misrepresent or remove a fact by reasoning like this without getting proper Islamic education. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The previous name islamic sexual jurisprudence is better, it can cover all jurisprudences, ancient and modern, and another article called sexuality in Islamic/Muslim world can be created. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Homosexuality

As the article correctly explains, 'homosexuality' is a modern construct. The section goes own and speaks about, how homosexuality is sanctioned. The source does support this, however, the context must be observed. The source gives an overview on Muslim society. The referred text is part of a larger sub-section on "ETHICS AND SOCIAL ISSUES", stating in the introduction:

"It is important to distinguish how the term ethics was used in premodern Islam compared to its usage in the modern pe�riod. In the premodern period, ethics was chiefly concerned about the formation and disciplining of the self through the cultivation of practices that were deemed “good conduct.” Such conduct was naturalized through education, ritual, and disciplinary practices that were intended to help the devout Muslim internalize the values that underlay an ethical life. In the modern Muslim context, by contrast, matters such as education, ritual, and disciplinary practices have them�selves undergone a significant, if not radical, change from previous eras. The modern period is governed by the logic of systems, bureaucratic processes, and the logic of abstraction. Education in particular, but ritual, and other social practices too, have felt the influences of bureaucratic modernity. Now ethics is conceived of as a set of abstract values, derived from sources that do not always completely resonate with the historical self, given the massive global transformations of cultures and values. Although the earlier understandings of and approaches to ethics are only partly adhered to, Muslim communities are forging new ethical identities in the mael�strom of paradigmatic transitions in knowledge, culture, and history"

This is important, since the ostrification within the article depicts homosexuality mostly as a modern phenomena. Noone denies that there is increasing Queerphobia in Muslim societies after modernity and colonization. However, when we check the source for the section about homosexuality as a whole, it tends to give a more balanced view:

Religious discourse has mostly focused on sexual acts, which are unambiguously condemned. The Qur�an refers explicitly to male-male sexual relations only in the context of the story of Lot, but labels the Sodomites’s actions (univer�sally understood in the later tradition as anal intercourse) an “abomination.” (Female-female relations are not addressed.) Reported pronouncements by the prophet Muhammad (hadith) reinforce the interdiction on male-male sodomy, although there are no reports of his ever adjudicating an actual case of such an offense; he is also quoted as condemn�ing cross-gender behavior for both sexes, but it is unclear to what extent this is to be understood as involving sexual relations. Several early caliphs, confronted with cases of sodomy between males, are said to have had both partners executed, by a variety of means. While taking such precedents into account, medieval jurists were unable to achieve a con�sensus on this issue; some legal schools prescribed capital punishment for sodomy, but others opted only for a relatively mild discretionary punishment. There was general agree�ment, however, that other homosexual acts (including any between females) were lesser offenses, subject only to discre�tionary punishment

and

With the impact of Western colonialism in the late nineteenth century, these patterns (specifically, accepted “ac�tive” homoeroticism, subject to the same strictures on behav�ior as obtained with regard to extramarital heterosexual relations) began to change in most Islamic societies. The Western construction of the “homosexual”—often, however, misinterpreted as representing only the traditional patho�logical adult “passive”—has imposed itself with increasing force. Legal sanctions on homosexuality in various Islamic countries today vary considerably, as does their degree of dependence on traditional pronouncements of Islamic law. Societal attitudes have become more negative, and increas�ingly dominated by the new, imported paradigm of what “homosexuality” is (for both males and females); but recent liberalizing shifts in attitude in the West are also having their effect, and the entire subject is currently a nexus of consider�able conflict

Considering that the source was used one sidedly, I suggest to reevaluate the referred part here describing 'homosexuality' as a forbidden practise only in its relation to the modern and post-modern discourse; the only time we actually find such concept. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that referring to legal/ethical frameworks through anachronistic lenses are almost always problematic. There is undoubtedly much more to say here (what did a forbidden sexual practice mean to, say, 13th, 15th, 19th century Muslims? How much did this vary between synchronic 'kinds' of Muslims? Were the shifts described in the latter quoted text really that simple?), but this is definitely a good start, and for those questions we might need to answer the late scholar's question, which is most definitely for later. The new wording probably needs careful thought as to not mislead the average reader though. Uness232 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle:, If you know Arabic you can translate this ar:موقف الشريعة الإسلامية من المثلية الجنسية. You said that you know arabic.Than you can also read quran and hadith in arabic and can Identify the hadith which are sahih. Dont go on scholars. 103.253.47.177 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The Arabic encyclopedia is in general in a very bad state, at least in regards of Islamic articles. I blame a lack of ambition. Similarly, the same is true for the German and Turkish Wikipedia. The bad quality is the reason, why I would not use translations from the article. The very opening paragraph is filled with anchronistic up to blatant wrong claims, such as "deviant of nature". Islam, at least traditionally, does not know a distinction between nature and unnatural. If you can speak and write Arabic and if you care for the Arabic encyclopedia, I recommand to translate from English to Arabic to improve the articles. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Don't ever say following your way that original arabic Quran and Hadith should be corrected according to the English translations of them. It is totally illogical to prefer english sources over arabic in Islamic references because Quran, Hadith and all the authentic islamic resources are in arabic and translations and derived works are never better or even equal to the original arabic, and original is always more actual than other translations. You will be accountable to Allah in afterlife and will have punishment by Allah in worldly life for all that you are doing wrong here, if you are doing all these by your own will intentionally and consciously because you are doing harm to a lot of people by giving misinformation. No one can save when Allah catches and no one can harm when Allah helps. Allah helps the truthfulls and punishes the liers. 202.134.9.154 (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The article may need a general overhaul. However, I currently have neither the time nor the ambition to stem such a project. I did, however, edited so much, it is at least not factually wrong. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

they "are" factually wrong and you are a hypocrite fraud criminal. Allah will not leave you so easily, just chill and wait until you get the final wrath of Allah.202.134.13.133 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that someone with lack of basic reading comprehenion is able to detect the will of an omni-potent creator deity, and someone obviously lacking to understand basic Islamic concepts, I doubt they can either read Arabic OR even judge how Islam works or what Allah will or will not do. However, you are free to fantazise about people being tortued, is probably good for your own mental health. Good day sir VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"an" omni-potent creator deity??? Or should it be "the" "one" and "only" omni-potent creator (deity)??? Don't you have any basic knowledge of using article in English grammar??? Have you any basic idea of Shirk in Islam??? Neither any of the groups of Sunnis, nor even the Shiites did this mistake ever till now. With absence of obligatory basic fundamental of Islamic faith, how can you dare to contribute in Islamic articles so bravely (!) proclaiming yourself as a "Muslim" (!) and as an "authentic (????!!!!!) spokesman of Islam????? This simple sense is even not needed to be learnt of Arabic, from an African to an American muslim, all of them can identify this " first" primary basic, how then couldn't you as a "huge expert"???? Does your faith also become "omni-fluid" as your self gender sense? Here in this edit 1 you said, Adam is a myth(????) In this edit 2, you included sufism and mutazilites as part of Islam and at the same time you are removing salafi views from all the articles??? Here 3 you also claimed iblis can be also an angel??? How can wikipedia allow such a charlatan like you to edit in Islamic and Abrahamic religion's articles so "boldly"?????? 202.134.13.133 (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

See this sahih hadith,

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.

Abu Dawud said: The tradition of 'Asim proved the tradition of 'Amir b. Abi 'Amr as weak. (فِي الْبِكْرِ يُوجَدُ عَلَى اللُّوطِيَّةِ قَالَ يُرْجَمُ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ حَدِيثُ عَاصِمٍ يُضَعِّفُ حَدِيثَ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو ‏.‏   صحيح الإسناد موقوف   (الألباني) حكم   :

)Albani said its chain.is authentic

— https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4463

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

Abu Dawud said: A similar tradition has also been transmitted by Sulaiman b. Bilal from 'Amr b. Abi 'Umar. And 'Abbad b. Mansur transmitted it from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ). It has also been transmitted by Ibn Juraij from Ibrahim from Dawud b. Al-Husain from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ).

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ النُّفَيْلِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ مَنْ وَجَدْتُمُوهُ يَعْمَلُ عَمَلَ قَوْمِ لُوطٍ فَاقْتُلُوا الْفَاعِلَ وَالْمَفْعُولَ بِهِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ رَوَاهُ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ بِلاَلٍ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو مِثْلَهُ وَرَوَاهُ عَبَّادُ بْنُ مَنْصُورٍ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَفَعَهُ وَرَوَاهُ ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ الْحُصَيْنِ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَفَعَهُ ‏.‏

Grade: Hasan Sahih (Al-Albani) حسن صحيح (الألباني) حكم  :

— https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4463

202.134.13.142 (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2024

Original text: "In issues pertaining to marriage, baligh refers to the legal expression hatta tutiqa'l-rijal, which means a wedding may not take place until a girl is physically fit for sexual intercourse. This can also, though not necessarily, coincide with the reaching of sexual maturity manifested by menses or nocturnal emission.[32] Only after a separate condition called rushd, or intellectual maturity to handle one's own property, is reached can a wife receive her bridewealth.[32]"

My request: Please make it absolutely clear Intellectual maturity is not required to consumate the marriage. Change that rushd is only required to manage the bridewealth. NOT to consumate the marriage. You are allowed to consumate the marriage after baligh, with no intellectual maturity required. Wiki0001313 (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no change required. These are two separate sentence. I do not see any risk of confusion by the average reader. Also, does not mention consummation, only that "a wedding may not take place until a girl is physically fit for sexual intercourse". Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)