Talk:Sexuality in Islam

The state of this article

This move from a year ago seems to have worsened a problem with this article (pinging @Iskandar323 and @Firefangledfeathers for this reason); it treats "Islamic legal discourse/fiqh" as equivalent to "Islam". This is a fairly frequent problem, but in a high-exposure article like this, it is unacceptable; this article is not about sexuality in Islam; LGBT people and Islam does a better job at that despite being of a different scope. This is about the classical fiqh-related opinions on sexuality. That is not coextensive with Islam (or Muslims) of any period, and in some periods legalistic opinions were actively marginalized in many contexts. This is a grave issue of systemic bias, and in my opinion is enough to draftify an article if it was not so highly-viewed, but right now another move or rewrite might be in order. Uness232 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Uness232: Perhaps. I take your point about the greater specificity of the current content. I still don't like the prior title, but how does Sexuality in Islamic jurisprudence sound? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a major problem to me that an article about "Sexuality in Religion" is about that religion's teachings about sexuality. LGBT people and Islam is a discrete topic, but maybe a hatnote would be in order, based on the multiple possible meanings of "sexuality". I agree that the article needs some expansion, and I particularly would love to see Uness232 add some content on the legalistic opinions that were marginalized, or remove some content if it's so marginal that it's undue. I don't think would be warranted; I understand that wasn't really on the table, but just saying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The alternative is that this page be renamed to reflect its current more specific scope and then "Sexuality in Islam" could be created as a parent for this, LGBT and Islam and other content. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: The problem is that Islam (much like Christianity and Judaism) does not have one coherent body of interpretation on many things; sexuality included. While classical faqihs would probably agree with most of the interpretation of this article, in many periods these rulings were simply not carried out or respected by the general public. Ubayd Zakani's gay-lovers-on-a-mosque, sexually-explicit songs being performed in front of government apparatus (see for. ex. Saçbağı Takar Başına, or Gelibolu'da Bir Gelin), or the wealth of supposedly "illicit" material on bahnâmes, could not be widely produced in even the most secular countries of today's Muslim world without censorship or crackdowns; though they were done so half a millennium ago. The most correct title for this page then, would be 'Sexuality in classical Islamic jurisprudence', but that seems unwieldy, and @Iskandar323's suggestion seems to be the best alternative.

An even better thing to do would be to just start over on this article, but that simply doesn't seem realistic. Uness232 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there is such a problem with the article, among many others. I just think it can be improved as is. The content you propose to add about e.g. sexually-explicit songs would not fit in an article that is just about jurisprudence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I am aware, and an article on traditional Islamic jurisprudence should not include historical non-legalistic realities. I am contrasting two things; if this is a Sexuality in Islam article, then it should include those, if it isn't and is about jurisprudence, it shouldn't, but it should be titled accordingly. Uness232 (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The article already includes some non-jurisprudential content, and more can be added. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

But it is mainly jurisprudential content isn't it? Absorbing Uness232's critique, I see two paths forward: either we juice the jurisprudential content out into a Sexuality in Islamic jurisprudence child article, OR, we rename this page and construct a new "Sexuality in Islam" parent above this and other pages such as LGBT people and Islam, removing non-jurisprudential content to the parent, and summarizing the jurisprudential content there. If, for the sake of argument, we suggest that jurisprudential content is the majority of the content here, the latter is more pragmatic; if not, then perhaps the contrary is more pragmatic. But I think the process of teasing the two apart would be productive. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against the existence of a parent-child article structure like the one you propose. That said, much of the proposed content to be added would still need to be added to an article focused solely on jurisprudence. It still needs to talk about which laws or legal opinions were marginalized, and how Islamic cultures have accepted/ignored/re-interpreted the laws. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Totally disagree with your opinion, you can't misrepresent or remove a fact by reasoning like this without getting proper Islamic education. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The previous name islamic sexual jurisprudence is better, it can cover all jurisprudences, ancient and modern, and another article called sexuality in Islamic/Muslim world can be created. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sexuality in Islam

@VenusFeuerFalle: Your recent edits on transgender and intersex issues of the articles only reflects the liberal view of the topic, not conservative views, thus it is not balanced and partial, you have removed many conservative references and added liberals, you didn't do the balance between the two views, you are betraying with the neutrality. Also seeking attention of User:TheAafi. Also check changes after this version. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no "Liberal vs conservative"-view beyond post-modern culture. I merely showed that sources actually say. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You just showed the sources that legalised transsexual issues, not the resources that restricted and forbide it, thus this is clear partiality and deviation of neutral point of view. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

202.134.14.156, I'm sorry to drive-by reply on someone else's talk page here, but—seeking their attention for what? Mind your business. Remsense留 17:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You are playing a game of partiality on a topic using wikipedia and no one can attention to the matter? how weird is that? Can you change the XY sex-determination system of human which is present in every cell of a human, yet it is not discovered. Thus transgender surgeries does't help to produce the opposite reproductive cell or gamete because every cell's xy/xx gene system of the body denies to do it given by God. Ancient texts of the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never allowed such kind of acts, let alone the operations, he used to send the exile from the society. You are just deforming their reproductive system, which is never allowed in the texts of Quran and Muhammad (pbuh). 202.134.14.156 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure if I have ever significantly edited on this article. I find myself a nobody to offer an opinion on this because this is not the field of which I have any significant knowledge. I am sorry. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

However, it would be better to use the article's talk page and state what issues you have with it, and what reliable and verifiable sources support "the balance" that you are talking about. (Note: I have not been through this article) ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

if you are avoiding the issue willingly to keep yourself safe in wikipedia, then you will be accountable to Allah for it in akhirat, Aafi. You have read in deoband and I know you have obviously read the courses of fiqhun nikah very well, and obviously in original arabic text. And you know, Allah don't forgive someone for any obligatory deed, for which he has ability to do it.202.134.14.156 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not studied at Deoband and I am not someone well-versed on this topic either, to speak about. I have been contributing to my subject of interest since 2019 (biographies, institutions, books etc) and I explicitly speak where I have knowledge. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor and shift such private discussions to another place than my talkpage, just in case you really want to engage with an overly zealous anyonymous fanatic who proposes threats by emotional and religious oppression(I would't even agree to discuss someone like that). However, I would love to not have my notifications filled with each reply of that the emotional rant of such people. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No one is zealous, it is a matter of fear that your non-neutral partial information can lead innocent muslims to astray. You are explaining one religion wrongly and pertially, you yourself are opressing ("muslim") people with trick and falsehood and gaming of information in the name of a "Muslim" yourself and then you are calling me a fanatic threating by emotional and religious oppression? The worst ever hypocricy.202.134.14.156 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Then who is that person in this link? Jamia Millia Islamia daora-e hadith obviously offers fiqhun nikah under the deobandi qaomi curriculum.(202.134.14.156 (talk)

@A. B., Liz, Iskandar323, Firefangledfeathers, Uness232, and No such user: 202.134.14.156 (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that no allusion to others' ostensible religious punishment (neither Here nor There, so to speak), would be accepted as civil language here on Wikipedia.

As for me, I do not have time right now to edit this article, and neither would my edits satisfy your expectations; differently than both you, and as far as I understand also VenusFeuerFalle to some extent, I write of Islam as a varied socio-cultural category of more than a millennia of variance. That is how I see the academic consensus taking shape right now, and that is what I try to reflect. See my discussion above, for example.

I am willing to engage with you on these edits, though not in this manner. Perhaps they could be improved, but your edits are uncompromising and often not very self-explanatory, which is further worsened by the fact that you don't explain them to anyone. (Please ignore this bit; I confused you with a different editor.)Uness232 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

seeking attention about the recent changes and difference between present version and this version and check them with concentration that, a lot of important citatations have been removed where the article was just near to perfectly completed and resourced then. The sources can be backed by googling in google books in english and arabic. There are lots of sources of references in arabic in google books and noor-books.com and other websites. Those who are proficient in arabic source finding in google and others, can help here. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know I was pinged to this talk page. I have no opinion regarding Islam and Sexuality. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

venus is just doing that thing. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

202.134.14.156, you have to sort that out with other, more knowledgeable, more interested editors.

Analysis shows that the Sexuality in Islam article has had 2514 edits made by 806 editors over the last 18+ years. This talk page has 216 edits by 83 editors. I did not make any of these edits. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

On my talkpage you posted "The SECRET Plan to Spread LGBT Acceptance to the Muslim World (youtube.com)". SO I assume you see yourself as some sort of "resistance group". So, maybe you are the one falling for propaganda? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

discuss

User:Uness232 say what you want. You are tricking with the system. Why? Do somebody or someone pay you for that? Are you the sock of Venus? Your both's edit style and subjects of intersts are suspiciously same. I suspect there should be a sock investigation. What's your agenda behind playing with this references? 202.134.11.250 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not 'tricking' any system. Let's go over your edits:

1) You consistently add information from WP:NOTRS sources; like Love and Sex in Islam, which is not a scholarly and/or jurisprudential work.

2) You operate under a guise of "adding more viewpoints", but your edits are not historically sound and do not contextualize (how can 'transness' be zina without any qualification if most of Islamic history predates the concept?); rather they worsen the blanket statements made in this article; which leads me to-

3) This article already has a scope problem, which you are not helping with. See #The state of this article.

4) WP:QUO, WP:BRD. If you get reverted, please open a talk page discussion. Do not re-revert. Uness232 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the User already failed four guidlines by the introduction, I would recommend not to engage any further. They were free to bring possible issues to the talkpage, possible bias is acknowledged in the lead-section as a template. We all agree that improvement is encouraged, but it must be in a cilized way. The anonymous user failed that already (WP:SOCKHELP): "Tagging someone as a sockpuppet or suspected sockpuppet should only be done by an SPI clerk after an investigation. Calling someone a "sockpuppet" or "sockmaster" on a talk page is considered uncivil (Wikipedia:Civility)," From an academic viewpoint, the edits seem to be from a Wahhabiyya standpoint, which is also against Wikipedia's guidlines (WP:NPOV).The problem with Wahhabism is, the tradition is a relativly new religious movement (18th century), and a break with earlier and culturally different forms of Islam, while insisting to be the only true form of Islam. The ongoing debate if images of Islam are permisable or not is one manifestation of such dispute with Wahhabis. So, I don't think, we miss out much. If I am wrong, I would welcome any objection, if the objection was put forward on a civilized and objective matter. However, with the initatal accusations and hostility, I see no reason to further engage in this matter. They can do their internet-jihad (substitute for a keyboard warrior) somewhere else. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

And of course that is not even mentioning the WP:POV language. "prohibited by Islamic Law because it is altering Allah's creation needlessly and in vanity, and some scholars claimed it to be worse than homosexuality." Who decided it was "needlessly and in vanity"? You? Some Islamic scholar? The ummah? Trans people obviously do not see their transition as needless or in vanity, so whose opinion does this reflect? Uness232 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Islamic rulings, not about secular view of transsexuality, so be awake and conscious while you say. Obviously it is the traditional view of majority sunni Islamic scholars and you saw the references also. I am betterly known about what historically sounds very well, and also know about the reference you are using is the result of the newly 20-21century propagation of secular world affiliated so called lgbt-oriented re-invention of explanations in the name of reform to defend the traditional prohibitions. Even a 12 years child can understand about it what has been going on about this matter.. See you edit history again, it didn't pass over the eyes that what elements you removed previously and added yours while you are accusing me of "balancing" (???) And I think sources like Springer Science+Business Media, Beacon Press, New York University Press, Reuters, Darussalam Publishers (Love and sex in Islam) by Abdullah Nasih Ulwan, British Islamic Medical Association (Abdul Hamid AbuSulayman), International Institute of Islamic Thought which I added as references are not at least any of WP:NOTRS. I have much better idea about English and Arabic sourcing in scholarly fields. And I have a long history of identifying socks as well, I also know what things they do when thay get caught, and what else they tries to imitate to be. 202.134.11.250 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It is about Islam, yes, but it can not violate encylopedic tone. When you say (among other things) prohibited by Islamic Law because it is altering Allah's creation needlessly and in vanity, you are not explicitly quoting anyone, and the article (which is supposed to be neutral) now essentially reads trans people needlessly change their bodies in vanity. Who said this? The editor I suppose. That is not acceptable encyclopedic tone.

I am betterly known about what historically sounds very well, and also know about the reference you are using is the result of the newly 20-21century propagation of secular world affiliated so called lgbt-oriented re-invention of explanations in the name of reform to defend the traditional prohibitions. Even a 12 years child can understand about it what has been going on about this matter.

I have not added any content to this article, and I have brought no new references. Simply claiming something to be "reinvention" does not make it so though. And if your source quality is any indication; you don't seem to have done much historical research. You seem to be very fond of blanket claims (that Shias are more 'permissive' than Sunnis, for example).

It is not just the publishers of sources that make it reliable or not, by the way, but the author, tone and impartiality. Some sources may come from established places but may be WP:FRINGE. For example Love and Sex in Islam, which you quote, uses the word "homosexualism" repeatedly, tries to argue that sexual orientation is a personal choice, and claims that making children sleep in the same bed leads to homosexuality. These are WP:FRINGE points of view. Uness232 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I assume this [1] from Taylor & Francis online will help you at what you are arguing, the similar quotation is already given there. 202.134.11.250 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

No? I am not arguing for much, I am simply claiming that your edits are problematic. Uness232 (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Failing (WP:GF), and performing WP:SOCKHELP and WP:NOPA made you fail immediately. By the claim "Tagging someone as a sockpuppet or suspected sockpuppet should only be done by an SPI clerk after an investigation. Calling someone a "sockpuppet" or "sockmaster" on a talk page is considered uncivil, so don't do it." the anonymous User also failed Wikipedia:Civility. I don't know what the User thought to achieve, maybe intimidation, but it failed big time. Congrats to the User! They failed their chance to bring their request to discussion. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There are some others, https://www.ifta.org.uk/blog/sex-reassignment-surgery, https://ejournal.um.edu.my/index.php/JSLR/article/download/10774/7536/21425 by University of Malaya, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4947205/ what you questioned that I gave already given answer following reliable sources, So I think there is no way now in case of my edits of being "problematic" after that. And for addition, in every case, I added, "scholars say that", and gave references also, please check again, so what you accused about neutrality is mare.And remember, you are regarding sources from Arab mainstream scholars as WP:FRINGE, that's just poor.

202.134.11.250 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

These sources are okay despite their use of outdated frameworks, though 2 out of 3 generally approve of trans people's transition; I don't see how these sources support your claims. Uness232 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"This operation was mostly regarded as sinful, thus prohibited (haram) in Islam by both Sunni and Shi'a traditional scholars. But in the late 1980s, sex-reassignment surgery was legalized (made halal) in shari'a and/or in state law by the fatwas of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and Sheikh Muhammad al-Tantawi in Egypt." " The other reason for religious disputes about sex reassignment surgery is an argument raised in some verses of the Qur’ān and aḥadīth. There is a general belief among Muslims that we must be content with what Allah has intended for us and should never protest or try to change what Allah created. The basis of this belief lies in verse 119 of Surah al-Nisā’, which is the most controversial verse against sex reassignment surgery as a treatment for transsexuals. According to this verse, some scholars argued that any change in Allah’s creation is forbidden (Seyyed Sadiq Shirazi, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, and Ahmad Muhammad Kana’n). The council of the Islamic Fiqh Academy of the Muslim World League, in a major fiqh assembly regarding sex change operations in Mecca, from the 19th to the 26th of February, 1989, stated the following: “The change is not legally permissible if the person (male or female) has complete male or female sex organs. This is because this person would be seeking to change Allah’s creation, which is forbidden by Allah Almighty as in the verse in which Allah reports Satan as saying: ...and surely I will command them and they will change Allah’s creation...” (Surah al-Nisā’, 4: 119)"

"Prohibition’s reasons: The clerics have cited the following reasons to prove their viewpoints in the prohibition of Sex-Reassignment Surgery:1- Prohibition of change in divine creation 2- Opposition to the public interest 3- Lack of rational legitimate benefit and attentiveness 4- Prohibition of removing body organs 5- Prohibition of imperfection force 6- Prohibition of Eliminating Sexual Force 7- Prohibition of effeminacy 8- Prohibition of imitating male as female and vice versa Prohibition of change in divine creation: The Quran stated that Satan for its activities to divert mankind towards corruption said, “...I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah” (Al-Nisa, 119). It is clear that the Sex-Reassignment is one of the examples of the change in the God’s creation and such thing according to the above verse of Quran is forbidden (25)."

202.134.11.250 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's look at the conclusions of these articles you provided:

UoM:

If these individuals are not allowed treatment, they will be vulnerable to societal afflictions and adversity as well as sexual misconduct which is against Islamic morals. So, if sex reassignment surgery is done according to medical standards - diagnosed and performed under the supervision of trustworthy professional physicians - it would be in line with Islamic rulings and therefore a necessary treatment.

IFTA:

The opinions of absolute prohibition and absolute permission are not substantiated with concrete evidence with conditional permission providing a middle ground.

The problem with advocating absolute prohibition of any type of sex reassignment surgery is that in the lieu of scores of medical and psychological studies, this position does not seem tenable. The argument concerning the alteration of God’s creation is countered by the idea that the case of a transgender is not the case of altering God’s creation. Contrary to that it could be argued that God has created them with these specifications and characteristics and hence it is not alteration per se.

The problem with advocating absolute permission of any type of sex reassignment surgery is that it is a slippery-slope argument. This is because it would lead to a host of other challenges pertaining to personal, familial, and societal disorders. It should be noted that sex reassignment surgery is an exception to the rule and hence it could only be used when/where there is an absolute necessity. Necessity offers the opportunity to explore alternative options may they be among impermissible otherwise – Necessity only offers a window to the extent it is fulfilled. The third argument of conditional prohibition is thus the strongest.

JRI:

Because Sex-Reassignment is actually impossible, based on all prohibition’s reasons, it can be concluded that Sex-Reassignment Surgery is prohibited, because it was proved that real change is a non-accomplishment, thus, the person’s behavior compliance as “effeminacy” and “imitation of male to female” in male and “female to male” in female and the practice compliance as “Imperfection of force”. Therefore, such a person has ruined his sexual drive and physical strength that is unlawful too and because of this fact, prohibition of “change in divine creation” includes this surgery.

However, if one necessarily performs such a surgery, his gender should not be changed. As discussed, the urgency can’t create the new rule; rather the tradition “la zarar” is prioritized to harm principle. Therefore, the one who does this surgery must take into account whether he/she can bear such a deficiency and his/her tendency is towards this surgery or his/her preference is to remain in this current state and condition; because in both conditions, he/she would not be allowed to connect with the opposite gender.

Of these three, only the JRI one (the specfically Shia one, perhaps ironically considering your edits), is the one that concludes that "Sex-Reassignment Surgery" is unlawful. The two others essentially say that, with proper diagnosis, it is permissible. Uness232 (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Then what's proplem with that, all the resources saying that primarily unlawful, and some cases are saying that in spacial cases, they are lawful, and if you see more wider in islamqa.info and other references, they say, transgenders are not by born deformed because genetically they are healthy according to XY sex-determination system, but intersexes are, as their sex cromosome pair is by born deformed, so intersex medical intervention is allowed for them, because it is near to their natural absoluteness and reproduction, but transgender surgery (transsexual surgery according to XY sex-determination system) is not allowed because it makes a confusion in biological sex identity and makes also a confusion in reproductive social culture according to Islam given by God, by this change people will be confused who is the actual male or female, it will be difficult to identify by social appearance, also changing sex genitals by operation against genetic sex (XY sex-determination system) is more prohibited because it disables the reproductive system, which is the main purpose of sex God given to human accoding to Islam, this is that's why called worse than homosexuality by jurists, and this is the most common view of the jurist,and it is the outcome of decision following the primary sources of Islam, the Quran and the Hadith. The prolem is, modern LGBT movement has included intersexes with them, but classical islam always used to count LGBTs and intersexes differently, intersexes are always treated with care in primary sources, but LGBTs are not. And Islam rejects the idea of gay gene, according to Islam, homosexuality is not by born, it is considered mental deviation in Islam, thus transsexual operation against genetic sex is considered to make someone homosexual, and thus, it is prohibited in primary source's explanation in Islam. Lastly,

And whoever fears and obeys (taqwa) Allah - He will make for him a way out And will provide for him from where he does not expect.

— At-Talaq Q.65:2-3

O you who believe! If you obey and fear Allah, He will grant you Furqan (differentiator, between right and wrong, from Arabic root Faraq, difference), and will expiate for you your sins, and forgive you; and Allah is the Owner of the great bounty (it also means that those who do not fear and obey Allah, Allah snatches their Furqan, thus they can not differentiate between right and wrong.)

— Al-Anfal, Q.8:29

By the night when it cover. By the Day as it appears in glory; By (the mystery of) the creation of male and female;- , indeed your efforts are diverse. So he who gives (in charity) and fears (Allah), And (in all sincerity) testifies to the best,- We will indeed make smooth for him the path to Bliss. But he who is a greedy miser and thinks himself self-sufficient, And gives the lie to the best, We will indeed make smooth for him the path to Misery; Nor will his wealth profit him when he falls headlong (into the Pit). Verily We take upon Ourselves to guide, And verily unto Us (belong) the End and the Beginning. Therefore do I warn you of a Fire blazing fiercely; None shall reach it but those most unfortunate ones Who give the lie to Truth and turn their backs. But those most devoted to Allah shall be removed far from it,- Those who spend their wealth for increase in self-purification, And have in their minds no favour from anyone for which a reward is expected in return, But only the desire to seek for the Countenance of their Lord Most High; And soon will they attain (complete) satisfaction.

— Al-Lail

202.134.11.250 (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Then what's proplem with that, all the resources saying that primarily unlawful

The problem is that sources do not say that. UoM basically gives no obstacles to the process; the only condition is a medical diagnosis of what we would now call gender dysphoria. IFTA takes a similar stance, explaining their stance as such: Regarding the conditional prohibition, the proponents of this position argue that performing sex reassignment surgery is only permissible for those who are diagnosed by qualified medical and mental health practitioners. They then go on to endorse this position. So, no, this is not about 'special cases', nor about intersex people. The stance might be called transmedicalism if anything, but definitely not 'primarily unlawful'.

The rest of your explanation is WP:OR. One interesting point; Islam (I suppose that is being qualified as the literal(ist) reading of the Qur'an and Hadith) can not reject the idea of a gay gene, the texts do not seem to operate with knowledge of what a gene is. This is not to say that it necessarily undermines (or should undermine) the texts' credibility in anyone's eyes; but saying 'Islam rejects the gay gene' is not accurate and impossible. Islamic scholars can make this claim, if they wish, but their opinions would need to be qualified accordingly.

Also IslamQA, which you want to defend, is considered generally unreliable for Islam-related topics, unless specifically dealing with the Salafi movement. That's a consensus that has been reached a long time ago. Uness232 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You are just making people hate the english language, for you, people will tend to Arabic than english to save themselves from the destructive people like you who are spreading destruction through English language. 103.253.47.135 (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

كثير من الناس هنا يتحدثون العربية أيضًا.

Can we close the discussion as a whole now? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Do you follow Quran and Sahih hadith an explanation? In sunnah.com you will find all the sahih hadith? And salafi and ahlul hadith followers follow quran and sahih hadith most. You can follow Jami ul Kamil All the sahih or authentic hadith gathered here. I can give you all the references from quran and sahih hadith about, homosexuality and transsexuality. You can follow this Version there are many references from Quran and Sahih hadith given in there. I have a question, are you a satanist? Or you have misguided sufi or any other aqeedah as you are of Turkish descent? Do you believe that, Allah is everywhere ore all living soul are parts of Allah's soul? Or you believe Allah lives on the throne over seven skies (Arsh and Qursi)? Second one is right. Do you believe that muhammad (saw(pbuh)) is mad of Nur of Allah or you believe that he is made of soil like other humans? The second one is right. This is basic of Aqidah to have iman. Study aqeedah yourself following quran and "sahih" hadith without following any scholars explanation. You can follow abdullah Yolcu, he is a turkish salafi speaker, who mostly follows quran and sahih hadith among turkish Islamic preachers. And you should recite Ayat al Qursi (ٱللَّهُ لَاۤ إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ٱلۡحَیُّ ٱلۡقَیُّومُۚ لَا تَأۡخُذُهُۥ سِنَةࣱ وَلَا نَوۡمࣱۚ لَّهُۥ مَا فِی ٱلسَّمَـٰوَ ٰ⁠تِ وَمَا فِی ٱلۡأَرۡضِۗ مَن ذَا ٱلَّذِی یَشۡفَعُ عِندَهُۥۤ إِلَّا بِإِذۡنِهِۦۚ یَعۡلَمُ مَا بَیۡنَ أَیۡدِیهِمۡ وَمَا خَلۡفَهُمۡۖ وَلَا یُحِیطُونَ بِشَیۡءࣲ مِّنۡ عِلۡمِهِۦۤ إِلَّا بِمَا شَاۤءَۚ وَسِعَ كُرۡسِیُّهُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَ ٰ⁠تِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضَۖ وَلَا یَـُٔودُهُۥ حِفۡظُهُمَاۚ وَهُوَ ٱلۡعَلِیُّ ٱلۡعَظِیمُ ۝٢٥) and Sura nas, falaq and ikhlas twice daily. It will help you to prevent yourself from being getting asr or pessession of Shaitan or devil jinns. 202.134.13.142 (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Please check out the guidlines for the talkpage: Wikipedia is not a forum (WP:SEETALK). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

by the way, venus is always removing Salafist views in all articles, but truely says, most of the Salafist and ahlul hadith scholars are the people who gave fatwas more nearer to Quran and authentic Hadith, in that case, islamqa.info of Muhammad Al-Munajjid was an accelent source. In quistion of neutrality, their view should also be mentioned in wikipedia articles and removing them inspite of having reliable source is vandalism and violation of policy and neutrality and it also points out as a personal conflict of interest. 202.134.13.140 (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

One of the major issues with Salafism is, 1. it is less systematic; it is mostly picking of statements out of context and a proposed opinion. It is hard to write about something in an encyvlopedia which is only a vague consens based on popularity 2. Since popularity (Salafism has appeal to a lot of people due to its simplicity), it does not make it true (Argumentum ad populum), and Salafism is more often than not, at odds with Islamic tradition. It happens in almost every article, that you can write about Islam, and add a note at the end saying "but Salafism disagrees with that". It is distracting and confusing, and due to the lack of system within the Salafism Movement, hard to set in stone, because it any member of the Salafi movement could disagree with it (A similar dispute actually happened on the Salafi movement-article before). 3. I reject that I do injustice to the Salafism view point or unnecessarily removing it. In fact, I often tried to accommodate to the Salafi perspective, I only remove it, when the Salafi position disfigures Islamic content beyond comprehensibility by contradicting any majority view. Furthermore, whenever possible, I do create a section for the Salafi view point, as done on the article Angels in Islam. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle:, wikipedia always contains all point of view, you can not delete any view when it is established with reliable sources, and islamqa.info is a no consensus source, not prohibited (IslamQA.info is a Q&A site on Salafism founded and supervised by Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid. There is no consensus on whether it could be used for the Salaf Movement, with more reliable secondary sources recommended and in-text attribution if utilised. It is considered generally unreliable for broader Islam-related topics due to it representing a minor viewpoint. Some editors also consider the website a self-published source due to the lack of editorial control.). 202.134.14.146 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I recommand to read the linked quote, as it answers all your questions. with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Homosexuality

As the article correctly explains, 'homosexuality' is a modern construct. The section goes own and speaks about, how homosexuality is sanctioned. The source does support this, however, the context must be observed. The source gives an overview on Muslim society. The referred text is part of a larger sub-section on "ETHICS AND SOCIAL ISSUES", stating in the introduction:

"It is important to distinguish how the term ethics was used in premodern Islam compared to its usage in the modern pe�riod. In the premodern period, ethics was chiefly concerned about the formation and disciplining of the self through the cultivation of practices that were deemed “good conduct.” Such conduct was naturalized through education, ritual, and disciplinary practices that were intended to help the devout Muslim internalize the values that underlay an ethical life. In the modern Muslim context, by contrast, matters such as education, ritual, and disciplinary practices have them�selves undergone a significant, if not radical, change from previous eras. The modern period is governed by the logic of systems, bureaucratic processes, and the logic of abstraction. Education in particular, but ritual, and other social practices too, have felt the influences of bureaucratic modernity. Now ethics is conceived of as a set of abstract values, derived from sources that do not always completely resonate with the historical self, given the massive global transformations of cultures and values. Although the earlier understandings of and approaches to ethics are only partly adhered to, Muslim communities are forging new ethical identities in the mael�strom of paradigmatic transitions in knowledge, culture, and history"

This is important, since the ostrification within the article depicts homosexuality mostly as a modern phenomena. Noone denies that there is increasing Queerphobia in Muslim societies after modernity and colonization. However, when we check the source for the section about homosexuality as a whole, it tends to give a more balanced view:

Religious discourse has mostly focused on sexual acts, which are unambiguously condemned. The Qur�an refers explicitly to male-male sexual relations only in the context of the story of Lot, but labels the Sodomites’s actions (univer�sally understood in the later tradition as anal intercourse) an “abomination.” (Female-female relations are not addressed.) Reported pronouncements by the prophet Muhammad (hadith) reinforce the interdiction on male-male sodomy, although there are no reports of his ever adjudicating an actual case of such an offense; he is also quoted as condemn�ing cross-gender behavior for both sexes, but it is unclear to what extent this is to be understood as involving sexual relations. Several early caliphs, confronted with cases of sodomy between males, are said to have had both partners executed, by a variety of means. While taking such precedents into account, medieval jurists were unable to achieve a con�sensus on this issue; some legal schools prescribed capital punishment for sodomy, but others opted only for a relatively mild discretionary punishment. There was general agree�ment, however, that other homosexual acts (including any between females) were lesser offenses, subject only to discre�tionary punishment

and

With the impact of Western colonialism in the late nineteenth century, these patterns (specifically, accepted “ac�tive” homoeroticism, subject to the same strictures on behav�ior as obtained with regard to extramarital heterosexual relations) began to change in most Islamic societies. The Western construction of the “homosexual”—often, however, misinterpreted as representing only the traditional patho�logical adult “passive”—has imposed itself with increasing force. Legal sanctions on homosexuality in various Islamic countries today vary considerably, as does their degree of dependence on traditional pronouncements of Islamic law. Societal attitudes have become more negative, and increas�ingly dominated by the new, imported paradigm of what “homosexuality” is (for both males and females); but recent liberalizing shifts in attitude in the West are also having their effect, and the entire subject is currently a nexus of consider�able conflict

Considering that the source was used one sidedly, I suggest to reevaluate the referred part here describing 'homosexuality' as a forbidden practise only in its relation to the modern and post-modern discourse; the only time we actually find such concept. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that referring to legal/ethical frameworks through anachronistic lenses are almost always problematic. There is undoubtedly much more to say here (what did a forbidden sexual practice mean to, say, 13th, 15th, 19th century Muslims? How much did this vary between synchronic 'kinds' of Muslims? Were the shifts described in the latter quoted text really that simple?), but this is definitely a good start, and for those questions we might need to answer the late scholar's question, which is most definitely for later. The new wording probably needs careful thought as to not mislead the average reader though. Uness232 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle:, If you know Arabic you can translate this ar:موقف الشريعة الإسلامية من المثلية الجنسية. You said that you know arabic.Than you can also read quran and hadith in arabic and can Identify the hadith which are sahih. Dont go on scholars. 103.253.47.177 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The Arabic encyclopedia is in general in a very bad state, at least in regards of Islamic articles. I blame a lack of ambition. Similarly, the same is true for the German and Turkish Wikipedia. The bad quality is the reason, why I would not use translations from the article. The very opening paragraph is filled with anchronistic up to blatant wrong claims, such as "deviant of nature". Islam, at least traditionally, does not know a distinction between nature and unnatural. If you can speak and write Arabic and if you care for the Arabic encyclopedia, I recommand to translate from English to Arabic to improve the articles. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Don't ever say following your way that original arabic Quran and Hadith should be corrected according to the English translations of them. It is totally illogical to prefer english sources over arabic in Islamic references because Quran, Hadith and all the authentic islamic resources are in arabic and translations and derived works are never better or even equal to the original arabic, and original is always more actual than other translations. You will be accountable to Allah in afterlife and will have punishment by Allah in worldly life for all that you are doing wrong here, if you are doing all these by your own will intentionally and consciously because you are doing harm to a lot of people by giving misinformation. No one can save when Allah catches and no one can harm when Allah helps. Allah helps the truthfulls and punishes the liers. 202.134.9.154 (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The article may need a general overhaul. However, I currently have neither the time nor the ambition to stem such a project. I did, however, edited so much, it is at least not factually wrong. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

they "are" factually wrong and you are a hypocrite fraud criminal. Allah will not leave you so easily, just chill and wait until you get the final wrath of Allah.202.134.13.133 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that someone with lack of basic reading comprehenion is able to detect the will of an omni-potent creator deity, and someone obviously lacking to understand basic Islamic concepts, I doubt they can either read Arabic OR even judge how Islam works or what Allah will or will not do. However, you are free to fantazise about people being tortued, is probably good for your own mental health. Good day sir VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"an" omni-potent creator deity??? Or should it be "the" "one" and "only" omni-potent creator (deity)??? Don't you have any basic knowledge of using article in English grammar??? Have you any basic idea of Shirk in Islam??? Neither any of the groups of Sunnis, nor even the Shiites did this mistake ever till now. With absence of obligatory basic fundamental of Islamic faith, how can you dare to contribute in Islamic articles so bravely (!) proclaiming yourself as a "Muslim" (!) and as an "authentic (????!!!!!) spokesman of Islam????? This simple sense is even not needed to be learnt of Arabic, from an African to an American muslim, all of them can identify this " first" primary basic, how then couldn't you as a "huge expert"???? Does your faith also become "omni-fluid" as your self gender sense? Here in this edit 1 you said, Adam is a myth(????) In this edit 2, you included sufism and mutazilites as part of Islam and at the same time you are removing salafi views from all the articles??? Here 3 you also claimed iblis can be also an angel??? How can wikipedia allow such a charlatan like you to edit in Islamic and Abrahamic religion's articles so "boldly"?????? 202.134.13.133 (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

See this sahih hadith,

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.

Abu Dawud said: The tradition of 'Asim proved the tradition of 'Amir b. Abi 'Amr as weak. (فِي الْبِكْرِ يُوجَدُ عَلَى اللُّوطِيَّةِ قَالَ يُرْجَمُ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ حَدِيثُ عَاصِمٍ يُضَعِّفُ حَدِيثَ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو ‏.‏   صحيح الإسناد موقوف   (الألباني) حكم   :

)Albani said its chain.is authentic

— https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4463

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

Abu Dawud said: A similar tradition has also been transmitted by Sulaiman b. Bilal from 'Amr b. Abi 'Umar. And 'Abbad b. Mansur transmitted it from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ). It has also been transmitted by Ibn Juraij from Ibrahim from Dawud b. Al-Husain from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ).

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ النُّفَيْلِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ مَنْ وَجَدْتُمُوهُ يَعْمَلُ عَمَلَ قَوْمِ لُوطٍ فَاقْتُلُوا الْفَاعِلَ وَالْمَفْعُولَ بِهِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ رَوَاهُ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ بِلاَلٍ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو مِثْلَهُ وَرَوَاهُ عَبَّادُ بْنُ مَنْصُورٍ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَفَعَهُ وَرَوَاهُ ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ الْحُصَيْنِ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَفَعَهُ ‏.‏

Grade: Hasan Sahih (Al-Albani) حسن صحيح (الألباني) حكم  :

— https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4463

202.134.13.142 (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2024

Original text: "In issues pertaining to marriage, baligh refers to the legal expression hatta tutiqa'l-rijal, which means a wedding may not take place until a girl is physically fit for sexual intercourse. This can also, though not necessarily, coincide with the reaching of sexual maturity manifested by menses or nocturnal emission.[32] Only after a separate condition called rushd, or intellectual maturity to handle one's own property, is reached can a wife receive her bridewealth.[32]"

My request: Please make it absolutely clear Intellectual maturity is not required to consumate the marriage. Change that rushd is only required to manage the bridewealth. NOT to consumate the marriage. You are allowed to consumate the marriage after baligh, with no intellectual maturity required. Wiki0001313 (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no change required. These are two separate sentence. I do not see any risk of confusion by the average reader. Also, does not mention consummation, only that "a wedding may not take place until a girl is physically fit for sexual intercourse". Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)