The state of California just became the first nation in the union to formally recognize a third gender according to a recent report:
California just became the first state in the union to officially recognize a third gender option, paving the way for “non-gender binary” to be included on most official state documents.
Governor Jerry Brown signed SB179, the Gender Recognition Act, as part of a wave of legislation that passed through his office on Sunday. The act allows California residents to select an “option x” or “non-binary” option on drivers licenses, birth certificates, marriage licenses, and other-state issued documents.
Democratic state senator Scott Wiener introduced the bill, and took to Twitter Monday to show his appreciation to Governor Brown for passing the bill into law, claiming the legislation now allows California residents to “be who they are.”
The bill will also make it easier for transgender individuals to select a gender option while they transition from one end of the gender binary to the other.
It also paves the way for non-binary individuals to replace existing documentation to reflect their current gender status (for example, they can now switch the gender marked on their birth certificate and receive a new document with “non-binary” selected), and removes a somewhat archaic provision in California law that requires transgender individuals to undergo a physical evaluation, and obtain a doctor’s written permission before receiving documents that reflect their new gender.
The law is one of several controversial gender-related provisions working their way through the California legislature.
California’s LGBT Senior Bill of Rights would make it a crime to knowingly and repeatedly mis-gender an individual in senior housing or in a nursing care facility — a law opponents believe will lead to strict criminal punishments for mis-gendering in general. The Modernizing California HIV Criminalization Laws would reduce the punishment for failing to alert blood donation centers and blood collection agencies that your blood may be HIV-positive, from a felony to a misdemeanor. (source)
The prevailing ‘social wisdom’ is that ISLAM HATES THE LGBT. This is nothing less than an absolute falsehood either spoken out of ignorance or malice. Islam LOVES the LGBT because the religion is pro-homosexual going back to Mohammed himself and has been attested to throughout its history. Islam’s persecution of the LGBT, when it happens, is not because of any belief that homosexuality is wrong, but because the way in which the homosexual act was carried out was not in compliance with Islamic law.
People in the West are confused when we say that Islam can be both pro-sodomite and anti-sodomite at the same time, such as when ISIS soldiers will round up and murder homosexuals yet at the same time ISIS fighters routinely dress up as women and engage in homosexual activity with themselves and with each other and are backed up by Islamic scholars for doing such. The answer is not difficult, because as Islam is a religion from the devil, who is the father of deceit, confusion, and all lies, Islam does not operate on consistent principles revealed that are a reflection of divine truth, but is defines situation truths as divinely revealed truths without regard to consistency at all, which is another sign of the evil nature of the religion and its evil founder Mohammed. It is the same reason why as I have pointed out for years, Islam will use Trinitarian theology to describe the relationship between Allah and the Koran (that the Koran is the uncreated and eternal word of Allah, which is exactly what Jesus is- the uncreated and eternal word of the Father) yet will say that the Christian Trinity is evil and pagan while refusing to acknowledge the have the same belief except about a physical book instead of a person. Islam is masterful at deceit, and one should not expect to encounter anything less regardless of the matter being discussed.
The issue of homosexuality was addressed by Mohammed during his lifetime. While not discussed in the Koran, there are passages in Islamic sacred scripture which speak of Mohammed’s dealings with mukhannathun, a group men who exhibit all of the tendencies of women, dress as women, and for all intensive purposes are women while remaining men in terms of their gender but not function:
حَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدَةُ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ زَيْنَبَ ابْنَةِ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَانَ عِنْدَهَا وَفِي الْبَيْتِ مُخَنَّثٌ، فَقَالَ الْمُخَنَّثُ لأَخِي أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي أُمَيَّةَ إِنْ فَتَحَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمُ الطَّائِفَ غَدًا أَدُلُّكَ عَلَى ابْنَةِ غَيْلاَنَ، فَإِنَّهَا تُقْبِلُ بِأَرْبَعٍ وَتُدْبِرُ بِثَمَانٍ. فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ لاَ يَدْخُلَنَّ هَذَا عَلَيْكُنَّ
Othman bin Abi Shaybah told us, from Abi Hisham ibn Erwa, from his father, from Zaynab, the daughter of Umm Salamah, that Umm Salamah said that the Prophet was with her, there was an effeminate man in the house. The effeminate man said to Um Salama’s brother, `Abdullah bin Abi Umaiyya, “If Allah should make you conquer Ta’if tomorrow, I recommend that you take the daughter of Ghailan (in marriage) for (she is so fat) that she shows four folds of flesh when facing you and eight when she turns her back.” Thereupon the Prophet said (to us), “This (effeminate man) should not enter upon you (anymore). (Bukhari Book 67, Hadith 5290)
حَدَّثَنَا هَارُونُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْعَلاَءِ، أَنَّ أَبَا أُسَامَةَ، أَخْبَرَهُمْ عَنْ مُفَضَّلِ بْنِ يُونُسَ، عَنِ الأَوْزَاعِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِي يَسَارٍ الْقُرَشِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِي هَاشِمٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أُتِيَ بِمُخَنَّثٍ قَدْ خَضَبَ يَدَيْهِ وَرِجْلَيْهِ بِالْحِنَّاءِ فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ” مَا بَالُ هَذَا ” . فَقِيلَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ يَتَشَبَّهُ بِالنِّسَاءِ . فَأُمِرَ بِهِ فَنُفِيَ إِلَى النَّقِيعِ فَقَالُوا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَلاَ نَقْتُلُهُ فَقَالَ ” إِنِّي نُهِيتُ عَنْ قَتْلِ الْمُصَلِّينَ ” . قَالَ أَبُو أُسَامَةَ وَالنَّقِيعُ نَاحِيَةٌ عَنِ الْمَدِينَةِ وَلَيْسَ بِالْبَقِيعِ
Narrated by Abi Yassar al-Qurashi from Abu Hashim from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came with an effeminate man who had adorned his hands and legs with henna. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “What is wrong with this?” He said: “O Messenger of Allaah, be like women.” Kill him, he said: “I have been forbidden for the killing of worshipers.” (Dawud Book 43, Hadith 4928)
As one can see from this tradition, Mohammed separated these effeminate men from the women, but as he also noted, he did not harm them. They were allowed to continue to exist in society, albeit separated from being bound to women, which indicated that based on their dispositions, they were men who were taking up relations with men.
There are several traditions which explicitly communicate that homosexuals must be executed or otherwise banned for society. However, as the traditions themselves note, they are formally classified as da’if (“weak”) by the Muslims themselves. Two are listed below:
دَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو السَّوَّاقُ، 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 وَفِي الْبَابِ عَنْ جَابِرٍ وَأَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ . قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى وَإِنَّمَا يُعْرَفُ هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ وَرَوَى مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو فَقَالَ ” مَلْعُونٌ مَنْ عَمِلَ عَمَلَ قَوْمِ لُوطٍ ” . وَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ فِيهِ الْقَتْلَ وَذَكَرَ فِيهِ مَلْعُونٌ مَنْ أَتَى بَهِيمَةً . وَقَدْ رُوِيَ هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ عُمَرَ عَنْ سُهَيْلِ بْنِ أَبِي صَالِحٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ” اقْتُلُوا الْفَاعِلَ وَالْمَفْعُولَ بِهِ ” . قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ فِي إِسْنَادِهِ مَقَالٌ وَلاَ نَعْرِفُ أَحَدًا رَوَاهُ عَنْ سُهَيْلِ بْنِ أَبِي صَالِحٍ غَيْرَ عَاصِمِ بْنِ عُمَرَ الْعُمَرِيِّ . وَعَاصِمُ بْنُ عُمَرَ يُضَعَّفُ فِي الْحَدِيثِ مِنْ قِبَلِ حِفْظِهِ . وَاخْتَلَفَ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ فِي حَدِّ اللُّوطِيِّ فَرَأَى بَعْضُهُمْ أَنَّ عَلَيْهِ الرَّجْمَ أَحْصَنَ أَوْ لَمْ يُحْصِنْ وَهَذَا قَوْلُ مَالِكٍ وَالشَّافِعِيِّ وَأَحْمَدَ وَإِسْحَاقَ . وَقَالَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِنْ فُقَهَاءِ التَّابِعِينَ مِنْهُمُ الْحَسَنُ الْبَصْرِيُّ وَإِبْرَاهِيمُ النَّخَعِيُّ وَعَطَاءُ بْنُ أَبِي رَبَاحٍ وَغَيْرُهُمْ قَالُوا حَدُّ اللُّوطِيِّ حَدُّ الزَّانِي وَهُوَ قَوْلُ الثَّوْرِيِّ وَأَهْلِ الْكُوفَةِ
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If you find him to do the work of the people of Lot, then kill the offender and the effect on him.” Narrated by ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz ibn Muhammad, He said in the section on Jabir and Abu Huraira said Abu Issa, but knows this talk about Ibn Abbas from the Prophet peace be upon him from this face and narrated Muhammad ibn Ishaq This hadeeth narrated from ‘Asim ibn Umar from Suhail ibn Abi Salih on the authority of’ Umar ibn Abi ‘Umar, Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Kill the offender and kill him.” Abu Issa said this in his hadeeth, and he did not know anyone who narrated it from Suhail ibn Abi Salih Ghi Asim ibn Omar narrated that it is weak in the hadeeth before it was memorized, and the scholars differed concerning the extent of the kaafir, and some of them saw that stoning was stoned or not. This is the view of Malik, al-Shaafa’i, Ahmad, and Ishaaq. Al-Hasan al-Basri, Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah, and others said: And the people of Kufa. (Source: Tirmidhi’s Jami’, Book 17, Hadith 1456)(
حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ رَاهَوَيْهِ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي ابْنُ خُثَيْمٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ سَعِيدَ بْنَ جُبَيْرٍ، وَمُجَاهِدًا، يُحَدِّثَانِ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، فِي الْبِكْرِ يُوجَدُ عَلَى اللُّوطِيَّةِ قَالَ يُرْجَمُ . قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ حَدِيثُ عَاصِمٍ يُضَعِّفُ حَدِيثَ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو
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. (Source: Abu Dawud, Book 40, Hadith 4463)
This means that while they can be used in understanding and applying Islamic law and theology, they are questionable and not to be taken as absolute statement of truth, but rather something to be debated and even contradicted. This compares with traditions classified as sahih (“sound”, meaning absolutely true) or muhsan (“good,” meaning highly reliable). The only classification beneath da’if is maudu’, which means “forged” and is to be ignored.
So from looking at these statements in Islamic sacred tradition itself, we can see that Islam does not speak with the same license that the modern “west” does about homosexuality. It does not say that one should give oneself wholly over to libertine passions and that the society should bend over to whatever desire the LGBT wants at the current time. It even floats the idea that one may execute sodomites, but that very idea is itself admitted by Muslims to be controversial and a weak argument. What Islam does say is that based on the example of Mohammed, these men are not to simply mix with other men yet they are allowed to live in society as they please among their own communities as a class of their own. The actions of Mohammed establish the acknowledgement of a third gender, of men who live as women as conduct themselves as women and are protected under Islam as a distinct social class regarded with equal piety and dignity as fellow Muslims. Their homosexuality does not impede their piety before Allah, meaning it is not regarded as a sin. Indeed, in Islamic eyes it is still a worse sin to embrace Christ as one’s savior than it is to be a sodomite who makes his daily prayers to Allah and lives in accordance with the prescriptions for the third gender established by Mohammed.
This third gender- the Mukhannath- is the reason why the concept of sodomy as a serious sin before God and a crime against society was never a serious legal issue in the Muslim world ever, including today because it was seen as a natural division in society that had to be distinguished yet protected in the example of Mohammed. As Wikipedia notes:
Homosexuality was a key symbolic issue throughout the Middle Ages in [Islamic] Iberia. As was customary everywhere until the nineteenth century, homosexuality was not viewed as a congenital disposition or ‘identity’; the focus was on nonprocreative sexual practices, of which sodomy was the most controversial.” For example, in “al-Andalus homosexual pleasures were much indulged by the intellectual and political elite. Evidence includes the behavior of rulers . . . who kept male harems.” Although early islamic writings such as the Quran expressed a mildly negative attitude towards homosexuality, most muslim societies treated the subject with indifference, if not admiration. Few literary works displayed hostility towards non-heterosexuality, apart from partisan statements and literary debates about types of love (which also occurred in heterosexual contexts). Khaled el-Rouayheb even maintain that “much if not most of the extant love poetry of the period [16th to 18th century] is pederastic in tone, portraying an adult male poet’s passionate love for a teenage boy”.
El-Rouayheb suggest that even though religious scholars considered sodomy as an abhorrent sin, most of them did not genuinely believe that it was illicit to fall in love with a boy or expressing this love via poetry. But in the secular society, a male’s “desire to penetrate desirable youth was seen as perfectly normal”, even if not lawful. On the other hand, men adopting the passive role were more subjected to stigma. The medical term ubnahqualified the pathological desire of a male to exclusively and continually be on the receiving end of anal intercourse. Various physician theorized on this condition, including Rhazes who thought it was correlated with small genitals and that a treatment was possible provided that the subject was deemed to be not too effeminate and the behavior not “prolonged”.Dawud al-Antaki advanced that it could be caused by an acidic substance embed in the veins of the anus causing itchiness and thus the need to seek relief. (source)
As Wikipedia notes, the emphasis in Islam is not so much on the sodomizer but on the one being sodomized, and this is because if a man is going to be sodomized, he needs to be a mukhannath, for otherwise would be a grave violation of Islamic law and could subject a man to punishment, including death for unlawful sexual activity. However, so long as the one being sodomized is a mukhannath and there are no other possible issues, he may be sodomized as much as he pleases without incurring the penalty of sin.
The cover of the Tuhfet Ul-Mulk, a book published in 1773 in Ottoman Turkey showing a group of Muslims sodomizing each other. While homosexuality was formally decriminalized in 1858, this cover is another indication of the tolerance this behavior was shown in society.
Sodomy was never regarded as a sin in Islam that is an intrinsically disordered act. Indeed, one faced more danger being a Christian in a Muslim society than being a sodomite and a Muslim. It is utterly lacking in understanding or is outright dishonest to propagate the idea that Islam hates the LGBT, because nothing could be further from the truth.
This is the reason why there are still in Afghanistan, a country that is veritably 100% Muslim, a huge number of men who dress and live as women, called bacha bazi boys. It is the reason why in spite of Turkish President Erdogan’s crackdown on LGBT rights, Erdogan and his wife will have dinner with Bulent Ersoy, one of the most popular singers in Turkey who is also Turkey’s most famous mukhannath. It is why Pakistan issues passports with a third gender listed on them, and the reason why Pakistan’s legalization of “transgenderism” has become a contested issue that was raised by the mukhannatun themselves and why homosexuality is at the same time a crime punishable by death in Pakistan, because the idea of “transgenderism” is a western concept of the mukhannath that might, from a religious perspective, be in contradiction to the rules established under Islam.
Why would President Erdogan (here with his wife Emine, in the blue hijab), who has actively persecuted the LGBT, go to dinner with Bulent Ersoy (on the left), who is clearly a man dressed as a woman?
The answer is above. He is part of the mukhannath class that is a part of Islam. Indeed, the opposition to the LGBT in Muslim nations today is not based on an intrinsic opposition to homosexuality as a moral issue due to the act of sodomy itself, but as a violation of Islamic law on how one goes about carrying out the sin.
Recently, Jihad Watch reported that the central Asian nation of Tajikistan, which is majority Muslim, came out and was going to “purge” gays:
As humiliating as this move is for the gay population in the Sunni Islamic nation of Tajikistan, of greater concern is the persecution that threatens to follow this “Purge” and “Morality” registry.
The degradation and threats to the gay population is unceasing in Islamic countries and under the Sharia. Many Islamic preachers in the West have also called for the killing of gays, or have openly taught about Allah’s cursing of gays.
Recently, Ali Kadri, spokesperson for the Islamic Council of Queensland in Australia, stated about gays: “We are afraid if we come out with our opinion then the left may abandon us.”
However, they also failed to mention that sodomy is completely legal in Tajikistan. Yet as I mentioned in the above discussion, this should not be a surprise at all what Tajikistan is doing. Far from the idea that ISLAM IS PERSECUTING GAYS that comes through in the article, the reality is still simple, just with a little more details. It does not appear that Tajikistan is not just ‘purging gays,’ and this is because sodomy is legal and (at least from what I have seen) there are no attempts to stop this, and as we have pointed out, sodomy laws in all nations are specifically directed at curbing homosexual behavior. This would lead one to conclude that what is happening here is that per Islamic teachings as we noted earlier, they are actually following in the words of Mohammed by purging the segment of gays who act in ways that are inconsistent with the teachings of Islam on homosexuality. They are not attempting to ban homosexuality as that would actually be anti-Islamic- they are seeking to ban the execution of homosexual activity in ways that oppose Islamic teachings, thus actually preserving the LGBT in their society per their historically protected status.
The difference between the LGBT as practiced in the West and in the Muslim world is the difference between the communists and the national socialists, or between the feminized homosexuals versus the masculinized homosexuals. All of these opposing groups accept the fundamental philosophies and thus are actually intellectual cousins. The fighting between them is how to execute the beliefs which they already accept. For Socialists, it is whether to use economics (international socialists/communists) or race (national socialists) as the point around which to cause revolution to create a perfect society. For the homosexuals in the West, the argument is between whether homosexuality should have a feminized approach, or whether it should have a masculinized approach. In the case of Islam, it is whether or not the Muslim world should accept the libertine western ideas about homosexuality, or to persists in the practice of homosexuality as theologically and historically taught by Islam. There is no conflict to essence of the matter being discussed, just how to carry out the already agreed upon beliefs.
Hence is the situation with California. The state did not accept Shariah Law in the literal sense. However, their acceptance of the idea of a third gender is in reality the acceptance of an Islamic idea deeply rooted into the religion yet seldom discussed. There is no choice between Islam and the LGBT, and since both are evil, the only choice a Christian has is to walk away and choose neither.
The Bible makes very clear that homosexuality is one of four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance alongside willful murder of the innocent, oppressing the widow and orphan, and depriving a working man of his justly earned wages. The serious nature of homosexual activity cannot be understand just as the threat which Islam poses to Western society cannot be either, for both are evil, and if one is going to call oneself a Christian, one must fight all evils, not just the ones considered socially acceptable because, as the relationship between Islam and the LGBT shows, all evil has the same source of perversion. One cannot opposed one form of perversion without calling out other forms, because the nature of the perversity and the source which it comes from is of the same essence, which is sin, and as the Bible states, the wage of sin is death. If we are to seek and desire eternal life, one must be ready to, echoing the words of St. Paul, put to death all that which would oppose. This means to oppose both homosexuality and Islam because they are both evil as they share a common source of perversity.