Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ people and Islam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 43.245.121.38 (talk) at 16:05, 26 July 2020 (→Consensus about two images). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWiki Loves Pride
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2016.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KumaleFufa (article contribs). Peer reviewers: ColorMyPencils. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shahzia Perveen (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mxrlena, Ryanccraw. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laurapollack, NoahScafati, Simonkuflik (article contribs).

Table with views of muslims on homosexuality

This table is very confusing! Is it listing the percentages as percentages of muslims or percentages of citizens? If it is of citizens, then the percentages are basically irrelevant.-2605:A000:DFC0:6:584D:2F29:2471:36AF (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map and article in reference to Iran are wrong

Homosexuality is legal in Iran, one can admit to be homosexual and nothing will happen. Special homosexual acts (i.e. penetrating the buttocks) are de jure (not really de facto, i.e. because of witness situation) illegal, and not per se death penalty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:DBC6:9400:84F4:8BF8:923:51DA (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressed query about what was meant by "homosexuality"

Today in most of the Islamic world homosexualitySodomy? is not socially or legally accepted.

Since this seemed unclear, I inserted the query in the sentence above. This was removed by user:flyer22. deisenbe (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence I added removed

At the end of the same paragraph as the preceding note, I added the following: 

However, in no case do these prohibitions antedate colonialism and other extensive contact with Europeans, which began in the nineteenth century.[citation needed]

This was deleted ad "unsourced" by user:flyer22. deisenbe (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Deisenbe here and here; reasons why are noted in those edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another reversion by user:flyer22

This was reverted three minutes after I put it in:

However, in no case do these prohibitions antedate colonialism and other extensive contact with western Europeans, which began in the nineteenth century.

Template:Cita deisenbe (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Deisenbe here and here; reasons why are noted in those edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nom in order to reach some consensus before renominating. (non-admin closure) PanchoS (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– These topics's titles are in need of a somewhat consistent terminology, especially after there has been a number of page moves without debate.
Now, we use "x and y" in titles only if a more precise relation cannot be established. However, in all of these cases, sexual orientation is discussed within the discourses of the respective faith, not the other way around. In some cases this may be an omission, as the LGBT discourse occasionally covers religion. However it doesn't hold doctrines or a set of views on religion, apart from where a religion interfers with the rights of LGBT people. Therefore we can clearly speak of a discourse within the particular religion, without subordinating the general LGBT discourse under the respective religious discourses. And while the acronym "LGBT" is widely used within LGBT discourses, it is not sufficiently common within general religious discourses. Therefore "Sexual orientation in x" clearly seems to be the best definition of these topics. PanchoS (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Oppose mass move, because gender identity ≠ sexual orientation."

^That seems like a perfectly reasonable point of view, but if so, then why does it make sense to keep lumping the transgendered in with homosexuals? It seems the obvious alternative is to proceed with the mass moving of those same articles, but to strip them of their transgender content, and to move that content into separate articles ie., Islam and Transgenderism, Zoroastrianism and Transgenderism, etc.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text amendment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The is a WP:SNOW consensus, and the change has already been done. Just going to box this up. AlbinoFerret 05:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose amending the first sentence of the third paragraph from:

"Today, in most of the Islamic world, homosexuality is not socially or legally accepted."

To:

"Prejudice remains, both socially (edit: or) and legally, in most of the Islamic world against people who engage in homosexual acts."


Beyond a problem of a clear generalization being presented in regard to LGBT people not being "socially accepted", the issue here, that has already received a lengthy introduction in the previous two paragraphs, is one of prejudice. As the next sentence clearly demonstrates, the issue may frequently be a matter of life and death.

"... In Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty."

In other Wikipedia articles such as those on the treatment of Jews, gypsies and black people in WWII Germany, and article would not merely say that these people were "not ... accepted" not least because that would not be true. Wikipedia even present: Category:Rescue of Jews in the Holocaust. People in such circumstances were taken into homes, hidden, protected and certainly accepted. In a similar way it seems to me that Wikipedia goes too far with its unsubstantiated claim that "homosexuality is not socially ... accepted" "in most of the Islamic world". As with all similar issues, it depends on the extent of their prejudice of the people concerned.

I will leave a link to this thread at WP:LGBT and WP:Islam and Ping recent contributors to the article: Alexis Ivanov, AstroLynx, BethNaught, Bgwhite, BorgQueen, Chrisdike95, Contaldo80, Deisenbe, DMacks, Dialectric, Erodes43, Flyer22 Reborn, GermanJoe, GorgeCustersSabre, I dream of horses, Ibrahim Husain Meraj, Instantpancakes350, JCO312, Jeff5102, Lutipri, Maplestrip, Nematsadat, Nøkkenbuer, Philip Trueman, Rupert loup, Serols, Tadeusz Nowak, Talebhaq, Tymon.r, Winner 42

GregKaye 10:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter at hand, but would like to note that there's a difference between simply "homosexuality" and "homosexual acts". Is a homosexual identity also not socially/legally accepted? How about a homosexual person who is celibate, or a bisexual person in a monogamous heterosexual relationship? It is something to keep in mind when changing this sentence as proposed. ~Mable (chat) 10:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly agree with the proposed amendment. Greg's suggested sentence is much better than the existing wording. I suspect that a few other Muslim editors won't like the word "prejudice" but it is accurate and we shouldn't be nervous. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In line with the above comment and after further thought it seems clear to me that Wikipedia should directly comment on situations that exist. It makes for poor and indirectly presented content to comment on conditions that don't exist as in "... homosexuality is not ... accepted". Different people are treated in starkly differing ways and the prejudice involved could not be any more clear. GregKaye 17:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur I agree that the proposed amendment is better worded and more accurate. JCO312 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no particular predilection for either option, not only because my total contributions to this article have consisted of minor edits and cleanup, but I have some concerns with the proposal. First, one of the reasons for the change appears to be that the current text generalizes the global Muslim community's willingness to accept homosexuality. In the article itself, at LGBT in Islam § Public opinion among Muslims, there is substantial statistical evidence supporting the conclusion that in general, homosexuality is not accepted among Muslims internationally. This does not mean that acceptance of homosexuality and LGBT people does not exist within the global Muslim community—it does and the article discusses LGBT movements within Islam—but it does mean that it is statistically true to claim that "in most of the Islamic world, homosexuality is not socially [...] accepted". Perhaps adding a qualifier of "generally" may be appropriate, but it otherwise appears to be an accurate statement and I wouldn't personally categorize it as a generalization—at least, no more generalizing than your proposal.
    Secondly, "homosexuality" and "homosexual acts" are logically distinct from each other, particularly in matters of theology. If we do change the current text by adopting your proposed sentence, Greg, I think we ought to make sure that we use the correct term. Though I doubt there is much distinction between the two in most of the statistical data available on this topic, let alone cited in this article, I would recommend using whichever term is strictly supported by the evidence. Do Muslims generally consider homosexuality itself unacceptable, or just homosexual acts? Many may find both unacceptable, but it would be inaccurate to conflate the two, especially given just how important the distinction can be in theology. If "homosexual acts" are the topic of most data gauging acceptability ratings among Muslims, then we should use that term. If it's "homosexuality", then it should be that. If both occur, either distinctly or interchangeably, perhaps we should include both terms.
    My third concern is a minor one: if both social and legal prejudice against homosexuality (or homosexual acts) exists, then it would be best to use "and" rather than "or" in connecting the two. Unless "social" and "legal" are meant to be mutually exclusive conditions, in which case it should be "either" rather than "both", the conjunction should be "and". I bring this up because the conjunction used in the current text is an inclusive or, whereas the conjunction in your proposal appears to be an exclusive or.
    Regarding whether this trend in the Muslim community constitutes prejudice, I think it's more than just that, but I don't know whether it's Wikipedia's place to categorize it as such and I have no strong opinion either way. I'm fine with either text, since both accurately describe the current relationship between the acceptability of homosexuality (or homosexual acts) and the global Muslim community. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nøkkenbuer From what I have seen the passages of the quran that I have seen focus on homosexual acts. The article quotes a narration of Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:72:774 to state that: "The Prophet cursed effeminate men; those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, "Turn them out of your houses." The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman."
There is clearly a potential for this to be interpreted in a number of ways. It may be a matter of "theology" to decide whether the passage's condemnation is against those who are unintentionally "in the similitude" of the opposite (sex perhaps due to their innate sexuality) or who actively choose, if that is the right word, to "assume the manners of women"
It is the acts that are typically condemned.
I would be interested to know more in regard to the potential justifications used in regard to the widely reported use of Bacha bazi and wonder whether there may be a link between this and the situation that contributed to the page boy image at the beginning of the article. It seems to me that the situation surrounding activities that are excused and activities that are condemned may be complex in some cultures.
When the Pew Research Center did their international survey they choose to sample views on "homosexuality" which may not have been the most relevant reference to have solely used in gathering information from people who ascribe to a quran referenced doctrines. It is people who perform homosexual (as opposed to heterosexual) acts that are scripturally prejudiced against. A potential threat certainly hangs over many people with homosexual inclinations who might otherwise want to engage on or just explore forms of homosexual activities but it may be interpreted that the prejudice against non practitioners may be indirect. GregKaye 04:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, Greg. When I brought up the issue of whether to use "homosexuality" or "homosexual acts" in the sentence, my concern was about whether it accurately reflected the polling data, not whether it accurately reflected Quranic texts regarding homosexuality and homosexual acts. Unless I'm mistaken, the sentence in question is meant to summarize the general degree of acceptance that the global Muslim community currently has toward LGBT people, particularly homosexuals, so I think it would be better for us to check the polls and see what term they use than look to the Quran. It may be true that the Quran specifies homosexual acts but not homosexuality (I have no idea), but I doubt that changes the polling data. Unless the polls on public and international opinions specify "homosexual acts" rather than just "homosexuality", I would personally be hesitant to change it from the latter.
Quranic verses are definitely relevant to this article, though they may be better suited for LGBT in Islam § Scripture and Islamic jurisdprudence. In my opinion, Quranic verses have no bearing on whether to change the sentence in question to your proposed text because the sentence is about general acceptance toward homosexuality within the Muslim world, not about whether homosexuality is acceptable in accordance to Quranic scripture. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the lead section is supposed to be somewhat of a summary of the article, and that the content of the Quran is described by a different sentence in the lead section. ~Mable (chat) 16:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nøkkenbuer The sentence content as it has been set up addresses the social and legal position of homosexuality in Islam with the second of these having an even closer association with the content of quranic text than the first. The legal position, in cases where the law is defined as Islamic, is Sharia. As mentioned, if the polls failed to present both issues (responses to homosexuality and responses to people who performed homosexual acts), I think that the polls are flawed as the poll question might be interpreted in either way.
A representation of the existent prejudiced situation legally within many Islamic majority contexts should also be directly presented - and the fact that the foundations of the laws, within these contexts, have a basis of sharia interpretations of the quran is also of pertinent relevance. GregKaye 22:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair point, Greg. I'd personally use whichever term is found in the polling data simply because that's the only concrete evidence I would consider relevant in the determination, but I don't see much problem with changing "homosexuality" to "homosexual acts". I'm fine with both your proposal and the current text, so I'll let you and the others decide. If there is no substantive opposition to your proposal, feel free to consider my opinion as an Agree. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Summoned by bot I agree that Greg's proposed wording is an improvement on the current version, given the source material I've seen in the article and elsewhere. However, I think we could improve on it further. I think we should move to something like "In countries such as XYZ, which are governed by Sharia law, as well as countries such as ABC which have a Muslim majority, legal restrictions on homosexuality still exist. Social prejudice against homosexuality also exists in most of the Islamic world." This is wordier, but it separates legal restrictions (which we can clearly say exists in some places and not others) from social prejudice (where some generalization is unavoidable). Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This division of the legal and social aspects seems to me to be a definite improvement. I would remove the word "still" from "legal restrictions...still exist," as this implies an inappropriate judgement about the (implicitly inevitable) direction of these cultures' progress. I wonder if "social condemnation" might also be clearer than "social prejudice."
    Also: later in the article I find the sentence "The Muslim community as a whole, worldwide, has become polarized on the subject of homosexuality." This is immediately followed by statistics that show an extremely small proportion of Muslims accept homosexuality. To describe this as a polarized situation seems to stretch a point, unless I'm missing something here. HGilbert (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, HGilbert, polarization in public opinion occurs when more moderate or less extreme positions disappear and the constituents of those formerly moderate positions begin to join the more extreme positions, i.e. polarizing. While general acceptability of homosexuality among Muslims may be a minority position, general opinion among Muslims could nevertheless still be described as polarized if there is a trend of a shrinking center, especially in conjunction with increasing contrast between the two outer positions. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t believe it would be appropriate to apply the words “not accepted” to blacks, jews etc. The wording “not accepted” here is in my opinion used to signify that the homosexual lifestyle is forbidden. it would not be plausible to tell a jew to be armenian or to tell a black person to be white. On the other hand the state does tell homosexuals to be straight. Misdemenor (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Punishment

Iraq is included as one of the countries who have Capital punishment, yet according to his article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#Asia. - homossexuality is no longer considered illegal there since 2003. Is it included due to the fact that ISIS controls part of its territory? If so, why Syria is not in that same group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.199.195.253 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith vs sayings

Sharif Uddin As you can see from the quotes I just added, the text reflects the cited RSs. If there are other RSs which state that these quotes don't come from hadith, we need to reflect both these contrasting viewpoints, per WP:NPOV. However, I don't see where the article you linked to refers to that particular saying. If I'm missing something, please quote the relevant passage. Also, I don't see where Rowson identifies henna and perfumed hair with the mukhannathun of early Medina, and if he doesn't, this is also WP:OR. Eperoton (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rare hadith, but the second sentence seems to be mistranslated, at least compared to the only variant I'm aware of. The hadith in question can be found in the Arabian Nights with some discussion, and with a partial isnad in Kash al-khafāʾ (hadith no. 2997): "لا تنظروا إلى المردان فإن فيهم لمحة من الحور". Note that the second sentence can be translated as "they have some resemblance [fīhum lamḥa] to the houris", and not "they have eyes more tempting than the houris". Wiqi(55) 03:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wiqi55. Nice detective work! I agree that yours is a more likely translation (this idiom can be found in Wehr-Cowan: فيه لمحة من ابيه = he looks like his father), but we can't just declare a RS to be wrong based on our own reading of a primary source. That would violate WP:PRIMARY. We can, I think, list the original with an alternative translation alongside it without violating the policy. Note that most academic scholars are skeptical about the study of isnads, so this hadith could come from anywhere. In fact, the work cited by Semerdian (which I don't access to) is about the Abbasid era, so there's probably no claim about authenticity qua sunnah being made there: Wright, J. W. “Masculine Allusion and the Structure of Satire in Early ‘Abbasid Poetry.” In J. W. Wright and Everett K. Rowson, ed., Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997, p. 7. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharif Uddin: It looks like you are misinterpreting what is meant by verification in WP:V. It's about verifying that we're reflecting what's stated in a RS (in this case Semerdian's publications). It is not about verifying whether a RS is correct in the assertions it makes about primary sources. If a RS doesn't identify a hadith it discusses, it is fine to request that additional information using a which[which?] tag, but the tags you added there were inappropriate. Eperoton (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sodomy

Sodomy is the correct term for anal sex. What is the problem? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Contaldo80: The problem is as I wrote in the edit summary. The term "sodomy" is often used in this narrow sense, but that's not the definition given in our own sodomy article that you linked to, or returned by a Google search, or found in Merriam-Webster. It's fine to use "sodomy" in running text, but the first time it's discussed in the article, we need to clarify in what sense it's being used here. Eperoton (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? You are confident that the men of Lot were purely wanting to have anal sex with the angels as opposed to fellatio? Come on, sodomy is fine. The point of the story of Lot is one of sexual violation and abuse of guests - it's not to say that it would have been ok if the angels had given oral sex but drawn the line at anal! Contaldo80 (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't discussing what the men of Lot wanted to do, but rather how that passage has been interpreted in the Islamic tradition. The RSs cited here state that the condemnation was interpreted in classical commentaries as applying specifically to anal intercourse between men, and not to other activities encompassed by the broader definition of sodomy such as oral sex. See for example, the cited Iranica entry, which uses mainly "sodomy" in the running text, but takes care to make clear what is meant by the term when it first discusses the passage: "Later exegetes and jurists unanimously understood this as referring specifically to anal intercourse between males". Eperoton (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems somewhat tenuous. We are led to believe that jurists (writing in the centuries following Mohammad) all understood that the men of the city of Lot (which didn't in reality exist anyway) would have wanted to have only anal sex with the angels (which do not in reality exist in any case) if they'd had the chance. Which of course they didn't get? I think you're trying to be very specific in terms of desired sex acts considering we're drawing upon a myth. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to reflect what's in RSs, in particular the Iranica article I quoted above (by the same author as the EoQ citation), which you can read in full. It seems that you aren't arguing that it isn't reliable, or that I'm not reflecting it correctly, so I don't know how to read this as a policy-based objection. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, apologies. Thinking about this it isn't really your fault. I'm really thinking the religious debate is kind of daft and thus makes it difficult to properly describe in this article. Exegetes and jurists etc who have been influential in this area assume the angels have a gender (male) and then use the story to condemn (attempted or actual) anal sex between men - prompting the question as to whether it would have been perfectly fine if the angels had been women and been anally raped by the men of Lot or if the men had raped the angels but without anal sex. But I digress and agree we just need to reflect the sources at hand. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosova and Albania are not muslim states, they are secular

It is incorrect as describing Albania and Kosovo as muslim states with anti-discriminatory laws. They are secular states, and religion does not play any kind of role in regulating the laws of the state. Please do not use the names of this state to further some muslim agenda, which try to incorrectly describe islam as tolerating. It is not, and wherever there is the Islam law, there are no LGBT allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.99.155.234 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that they have a majority muslim population. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

@Russianvodka: Please discuss your wish to remove content, and gather a consensus, before actually editing out content. You must prove why something should be removed, and your peers have to accept that resolution, before you actually remove content that is not obvious vandalism. Also being the tender and controversial subject that LGBT rights are, you cannot just remove information before it's been discussed. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 01:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Visions of Islam

I am at a loss to understand why this page has a large section devoted to a master of arts thesis by an otherwise not notable Rusmir Musić, when no third-party sources establish the notability of the thesis and when the only citations are to the thesis itself. There are tens of thousands of MA theses written in universities each year, but few end up being considered notable. Without third-party sources, one cannot consider this one notable. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional punishment

It's not right to say the "punishment for homosexual acts" is death. This is the punishment for male anal intercourse, witnessed by four people, listed in the hadith. Because no one is going to witness literal penetration, many scholars (including the Ottoman scholars) do not take this literally. 128.135.96.214 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Male homosexuality v lesbianism

This difference needs to be enumerated. There is no punishment for lesbianism under Islamic law. Conversely, the "orthodox" punishment for m-m anal intercourse is death. (Though it has almost never been implemented since it is impossible to satisfy the four-witnesses requirement.) 128.135.96.214 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a lot of issues with this article, which I am not in a position to address at the moment, but would like to raise another one: the section on "Modern laws in the Islamic world" has a great deal of overlap with various other articles on LGBT rights by country or territory, Religious views on same-sex marriage and indivdual entries on individual countries. IMO, individual countries need not be named here, and if the information held in this article is pertinent and relevant to that country and is not currently included under its individual entry it could be added there. I would like to see this section pared back to a minimum to avoid needless repetition and risk of out-of-date information remaining here when it has been updated in the main articles on the topic. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of source

In the third paragraph, it states "There are also several Muslim organizations that support LGBT rights and LGBT Muslims." kindly mention the aforementioned Muslim organization for transparency and neutrality. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicop33 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicop33, as per WP:LEAD, there is generally no need to provide citations in the lead. The article includes sections on organisations and activists. You have, however, highlighted the fact that the whole lead could probably do with updating as per good practice, and some of the content and citations probably belong in the body of the article. (Please remember to sign you comments with 4 tildes, btw.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Hidayah

I want to add Hidayah to the list of active groups as I recently attended a conference which was organised by them and felt that their presence was lacking on this website. I am currently working on research around LGBT+ Muslim activist groups and they are very active in the UK along with the other groups listed on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamieMansoor (talk • contribs) 10:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SamieMansoor: thanks for taking this discussion to the talk page. Kleuske had a concern that the addition was "poorly sourced and promotional". WP content should be verifiable in independent reliable sources. The question here is whether the lgbtconsortium.org.uk directory has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" or simply hosts promotional content. Ideally, we'd like to have a citation to a source like a news organization. Eperoton (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eperoton: I took this feedback on board and added this Metro article which describes one of the workshops Hidayah organised

https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/25/im-muslim-and-lgbt-and-i-teach-children-its-ok-to-be-both-8713922/

You can also see this newspaper article for further information

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/parkfield-birmingham-lgbt-classes-teaching-no-outsiders-acceptence

It just keeps getting deleted. I also tried to move the active groups above the defunct groups because that seemed to make more sense to me. However, this is no longer something I'm willing to challenge as it's not that important.

Thanks, SamieMansoor. The the first link seems to be an OpEd by someone affiliated with Hidayah, which would not meet criteria for reliability, but the second link looks like a news story that we can use. Eperoton (talk)

LGBTQ in Islam evolution of beliefs

I included some further background on where beliefs stem from in the Islamic faith. Both the Qur'an and Hadith, are used to cite discrimination toward the community. However, as times have changed and society is constantly pushing to gain more equality for everyone, people in the Islamic community continue to challenge the discrimination. The Islamic Society of North America, in 2013, established their approval of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ensuring that people are not discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Additionally, there have been the rise of Unity Mosques, which are inclusive of the LGBTQ community across the United States and in Canada. Laurapollack (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Laura Pollack[reply]

Thanks, Laurapollack. Unfortunately, there were a couple of problems with this addition. First, the lead should be a high level summary of the article. Some of the more specific background information you added is already covered in the body of the article, and general information about Islam is better suited for a more general article. Also, the sources you used, an OpEd and an advocacy organization website, should generally only be used as reliable sources for the opinion of the author (i.e., with attribution) and not to source statements of fact. Eperoton (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Recent Events

While reading through and editing this page, I noticed that there is a lack of recent events from news outlets. I have added some myself but believe there is still a need for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahScafati (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Punishment in Egypt

I added a relevant fact about Egypt's criminalization of homosexuality: "An Egyptian tv host was recently sentenced to a year in prison for interviewing a gay man in January 2019. [121]" This addition shows the overall negative social attitudes towards homosexuality and the extremes that the Government take it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkuflik (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Student editor's summary table

Hi Wiki-editors, I re-added the summary chart at the bottom of the page. I was working on this page as a assigned project for my class. I notice someone is keep removing it. I have a request that this is not a medical topic and I tried to added as many as countries possible on the table after doing the enough research. To me this chart was very useful for the information as you can see more than one country at one chart instead of going back and forth for the information. I put it up there to benefit my other readers as well. Requesting again, please let it be there, I appreciate your understanding in advance. Thank you!Shahzia Perveen (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahzia Perveen: Regarding your table, Verifiability is Wikipedia policy. We can't accept material just because we have faith that it is correct. This is true whether or not it is a medical topic. Is the chart even based on references in this article? I remember looking and finding that at least some of it was not discussed in this article. It might be okay if it were immediately next to a section that contained the same information in prose and that prose was fully referenced; however that is not yet what we have here. You definitely should not edit war by attempting to re-add the chart twice unchanged. Shalor (Wiki Ed), any thoughts? -Crossroads- (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pinging me! @Shahzia Perveen:, you won't be graded on what "sticks" in the article, just your effort. Definitely do not re-add the content, as this should not impact your grade and can actually lead to a block if you continue to try to re-add it once it's been contested. The best thing to do here is to try to resolve the issues brought up here - which is that the table lacked sourcing to back up the claims. Also, given that some of the content isn't in the article, it would be better to expand the article to include those claims (with sourcing).
Something else to take in mind when it comes to tables - they aren't always the best avenue to impart information, as it is so easy for these to be imprecise because it's limited in how much information that can be imparted. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about two images

Images
Ottoman Turkish manuscript from 1773
Ottoman illustration depicting a young man used for group sex (from Sawaqub al-Manaquib), 19th century

I am seeking attention about these two photos, I think the writings are enough to understand the matter, and the depiction is not further needed to add here because it does not enhance the encyclopedic quality, and if that according to WP:GRATUITOUS, images which can be offensive or vulgar to any viewer are not allowed to be added in wikipedia. Or if dont, the photos should be kept as collapsible at least. Besides the article is about Islam, mostly muslims will come to read the article and the fundamental rules of muslims is to protect their gaze, it is more important in Islam than depicting Muhammad (modestly), and the article should at least make the photos as collapsed so that wikipedia does not seem to force viewer to see the photos, by giving them option. 43.245.120.33 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We are not in the business to protect anyone's claimed morals. That's a slippery slope. You are free to avert your eyes from that which you do not wish to see, same as I might from other things I wish not to see. The specific images in question are each the only illustration for their adjacent content text. They are not purely decorative, but instead literally illustrate the specific topics. They provide authentic, contemporaneous evidence that this stuff you find icky was and is factually happening and was important enough that many people wrote and drew about it. It should be a surprise to nobody, and instead is clearly on-topic, that an article about "LGBT in Islam" would have images of an LBGT nature specifically in the context of Islam. DMacks (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But parsian, ottoman or any other culture are not the mirror of basic Islam, the basic Islam is based on quran, hadith, the life of muhammad, his companions and his four generation followers, which are called salaf, the latter muslims are not any religious reference of Islam, whoever they are, so it cen be placed in ottoman or persian empire related article, not in an article, where the main topic is Islam. At least you can collapse the photos, so that one will click the show option who wish to see by his own will, he will then not be bound to see the photos by first indroduction with this article, and wiki will not be liable of making them bound to see these photos by giving them both options, and if they see it by their own wish, then wiki will also not be liable of it. 103.67.159.137 (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both sections have text specifically about the Ottomans. DMacks (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will still request not to delete but to collapse the photos to make the article universally tolerable and more easily worthy of taking information kind to all, like which i did above or equally of better syntax than that (which more precisely fits in the page with adequate space). 43.245.121.38 (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_people_and_Islam&oldid=969632061"