Refut­ing Mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tions : Homo­sex­u­al­i­ty in the Con­text of Islam­ic Teachings

In the usu­al vein of mis­sion­ary tra­di­tion¹, the mis­sion­ar­ies have made a rather pathet­ic attempt at ​“refut­ing” one of our arti­cles which shows the Bible per­ver­sion in encour­ag­ing homo­sex­u­al­i­ty. Pre­vi­ous­ly, we have shown in anoth­er expo­si­tion how the so-called ​“apos­tle” from Tar­sus had dis­played some homo­sex­u­al ten­den­cies. In the lat­er part of this arti­cle, we will pro­vide some exam­ples of how the Chris­tians have prac­ticed this par­tic­u­lar teach­ing from the Bible in their day-to-day lives.

But we will come to that lat­er. Our pur­pose here now is to refute the mis­sion­ary’s ​“read­ing into the text” and his vicious and bel­liger­ent attempt to ​“turn the tables” on Islam by claim­ing that the Qur’an and the Sun­nah encour­ages homo­sex­u­al behav­iour. In the words of the missionary :

“…we will be using Iqbal’s own argu­ments against his god and his prophet, just as we did it the last time, when they attacked the Apos­tle Paul.“Cf. refer to our expo­si­tion on the false­hood of Paul.

The mis­sion­ary con­tin­ues this humourous expo­si­tion by stat­ing the following :

“In his haste to slan­der God’s true prophets Iqbal appar­ent­ly for­got that Ara­bic is a cog­nate lan­guage of Hebrew and has sim­i­lar words such as rah­man and rahim. Both of these terms come from the same root from which we get the Ara­bic word for womb, rahm.”

When speak­ing of cog­nates, the mis­sion­ary is duly remind­ed that he seems to have for­got­ten his very rule when he brash­ly claimed in anoth­er arti­cle of his that ahad(un) means ​“one of…” and not sim­ply ​“one”, as it is under­stood by its dic­tio­nary def­i­n­i­tion. Indeed, when speak­ing about cog­nates, the Hebrew echad cor­re­sponds close­ly with ahad. This issue will be dealt with in anoth­er paper which will be forth­com­ing soon, insha’al­lah. The point here is that we find it amus­ing that the mis­sion­ary is talk­ing about cog­nates when it comes to the very dis­turb­ing fact about the Hebrew raHamim and the homo­sex­u­al ten­den­cies of Daniel accord­ing to the Bib­li­cal account.

In any case, the mis­sion­ary him­self is com­mit­ting an ​“ety­mo­log­i­cal fal­la­cy”, as he so loves to claim. The Hebrew cog­nate for the Ara­bic rah­man is rachuwm, as was shown in anoth­er paper. Hence the mis­sion­ary claim that the word “…come from the same root from which we get the Ara­bic word for womb, rahm” only exists in the mis­sion­ary’s mind in his usu­al rewrit­ing of Semit­ic ety­mol­o­gy, as it is tra­di­tion in the his­to­ry of their lying polemics.

Yet the mis­sion­ary con­cludes by stating :

“Apply­ing Iqbal’s log­ic we must con­clude that Allah and his mes­sen­ger showed their mer­cy by hav­ing sex­u­al rela­tions with both male and female believ­ers. Allah used Muham­mad to show men his love by hav­ing his mes­sen­ger engage in homo­sex­u­al acts with them.”

As amus­ing as the imag­i­na­tion of the mis­sion­ary is, we must kind­ly remind him that the penal­ty for homo­sex­u­al­i­ty is very harsh in Islam, and before we allow his imag­i­na­tion to run away with him, let us now kind­ly quote for him a hadith from the Prophet (P) who says the fol­low­ing about the pun­ish­ment for homosexuals :

“Who­ev­er grat­i­fies his sex­u­al urge with anoth­er (indi­vid­ual) of his own sex, the Almighty will not so much as look at him.”

Now that we have seen the above hadith, we should kind­ly ask the mis­sion­ary from where did he get his fat­wa, and how will he rec­on­cile this with the gen­er­al Islam­ic opin­ion on homo­sex­u­al­i­ty ? We are hence strong­ly remind­ed of the fol­low­ing from Jalal Abual­rub : When the Evan­ge­list Becomes A Shaykh…

The rest of the mis­sion­ary dia­tribe bears no rel­e­vance on the dis­cus­sion and is just yet anoth­er attempt by him to obfus­cate the issue by bom­bard­ing the read­er with para­graphs of text. This is a tac­tic which is not lost unto us.Please refer to our arti­cles which deal with Sam Shamoun and his dia­tribe on our web­site.Also please see this book review on Judith Miller’s work.

Now that we have dealt with the mat­ter suc­cinct­ly, it is time to see how Chris­tians put their ​“word of God”, specif­i­cal­ly the engage­ment of homo­sex­u­al­i­ty, into practice.

Sev­er­al Exam­ples of Homo­sex­u­al Ten­den­cies By Christians

The time­line of legal­is­ing same-sex mar­riages in west­ern nations is evi­dence which clear­ly dis­plays the homo­sex­u­al behav­iour and ten­den­cies inher­ent in Chris­tians. Indeed, from the reports that has been gath­ered above, same-sex mar­riages are only allowed in pre­dom­i­nant Chris­t­ian nations. Not one of the nations allow­ing same-sex mar­riages (i.e. homo­sex­u­al­i­ty) has a pre­dom­i­nant Mus­lim com­mu­ni­ty. We chal­lenge the mis­sion­ary to answer this ques­tion : if what the mis­sion­ary has been preach­ing all this while is true and that the Prophet Muhammad(P) indeed allows for homo­sex­u­al behav­iour, then why have not a sin­gle pre­dom­i­nant­ly-Mus­lim nation have passed the law for legal­is­ing homo­sex­u­al mar­riages in their respec­tive coun­tries ? If it is Qur’an­ic to allow for same-sex mar­riages, then why are Mus­lims not prac­tic­ing this so-called ​“Qur’an­ic” injunc­tion, as per the claim of the missionary ?

Fur­ther, we also chal­lenge the mis­sion­ary to inform us why same-sex mar­riages are being allowed in his coun­try, i.e. the Unit­ed States, as well as oth­er west­ern nations which has a siz­able Chris­t­ian com­mu­ni­ty ? For us, it is thus very con­clu­sive that the legal­i­sa­tion of homo­sex­u­al mar­riages has an exam­ple, and this exam­ple can only be obtained from the Bible, i.e. (as per the Bib­li­cal account of) Daniel and their Satan­ic apos­tle from Tarsus.

And only God knows best !

1. See our arti­cle on Lying in Chris­tian­i­ty. It is the nature of their reli­gion to strong­ly encour­age lying and decep­tion in their beliefs ![↩]