In Sam Shamoun's article here, he attempts to show that the Holy Prophet (S) had ?homosexual' tendencies (Astaghfirullah!). He begins with his usual tough talk:
"Since our warning has fallen on deaf ears we have no other choice but to apply their method of assaulting the holy Apostle against their unholy "prophet" Muhammad. I myself do not necessarily believe all of the below; it is written only to illustrate how using the methods and approaches of the Muslim authors will lead to very undesirable results for their own prophet and religion."
We should remember this, because this means that Sam Shamoun doesn't even believe the nonsense he wrote below, but only wrote it just for the heck of it. Infact, we thank Sam Shamoun for being honest enough to admit he doesn't believe this stuff. Unfortunately however, his Christian buddies do not feel the same, and actually propagate this "homosexual tendencies" blasphemy around their chat rooms, and forums.
His first proof for "homosexual tendencies" is:
فقال له زاهراطلقنى من انت؟فقال له محمد انامن يشترى العبيدورفض ان يطلقهفلما عرف زاهرأنه محمد صار يمكنظهره من صدر محمد
Translation: One day, Muhammad went to the market, there he found Zahir, whom he liked, so he hugged him from behind. Zahir said: let go of me, who are you? Muhammad told him: I'm the slave trader (literally, I'm the one who buys the slaves), and refused to let go of him so when Zahir knew it was Muhammad, he drew (stuck) his back closer to Muhammad's chest.
Since Shamoun thinks this tradition agrees with his perverted thoughts, one wonders what he thinks of the following quotes from the Gospels:
He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? (John 13:25)
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? (John 21:20)
The point here basically is, an embrace out of affection doesn't mean you are a homosexual!
He then writes:
Muhammad would also invite young boys to see him wash his private parts:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: Whenever Allah's Apostle went to answer the call of nature, I along with another boy used to accompany him with a tumbler full of water. (Hisham commented, "So that he might wash his private parts with it.") (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 152; see also Numbers 153-154)
Where in the text does it say the young boys saw the Holy Prophet (S) wash his private parts? Infact, the Holy Prophet (S) said:
'Abd al-Rahman, the son of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, reported from his father: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A man should not see the private parts of another man, and a woman should not see the private parts of another woman, and a man should not lie with another man under one covering, and a woman should not lie with another woman under one covering.
The Holy Prophet (S) would even go to extreme lengths to be concealed when answering the call of nature:
'Abdullah b. Ja'far reported : The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) one day made me mount behind him and he confided to me something secret which I would not disclose to anybody; and the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) liked the concealment provided by a lofty place or cluster of dates (while answering the call of nature), Ibn Asma' said in his narration : It implied an enclosure of the date-trees.
"When the prophet SAW entered Khila (toilet), I and a boy carried the utensil for water, and the spear; he used to make Istanjaa with the water."
Yudkhilal Khila ( entered toilet) = the meaning of this statement of his in this situation as in another of the narration is (kaan iza kharaj lay hajatehe) [when he left for his need] because of the "qareena" of the carrying of the spear along with the water, because the salat time was close, and there was no better cover (suttara) and also at the time when the toilet in the home was being used by other family members.
Some have understood from the way Bukhari has included this in the chapter, that it was carried (Spear) to provide a curtain at the time of the haajat . One would think that it is not normally a thing to provide the curtain. The spears is not like that. But it is carried to be stuck on the ground in front of you and the TAUB is placed over it to provide a sort of curtain.
Or it is stuck by the side so as to be an indication for others not to wander in the vicinity of it. Or to dig some dirt with it, or to keep the pests of the earth away. Because the Prophet SAW used to further away for his needs.
Or it was carried, because when he did the astanjaa, he would do wadoo, and when he did wadoo he would pray. That is the main of the reasons
And in the division of the chapters comes the spear as the curtain for the place of the salat. And Bukhari has argued from this hadith that the urine should be washed away. (Translated by Dr. Munir Munshey)
Sam Shamoun needs to remember, that this is 7th Century Arabia. Back then there were no tap waters, or flushable toilets etc., so for Sam Shamoun to use this hadith to prove his case is indeed very sad and weak.
The Missionary then stoops even lower and says:
Other sick practices of Muhammad include having his young child bride wipe semen off his clothes:
Narrated 'Aisha: I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229)
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar: I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231; see also Number 232)
Narrated 'Aisha: I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233)
Apparently this man never stopped to examine once in a while what he is really saying! What does Shamoun expect, for a washing machine to wash the clothes?? Does he expect that our Mother Aisha (R) to go across the street to the local Laundromat and get these clothes cleaned??
He then says:
Other traditions state that Muhammad would actually allow young boys to suck his tongue and he would suck the tongue of others. For instance, in "Musnad Ahmad," Hadith number: 16245, Volume Title: "The Sayings of the Syrians," Chapter Title: "Hadith of Mu'awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan," we read:
Narrated by Hisham Ibn Kasim, narrated by Huraiz, narrated by Abdul Rahman Ibn Abu Awf Al Jarashy, and narrated by Mua'wiya who said,
"I saw the prophet - pbuh - sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire). (Source)
الرسول يمص لسان الحسن و شفته
حدثنا هاشم بن القاسم حدثنا حريز عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي عوف الجرشي عن معاوية قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يمص لسانه أو قال شفته يعني الحسن بن علي صلوات الله عليه وإنه لن يعذب لسان أو شفتان مصهما رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
مسند أحمد .. مسند الشاميين .. حديث معاوية بن أبي سفيان رضي الله تعالى عنه
From the Syrian Biography of Muhammad written by Al-Amin Al-Ma'moun, Chapter Title: "The first people to believe in the prophet."
In mentioning the 10 specific qualities of the prophet, Al Zamakhshari mentioned that the prophet took charge of naming Ali and feeding him many days from his blessed saliva and having Ali SUCKON THE PROPHET'S TONGUE.
For it was narrated by Fatimah Bint Asad, the mother of Ali - may Allah be pleased with her - who related that when she gave birth to her son, it was the prophet who named him Ali and the prophet spat in Ali's mouth THEN ALLOWED HIM TO SUCK ON HIS TONGUE till he fell asleep.
She also said, "On a later day we requested a wet nurse for him (Ali) but he refused her breast so we called for Muhammad - pbuh - WHO PLACED HIS TONGUE IN ALI'S MOUTH and he fell asleep. This is the way it was as Allah willed it." (Source)
الرسول يمص لسان علي بن أبي طالب و يغذيه من ريقه المبارك
وفي خصائص العشرة للزمخشري أن النبي صل الله عليه وسلم تولى تسميته بعليوتغذيته أياما من ريقه المبارك بمصه لسانهفعن فاطمة بنت أسد أم علي رضي الله تعالى عنها أنا قالت لما ولدته سماه علياوبصق في فيه ثم إنه ألقمه لسانه فما زال يمصه حتى نامقالت فلما كان من الغد طلبنا له مرضعةفلم يقبل ثدي أحد فدعونا له محمداصلى الله عليه وسلمفألقمه لسانه فنامفكان كذلك ما شاء الله عز وجل هذا كلامه فليتأمل.
السيرة الحلبية في سيرة الأمين المأمون .. باب أول الناس إيمانا به صلى الله عليه و سل
Yet, on the same page he interestingly quotes a source which says:
The third stage of ritual circumcision, the Messisa or Metzitzah, was not introduced until the Talmudic period (500-625 C.E).6,15,21 In Metzitzah, the mohel (ritual circumciser) sucks blood from the penis of the circumcised infant with his mouth.29 This procedure has been responsible for the death of many Jewish babies due to infection.11 In modern times, a glass tube is sometimes used instead. (http://www.cirp.org/library/history/; bold emphasis ours)
Therefore, he has no problem with the circumciser putting the penis of the circumcised child in his mouth to suck the blood, but he has a problem with the Holy Prophet (S) placing his tongue in a child's mouth.
He then quotes a hadith which his Arab friend mistranslates:
Muhammad also appeared naked before a man:
Narrated by Muhammad Ibn Ismail, narrated by Ibrahim Ibn Yahya Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abad Al Madany, narrated by Abu Yahya Ibn Muhammad, narrated by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, narrated by Muhammad Ibn Muslim Al Zuhri, narrated by Urwah Ibn Al Zubair narrated by Aisha who said,
"Zaid Ibn Haritha came to Medina while the prophet - pbuh - was in my house. He (Zaid) came and knocked on the door so the prophet rose up and went towards him naked, dragging his garment behind him. By Allah I had not seen the prophet naked before this or after it (in front of people). Then the prophet embraced Zaid and kissed him."
Abu Issa stated that this was a sound hadith, THOUGH STRANGE, and that Al Zuhri was only known for (sound) hadith. (Sunan Al Tirmidhi, Hadith Number, 4412, Volume Title: "The Book of Permission and Manners of the Prophet," Entry Title: "What is Related About Kissing and Embracing". (Source)
محمد عريان و يحضن و يقبل الرجال
حدثنا محمد بن إسمعيل حدثنا إبراهيم بن يحيى بن محمد بن عباد المدني حدثني أبي يحيى بن محمد عن محمد بن إسحق عن محمد بن مسلم الزهري عن عروة بن الزبير عن عائشة قالت قدم زيد بن حارثة المدينة ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في بيتي فأتاه فقرع الباب فقام إليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عريانا يجر ثوبه والله ما رأيته عريانا قبله ولا بعده فاعتنقه وقبلهقال أبو عيسى هذا حديث حسن غريب لا نعرفه من حديث الزهري إلا من هذا الوجه
This hadith, or the interpretation of this hadith, given by the missionary (that the Holy Prophet (S) was naked infront of Zaid) is in contradiction with (1) The statement of the Holy Prophet (S) himself, specifically that no man can see another man's private parts (see above) and (2) the Sound narrations which clearly show that no man has seen the private parts of the Holy Prophet (S):
Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was carrying along with them (his people) stones for the Ka'ba and there was a waist wrapper around him. His uncle, "Abbas, said to him: 0 son of my brother! if you take off the lower garment and place it on the shoulders underneath the stones, it would be better. He (the Holy Prophet) took it off and placed it on his shoulder and fell down unconscious. He (the narrator) said: Never was he seen naked after that day.
Shaykhul-Hadith Maulana Muhammad Zakariyya Muhajir Madni said in Shamaa il-Tirmidhi:
048 : 342 : Hadith 002
'Aayeshah Radiyallahu 'Anha reports: (because of the excessive modesty of Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam) "I did not have the courage to see the private parts of Rasulullah Sallallahu'Alayhi Wasallam, or that I never saw the private parts of Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam".
Commentary Due to the shame-fastness of Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam this was not possible, then how could Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam himself have done so? It is natural that in the presence of a modest person, one is compelled to act modestly. In another narration it is clearly denied that never did Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam see my private parts, nor did I see the private parts of Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam. Although 'Aayeshah Radiyallahu 'Anha was the most informal among all the wives, she was also the most beloved. If this was his manner with her, what can be said of the others? Sayyiditina Ummi Salamah Radiyallahu 'Anha says that when Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam slept with his wife, he closed his eyes and bowed down his head, and also stressed to his wife to be calm and dignified. Ibn 'Abbaas Radiyallahu 'Anhu narrates that Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam went behind the rooms to perform ghusl. Nobody saw the private parts of Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu'Alayhi Wasallam. Before the advent of nubuwwah, when the Ka'bah was rebuilt Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam also carried stones and brought them. According to 'Arab custom, no importance was given to concealing the private parts. Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam (happen to) put his lungi under the stone, and immediately became unconscious (due to modesty) and fell down, whereas, at that time the shar'ee injunctions were not even revealed.
Thus, if Our Mother Aisha (R) testifies that she never saw the private parts of the Holy Prophet (S), how can this hadith quoted by the missionary show that she saw the Holy Prophet (S) naked?? Clearly the hadith has been mistranslated, or misinterpreted by these enemies of Islam. The correct translation for this hadith, is given by Our brother and Dr. Munir Munshey. It is as follows:
"Zaid Ibn Haritha came to Medina while the prophet - pbuh - was in my house. He (Zaid) came and knocked on the door so the prophet rose up and went towards him naked, dragging his garment behind him. By Allah I had not seen the prophet naked before this or after it (in front of people). Then the prophet embraced Zaid and kissed him." [This is how the missionary translated it]
..... From Aisha. She said, "Zaid bin Haritha came to the town and to Rasool Allah SAW, in my house, So he came and he knocked at the door. So, the Prophet SAW went towards it [ MY INTERJECTION it = the door the actual pronoun is ?hu" which can be used for animate or inanimate noun. The first noun back is albaab, therefore it refers to the door and not Zaid bin Haritha] naked dragging his taub. By God, I had not seen him naked before that, nor after that. So he embraced him and kissed him.
Abu Essa said this hadith is Hassan ghareeb.
Qadama Zaid bin Haritha almadina = That is returned to town from a ghazwa or travel
Wa rasool Allah SAW fee baitee = This is the ?jumla mootaridha' he was in my home at the time
Fa ataahu = meaning Zaid came
Fa qaraal baab = meaning knocked in a specific way known to the Holy Prophet (S) or knocked while saying Salaam and seeking permission to have an audience
Faqaam ilaihe = meaning turned to face it (or him) [My thoughts: hu is the pronoun which can refer to thing or person. According to the rules of grammar, it refers to the first noun that you encounter going back that agrees with it in gender and number and case, which in this case is al-baab; meaning he directed his attention to the door]
Uryaanun yajirr taubahu = that is that his upper cloth (sheet or taub) because of the excessive happiness at his arrival ; He says in mafateeh, she means that the Holy Prophet (S) was covered from the navel down to his legs but the sheet fell off his shoulder as he was above his navel naked completely.
Wallahe maa raaytuhu uryaanun = that is to greet someone
Qabalahu : before this
Wa la baada hu : and neither after that day
Wa aatenaqahu wa qabbalahu: So it can be said, how can we believe that the Umm Ul Momineen had never seen him naked before this and not after this despite the length of their togetherness, and the frequency of sleeping together under a single ?lihaaf'. It is said that she meant naked for the purpose of greeting a man and embracing. She abbreviated her speech to describe this point or naked in that sense naked. Qadhee has taken this first. He says that this is what appears from the context of her sentence that happiness and joy of his arrival and the hurry to receive him where it did not remain possible to cover completely his sheet (ridha) till it dragged and most of the time it falls to this degree.
[from here on he talks about the sharaee position of embracing the one arriving from out of town, as against just shaking the hand]
Mentions the hadith of Abu Zar, in Abu Dawood did you shake hands with the Prophet (S) or embrace him when you met him. Etc
It is unrelated to our discussion here:
Uryaan: is the word that appears in many contexts. It does not mean completely and totally naked
It is more like the word bare in English. Does not necessarily mean nude, it means ?without a covering'
Aisha was surprised not because she had never seen him naked before, but because she had never seen Prophet (S) embrace someone while not wearing his taub before this time, nor did she after this time.
Also it is important to concentrate on these words "yuyaanun ejirr taubahu" meaning he was naked because his taub was dragging. Now that implies upper body nakedness because that is where the taub is worn. It is not worn on the lower body. On the lower body one wears the IZAAR.
He was wearing the izaar and covered from the navel to the legs. But he was BARE from the waist up, as is sometimes the case during summertime, when people take off their taub. He looked at the door, grabbed the taub, which dragged, and he reached the door BEFORE he could put it on. In that way, he greeted his adopted son, while not wearing his taub, and embraced him.
This is what Aisha had never seen him do before. A) He always shook hands, and not embraced normally. Embracing was for meeting someone who had just arrived from another town. B) He never embraced anyone while uncovered from the waist up.
In the case of Zaid he made this exception.
This interpretation does not even discuss the possibility of the Prophet (S) meeting anyone stark naked.
That is of course unthinkable!
Only to a depraved mind of a western missionary is it possible! (Hadith translated, and Comments by Dr. Munir Munshey, May Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.... Ameen!)
He then tries to say Homosexuality will be allowed in paradise, but then refutes himself by quoting Sura 26 Ayats 160 to 168 which say:
The people of Lut rejected the apostles.
Behold, their brother Lut said to them: "Will ye not fear (God)?
"I am to you an apostle 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 of the Worlds.
"Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males,
"And leave those whom God has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"
They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!"
He said: "I do detest your doings."
But then he attempts to brush this Ayat off. However, it is not just these Ayats which clearly condemn homosexuality, but other Ayats which Allah SWT clearly speaks that he has created mates for you:
And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect. (Sura 30 Ayat 21)
(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things). (Sura 42 Ayat 11)
Obviously, a man cannot multiply his seed with another man, nor a woman with another woman. But, only through man-woman relations can offspring produced. This is one of the Signs of Allah SWT, which is clear. Shaykhul-Hadith Maulana Muhammad Zakariyya Muhajir Madni also quotes Mulla Ali al-Qari, who comments on homosexuality in Shamaa il-Tirmidhi saying:
021 : 124 : Hadith 002
Abu Bakrah radiyallahu anhu relates that, "Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam once said, :Must I show you a great sin, from among the greatest sins?" The sahaabah replied, "Yes O Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam, do tell us." Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam replied, "To ascribe a partner unto Allah. To disobey one's parents. To bare false witness, (or tell a lie). (The narrator is not sure which of the two Sayyidina Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam had said). At that time Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam was leaning on something. When he mentioned lies, he sat up, and because of its importance began to repeat it many times, till we began hoping that he would stop, and not repeat it so many times".
Commentary: The reason for the sahaabah radiyallhu anhum wishing that Sayyidina Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam should stop repeating it, is because of their love for Sayyidina Rasoolullah sallallhu alaihe wasallam, and there fear that he would become tired. It is enough to say a thing once. It could be possible that he might have become angry, or that in anger, Sayyidina Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam might say something that would become a cause of loss to the ummah. Those who attend these type of religious or worldly assemblies are well aware of such situations. Sayyidina Rasoolullah sallallhu alaihe wasallam repeated it to show its importance. Lies and falsehood inevitably gets a person involved in adultery, murder and many other sins. Sayyidina Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam also said, "When a person lies, the angels stay a distance of a mile away from him because odour it causes in person's mouth". He has also said, "A believer cannot be a liar". Sayyidina Abu Bakr Siddique radiyallahu Anhu says, "Stay away from lies, because lies keep away Imaan." (Al-Itidaal) In this hadith the major sins are mentioned. In the shari'ah there are two types of sins. One is the minor sins, which are forgiven after performing wudu, sallah, saum, haj etc. The second is the major or greater sins. These are never forgiven without sincere taubah (repentance). Certainly if Allah wills He will forgive even the major sins through His Great Mercy. This is an exception, but the fundamental laws is that they are not forgiven without sincere taubah. The 'alama differ as to the count of major sins. Special books have been written on this subject. 'Allaamah Dha-habi has written a special treatise on this subject, wherein he has counted four hundred major sins. Allamah Ibn Hajar has also written a two volume book which has been printed in Egypt. He has mentioned all the major sins on every subject, like that of salaah, saum, zakaah, haj etc. He has counted four hundred and sixty seven sins major sins in detail. Mulla Ali Qarri has written the commentary of the Shamaa-il Tirmidhi, the common major sins as follows: To murder a person; adultery; homosexuality; the drinking of wine and other intoxicants; theft; falsely accusing a person; refusing to give evidence of a factual incident; take a false oath; unlawfully taking possession of another's wealth or belonging; running away from war against non-believers without a valid reason; dealing in interest; stealing an orphan's possessions; taking and giving bribes; disobeying parents; cutting of relationship with one's relatives; relating a false hadith; breaking fast in Ramdhaan (without a valid reason); cheating in measures and weights; performing a fardh salaah before or after its stipulated time; avoiding paying zakaah; hitting or ill-treating a Muslim or non-Muslim with whom an agreement has been made; accusing or talk ill of the Sahabah radiyallahu anhum; backbiting especially about an aalim or a haafiz of Qur'aan; telling tales (backbite) to an oppressor; being shameless and accept the prostitution or unlawful habits of one's wife or daughter's; pimping; abstaining from Amri-bin-ma;ruf Wan-nahyi anil munkar (commanding to do good, and prohibiting from committing evil), whilst having the strength and means to do so; practicing black-magic (sihr-jadu) and teaching to others; casting a spell (black-magic) on someone; learning the Qur'aan and forget it; burning a living thing without a valid reason; giving up hope of attending Allah's mercy; having a fear of His punishment; a woman disobeying her husband and without a valid refused to fulfill his desires. Mulla Ali Qaari has given the above examples of major sins in the Mazaahiri Haq, translation and commentary on Mishkaat a special chapter has been written in the beginning, wherein similar sins have been mentioned. It has also been stated there in that to ascribe a partner on to Allah, in whatever form, e.g. making a partner in praying to him; in seeking assistance; in knowledge; in his divine power and authority in creating; in calling (someone not present) for help; in naming; slaughtering; in offering a vow; or the handling over all such in matters to people instead of Allah; etc. The following are also included in the kitaab: To make an intention to persist in sinning; to consume intoxicants; marry one's mahram; gamble; keep friendship with non-Muslim; not to take part in Jihaad, whilst having the power to do so; eat the meat of a dead animal; have faith in an astrologer, and forecasts of soothsayers; criticise Sayyidina Rasulullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam and the malla-ikah, and to deny his (Sayyidina Rasulullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam's) prophethood and their (malaa-ikah's) existence; criticise the Sahabah radiyallahu anhum; cause a quarrel and fight between husband and wife; be wasteful; create rebellion, intrigue or mischief; appear mude before others (besides one's wife, or husband); be niggardly and stingy; not cleansing one's self from urine and sperm (i.e. if these fall onto the clothing and body and are not washed); disbelieve and refute taqdder (divine fore-ordainment); lower the trouser or lungi below the ankles in pride; lament (no-hah) a persons death; begin or invent a bad mode, thing or manner; be ungrateful to a benefactor; call a Muslim a disbeliever; have intercourse with a menstruating woman; become happy when food becomes scarce; commit a sexual act with an animal; look at a man with lust; peep or spy in another's house; degrade the Ulama or the Huffaaz of the Qur'aan; fail to treat all wives equally if one has more than wife; be unfaithful to amir or leader etc. The major sins also have their stages. That is why in the above Hadith only the main ones among the major sins are mentioned according to their circumstances. The Ulama have written that to keep on committing a (minor) sin, results in it becoming a major sin, and by repenting sincerely a major sin is forgiven. A sincere taubah is that, one should make a firm resolution that one shall not commit that sin again.
In the Reliance of the Traveler, it is written:
"In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot's people, and how He destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery.
Allah Most High says:
"Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress" (Koran 26:165-66)
The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
(1)"Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him."
(2)"May Allah curse him who does what Lot's people did."
(3)"Lesbianism by women is adultery between them."
(Source: The Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law by Ahmed Ibn Naqib al-Misri translated into English by Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, p. 664-665, Amana Publications 1994)
As for men having intercourse with boys in paradise, one wonders how someone can reach that conclusion when even Sam Shamoun quotes a hadith which says:
Muhammad reported that some (persons) stated with a sense of pride and some discussed whether there would be more men in Paradise or more women. It was upon this that Abu Huraira reported that Abu'l Qasim (the Holy Prophet) (may peace be upon him) said: The (members) of the first group to get into Paradise would have their faces as bright as full moon during the night, and the next to this group would have their faces as bright as the shining stars in the sky, and every person would have two wives and the marrow of their shanks would glimmer beneath the flesh and there would be none without a wife in Paradise.
A man will have intercourse in Paradise with his wives from among al-hoor al-?iyn and his wives from among the people of this world, if they enter Paradise with him. A man will be given the strength of a hundred men to eat, drink, feel desire and have sexual intercourse. It was narrated from Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The believer in Paradise will be given such and such strength for sexual intercourse." He was asked, "O Messenger of Allaah, will he really be able to do that?" He said, "He will be given the strength of one hundred (men)." incho"; Simplified Arabic";">(Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, no. 2459. He said, (it is) saheehghareeb).
Theses hadiths, is enough alone to refute the ?scholars' who say men will be intimate with other men in Paradise. As for the reward for women in paradise will be, please refer to this Fatwa from Sunni Path.
Also, he quotes from the NT this verse:
"So Jesus said to them, ?The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are regarded as worthy to share in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, they can no longer die, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, since they are sons of the resurrection." Luke 20:34-36 NET Bible
Strangely enough, Jesus says that his disciples will eat and drink in his "Father's Kingdom". Theodore Pulcini writes:
" Ibn Hazm notes how even Christian doctrine itself renders certain New Testament statements absurd. The Christian scriptures teach that in the resurrection, people will be like the angels, neither marrying nor being given in marriage (Mt. ). Christians teach this idea of a non-physical existence in heaven. Yet Jesus tells his disciples that he will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until he drinks it anew with them in the kingdom (cf. Mt. 26:29, Mk. 14:25) and that they will eat and drink at his table in the kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Lk. 22:30). Despite these latter passages, Ibn Hazm notes, Christians deny that they will partake of physical food and drink in paradise. They thus contradict Christ while confessing that he is Lord and God! But why should they contradict him thus, Ibn Hazm asks sarcastically? After all, the Torah, which Christians accept as part of their scripture, depicts the angels who visited Abraham as eating and drinking (Gen 18:7-8). Their New Testament describes Christ, after his return from the dead, as eating and drinking (e.g., in Lk. 24:36-43). So why should men not eat and drink in paradise?"
(Source: Exegesis as Polemical Discourse: Ibn Hazm on Jewish and Christian Scriptures by Theodore Pulcini, p.123 The American Academy of Religion 1998)
Shamoun, ends his blasphemous article with the following quote:
That homosexuality must be treated as a crime in a MoslemState is evident from the story of Lot and his people. Verse IV.20 says: "If two men commit indecency punish them both; if they repent and mend their ways, let them be." In this case NO SPECIAL PENALTY HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED. (Faruq Sherif, A Guide to the Contents of the Quran [Garnet Publishing Limited, UK (printed in Lebanon); reprinted 1995, 1998], p. 214; bold and capital emphasis ours)
However, this quote also refutes Shamoun since it clearly says," That homosexuality must be treated as a crime in a MoslemStateis evident from the story of Lot and his people".As for a penalty for homosexuality, it is unanimously agreed that a homosexual deserves to be executed; however how the homosexual should be executed is differed upon.
Now that we have demonstrated that Sam Shamoun's paper is nothing more then a horrible attempt to discredit the Holy Prophet (S), we will examine exactly what some Christians believe about Paul, and if he is a homosexual or not. Bishop John Shelby Spong writes:
"In Romans Paul described his inner struggle: "I see in my members an other law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members" (). Paul's experience was that he followed one law with his mind, another with his body. This sin that he feels "dwells in my members" caused him to proclaim that "nothing good dwells within me, that is my flesh." He went on to say, "I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do." He concludes this interior lament by saying, "Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?" It was a plaintive cry reflecting a longstanding memory. That plea ultimately fades into an acclamation when he asserts that he has been given victory over the affliction. "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord," he says (Rom. -19, 24-25). Paul culminates this section by stating that he is now persuaded that nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (8:39), not even our "nakedness," he adds in revealing choice of words in verse 35. It is a remarkable portrait of a remarkable man. Perhaps what is even more unusual is that the words of Paul are still quoted to condemn the homosexuality that Paul surely knew was his own hidden secret.
Yes, I am convinced that Paul of Tarsus was a gay man, deeply repressed, self-loathing, rigid in denial, bound by the law that he hoped could keep this thing, that he judged to be so unacceptable, totally under control, a control so profound that even Paul did not have to face this face about himself. But repression kills. It kills the repressed one and sometimes the defensive anger found in the repressed one also kills those who challenge, threaten or live out the thing that this repressed person so deeply fears.
Much of the persecution of gay and lesbian people both within the church and in the broader society has been carried out by the self-rejecting, deeply closeted homosexual people. Frequently homophobic but homosexual clergy and bishops, together with their most loyal lay followers, have wrapped their externalized rage, their rejecting and sometimes killing fury, inside the security of some authoritative system. They quote a hierarchy that claims infallibility or a sacred source from scripture that people said is inerrant. That is how fanaticism works. That is certainly what is revealed in the Pauline tirade recorded in Romans 1- a frightened gay man condemning other gay people so that he can keep his own homosexuality inside the rigid discipline of his faith.
Paul sought throughout his pre-conversion life to worship properly, and thereby to banish his own unacceptable desires. His words have been used to do great harm to great numbers of people. The "Word of God" he uttered has become a weapon of oppression. This was and is a sinister, inaccurate and incompetent way to use the writings of Paul, but that has been the fate of this first chapter of Romans. I now seek to expose it for what it has always been with the hope that, weakened and revealed, it will no longer claim new victims in every age. It will be a "terrible text" or a sin of scripture no longer.
The Bishop then proceeds to talk about other verses in the New Testament, which Christians use to condemn homosexuality.
"There are other places in the Pauline and pseudo-Pauline corpus that have also been used to hurt homosexual people. In 1 Corinthians and 6:9 Paul uses the word malekos, which means "soft" or "lacking in self control," and the word arsenokoitis which means a "male lying" and is frequently used to refer to male prostitutes. The normal translation of these words has been "sexual perverts," by which most people mean homosexuals. There is much debate in New Testamentcircles as to whether this translation is accurate. If Paul is referring to male prostitutes or even to abusive homosexual relationships, then a word of condemnation might well be in order. For that condemnation to be extended to include faithful, loving, nonexploitive gay and lesbian partnerships would be to stretch the text to the breaking point in service to one's own prejudice.
There are three other frequently quoted New Testament texts used to buttress the "clear teachings of the Bible" against homosexuality. One of these, 1 Timothy , is sometimes attributed to Paul, but almost every New Testament scholar in the world acknowledges that Paul was not the author of 1 Timothy. In that epistle once again the word arsenokoitis is used. It is rendered "sodomites" in the Revised Stand Version of the Bible and "them that defile themselves with mankind" in the King James Version. Let me say that I regard any sex that is predatory to be forced to be evil, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. But to have that kind of behavior used to define all homosexual relationships makes as much sense to me using the word "rape" to define all heterosexual relationships.
Finally, there are two texts, one in the epistle of Jude (1:7) and the other in 2 Peter (2:6) that are frequently used by the Bible quoters seeking to justify biblical negativity toward homosexuality. These two references are related to each other. The verse in 2 peter appears to be depended on Jude. Both are related to the Sodom and Gomorrah story and both are designed to show how God will destroy those who do not believe (Jude) or those who teach heresy (2 Peter). As sources to be quoted to condemn homosexuality, they are simply not worthy of further comment.
That is al there is in the "clear teachings of the Bible" in regard to the condemning of homosexuality. No lawyer could win a court case with such flimsy evidence, but people have been exposed, tortured and killed in obedience to the understanding supposedly gleaned from the sacred scriptures that God hates homosexuality and, by implication, homosexuals (unless they repent of their evil being). This, in turn, has justified the religious hatred of homosexuality and created the cataclysmic battle that tears churches apart as the new consciousness of today collides with the old and dying definitions of the past. There is no doubt about how this debate will come out: the new consciousness will not be defeated"
(Source: The Sins of Scripture by John Shelby Spong. pg. 139-141, HarperSanFrancisco 2005)
We do not totally agree with the Bishop's quote, jus like how Shamoun doesn't even agree with the things he wrote, the main point of this article however, was to refute the Christians who actually believe this nonsense about homosexuality in Islam.