India is preparing to legalize homosexual behavior by contesting Section 377 of their Penal Code, which is the equivalent of sodomy law. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has responded that if homosexuality was legalized, they would not try to contest the issue in the courts, effectively giving support to the LGBT:
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has decided not to contest if the Supreme Court scraps Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalises homosexuality. The board has also decided to no longer be part of the court hearings in the matter that resume Tuesday.
Speaking to the indianexpress.com on Friday, AIMPLB member and senior advocate Yusuf Muchhala said: “We are not going to appear in the matter leaving it to the court to decide.”
Muchhala added: “Whether section 377 is unconstitutional or not should be read down by the court so that the people indulging into same-sex relationships are not criminalised. Let it be clear that it is only on the decriminalisation issue that we are not participating, and not beyond that, let the court decide (on it), whichever way it goes.”
The Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions challenging Section 377 while also reviewing its earlier verdict banning the IPC section.
The Centre has already withdrawn from the court proceedings, saying it leaves the decision to “the wisdom of the court”. Its affidavit filed before the constitution Bench reserved its right to object to anything “other than” Section 377 if it were to be considered during the course of adjudication.
The AIMPLB has earlier voiced opposition when the Delhi High Court had struck down Section 377 in 2009. (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.
Homosexuality has never been an issue for Hinduism. This is rooted in Hindu philosophy, which believes that all human beings are basically part of the same “divine soul” that permeates the entire cosmos. The purpose of existence is to bring oneself to a state of pure consciousness with the self, called moksha, in which a man’s soul, his atman, becomes one with the divine to the point he becomes divine. The purpose of existence is to continually strive for this within one’s state in life, which is the caste in which a person is born into an dies in. If he is a person who lives in accordance with the rank of his caste, he will be reincarnated to a higher caste in which he repeats the same process, called samsara, until he reaches the highest caste, after which he can attain a pure state of moksha if he lives right and will become one with the universe.
This view means that a man has no control over his actions, but that he is born a certain way because that somehow reflects his past life, and that if he wants to advance to the next higher stage in the next life he has to live as perfectly as he can in accordance with his current state. That means a dalit, the lowest caste which are sometimes known as “untouchables”, has to be a good poor person who does not try to advance and just writhes in his poverty. It means that a sudra, or a commoner, has to be a good commoner and stay as a worker bee/cog-in-the-machine and not try to advance himself, but just be a good cog and to embrace what may come. It means that a higher class, such as the elite brahmin, have to be the rulers of society and they must necessarily push down upon the lower castes and belittle them because they are better than them, and if they did not belittle them than it would be inappropriate. When applied to the LGBT, Hinduism allows for sodomites to legitimately argue that preventing a sodomite from sodomizing is obstructing his spiritual growth and keeping him down.
There is every reason to expect that homosexuality in India will be legalized because both Islam and Hinduism are pro-LGBT. This leaves the Christians, at just over 2% of India’s population, as substantially the only resistance to the LGBT. However, even this is questionable because a large amount of Protestant Christians have declared that homosexuality should be supported, and a Christian who does not is a fascist:
The National Council of Churches in India (NCCI) has come out in favour of repealing Section 377 and welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court to refer Section 377 to a larger constitutional bench.
The Council which represents about 14 million people, has published an open letter arguing homosexuality should be decriminalised.
In its statement NCCI said that homosexuality was practiced in India from ancient times, and until the British arrived, was never a criminal act.
It added that “as followers of the non-conformist Christ, the one who consistently questioned unjust and non-compassionate traditions of public morality, our call is to reject all laws that demonize, criminalize, and exclude human beings, and work to facilitate just inclusive and loving communities.”
The following is the complete statement by the NCCI:
We, the members of the National Ecumenical Forum for Gender and Sexual Diversities of the National Council of Churches in India note the decision of the Supreme Court of India on 8thJanuary 2018 to refer to a Constitution Bench a petition seeking to quash Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes homosexuality. The apex court has observed that a section of people cannot live in fear of the law which atrophies their right to choice and natural sexual inclinations.
Homosexuality and homo-eroticism have been practiced in India from time immemorial. Homosexual activity was never condemned or criminalized in ancient India. Such activities were tolerated as long as people fulfilled the societal expectations of marriage and procreation. (source)
As the statement from the Christians takes note of, the laws against homosexuality in India were installed by the British because of Christian sentiments. This likewise has been noted by the Hindu nationalists, who say that Christianity is a “foreign religion” and is “not native to India” and therefore must be exterminated, and that Christians are just leftovers of “imperialism” from the British that need to be destroyed if India wants to be a “great nation”.
This of course ignores many historical realities. While Christianity has never been the dominant religion in India, Christians have been in India since the time of the Apostles when St. Thomas was skinned alive in India while preaching, and for centuries Christian communities existed from Goa all down the Malabar coast near Tamil Nadu well before European missionaries entered into the subcontinent. Hinduism was never native to India, but was introduced by the Aryans and imposed upon the native Dravidian peoples as a way of established a race-based hierarchy to keep power concentrated in the conquerors and the conquered as a subjugated race of slaves.
What the Christians who signed said declaration have done, perhaps without even understanding it, was to sign their own death warrant by admitted that Christians are a foreign presence in India. Such appeasement is not only a lie, but it feeds the lies of the Hindu nationalists who will then use it to justify their own plans for genocide of the Christians of India.
There is going to be fighting between the Muslims and the Hindus within India. This is obvious from both sides. However, Christians must not make the mistake of thinking that either side- Hindu or Muslim- is somehow better, and that as Christian history has shown, they must watch for people who would subvert their own ranks.
Blessed Sister Lucia dos Santos of Fatima said that the final battle would be over marriage and the family. The LGBT, because it is inherently anti-family and now has a global power and presence in a way never before seen in world history, in combination with the rise of a new paganism and nationalism, would seem to be preparing such an assault. This is just one of the many fronts on which it is coming.