Project Dawah

Consequences of Ignorant Dawah and Role of Laymen in Dawah

2012-04-28T18:55:00.000-07:00

I have seen many videos and website claiming that:

1) Dawah is individual responsibility
2) and one doesn’t have to be a scholar, student of knowledge or trained Daee to give Dawah.

And they usually quote verses from Surah Asr and a hadith: “Convey from me, even if it is one verse” to support their statements.
In general these two statements are correct but usually these statements are misunderstood and misapplied by laymen. It creates lots problem among not only Muslims and but non-Muslims are not getting proper message of Islam. These are the things that I have experience from these “Daees”:

· No knowledge or desire to learn beneficiary core things like aqeedah, arabic, tajweed and many have not even read Quran but they start wasting their time with non-Muslims and Deviants.

They give primary importance to seeking knowledge of unnecessary things like science, philosophy and other religious scripture.
Their knowledge is usually based on popular Dawah videos and websites.
Hence, these people usually end up misinterpreting and distorting the meaning of Quran/Hadith, rejecting Hadith and having deviant believes. Like they will say there is no death penalty of apostates in Islam and similarity they end up rejecting many ahadith because they may look unscientific or illogical to them. They invent their own usool of ahadith and tafsir rejecting the established methodology of 1400 years.
Involving themselves in fiqh issues and giving fatwas.

So we can conclude that, what they consider Dawah and individual responsibility, actually involves reading and exposing yourself to a lot of shubahaat (doubts); either because of reading the bible, or polemic articles, etc. - then seeking to refute and reply to them; and engaging in arguments with the innovators and disbelievers. And they later get infected themselves with deviance.

Now we need to have a look at some important stuff to tackle this problem from its very roots:

1)Significance of Dawah(i.e.enjoining and forbidding Evil)

2) Dawah an individual obligation?

3) How this hadith: “Convey from me, even if it is one verse” should be understood?

4) Our approach for Dawah

5) Characteristics of a Daee.

6) The prohibition of engaging in Dawah without knowledge.

Following articles be add soon, Inshallah:

7) Ruling for laymen on reading other religious scripture

8) Ruling on laymen for studying Philosophy

9)Claiming scientific miracles in Quran

Significance of Dawah(i.e. enjoining and forbidding Evil)

2012-04-28T18:50:00.000-07:00

Question: What is the significance of changing the Munkar in Islam?

Reply by Shaikh al-Fawzan, "Changing the Munkar (wrong, evil) is a great obligation of Islam and in all heavenly revealed religions. Allah criticized the Jews and Christians and cursed them when they abandoned this obligation, "Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Eesa, son of Maryam. That was because they disobeyed (Allah and the Messengers) and were ever transgressing beyond bounds. 'They used not to forbid one another from the Munkar (wrong, evildoing, sins, polytheism, disbelief, etc.) which they committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do."

[Soorah al-Maidah (5): 78-79] "Why do not the rabbis and the religious learned men forbid them from uttering sinful words and from eating illegal things. Evil indeed is that which they have been performing." [Soorah al-Maidah (5): 63]

Allah says to this Ummah (of Prophet Muhammad ), "Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining Al-Ma'roof (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden). And it is they who are the successful." [Soorah Imran (3): 104]

The Messenger of Allah said, "Whosoever amongst you sees Munkar, he should change it by his hand. And if he doesn’t have enough strength enough to do so (by hand), then he should do it with his tongue. And if he does not have enough strength to do it (with his tongue), then he should (abhor it) in his heart, and that is the least of faith." [Saheeh Muslim]

So, enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and changing the evil is a significant obligation of Islam. And those who fall short in fulfilling this obligation have exposed themselves and their societies to punishment and destruction. Because Allah has destroyed the previous nations due to their abandoning (the obligation of ) forbidding the evil, Allah says, "So when they forgot the reminders that had been given to them, We rescued those who forbade evil, but We seized those who did wrong with a severe torment because they used to rebel (disobey Allah)." [Soorah al-A'raaf (7): 165]

[Al-Muntaqa (1/200)]

Dawah an individual obligation?

2012-04-28T18:48:00.007-07:00

Reply by Shaikh Salih al-Fawzan,

"Denying the evil by heart is the responsibility of every Muslim. He, who does not deny it in the heart, is not a Muslim inaccordance with the saying of Allah's Messenger , "Whosoever amongst you sees Munkar, he should change it by his hand.

And if he does not have enough strength to do so (by hand), then he should do it with his tongue. And if he does not have enough strength to do it (with his tongue), then he should (abhor it) in his heart, and that is the least of faith." [Saheeh Muslim]

As far as forbidding al-Munkar by hand and tongue is concerned, this is the responsibility of whosoever is capable of it from the rulers and scholars, and other Muslim - if it should not lead to a greater evil. Concerning denying it by the heart, then no Muslim is incapable of it nor is he excused from it..." [Al-Muntaqa]

"He, who is required to forbid by hand is the authority/ruler.

He who possesses knowledge but no authority should forbid by his tongue.

He, who neither possesses knowledge nor authority, should forbid it in his heart.

And he who does not stick to this order mentioned in the Hadeeth, then he does not posses Eeman in his heart as Allah'sMessenger said, 'and beyond that there is no faith even to the extent of a mustard seed.' [Saheeh Muslim (81)] [Al-Muntaqa (1/199)]

"It is not allowed for someone to move to a lower level of changing the evil if he is able to change it on a higher level. It is not allowed for someone who is able to forbid the evil with hand to come down to the level of forbidding it in the heart." [Al-Muntaqa (1/202)]

"Forbidding by hand should (only) be done by those in authority, because if we say that every one forbids the Munkar (evil) by hand, then there will be chaos in the world and peace will vanish.

So, there should be discipline in this matter, and the rulers must be approached in this issue so that peace is not vanquished. Because if everyone was to forbid by hand, cause corruption and beat the people, then chaos will take place because he does not have the authority (to do so) - unlike those who have the authority and are obeyed. Islam does not wish chaos. Rather, Islam wishes order and unity." [Muhadiraat (p. 545)]

"From those who have the power to change the evil by hand are the heads of the households. Allah's Messenger said, "Command your children to pray when they become seven years old, and beat them for it (prayer) when they become ten years old; and arrange their beds (to sleep) separately." [Sunan Abu Dawood (495)]

Allah says, "O you who believe! Ward off from yourselves and your families a Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, over which are (appointed) angels stern (and) severe, who disobey not the Commands they receive from Allah, but do that which they are commanded." [Soorah at-Tahreem (66): 6] and, "Enjoin as-Salat (the prayer) on your family, and be patient in offering them [i.e. the Salaat]." [Soorah Ta-Ha (20): 132] [ Al-Muntaqa (1/203)]

How this hadith: “Convey from me, even if it is one verse” should be understood?

2012-04-28T18:48:00.004-07:00

Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih al-’Uthaymeen (May Allaah have Mercy on him) says:

“When a person has knowledge and insight into that which he is calling to, then there is no difference between the one who has a great amount of knowledge, or a student of knowledge who has recently started in pursuit of knowledge or a lay person – as long as he has certain knowledge of the issue at hand.

The Prophet sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam said: “Convey from me, even if it is one verse.” [al-Bukhaaree]

So it is not a condition upon the daee (the one calling) to attain a great amount of knowledge, but the condition is that one must have knowledge of what one is calling to. If this calling is established upon ignorance and built upon emotion and passion, then it is not permissible.

Thus, we see that some of the brothers who call to Allaah, they do not have except a little knowledge. We see them, due to their strong emotions, prohibiting that which Allaah has not prohibited, whilst making obligatory that which Allaah has not made obligatory upon His worshippers. This is a very dangerous matter, since permitting what Allaah has made haraam (unlawful) is like prohibiting what Allaah has made halaal (lawful). So when they begin prohibiting people for making a particular matter then others will rebuke them for making it haraam.

Allaah – the Most High – says: “And do not say, concerning that which your tongues falsely put forward, ‘This is lawful and this is forbidden,’ so as to invent lies against Allaah. Indeed, those who invent lies against Allaah will never prosper.” [an-Nahl 16:116-117]

As for the lay person, then he must not call to Allaah if he does not have knowledge. Rather, it is essential to have knowledge in accordance with the saying of Allaah – the Most High -: “Say: This is my path. I call to Allaah upon sure knowledge.” [Yoosuf 12:108]

So it is a must to call to Allaah upon knowledge. However, if a matter is clearly known to be evil or good, then one can command it – if it is good, or forbid it – if it is evil.

So the callers to Allaah must start with knowledge. Whosoever calls to Allaah without knowledge, then such a person will cause greater harm than good – as is evident. So it is obligatory for a person to first acquire knowledge, then to do da’wah. As for the clear evils and that which is clearly good, then the good is enjoined and the evil prohibited.” End quote.

[Source: As-Sahwatul-Islaamiyyah (pp.75-76) of Shaykh lbn al-’Uthaymeen.]

Our approach for Dawah

2012-04-28T18:47:00.001-07:00

Question: What should be our way of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil?

Reply by Shaikh Salih al-Fawzan,

"If enjoining the good and forbidding the evil is done in a Muslim land, then the issue is precisely known - Al-Hamdulillah - that the person advices, gives reminders and presents arguments in a good way and if the matter needs informing the authority, then he does so.

If authority is not required to be informed about the issue, then it is required to cover up. If a positive response towards accepting the Dawah and abandoning the wrong is noted from a disobedient, then such people are to be covered up for, and it is enough that they improve themselves and move away from corruption towards rectification.

If it is found that the disobedient does not respond and does not accept the advice, then the issue has to be raised up to the authority. If the issue is raised up to the authority of the Muslims, then the duty of the advisor is fulfilled, because he has reached the issue to its end.

In the case, when it is not a Muslim society, then it is required that the Dawah be carried out with wisdom and argumentation in a good way while avoiding the greater Fitna (tribulation) that may return to the Muslims as a harm.

There should be no violence and no confrontation which could aggravate, because it is propagation of Islam with wisdom and argumentation in a good way and advice for whosoever accepts it, and he, who does not accept it, then his case rests with Allah."

[Al-Muntaqa (1/196)]

Characteristics of a Daee.

2012-04-28T18:46:00.003-07:00

Shaikh Salih al-Fawzan explained the required characteristics of those who enjoin the good and forbid the evil in the following words, "Everyone is not fit for enjoining the good and forbidding the evil because three characteristics are required to accomplish (the responsibility of ) enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.

First Characteristic: Knowledge:

One should be knowledgeable about that which he is enjoining and forbidding, he shouldknow what is evil: the Haraam (prohibited) and the Makrooh (disliked).

In other words, he should know what is prohibited by the Sharee'ah such that he can forbid it, and he should know what is commanded such that he can enjoin it. He must posses knowledge, through which he knows what is forbidden and what is commanded because verily, the harm of enjoining and forbidding without knowledge can be worse than the benefit – because he might enjoin that which is not permissible and he might forbid that is permissible. He might forbid the Halaal and enjoin the Haraam while he is unaware of it and he speaks without knowledge. So, this damage is greater than the benefit – if at all there is any benefit in it – So, the damage is more and the risk is greater.

Second Characteristic: Rifq:

Gentleness. One has to be kind and wise in that which he is forbidding and enjoining.

Third Characteristic: Patience upon the harm.

So, there are three characteristics.

(The first characteristic of ) Knowledge should be before enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.

(The second characteristic of ) Kindness should be during enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.

(and the third characteristic of ) Patience should be after enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.” [Muhadiraat (p. 534)]

The prohibition of engaging in Dawah without knowledge.

2012-04-28T18:45:00.000-07:00

Shaikh Salih ibn Fawzan al-Fawzan (May Allaah have Mercy on him) explained that it is a condition of Dawah that one is knowledgeable about that which he is calling to, in light of the verse,

“Say (O Muhammad ), This is my way. I invite unto Allah (the Oneness of Allah) with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me with sure knowledge. And Glorified and Exalted be Allah. And I am not of the Mushrikoon.“ [Soorah Yunus (12): 108]

“(In this verse) The meaning of Baseerah is knowledge. The caller to Islam must be equipped with beneficial knowledge concerning beliefs, the permissible and the prohibited, and the knowledge about the Book and the Sunnah. And he should have the knowledge of the texts of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah such that he can distinguish to the people, what is correct and incorrect.

(the caller must be equipped with knowledge) because if he was ignorant, he does not know the wrong and he does not know the correct. Perhaps, he calls to the wrong while he does not know and perhaps, he warns against the good while he is unaware because ignorance is a fatal disease.

(the caller must be equipped with knowledge) because the one who calls to Allah will be exposed to doubts from the Shayateen amongst the jinn and mankind – doubts in Aqeedah and doubts concerning Halaal and Haraam. And if he does not posses the knowledge to refute these doubts, then he be will confused and perhaps he will be overpowered by the people of misguidance, which will be a great loss. So, the one who calls to Allah must be equipped with the beneficial knowledge and means to combat the opponents, and therefore the Prophet said to Mu’adh , “You are going to a people from the Ahlul-Kitab.” Meaning beware.

The people of the Book are learned; they have misinterpretations and they have doubts and they have false arguments. The one who approaches them must be aware of their conditions.

In this (narration) is a proof that it is obligatory upon the caller to learn about the society in which he is doing Dawah, he should know their troubles and their nature; and he should know their level of knowledge such that he is prepared to face them – otherwise, they will confuse him and perhaps overpower him and this will be a loss for the Dawah to Allah and this will be a failure before the opponents and the foes.

It is not appropriate to enter the field of Dawah until one learns and achieves comprehension and understanding through beneficial knowledge. If one has some knowledge or a part of knowledge, then he should call in accordance to the limit of his knowledge and he should stop at the matters which he does not know. And he should not engage with the people in issue of confusion that he in unacquainted with.

This is a very important matter and it is that one should be a caller in accordance with the level of his knowledge with which he can confront those whom he is calling to and solve their problems…

“Glorified and Exalted be Allah. And I am not of the Mushrikoon (those who set up rivals with Allah).” [Soorah Yusuf (12): 108]

(in this part of the verse is) glorifying Allah from that which does not befit Him from shirk, imperfection and defects. In this is safeguarding the correct Aqeedah from that which does not befit Him from Shirk and defects which Shaytan from the Jinn and mankind utter.

The caller must be knowledgeable about this great knowledge and he cannot glorify Allah from that which does not befit Him until he learns the correct Aqeedah and learns that which opposes it from Shirk and doubts in such a way that he can glorify Allah.

“I am not of the Mushrikoon.” In this (part of the verse) is declaring oneself free from the Mushrikeen (those who associate partners with Allah). A caller must declare himself free from shirk and the Musrikeen for the sake of Allah…

There are people who do not disassociate themselves from the people of the false religions, rather they say, ‘People are free in their Aqeedah (beliefs) and in their religion.’ Perhaps, some of them even call to bringing the religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) together – and they claim that they are the Duat (caller to Allah) while they do not disassociate themselves from the Mushikeen and do not consider what they (the Mushrikeen) are upon as falsehood. This is clear misguidance. How can there be a Dai (caller to Allah) and he neither declares himself free from Shirk nor the Mushrikeen and calls it ‘freedom of religion’?

There is no freedom in religion. Deen (religion) in one and it is the Deen of Allah, with which He sent His Messenger and He revealed His Book concerning it – It is one religion. Allah says, “Verily, this is my Straight Path, so follow it, and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you away from His Path.” [Soorah al-An'aam (6): 153]

Religion is one and it is the Deen of Islam. And whatever is apart from it, is falsehood, Allah says, “Truly, the religion with Allah is Islam.” “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.” [Soorah aal-Imran (3): 85]“

[Source: Muntaqa Fatawa and Muhadhiraat Fil-Aqeedah wad-Dawah of Shaikh Salih ibn Fawzan al-Fawzan (p.601)]

Question: What is your advise to those youngsters who make haste in engaging in Dawah activities and issuing

Fatawa without knowledge?

Reply by Shaikh Salih al-Fawzan, "Surely, Dawah to Allah is obligatory on the one, who is capable of fulfilling it practically, physically and mentally, and he who is in incapable of Dawah, then and success, and if he is wealthy, he should help the Dawah monetarily through publishing books, and distributing it.

Concerning Fatawa, then this is a critical position. It is not permissible to venture into it except for those who are qualified in knowledge that is acquired from the scholars, and he should not give Fatawa except in necessity (only) if he does not find somebody who is more knowledgeable than him" [Al-Muntaqa]

Question: Many of the Duaat focus all attention towards one aspect of Dawah, and that is Fadhaailul-Aamaal (virtues of righteous deeds). What is your opinion concerning this? Is it obligatory to combine both, Targheeb(encouragement) through mentioning Fadhaailul-Aamaal (virtues of righteous deeds) and Tanbeeh (warning) against the mistakes, especially in Aqeedah.

Reply by Shaikh Salih al-Fawzan, 'It is obligatory that the Dai (the caller) begins with the issues of Aqedah because they are the fundamentals, and the Fadhaail (virtues) come after the rectification of the Aqeedah, and the caller must begin with that which is most important, and then what comes after. Allah's Messenger began with the Aqeedah, and stayed in Makkah for 13 years calling to Aqeedah, and the legislation were obligated after the Hijrah.

What we conclude from this is that the caller should be wise in the Dawah, and arrange the issues according to their appropriate priority, and cure every evil accordingly. He who is afflicted with deviation in the Aqeedah, then he should be advised about his deviation, and be shown the proofs, and enlightened towards the correct path. And he who is correct in his Aqeedah but he has strayed in his performance of good deeds or he has fallen prey to some prohibited actions, then in his case, we use discussions, reminders and warnings.

So, the caller deals with every society according to the evils found in it, and treats it suitably. As far as restricting to Fadhaailul-Amaal or limiting oneself to correcting the rule and abandoning (rectification of ) Shirk, this is misguidance and evident ignorance, and Dawah by these two approaches does not reap any good result. [al-Muntaqa (q. no. 52, p. 59)]

Comprehensive Studies into the Language of the Sunni Traditionalist Theologians on Dhaair, Haqiqa, Majaaz, and T'awil

2012-04-14T11:45:00.001-07:00

Brother Ali Al-Boriqee

الحمد لله رب العالمين، وصلى الله وسلم وبارك على نبينا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين.
وبعد
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركات

Why?

The reason for this study, inshallah is to clarify the matter for those who are truely ignorant and wish to learn, to make it a hujjah to those who are defiantly ignorant, and to aid that which is right.

Overview

The concept of dhaahir, in the language of theology in Islam has gross misconceptions about it which has lead certain polemist to claim inaccurate statements about the creed of their opponents of which they are originally confused and in ignorance about.

What further adds to the complexity of misunderstanding is that pretty much most, if not all, the ahlul-kalaam have taken a non arabic outlook into the subject. What does that mean? It means that they have looked into this issue and have viewed and therefore judged it on the basis of western languages and not upon foundational arabic.

This confusion has lead to many of them to interpret the statements of the imaams regarding an interpretation of an aayaa and through their misconception, they have called what they explained as "t'awil" and claimed that their interpretations were "metaphorical" when in fact it is just that they have no grasp of the arabic language.

The Commonly Used Understanding of Dhaahir

The arabic word "dhaahir" has been commonly translated since the englishization of Islamic dawah in the western hemisphere as "literal". I do not know if the arabs of that time understood the implictions of this mistake, but nonetheless, it is a mistake by which we seek forgiveness on all those who came before us. The reason why this is a mistake is due to several reasons
1. the arabic equalivalent of "literal" in is "haqiqi" and not "dhaahir, which would mean that the arabic term dhaahir actually implies or encompasses much more than what was translated as "literal"
2. the english or western understanding of the term 'literal" has certain connotations, much of it having a negative overtone to it. In other words, when the englishman encounters the term literal, there are two views he can grasp from it
A. how it actually is
B. Someone who is dry in intellectual thought i.e. a person who has not gotton it (meaning the context of some speech or articulation of words)

With regard to revelation and divine scriptures, the englishman always has, or almost always has the second implication stated above when it comes to religous scriptures. In other words, to the englishman, if you claim to understand a text literally, then that implies to the englishman that you are stupid and you cannot grasp the overall contextual meaning of such and such verse and thus your intellectually deficient.

With this factual reality in mind, it does more disservice to Islam and the umma when those who do not understand how the western englishman views "literal" without any hesitation employes the term "literal" when trying to translate "alal dhaahiran".

So the question arises, what is the foundational understanding of Dhaahir

The Foundational Understanding of Dhaahir

I will use two most powerful statements, both of whom are representatives of whom I view as the more stronger madhaahib of all four, Hanbali and Shafa'i.

Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali says in Dham al-Ta’wil:

فإن قيل فقد تأولتم آيات وأخبارا فقلتم في قوله تعالى ( وهو معكم أين ما كنتم ) أي بالعلم ونحو هذا من الآيات والأخبار فيلزمكم ما لزمنا
قلنا نحن لم نتأول شيئا وحمل هذه اللفظات على هذه المعاني ليس بتأويل لأن التأويل صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره وهذه المعاني هي الظاهر من هذه الألفاظ بدليل أنه المتبادر إلى الأفهام منها وظاهر اللفظ هو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه حقيقة كان أو مجازا

‘If it is said: ‘You made ta’wil of verses and reports, for instance, you said with respect to Allah’s statement: ‘He is with you wherever you are’, meaning: with His knowledge, and the like of these verses and reports, and therefore, your arguments are as much applicable to you as us.
We say: We did not make ta’wil of anything, for to hold such texts in these meanings is not at all ta’wil, because ta’wil is to change the meaning of a word from its dhahir, and what we say here is the dhahir of the wording, that is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it is haqiqa or majaz.’

adh-Dhahabi says in al-‘Uluw:
“The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the apparent meaning is not intended (dhahiruha ghayr murad).’

This follows that the apparent meaning (dhahir) could mean two things:

First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text (dilalat al-khitab), as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes.

Second; that the literal meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness”

These two statements are mountainess in the implication of their speech.
According to Ahlu-Sunnah, the meaning of dhaahir is what is most obvious of the menaing of any phrase or construction of words i.e. what comes first to mind. This is essential to understand because in this definition, this can include a literal interpretation OR a metaphorical interpretation.

It is for this comprehensive definition that it truely reveals that using the english term "literal" is nothing less than a raping of the arabic term 'dhaahir' because you have cut the meaning into half.

However, there are two english words that DO do some justice to the arabic term "dhaahir" and they are
1. obvious
2. apparent.

these two words much more accurately describes the intention of the arabs when they try to translate dhaahir rather than using the term "literal".

in arabic, that has no place. when the construction is
وَاخْفِضْ لَهُمَا جَنَاحَ الذُّلِّ مِنَ الرَّحْمَةِ
That, to the arab mind, is quite obvious, and anything that is obvious, for them, is called apparent, dhaahir, or what they sometimes mistranslate as "literal", and such a reality is not called figurative for them, while the english might view that to be figurative.

I beleive much of this khilaaf, at its core, is the result of one group of people who when they see the word "literal", then to them it is devoid of any spirit and something taken literally is something "just as is" .

The other group (the arabs) when they use the word "literal", they have in mind "that which is clear" and not what the english mind or western mind views as 'verbatim". To the arab, the word literal simply means obvious and clear. With that meaning in mind, even if the meaning of a text seems figurative to the westerner, that same text to the arab, is quite obvious which is why they use the word literal.

Now, how does this relate to the polemic between the Sunnis and the Jahmified pseudo Ash'ari cult.

It is related in the fact that the Jahmis as well deceptionally used the mistaken translation for further validation of their invalid madhaab and the invalidation of our valid and only acceptable madhaab.

So now that we have laid down the established Sunni belief that the term "ala dhaahiruha" or "upon its apparent/obvious meaning", then how does this correlate to Haqiqa and Majaaz

Haqiqa wa Majaaz

As is clearly stated by Haafidh Shaykhul-Islam Ibnul-Qudamah al-Hanbali above that he stated the full extent of dhaahir is that which comes obvious to the mind IRRESPECTIVE of whether it is haqiqa (literal reality) or majaaz (figurative/metaphor).
In other words, the dhaahir meaning of an ayaah can lead to both a literal reality or a figurative metaphorical usage in the language, and in some cases, both.

In the arab thought process, Haqiqa in their view is the literal reality. So when the early Imaams stated that the Istiwaa of Allah was Haqiqiyyah, then they meant that this actual action of Allah was a true reality i.e. that it actually happened, and they countered the jahmiyyah with this phrase because the ahlul-kalaam were saying it was never something that happened, rather it means blah blah blah.

Majaaz
in the modern arabic language does exists but after it has been laid down by later linguists as to what it pertains to since the early arab grammarians clearly established that there was no such thing as majaa in the arabic language as this was a foreign concept that came into the language after the inquisition of neo-platonic thought.

According to the early original Arab Linguists, the original Arabs did not have something called "majaaz". They denied that there was such thing as majaaz in the language. The meaning of majaaz was interpilated into the word majaaz, but the arabs did not have this in mind early on. Here is a slight reason as to why.

There is a difference between metaphoric words and metaphoric constructs (sentences, phrases)
1) Metaphoric words (Majaaz).
2) Metaphoric sentences (not majaaz).

Metaphoric Sentences:
For example, when we say: “Zaid is a fox”, we do not mean: Zaid is an actual fox, the animal. From the context we understand that we are only giving a metaphor of how cunning Zaid is.

This is a metaphoric sentence. This exists in the Quran in abundance. For example:

“And, out of kindness, lower to them (your parents) the wing of humility …”.

Obviously, humility does not have a wing to lower. But from the context we understand: be kind to your parents … etc.

This is not Majaaz. It is not the point of dispute between people of Sunnah and people of Bid’ah.

Metaphoric words (Majaaz):
Again, when we say: “Zaid is a fox”, notice that the word fox does not mean anything other than: fox; the animal. The word fox does not mean cunning in itself. The entire sentence means: Zaid is cunning. But the word fox still means: fox; the animal.

In the example of: “lower the wing of humility”, we see that the word “wing” does not mean anything other than the well known wing, (as in a bird’s wing).

What people of Bid’ah say is that the words themselves have an apparent meaning, and a different hidden meaning (Majazy meaning). This is to help them in saying things such as “Yad” means: ability, self … etc.

Ahlusunnah disagree, words can only have one or several meanings, and a set meaning can only be dictated by the contructon of a group of words that imply a certain context. That is why in the aayaa where Allah says about His Hands
"....Nay, they are both widely outstretched" then its MOST OBVIOUS MEANING is its english figurative rendering of it, which is that of His bounty is unlimited

However, in another ayaah using the same word yad, Allah says

".......whom We have created with Our Hands"

the obvious meaning in this ayaah clearly points to its "literal" rendering of it.

T'awil

the definition of t'awil in the language of the theologians is different than the language of the Fuqaha. In the language of the Fuqaha, t'awil simply means to derive an explanation of a stated speech, pretty much synonymous to the term "tafseer".

T'awil in the language of the theologians is just as Haafidh Ibn Qudamah stated above which is
"to change the meaning of a word from its dhaahir meaning"
In other words, it is to change (tahreef) the meaning of a word from its most obvious established meaning in the arabic language and apply far-fetched or baseless meanings that the arabic language did not establish for such terms.

an exampleand logic of ash'ari t'awil in english

Lets take a common idiomatic usage of today
Come back down to earth
figurative meaning= be real, not big headed / Literal= really, come back down to earth
Now, this breakdown is in English

"Istiwaa alal Arsh"
figurative=His Mejesty and Power/ Literal=Really Rose Above Throne
Again, this breakdown is in English

However when their predecessors gave the explanation of it as "He took control" it does not fall into even the figurative, much less the literal.

As for the istiwaa lal-arsh and its division i mentioned above, both are to the arab, dhaahir, its apparent meaning of the verse

NOW, let me show you where this tahreef/t'awil comes into play

When the Jahmis say that
"istiwaa alal arsh = He took control

Then comparable to the other speech

'Come back down to earth would = He Conquered the earth

Literally "He took control" is a distortion of "istiwaa alal arsh" just as "He conquered the earth" is a distortion of "Come back down to earth"

No one in the english speaking world considers "He conquered the earth" to be the figurative meaning of "Come back down to earth" JUST AS no rightfully educated arab considers "he took control" to be the figurative meaning of istiwa alal arsh, rather both parties would view such meanings to be distortions of what the text actually says and or implies.

That is because the Ash'aris and their forefathers failed to grasp the arabic language in the manner that the arabs had viewed.

In essence, t'awil in the language of the Sunni theologians is to give meanings to words (not sentences) to change the overall nature and meaning of versus that is not even figurative language, but meanings that don't make sense even to arabs. Thus t'awil in aqidah concerning sifaat is to land the person into a far-fetched meaning that the Quran or Sunnah did not intend to land its reader upon.

T'awil in reality becomes either one of 4 as is established by many of the hufaadh in Islam
1. tahreef (distortion of meanings or drifting off to a distorted tangent)
2. t'ateel (negtion and denial)
3. tamdheel (believing that the attributes of Allah are like of the creatures in likeness:also similar to tashbeeh)
4. Takyeef (similar to tashbeeh. This includes tajseem)

This is the established Sunni "Athari" conceptual breakdown of what t'awil is when applied to the textual reports concerning the sifaat of Allah. What does that mean? That means that anyone partaking to t'awill will always fall into t'ateel, tahreef, tamdheel, or takyeef or a combination of the four in some way or form because when people perform t'awil to the Attributes of Allah, they are actually speaking about Allah without knowledge, and when it is practiced, then it will inevitably lead the practicioner of t'awil to either distort the original meaning of the textual report, or he will negate the obvious meaning of the textual report (actually the t'ateel of the ahlul-kalaam is all based on their tahreef of the texts), or he will compare Allah with a similitude to something created whether it be to objects or to human theory and intellectual concepts, or he will fall into takyeef in comparing Allah to actual physical beings and compare His Actions with theirs.

this is what the salaf had left their legacy to the ummah concerining the Attributes. They did not remark on "tajseem" or "tashbeeh" as these were later terms that could have different meanings to the one who employs them thus adding confusion to the topic.

Some of the Slips of the Mu'awilla

here is a brief excerpt of Haafidh Shamsu-deen Ibnul-Qayyim's powerful H-bomb against the Jahmi heretics of his time and before which is ound in his as-Sawaa'iq al-Mursalah

Under the section of false t'awils
The First: [A ta’weel] that the word cannot plausibly allow on account of the way it is composed (in the sentence), such as making ta’weel of his (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam’s) saying, “…until the Lord of Honour places His Foot (Rijlahu) over it…” [SAHEEH: Bukhaaree (8/595 – Fath ul-Baaree), Muslim (4/2186,2187)], that the word “ar-rijl” refers to “a group of people”, since this is not known at all in the language of the Arabs.

The Second: [A ta’weel] that the word cannot allow on account of its specific construction in the dual or plural form – even though it may allow it in its singular form, such as the ta’weel of His saying, “…to whom I have created with both My Hands” (Sad 38:75), to mean “qudrah” (power).

The Third: [A ta’weel] that the word cannot allow on account of it’s sequence and composition (in the sentence) – even though it may allow it in a different sequence (in a sentence), such as the ta’weel of His saying, “Do they wait for anything other than that the Angels should come to them, or that your Lord should come, or that some of the signs of Your Lord should come…” (al- An’aam 6:158), that the coming (ityaan) of the Lord means the coming of some of His signs (aayaat), which are actually His command (amr). However, the sequence of the sentence rejects this completely, for it is impossible for it to be carried to mean that, on account of the division, repetition, and categorisation that occurs in the verse (i.e. that the Angels, and Allah, and the Signs will come, and the word “come” being repeated for all three).

And like the ta’weel of his saying, “Verily, you will see your Lord with your eyes, just like you see the full moon on a clear night, without there being any clouds, and just like you see the sun on an afternoon, without there being any clouds”[SAHEEH: Bukhaaree (13/419,420,421 – Fath ul-Baaree), Muslim (1/167) – and the hadeeth has been reported by 30 companions]. So making ta’weel of the vision (the seeing) that has been mentioned in this particular sequence of words with something that opposes its reality, and its apparent meaning is completely impossible, and it is in reality rejection and denial (of the text) but which is being concealed as “ta’weel” by the one who does this.

The Fourth: That [ta’weel of a word] whose usage has never been authored (i.e. written) with that particular meaning in the language of the speaker, eventhough it may have been authored (with that meaning) due to a later convention. And this is a matter in which many people have erred, and in which their understandings have strayed, in that they made ta’weel of many of the words that occur in the texts with a meaning that has never been written for that word at all in the language of the Arabs, even though it may have been used in the convention of the later scholars. And this is something that needs to be pointed out as much lying has been made against Allaah and His Messenger on account of it.

So for example, a group made ta’weel of His saying, “…but when it (the star) set (afala)…” (al-An’aam 6:76), to mean “harakah” (movement), and then they said, “He (i.e. Ibraaheem) argued that on account of its movement (harakah) it cannot have Ruboobiyyah (i.e. be the Lord) [since harakah (movement) is not permitted for Allaah]. And this is completely unknown in the language in which the Qur’aan was revealed – not even in a single place [in the body of oral and written Arabic tradition, has it occurred] that ufool (setting) is actually harakah (movement).

Likewise, the ta’weel of “al-Ahad” (the One) to mean that it is the thing, one part of which cannot be distinguished from another. Then they said that if He (Allaah) was above the Throne, He would not then have been One (Ahad). So the ta’weel of “al-Ahad” with this particular meaning is not known to a single Arab, and nor to the people of the language, and nor has its usage with this meaning known to have occurred in a single place in the language of the people, rather it is the convention of the Jahmiyyah, the Philosophers and the Mu’tazilah and whoever agreed with them.

And also like the ta’weel of His saying, “…then he ascended (istawaa) over the Throne” (al-A’raaf 7:54), that the meaning is “he then embarked upon (turned to) creating the ‘Arsh”, for this is not known in the language of the Arabs, rather not in the language of any of the other nations, that when someone “turns to something” that it is said “he made istiwaa (ascension) over it”. So it is not said to the one who stood to embark upon a journey, “he has made istiwaa over it”, and nor to the one who embarked upon any action, such as reading or writing, or constructing something, that “he made istiwaa over them”, or to the one who turned towards food that “he made istiwaa over the food”. So this is the language of the people, and their words and their customs are present, and yet none of this (type of speech) exists at all.

The Actuality of T'awil and the Inherent Atheism of Jahmi Usool

Just as I have claimed above, that the practitioner of t'awil will absolutely and inevitably fall into takyeef, tamdheel, t'awil, or tahreef or a combination of them, Haafidh Shamsu-Deen Ibnul-Qayyim has stated this very reality in his Sawaa'iq al-Mursala

He says in the seventh bab and titles it with the following

Chapter Seven: The Meaning in the Ta’weel Made By the Mu’awwilah Contains The Very Same As That From Which They Originally Fled (ofTashbeeh)

This chapter is an amazing one for the one who reflects upon it. By way of [this chapter], it is known that the Muta’awwiloon do not benefit from their ta’weel [in anything], except that they make ta’teel (divestment) of the realities of the texts, fool around with them, and violate the sanctities of these texts, and they do not absolve themselves from that which they considered dangerous.

Rather, [that which they attempted to flee from] is actually binding upon them in that which they fled to [of ta’weel of its meaning to something else], just like it is binding (in their view) in that which they fled from (i.e. the original meaning behind the text).

Rather, they fall into that which is more severely cautioned against, as is the condition of those who made ta’weel of the texts related to [Allaah’s] uluww (ascendancy), fawqiyyah (aboveness), istiwaa (arising [over the Throne]), fleeing from confining and restricting (Him). And then they said that He is in every place, with His essence. Thus, they cleared Him of His arising over His Throne, His being distinct and separate from His creation, and then rendered Him into one who is found inside houses, wells, the sitting rooms and in the places whose mention is not desirable.

These are the forerunners, the earlier ones from the Jahmiyyah. When the later ones came to know of the corruption (of this viewpoint), they said that there is nothing behind the universe, and nor above the Throne, except pure non-existence (i.e. nothingness), and that there is not to be found there, a Lord that is worshipped, or an ilaah (deity) that is prostrated to, or prayed to, and nor is He in the universe. Thus, they made His ascription to the Throne (i.e. His ascending over it) to be just like ascribing Him to the vilest of places, high and exalted is Allaah above their saying, with a mighty exaltation.

[Source: As-Sawaa’iq al-Mursalah ‘alal-Jahmiyyah wal-Mu’attilah 1/234- 237]

Refuting open promotion of Homosexuality by Express Tribune: The Islamic Perspective

2012-04-13T13:55:00.000-07:00

In Islam sex out of wedlock is a major sin and if this act becomes apparent then its penalty is death in shara'i government.
Recently some of so called Muslims started trend of Same Sex Marriages. First of all their is no concept same sex marriage in Islam as it goes against fundamental definition and purpose of marriage . But shame on these people they want to make revive the practice of People of Lot(AS). Who made homosexuality as a social norm.

It was narrated that Jaabir (may Allaah be pleased with him): “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘There is nothing I fear for my ummah more than the deed of the people of Loot.’”
Similarly it is one of the signs of day of judgement that this act will increase in society.

Let us discussion that in some detail objectively.

Marriage in Islam: Goals, and Purpose

In this Chapter:

The definition of marriage
The important goals of marriage itself

The Definition of Marriage (Nikah)

The original meaning of the work nikah is the physical relationship between man and woman. It is also used secondarily to refer to the contract of marriage which makes that relationship lawful. Which of the two meanings is intended can be determined by the context in which it is used.

As for the definition of marriage in fiqh, the simple definition would go something like this:

    "A contract that results in the two parties physically enjoying each other in the manner allowed by the Shari'a."

Since this only focuses on one aspect of the marriage contract, Muhammad Abu Zahrah (a modern scholar) defines it like this:

    "A contract that results in the man and woman living with each other and supporting each other within the limits of what has been laid down for them in terms of rights and obligations."

Ibn Uthaimeen takes an even more comprehensive view of the institution of marriage in his definition of it as:

    "It is a mutual contract between a man and a woman whose goal is for each to enjoy the other, become a pious family and a sound society."

The Purpose and Goals of Marriage

Like anything a Muslim does, marriage should only be undertaken after gaining an understanding of all that Allah has prescribed in terms of rights and obligations as well as gaining an understanding of the wisdom behind this institution.   Nearly all peoples and all societies practice marriage in some form, just as they practice business (buying and selling). Umar ibn Al-Khattab used to expel people from the marketplace in Madina who were not knowledgeable of the fiqh of buying and selling. Likewise, a Muslim should not engage in something as important as marriage without having understanding of the purpose of marriage in Islam as well as a comprehensive understanding of the rights and obligations which it brings about.

One of the principles of Islamic Jurisprudence says that: "The default state of all things is lawfulness until some evidence shows otherwise."   Based on this, if new foods are discovered, they are considered lawful, unless there is some specific reason or attribute which would make it forbidden for example if it is causes intoxication. Relations between men and women do not follow this general principle and in fact are opposite to it. The principle is that:   "Relations between men and women are forbidden until some evidence shows otherwise."

Procreation (Children)

On of the most important purposes of marriage is to continue and increase the population of the Muslims. Clearly, this goal could be achieved without marriage, but when actions are undertaken in disobedience to Allah, they do not receive the blessing of Allah and the whole society is corrupted. The Prophet (sas) said:

    "Ankihoo fa inniy mukaathirun bikum al umam yaum al-Qiyama"
    "Marry, for I will outnumber the other nations by you on Qiyama." (Ibn Majah - Sahih)

It should be stressed that the goal is not simply to produce any child that will live in the next generation. It is to produce righteous children who will be obedient to Allah and who will be a source of reward for their parents after they die. The Prophet (sas) will NOT be boasting before the other nations on the day of Qiyama with children of Muslim parents who left the path of Islam. Thus it is the responsibility of Muslim parents to seek the means of giving their children the training and education they need not just to grow, but to succeed as Muslims worshipping and obeying Allah. This obligation may include migration (hijrah), establishing of Muslim communities and schools and other obligations.   As the scholars have said in another principle of fiqh:

    "Maa laa yutimmu al-wajibu illa bihi fa huwa wajib."
    "That without which an obligation cannot be fulfilled is itself obligatory."

Pleasure

Islam is the religion of the fitrah - the religion which is consistent with the natural instincts and needs of mankind. It is not like the man-made (of modified) religions which set unnatural constraints on people whether self-inflicted prohibition of marriage (nuns and monks, etc.), prohibition of divorce or monogamy. Men are inclined toward women and women are inclined toward men.   Marriage is the institution which fulfills this desire and channels it in ways pleasing to Allah Most High. Allah mentions this attraction:

    {Zuyyina li an-naasi hubbu ash-shahawaati min an-nisaa'i wa al-baneen...}
    {The love of the desires for women, sons, ... has been made attractive to people.} Aal-'Imraan:14

The Messenger of Allah himself made clear that the attraction between the sexes is something natural and not something to be denied or suppressed - only channelled in the ways pleasing to Allah Most High, saying:

    "Hubbiba ilayya min dunyaakum an-nisaa'u wa at-teebu wa ju'ilat qurratu 'ainiy fiy as-salat."
    "Women and perfume have been made beloved to me of this world of yours and my peace of mind is in the prayer." (Ahmad & others - sahih)

The desire of men and women for each other is an urge which needs to be fulfilled.   If it is left unfulfilled, it will be a source of discord and disruption in society. For this reason, the Prophet (sas) ordered all men who are capable of meeting the responsibilities of marriage to do it:

    "Man kana minkum dhaa tawlin, falyatazawwaj fa innahu aghadhdh lilbasari wa ahsanu lilfarji wa man laa fa as-saumu lahu wijaa."
    "Whichever of you is capable should marry for it will aid him in lowering his gaze and guarding his body (from sin). As for the one who is not capable, fasting is his protection." (An-Nasaa'i - sahih)

Conclusion Concerning the Ruling of Marriage

The opinion that marriage is - overall - preferred (mustahabb) seems to be the strongest opinion. Ibn Uthaimeen further points out that if a person desires to be married, it becomes even more important. He said: "Marriage in the case of desire for such is preferred over superogatory acts of worship, due to the many good results and praiseworthy effects it has."

Also, it is clear that there is a collective obligation (fardh kifaya) on the Ummah as a whole to promote, defend and facilitate the institution of marriage.   If marriage suffers from neglect or, for example, unreasonably high dowries which force people to postpone marriage too long, it is a collective obligation on the Ummah to come to its aid and to ensure that as many people as possible live within the context of a marriage. Also, if a the Muslims come to have too many single women because of the abandonment of polygamy, it become a collective obligation on the Muslims to address and correct this situation. This is all clearly based on the command of Allah in the verse previously cited which starts out:

{And marry off the single among you...}
(from: http://www.java-man.com/Pages/Marriage/Marriage02.html_

As sex of wedlock is forbidden and punishable if it becomes apparent So same is the case with act of homosexuality. We can conclude the following:

1) There is no harm in having homosexual desire because this is something one may not be able stop. One must learn to suppress and control them.
An-Nawawi:
A mukhannath is the one ("male") who carries in his movements, in his appearance and in his language the characteristics of a woman. There are two types; the first is the one in whom these characteristics are innate, he did not put them on by himself, and therein is no guilt, no blame and no shame, as long as he does not perform any (illicit) act or exploit it for money (prostitution etc.). The second type acts like a woman out of immoral purposes and he is the sinner and blameworthy.

Shyakh Ayman bin Khaled (Multaqa Ahlal-Hadeeth):
As per Islamic terminology, the correct translation of Khutha is "Hermaphrodites" which means, one having both male and female sexual characteristics and organs; at birth an unambiguous assignment of male or female cannot be made. The term effeminate is exclusive and serves negative meaning as it often refers to men adapting or imitating women. However, scholars later on expanded in using the term so that used to describe a man with feminism character with mukhannath (adjective derived from the term Khuntha), while the application of the term khuntha remained as is. So we conclude similarly that if someone develop SSA develops in a person than their no problem with until he/she act on it.

2) Doing act of homosexual is a major sin like Zina or may be even more swear sin. Prophet cursed the doers of this act.

Allah say is Quran:

“And come not near to unlawful sex. Verily, it is a Faahishah (i.e. anything that transgresses its limits: a great sin), and an evil way (that leads one to hell unless Allah Forgives him)” [al-Isra’ 17:32]
Sex of out wedlock is unlawful and in Islam there is no concept of same-sex marriage.
Ahmad (2915) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “May Allaah curse the one who does the action of the people of Loot, may Allaah curse the one who does the action of the people of Loot,” three times. This was classed as hasan by Shu’ayb al-Arna’oot in Tahqeeq al-Musnad.

3)And if that act becomes apparent in society then the people involved in it are executed.
Al-Tirmidhi (1456), Abu Dawood (4462)and Ibn Maajah (2561) narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”. Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
Both are to be punished by execution, as it says in the hadith. But two exceptions may be made to that:
i – One who is forced into sodomy by means of beating, death threats and the like. He is not subject to any hadd punishment.
It says in Sharh Muntaha al-Iraadaat (3/348): There is no hadd punishment if the one who has been sodomized is forced into it, such as if the one who did it overpowered him or threatened him with death or beating and the like. End quote.
ii – If the one to whom it was done is a minor and has not reached the age of puberty. There is no hadd punishment in this case, but he should be disciplined and punished in a way that will deter him from committing this crime, as stated above in the quotation from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah.
Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) narrated in al-Mughni (9/62) that there is no difference of opinion among the scholars concerning the fact that the hadd punishment should not be carried out on one who is insane or a boy who has not yet reached the age of puberty.

4) If some justifies the act and openly promotes it as society norm like people of Loot. Then it is not only kufr but their punishment is worst.
So what should one do being a Muslim that he/she got same sex attraction (SSA)? I will not be using word Gay, Lesbian or Bi for Muslims as I think that’s not appropriate for Muslims. Being Muslim one should learn to control and suppress SSA. And there are people who have successfully fully diminished and suppressed their desires, other have done partially i.e. SSA is still prevalent but never the less their live is satisfactory and there are other who are not successfully at all. Those who are not successful should take this as test from Allah and deal it patience. I have read testimonies of many Muslims who were unable to suppress their desires but they didn't have involved themselves it in this act and they say it made them spiritually stronger and closer to Allah. They turned their weakness to their strength. I will discuss that in next part.

Refuting open promotion of Homosexuality by Express Tribune: What should a Muslim do if he/she is struggling with SSA

2012-04-13T13:54:00.004-07:00

As I have already mentioned having SSA desires is not a problem but acting on those impulses is a great sin. As I have given examples of various other problems like pedophilia which is also very difficult to come and it is also something which they claim they are born with it. Same like SSA with in most of the cases those desires are not choice. But acting upon them is a choice and it is considered immoral, unacceptable and harmful. Same is from Islamic point of view that that acting upon homosexual desire is sin and unacceptable.
They are a great inconclusive debates going whether that SSA is can be changed or not. Currently the popular myth is that it cannot be changed. But it is not entirely true. I have been reading stories around internet of people both Muslims and Non-Muslims who have:
1) completely diminished their desires
2) Suppressed SSA for OSA but SSA is still dominant
3) Cannot overcome SSA but they avoid acting upon them. And I will provide with some those stories

1) Completly diminished their desires

From a non-muslim
Can brain structure change? thus changing sexual orientation.?

Because I swear it happened to me. I am a male.I had a female brain aka gay brain, and I was oriented towards guys. No doubt.
But after some events, which involved realising i have feelings for a girl, recently my brain changed into the male brain and I find myself oriented towards girls now. I litterally felt it change. I NATURALLY want to look at girls now. When earlier on I was somewhat acting.
Do you think brain structure changing during growth is possible? Btw my brain changed when I was 18. I am still 18 now.
Or was it more to do with experiences in life, realising what one wants in life etc which makes you naturally become different? in sexual orientation, i.e.
(source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080814111030AA0hcrS)

From a Muslim Revert
IslamOnline.net (or rather, its subsite ReadingIslam.com) has once again led the way by featuring the story of Ayub, a brother who embraced Islam after a period of life in which he actively practiced homosexuality. His journey is inspirational and his advice is of great value to anyone who wants to understand the path of Islam, which is also the path of self-understanding, life discipline and inner peace.
Ayub is someone we have great pleasure to know, and we ask Allah to reward him abundantly for putting his experiences out there for a wide audience to encounter.
Struggling Against Homosexuality, Finding Islam
By Ayub
[And He found thee wandering, and He gave thee guidance.] (Ad-Duha 93:7)
Homosexuality has become one of the most widely discussed social issues of our day. Some communities around the world are embracing and accepting its practice.
More and more societies are making room for those who are convinced that God made them gay and that they have no choice but to accept it. This has even begun happening within the Muslim community.
I am telling my story because I found a different path. I am an American man who through Allah’s grace was able to loosen the grip of same-sex attractions and find my way out of the homosexual lifestyle.
I did this by embracing Islam.
I want to share my story, not to fan the flames of any political debate, but because I believe it could be a source of help and comfort to Muslim men and teenagers who want to leave same-sex attractions behind.
I also pray that my words might provide guidance to the families of those who are struggling.
My Story
For all of my adult life I have struggled with attractions to other men. The attractions began during my early teenage years and strengthened over time. I finally gave in to these urges in college and embraced a homosexual lifestyle.
I lived as an openly gay man for five years and had many same sex experiences.
I embraced this lifestyle because I thought this was who I was. It was a mystery to me exactly where these attractions came from.
Anyone struggling with same-sex attractions feels this at some point. The attractions are so deep-seated and arise in such an uninvited way that they seem beyond our conscious control.
At a certain point, in order to live with ourselves, many of us begin to accept these feelings as normal. And we start demanding that others accept them in us as well.
But I soon discovered that there was another way to see this. While living as a gay person, I was also searching for answers.
All my life I felt I was destined to find something more, something special that would better explain who I was and why I was here. The Christian religion I was raised in never really satisfied that yearning.
During and after college I also explored Buddhism, Hinduism and non-religious forms of meditation. None of them did it for me.
Then when I was 25 I had a life-changing experience that led me to Islam. It suddenly became clear to me that what I had been seeking had a name: Allah, that all-encompassing Grace that had created me and everyone and everything else.
Allah, that Light, that same Light, which spoke and continues to speak to man through His Messenger (PBUH) and all His other prophets.
Allah, that Resonance, that same Resonance, that has been delivering His message to mankind since the beginning of time.
It also became clear that in order to follow the path to Allah, I would have to give up the homosexual lifestyle. It was shown to me through several experiences, both internal and external, that homosexuality was wrong and that continuing to practice it would block my spiritual progress.
I didn’t fully understand why at the time. I had to accept it on faith. But I knew deep inside that this was the truth.
Several difficult years followed, but my determination to become free of same-sex attractions was strong. By Allah’s grace I was first able to cut all external ties to my previous life. I also learned, little by little, how to control the urges that kept drawing me back to what was haram.
To this day I am still vulnerable to these attractions in weaker moments. But I had only one more experience after embracing Islam. That was nearly twenty years ago. It was the last one I will ever have.
How I See My Struggle
After years of struggling, the battle has become easier. I have come to see same-sex attractions not as a curse, but as an opportunity.
Some people work for years to figure out how they can serve Allah. For me this question was answered a long time ago: control same-sex attractions and share what you have learned.
I have come to think of my life this way: whatever else happens, if I can stay free of this craziness and perhaps help others become free, I will have found success in the central jihad of my life.
Others may not agree with the approach I have taken, and that’s fine. But for those who are struggling, I offer these words from my own experience: You don’t have to settle for a life that is contrary to what Allah has prescribed for us. You don’t have to accept a definition of yourself that is compromised or any less than what He has ordained for you as a Muslim.
And most of all, you don’t have to live with the shame of rejection by your family, friends and peers. There is another way, and there are brothers (and sisters) out there who can help you, as they themselves have been helped.
Tips and Techniques
Here are some techniques that I and others have found helpful in controlling same-sex attraction.
1) Make the intention to change. You have to want to change, and you have to believe that you can. Allah is there to help you, but you have to make the intention first.
Ask Him with all the sincerity you can muster to help you battle this thing inside.
Develop the certitude that this is your own personal jihad, and make a commitment to Allah and to yourself that you will see it through to the end, no matter what happens.
2) Cut off all associations with friends and activities associated with “being gay.” Do not underestimate the power of outside trappings and “friends” who will pull you back in.
Make a clean break, it will help immensely in your struggle.
3) Develop strong, healthy male friendships. Put yourself in the company of guys who are NOT same-sex attracted and learn how to get along with them. This process can be difficult at first, but ultimately it is essential. It demystifies other men, cutting the tendency to see them as objects.
4) Do regular Salat and Dhikr. Read the Qur’an. As Allah and His Messenger have said over and over, there is special power in prayer. That extends to controlling base desires of all kinds.
5) Get some help. Seek out counseling with a professional who respects your decision NOT to indulge in same-sex experiences. Or join a support group.
StraightStruggle is an online group that caters exclusively to Muslims who are battling same-sex attraction and their families. It is a safe, private and compassionate environment to address all issues relating to this struggle.
A Word to Family and Friends
Finally, a note for family members of brothers and sisters dealing with same-sex attraction. Compassion, love and understanding are the best medicine for anyone struggling to control same-sex attraction.
You need to have patience beyond patience and do your best to reserve judgment.
In my experience, people are best able to learn and change behaviors when given the love, support and space in which to do so.

Those who cannot overcome SSA but they avoid acting upon them.

Comment by a sister on Yasir Qadhi’s blog
Sister Conviction2Change

Salam dear brothers and sisters,
I will firstly introduce myself as a sister who has "homosexual urges". I do not call myself a homosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or any of those terms. I call myself, and I am, a Muslimah battling same sex attractions (SSA). I do believe Allah has chosen me, hand-picked me, for such a test. (So contrary to what ALGEBRA said in the beginning of the comments, I do believe Allah tests us with this. I am not angry at Him for this. He has wisdom in all that He does. I am grateful for having SSA as it has made me a stronger Muslim.)
I am also on the very beneficial support group that brother Taleb Haq has posted up, Straight Struggle. I suggest all brothers and sisters who also wish to combat their desires for the sake of Allah and to live a better lifestyle to join the group.

I have not yet read through all of the comments, but I would like to comment on what Sh. Yasir wrote first:
Shaykh, may Allah reward you for the words you have written and the brothers and sisters you have helped by Allah's will by writing this article. I am an avid listener of your lectures, goer to your events, and reader of Muslim Matters. To finally see an article like this "come out" :) is heart warming and comforting for someone who has struggled with this in silence and now a forum has opened up about this issue in public.
Shaykh, as I have done a lot of research on this topic from the perspective of wanting to rid myself of these desires (and I would like to add there is a lot of material out there, mainly written by non-Muslims, about how to overcome SSA) I would like to comment on and refine a point that you made in the article.
You said your theory is how sexual images are bombarding our minds in the society, day and age that we live in. You are correct, but there is also a greater reason. SSA is due to sexual reasons but more due to emotional reasons. Every person you will ever meet who is struggling with SSA (or even openly gay) has emotional issues he or she is embedded with. SSA is not a sexual problem at all really. It is emotional. This is a long topic though but just to brush the surface: You will notice people with SSA do not always have good relationships with their parents, they probably identified with the opposite gender at a young age, they might've been repelled by their same gender at a young age, they may have been sexually molested/abused at some point in their lives, they might have grown up in physically abusive homes, they probably have insecurities deeply routed in how unsafe they feel at home or around others of the opposite sex, and the list goes on. There is so much to be said on these topics and it is all out there for those who wish to find them.
Another point I would like to emphasize is that marriage is not the solution, but it is PART of the solution for sure. Marriage is very important and should be worked on attaining, whether or not one struggles with SSA, as it is a completion of half of our faith. It should not be put off, but it should also be realized that it should not be seen as the sole solution. There is a lot more emotionally that one needs to work on in combination with taking steps like getting married.
Also in response to calihijabi, dear sister I completely understand how you feel. The fact of the matter is that it is less common to hear of women struggling with this. My theories of why this is true are that (1) we do not "come out" and tell people we even have these problems with our sexuality and (2) in general, I think Muslim women have more readily turned towards accepting a lesbian identity and therefore do not even care to battle their urges. I am always looking around for other sisters who hold my perspective so that we may build a strong united front so that we may support other sisters. I have found a few, and of course we are scatted over the globe, but I am confident others will slowly join us and we can have more of a voice one day insha Allah.
On that note, if anyone has any questions or is seeking advice from a sister, you can always email me at conviction2change@gmail.com. I am open to getting messages from complete "strangers" and don't mind it. To me, you're not strangers, you're my brothers and sisters in Islam.
As a side note, I created my email address a year ago when I joined the Straight Struggle support group. I advise everyone who is struggling with SSA to join it as well as it has helped me, by the will of Allah, come a long way. A little more than a year ago I was suicidal, getting addicted to porn, and even wanted to leave Islam. Today, I am happy I have this test, grateful Allah guided me away from the edge, and confident that I will succeed in my test.

Salam,

Your sister with a conviction to change
conviction2change@gmail.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/straightstruggle/

Some measure into to take:
For Family and Friends:

This of biggest test on your loved one by Allah(swt). Just like people who born without limbs or mentality retarded. They need lots of care and support from family. Try to understand to their problem. Who knows if Allah wills their SSA may diminish with time. If you don’t support them then they may end up harming themselves with suicide or engaging in this sinful act. Don't force them into marriage until their problem is sorted. I have read that many muslims with SSA are depressed because their parent are forcing them into marriage. Marriage is one of the solution but not the only. But it has worked in many cases although they still have SSA in some form but they are content with their lives.

For the individual with SSAPoint picked from my observation and above article/comments.
1) Learn the fundamental of Islam starting from Tawheed, aqeedah and fiqh.
2) Read Quran with understanding.
3) Recognize your Creator and the purpose for which you are created.
4) Take this hardship as a test. If you successful conquering then you may be one from Awliyyah Allah.
5) Prayer regularly and keep yourself busy with Dhikr.
6) Develop strong, healthy male friendships. Put yourself in the company of guys who are NOT same-sex attracted and learn how to get along with them. This process can be difficult at first, but ultimately it is essential. It demystifies other men, cutting the tendency to see them as objects.
7) Get some help. Seek out counseling with a professional who respects your decision NOT to indulge in same-sex experiences. Or join a support group.
StraightStruggle(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/straightstruggle/) is an online group that caters exclusively to Muslims who are battling same-sex attraction and their families. It is a safe, private and compassionate environment to address all issues relating to this struggle.

8) Try Neuro Linguistic Programming. Skimming around NLP forum I found that many individual and practitioner say that suppressing SSA is possible and successful. Try to contact a Muslim practitioner. Also go through Anthony Robbins Awake The Giant Within.

9) Ruqya: I think many you have heard of cases that after the marriage men or women OSA goes away completely as a result of Magic or Evil eye. And it is cured by Rugya. So contact a Raqi. If Allah willed then this may also solve your problem.

10)Hypnotherapy: Contact any Muslims hypnotherapist. Here is the result of one of the hypnotherapy:
Of the 15 patients, three showed no improvement, four showed a mild improvement and eight showed a marked improvement.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1935956/

Refuting open promotion of Homosexuality by Express Tribune :We are not causing any harm to others

2012-04-13T13:46:00.003-07:00

One of the most common argument by secular humanist and champions of human’s rights activist is that everything is fine as long as is it is causing no harm to others. And from this they conclude that homosexuality is acceptable in society. Previously Homosexuality was consider bad, unnatural and mental disorder but due political pressures it is no longer considered as a mental disorder. As I have refuted the claims the homosexuality not as natural as they claim, there is no gay gene and what apparently look as homosexuality in animal is not really the case with humans. Their perception of morality is relative i.e. what is consider today as moral may be consider as immoral in future and vice-verse depending upon social consensus. I will argue that by having homosexual desire just not justify to to act upon it and accept it as a social norm. Our concern is hypocrisy and double standards. When Islam don't allow homosexuality and open-sex environment we are labeled as backward, homophobes and against human freedom. The reasons they think open sex and homosexuality is ok can used be defend many other acts as well which still are not allowed. I am going expose the hypocrisy of these so called humanist because there are acts with similar causes and also found “naturally” in animal kingdom but acting upon these desire is still consider as unacceptable and immoral in society. If someone acts upon it then most the time these people are first to raise their against it. And I can easily proof that they cause no harm, they are very “natural” and many of these desire are also supposedly linked with biological causes.

What about Pedophilic desires?
Many of them try to argue that pedophilia is different than homosexuality. Because one is about fetish and other is about orientation. But that is not the case. If we study the people with Pedophilic desire their case is almost same as homosexuality.
Pedophiles Argue Their Case in the Journal of Homosexuality
Gay culture does not grant the pedophile movement general acceptance. It does, however, offer a peripheral credibility to this movement which pedophilia has never been granted in the culture at large. Members of NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) march in some gay pride parades.
The academic Journal of Homosexuality (vol. 20, nos. 1/2, l990) has also explored the issue of "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" in a generally approving manner. (Back issues of this journal can be ordered by calling Haworth Press at 1-800-HAWORTH.)
Discrimination Against a Minority
The vast majority of the articles in "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" argue that pedophilia should be freed from categorization as child abuse. In the foreword, Dr. Gunter Schmidt closes by saying that "Each individual case must be looked upon on its own merits...the threat to make all pedophile acts punishable by law can barely be labeled civilized...it implies discrimination and persecution of a minority and should be abolished." (p. 4)
Another group of writers (two psychologists and a lawyer--Sandfort, Brongersma, and Naerssen) argue that "the current social climate makes it rather difficult to look at [pedophilic] relationships in an objective way." (p.5)
"Born that Way and Can't Change"
In another article, "'The Main Thing is Being Wanted': Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children," the author says that one-third of the pedophiles he has studied claimed that "their sexual desire for children is a natural part of their constitution. This desire is variously described as 'inbred,' 'innate,' 'a fact of nature,' 'inherent in them,' etc. The leitmotif of their accounts is 'this is me' or 'just the way I am.'"
The author concludes that the feeling of being "born a pedophile" makes them feel they cannot change, and therefore they are convinced they have the same right as other people to pursue the "natural" expression of their sexuality. (p. 133). The same author quotes a respondent's belief that "if adult-child sex was commonplace, the majority of it would surely be good for both participants." (p. 137).
Psychology Must Remain "Unbiased"
Another article ("Boy-Lovers and their Influence on Boys," by Edward Brongersma) complains about the "bias" which labels man-boy sex as "abuse, molestation, assault, " etc. Dr. Brongersma complains that researchers are unable to remain objective about pedophilia, saying "...many people...exhibit such violently emotional hostility toward boy-lovers because they fear their own...pedophile impulses." (p. l53).
Dr. Brongersma goes on to cite cases in which social workers achieved "miracles with apparently incorrigible young delinquents--not by preaching to them but by sleeping with them." He describes how these sexual relationships "did far more good than years in reformatories." (p. l6l).
He advises that the loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62) and goes on to say that parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..."
Children's Rights to Autonomy
Another writer, David Thorstad, argues for "freedom of sexual expression for young people and children" (p. 255) and quotes a lesbian who talks of the "rich texture" of her experiences as a molested child.
Writer Gerald Jones says that "same-sex intergenerational intimacy may be developmentally functional" (p. 279) and says, "Some studies have found benign or even beneficial results in boys who were at the time involved with men" (p. 280). Dr. Jones speaks approvingly of recent studies which discuss pedophilia in "value-neutral terms." (p. 280)
Along the same vein, The Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review interviewed poet Allen Ginsberg, a homosexual pedophile, shortly before his recent death. In a generally flattering article, they report Ginsburg's philosophy (not mentioned by the mainstream press) about sex with children, and offer no judgmental comment about it. The article is entitled, "The Liberation is the Word" (Summer 1997):
(Allen Ginsberg): "Like the whole labeling of pedophiles as 'child molesters.' Everybody likes little kids. All you've got to do is walk through the Vatican and see all the little statues of little prepubescents, pubescents, and postpubescents. Naked kids have been a staple of delight for centuries, for both parents and onlookers. So to label pedophilia as criminal is ridiculous."

Notice any similarity? See How they say that their desires are natural i.e. they are born with it. They are also arguing that they are not causing any harm but it is wrong perception of society. But till this day pedophilia is punishable in many countries but acting on this desire is considered as not good.

Cannibalism
Cannibalism is more natural and common in animals than homosexuality. So does that mean that we should we tolerate cannibalism in humans as well? Like if someone say that they interested in eating corpses. What harm it causes to other?

There two type of cannibalism reported in Animals Kingdom:
Sexual cannibalism
Sexual cannibalism is a special case of cannibalism in which a female organism kills and consumes a conspecific (same species) male before, during, or after copulation. Rarely, these roles are reversed.[4][5] Sexual cannibalism has been recorded in the female redback spider, black widow spider, praying mantis, and scorpion, among others.
Filial cannibalism
Another common form of cannibalism is filial cannibalism (a form of infanticide) in which adults eat their own offspring. Classical vertebrate examples include chimpanzees, where groups of adult males have been observed to attack and consume conspecific infants, and cats. In agricultural settings, pigs are known to eat their own young, accounting for a sizeable percentage of total piglet deaths.
Cannibalism is reported thorough out in Human history in different forms. You will find that many people obsessed with eating human flesh. So should we allow them, if they promise just to eat death unwanted and homeless bodies? Surely it will save cost of funeral and cremation.

(from Wiki)

Incest
Incest is sexual intercourse between close relatives that is usually illegal in the jurisdiction where it takes place and/or is conventionally considered a taboo. The term may apply to sexual activities between: individuals of close "blood relationship"; members of the same household; step relatives related by adoption or marriage; and members of the same clan or lineage. Its punishment can be imprisonment upto of few years.
It is also very natural in animals. But why we don’t have acceptance from society if both partner are agreed on it and may not do it for having children? You will see people calling it disguising. For instance see this news report regarding Incest couple in Germany facing lawsuit.
Look at this new report.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17690997

Necrophilia
Necrophilia, also called thanatophilia or necrolagnia, is the sexual attraction to corpses. It is classified as a paraphilia by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. It also causes no harm to others and it is also reported in Animals. Let say boyfriend or girlfriend of someone died what harm he or she is causing by having sexual relation with corpses.
Research
In 1958, Klaf and Brown commented that, although rarely described, necrophilic fantasies may occur more often than is generally supposed.

Rosman and Resnick (1989) theorized that either of the following situations could be antecedents to necrophilia (pp. 161):

    The necrophile develops poor self-esteem, perhaps due in part to a significant loss;

        (a) He/she is very fearful of rejection by women/men and he/she desires a sexual partner who is incapable of rejecting him/her; and/or
        (b) He/she is fearful of the dead, and transforms his/her fear — by means of reaction formation — into a desire.

    He/she develops an exciting fantasy of sex with a corpse, sometimes after exposure to a corpse.

The authors also reported that, of their sample of 'necrophiliacs,':

    68% were motivated by a desire for an unresisting and unrejecting partner;
    21% by a want for reunion with a lost partner;
    15% by sexual attraction to dead people;
    15% by a desire for comfort or to overcome feelings of isolation; and
    11% by a desire to remedy low self-esteem by expressing power over a corpse (pp. 159).

At the end of their own report, Rosman and Resnick wrote that their study should only be used like a spring-board for further, more in depth, research.

Minor modern researches conducted in England have shown that some necrophiles tend to choose a dead mate after failing to create romantic attachments with the living

In animals
Necrophilia is known to occur in animals, with a number of confirmed observations. Kees Moeliker allegedly made one of these observations while he was sitting in his office at the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam, when he heard the distinctive thud of a bird hitting the glass facade of the building. Upon inspection, he discovered a drake (male) mallard lying dead outside the building. Next to the downed bird there was a second drake mallard standing close by. As Moeliker observed the couple, the living drake pecked at the corpse of the dead one for a few minutes then mounted the corpse and began copulating with it. The act of necrophilia lasted for about 75 minutes, in which time, according to Moeliker, the living drake took two short breaks before resuming with copulating behavior. Moeliker surmised that at the time of the collision with the window the two mallards were engaged in a common pattern in duck behavior called "attempted rape flight". "When one died the other one just went for it and didn't get any negative feedback — well, didn't get any feedback," according to Moeliker. This is the first recorded case of necrophilia in the mallard duck- though not the only recorded case of homosexuality within the bird family.

The film The Cane Toads: an Unnatural History shows a male toad copulating with a female toad that has been run over by a car. It goes on to do this for eight hours.

In the case of a praying mantis, necrophilia could be said to be part of their methods of reproduction. The larger female will sometimes decapitate or even eat her mate during copulation. However, this only happens in 5-31% of cases.

(from Wiki)

Zoophilia

Zoophilia is the practice of sexual activity between humans and non-human animals, or a preference for or fixation on such practice.

Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, it is not explicitly condoned anywhere. In most countries, zoophilic sexual acts are illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with "crimes against nature"; however, the notion that such acts are "abusive" is disputed. Supporter these acts can also argue that it is not harmful and it is very natural.

Let me show you some:

Brian Cutteridge states the following regarding this argument:

    "Animal sexual autonomy is regularly violated for human financial gain through procedures such as [artificial insemination]. Such procedures are probably more disturbing physically and psychologically than acts of zoophilia would be, yet the issue of consent on the part of the animal is never raised in the discussion of such procedures. To confine the 'right' of any animal strictly to acts of zoophilia is thus to make a law [against zoophilia] based not on reason but on moral prejudice, and to breach the constitutional rights of zoophiles to due process and equality before the law. [...] Laws which criminalize zoophilia based on societal abhorrence of such acts rather than any real harm caused by such acts are an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty."

Miletski believes that "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way."[103] It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("hump") the legs of people of both genders.[104] Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training, and even Dekkers (1994) and Menninger (1951) admit that sometimes animals take the initiative and do so impulsively Those supporting zoophilia feel animals sometimes even seem to enjoy the sexual attentionor to initiate it. Animals such as dogs can be willing participants in sexual activity with humans, and "seem to enjoy the attention provided by the sexual interaction with a human." Animal owners normally know what their own pets like or do not like. Most people can tell if an animal does not like how it is being petted, because it will move away. An animal that is liking being petted pushes against the hand, and seems to enjoy it. To those defending zoopilia this is seen as a way in which animals give consent, or the fact that a dog might wag its tail.

Utilitarian philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer argues that zoophilia is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal. In the article "Heavy Petting," Singer argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed. Singer and others have argued that people's dislike of bestiality is partly caused by irrational speciesism and anthropocentrism. Because interspecies sex occurs in nature, and because humans are animals, it is argued that zoophilic activity is not "unnatural" and is not intrinsically wrong

Zoophiles claim that they are not abusive towards animal:

    "In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said. Many even consider themselves to be animal welfare advocates in addition to zoophiles."
(from Wiki)

Refuting open promotion of Homosexuality by Express Tribune: Born that way?

2012-04-13T13:43:00.001-07:00

Is There a "Gay Gene"?
Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception.
The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?
No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

How The Public Was Misled
In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeable normal variant of human nature.
Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."
Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."
In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some little known facts about behavioral genetics.

Gene Linkage Studies
Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:
a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and
b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.
To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.
In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.

Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research
But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:
Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}

Homosexual Twin Studies
Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."
But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:
While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}
The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:
... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}

More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community
Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.
"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:
"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}
But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:
...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}
Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:
It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.
Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.

Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"
There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.
Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.
Understanding the Theory
There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:
1. Heritable does not mean inherited.
2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.
Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.
How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way
Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.
The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.
So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.
Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.
Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)
Soon after, the article appears. It says:
"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."
But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.

What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use
Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.
Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."
A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."
You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.
Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.

Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"
Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.
You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.
After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.
With a Little Help from the Media
Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."
Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"
Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.
In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.
What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.
From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}
From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}
From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}
From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}
As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.
Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Endnotes
{1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).
{2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.
{3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.
{4} "New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene'," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95.
{5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., "Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65.
{6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."
{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.
{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.
{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.
The above article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, available by calling (972) 713-7130; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover's 1996 book, Homosexuality an

Some more interesting material to read:
http://narth.com/docs/080307Abbott_NARTH_article.pdf

Refuting open promotion of Homosexuality by Express Tribune: The Animal Homosexuality Myth

2012-04-13T13:40:00.000-07:00

by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo(from NARTH website)
The following article is adapted from the author's recently published book, Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.
In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement[1] turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:
Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
Homosexuality is irreversible;
Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.
Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises,[2] the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.[3]
Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?
The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?
In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:
There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
-- Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts
To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.
Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.
In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]
At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."
-- Animal "Filicide" and "Cannibalism"
Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving "mixed signals" from their instincts:
Most female cats can switch between "play mode" and "hunt mode" in order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of "hunt mode" may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the "hunting" instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue.... Compare the size, sound and activity of kittens with the size, sound and activity of prey. They are both small, have high-pitched voices and move with fast, erratic movements. All of these trigger hunting behavior. In the tomcat, maternal behavior cannot always override hunting behavior and he treats the kittens in exactly the same way he would treat small prey. His instincts are confused.[5]
Regarding animal cannibalism, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes:
Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.[6]
-- Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States
To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.
Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man's disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.

-- Explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior
Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:
There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.
First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]
Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]
Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:
Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]
Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:
Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]
Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.
-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:
Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]
It Is Unscientific To "Read" Human Motivation And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior
Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often "read" human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:
The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.[13]
Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:
Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure....The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.[14]
Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:
Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations."[15]
Dr. Bagemihl's interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, "an imprint of St. Martin's Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books."
Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational Man
Some researchers studying animal "homosexual" behavior extrapolate from the realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man's nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.
Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside, for example, states:
Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. ... Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.[16]
Simon LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal "homosexuality" will help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states:
It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of nonprocreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is "against nature": the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.[17]
Other researchers feel compelled to point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions:
For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural. They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.[18]
The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself:
It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. .... The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.[19]
The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man's rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human.
Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.[20]
To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.

From Science To Mythology
Dr. Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance research displays his fundamental dissatisfaction with science and enthusiasm for aboriginal mythology:
Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures about systems of gender and sexuality...[21]
To Western science, homosexuality (both animal and human) is an anomaly, an unexpected behavior that above all requires some sort of "explanation" or "cause" or "rationale." In contrast, to many indigenous cultures around the world, homosexuality and transgender are a routine and expected occurrence in both the human and animal worlds...[22]
Most Native American tribes formally recognize--and honor--human homosexuality and transgender in the role of the 'two-spirit' person (sometimes formerly known as berdache). The 'two-spirit' is a sacred man or woman who mixes gender categories by wearing clothes of opposite or both sexes .... And often engaging in same -sex relations. ... In many Native American cultures, certain animals are also symbolically associated with two-spiritedness, often in the form of creation myths and origin legends relating to the first or "supernatural" two-spirit(s)....A Zuni creation story relates how the first two spirits--creatures that were neither male nor female, yet both at the same time--were the twelve offspring of a mythical brother-sister pair. Some of these creatures were human, but one was a bat and another an old buck Deer.[23]
Dr. Bagemihl applies this androgynous myth, so widespread in today's homosexual movement, to the animal kingdom with the help of Indian and aboriginal mythology. He invites the West to embrace "a new paradigm:"[24]
Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological Exuberance brings us full circle--back to the way of looking at the world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves binary oppositions....Biological Exuberance is...a worldview that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable.[25]

Conclusion
In summary, the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science.

Luiz Sérgio Solimeo joined the Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) in 1959. As a researcher and writer, he specializes in philosophical and theological topics and has several published works. Mr. Solimeo has been in the United States assisting the American TFP since 1999.
In this article, Mr. Solimeo develops a section of Chapter 11, "Answering the Movement's Scientific Arguments," of the new book Defending A Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement (Spring Grove, Penn.: The American TFP, 2004) -- ISBN 1-877905-33-X -- 232 pages -- paperback -- $14.95 (s/h included) -- To order, call toll-free (866) 661-0272.

[1] The expression homosexual movement is used to designate a vast network of organizations, pressure groups, intellectuals and activists who strive to impose changes in laws, customs, morals and mentalities, so that homosexuality is not only tolerated but also accepted as good and normal. Hence, movement activists pressure society to legalize both the practice and the public manifestations of homosexuality, such as same-sex "marriage," while relentlessly assailing those who defend traditional morals.
[2] For a brief overview of the evidence debunking the "it is in the genes" and the irreversibility of same-sex orientation theories see the TFP's flyer "Not Genetic! Not Irreversible! Not Natural!" www.tfp.org/tfc/boston_scientific.pdf.
[3] Cf. Simon LeVay, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996). Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999).
[4] Cf. RŽgis Jolivet, TraitŽ de Philosophie, (Lyon-Paris: Emmanuel Vitte, ƒditeur, 1950), Vol. 2, pp. 306-396.
[5] Sarah Hartwell, Cats that kill kittens, at http://www.messybeast.com/kill_kit.htm (Our emphasis.)
[6] "Cannibalism in Animals." (Our emphasis.)
[7] Frans B. M. de Waal, "Bonobo Sex and Society," Scientific American, Mar. 1995, pp. 82-88, www.songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html. (Our emphasis.)
[8] "Cachorro Gay?" Focinhos Online, www2.uol.com.br/focinhos/petsnodiva/index.shtml.
[9] Jacque Lynn Schultz, "Getting Over the Hump," ASPCA Animal Watch, Summer 2002, www.petfinder.org/journalindex.cgi?path=/public/animalbehavior/dogs/1.2.36.txt&template. (Our emphasis.)
[10] Ibid. (Our emphasis.)
[11] LeVay, p. 207.
[12] Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos mŽdicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89.
[13] "Exploding the Myth of Constitutional Homosexuality," National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/exploding.html. (Our emphasis.)
[14] "Cachorro Gay?"
[15] Bagemihl, p. 2. (Our emphasis.)
[16] Dinitia Smith, "Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name," The New York Times, Feb. 7, 2004. (Our emphasis.)
[17] LeVay, p. 209.
[18] Quoted by Dinitia Smith, "Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name."
[19] Bruto Maria Bruti, Domande e risposte sul problema dell'omosessualitˆ, www.paginecattoliche.it/domande-_omosessualita.htm. (Our emphasis.)
[20] "Man is correctly defined as a rational animal; animal refers to the proximate genus; rational refers to the specific differentiation." Joannes di Napoli, Manuale Philosophiae (Turin, Italy: Marietti Editori, 1961), Vol. 2, p. 165.
[21] Bagemihl, p. 5.
[22] Ibid., p. 215.
[23] Ibid., p. 216.
[24] "The final chapter of part 1, 'A New Paradigm: Biological Exuberance,' calls for a radical rethinking of the way we view the natural world. This revisioning begins with an exploration of another, alternative set of human interpretations: traditional beliefs about animal homosexuality/transgender in indigenous cultures." Ibid., p. 5.
[25] Ibid., p. 262.

Refuting open promotion of Homosexuality by Express Tribune: What cause this behavior?

2012-04-13T13:37:00.000-07:00

Julie Harren, Ph.D., LMFT(from NARTH website)
Homosexuality is an issue that has often been mishandled by therapists due to misinformation on the topic. Although not supported by the research, many therapists believe that homosexuality is solely biological in nature, and therefore unchangeable. Yet despite ongoing efforts, researchers have not discovered a biological basis for same-sex attractions. In fact, many researchers hypothesize that a homosexual orientation stems from a combination of biological and environmental factors. For example, when asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, gay gene researcher, Dean Hamer, replied, "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors" (Anastasia, 1995, p. 43). In addition, brain researcher Simon LeVay has acknowledged that multiple factors may contribute to a homosexual orientation (LeVay, 1996).
What, then, are the causes of homosexual attractions? These feelings typically stem from a combination of temperamental factors and environmental factors that occur in a child's life. According to Whitehead and Whitehead (1999), "Human behavior is determined by both nature and nurture. Without genes, you can't act in the environment at all. But without the environment your genes have nothing on which to act" (p. 10). One way of understanding this combination might be expressed in the following equation:

Genes + Brain Wiring + Prenatal Hormonal Environment = Temperament

Parents + Peers + Experiences = Environment
Temperament + Environment = Homosexual Orientation
While environmental factors may include experiences of sexual abuse or other traumatic events, a common contributor to same-sex attractions is a disruption in the development of gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person's view of his or her own gender; that is, his or her sense of masculinity or femininity. Gender identity is formed through the relationships that a child has with the same-sex parent and same-sex peers.
The process of gender identification begins approximately between age two and a half and four. For boys, it is during this phase that they begin to move from their primary attachment with the mother to seeking out a deeper attachment with the father. For males, the relationship between a boy and his father is the initial source of developing a secure gender identity. It is through the father-son relationship that a boy discovers what he needs to know about being male, including who he is as a boy, how boys walk, how they talk, how they act, and so forth. As the father spends time with the son, shows interest in the son, and gives the son affirmation and affection, the father imparts to the son a sense of masculinity. The boy begins to develop a sense of his own gender by understanding himself in relation to his father.
When the child reaches the age of five, he begins to face another task, that is, to begin to attach to same-sex peers. At this age, he starts school and begins to look to the other boys to answer the same questions that his dad has been answering. He looks to the other boys to discover how they walk, how they talk, how they play, and how he measures up in relation to them. He seeks to be included, accepted, and acknowledged. Through the relationships he forms with other boys, he continues to gain a sense of masculinity, discovering more about others boys and therefore more about himself as a boy.
During the early years of elementary school, children are not usually very interested in playing with members of the opposite sex. They desire to spend time with members of the same sex. This is a very necessary stage of development, because a person cannot be interested in the opposite sex or in others, until he or she first understands himself or herself.
Eventually, after many years of bonding with members of the same sex, the boy enters puberty. At this time he begins to turn his attention to the opposite sex. He becomes curious about the gender which is different from his own, the female gender. With the simultaneous emergence of puberty, this curiosity becomes a sexual interest and a desire for romantic connection with the opposite sex.
Conversely, for the child who will develop a homosexual orientation, this process does not happen. So, what happens in the development of gender identity that would lead a child to have same-sex attractions? Typically, for this child, there is something that prevents him from attaching to the father. Either he doesn't have a father or a father figure, or he doesn't have a father who he perceives as safe and/or welcoming. Of course, there are many children who grow up without fathers and yet do not develop a homosexual orientation. In addition, there are many children who have loving fathers, yet still become homosexually oriented. This is due to the fact that there are various factors that contribute to a homosexual orientation. Human development is very complex and includes events, as well as perceptions about the events.
Perceptions are very important. Perceptions are more powerful than what actually happens, because perceptions become that person's reality. Perceptions are influenced by temperament. For example, a child with a more sensitive temperament might perceive rejection even when rejection is not intended. Temperament is the biological contributor; however, temperament alone is not enough to create a homosexual orientation. The temperament type must be met with the right environmental factors in order to produce same-sex attractions. Typically the child who will later develop same-sex attractions is naturally sensitive, observant, intelligent, and is sometimes more artistic than athletic. This child often tends to personalize and internalize experiences and observations.
So, if a child perceives that his father does not want a relationship with him, that child might try a few times to connect with his father, but will eventually retract in self-protection. This is called defensive detachment. Upon sensing rejection, the boy chooses to reject the father in return. He detaches from the father and even what the father represents, which is masculinity (Nicolosi & Nicolosi, 2001). Typically at this point, he will stay connected to the mother and will instead soak in femininity. Usually he is also surrounded by other female figures, such as, a sister, an aunt, or a grandmother. So at a time when he is craving masculine input and seeking to understand himself in terms of his male identity, he instead receives feminine input and begins to develop a sense of the feminine.
By the time this child enters school, he often has a difficult time relating with other boys. Either he is just more comfortable with the girls, who are more familiar to him, or he is intimidated by the boys. Often this child sees himself as different from the other boys. So he may hold back from bonding with them. If he has developed any feminine mannerisms, he might also be rejected by the other boys and quite possibly even ridiculed. He is craving acceptance from the other boys and continues to need this acceptance, though the need goes unmet. The boy watches the other boys from afar, he longs to be noticed by them, and included by them, yet he remains with the girls, further gaining a sense of the feminine while deeply craving the masculine.
This child typically spends his elementary school years learning about femininity while craving to understand masculinity. Specifically, he desires to understand himself in terms of his own masculine identity. Yet, he does not assimilate with the same-sex parent or same-sex peers, so he does not acquire a masculine identity. He associates with the feminine, which is his primary source of input. He does not develop a secure gender identity. So by the time this child reaches puberty, the craving for male input has grown and intensified. At this time in his life he is not curious about or interested in the opposite sex. He already knows all about the opposite sex-- they are quite familiar to him. What he is craving to know about is his own gender. He still deeply longs to know about boys. He longs to experience connections with males. This emotional need, the need for same-sex love, which has gone unmet, now begins to take on a sexual form. His unsatisfied cravings for male love become romantic cravings with the emergence of puberty. (Satinover, 1996).
To this child, it feels very natural that he longs for male love. In fact, he typically thinks that he was born that way, having craved male love for as long as he can remember. Indeed, he has craved this love most of his life. However, initially it was not a sexual craving. Instead, it was an emotional craving, a legitimate need for non-sexual love, an emotional need that has become sexualized.
The female development of homosexuality is a bit more complex. As with the male development, there are a number of factors that can contribute. For some women who end up with same-sex attractions, the development is similar to the male development previously described. For others, negative perceptions regarding femininity may lead to an internal detachment from their own femininity. For example, if a girl watches her father abuse her mother, the girl might conclude that to be feminine is to be weak. At an early age she might make an unconscious decision to detach from her female identity. She might detach from her own gender in an effort to protect herself from the perceived harmful effects of being female.
Sexual abuse is another factor that can contribute to a homosexual orientation. In these cases men are seen as unsafe, and lesbianism becomes a way of protecting against further hurt from a male. For some there might be a disconnection from the mother, and lesbianism becomes a search for motherly love. For others, same-sex attractions may not initially be present, but may later develop as a result of entering into a non-sexual friendship which becomes emotionally dependant. An emotionally dependent relationship is one in which two people seek to have their needs met by one another. It is a relationship in which healthy boundaries are not in place. The absence of appropriate emotional boundaries can then lead to a violation of physical boundaries.
For any of these reasons listed above, and in combination with other factors, same-sex attractions may develop. To the one who has these feelings, they are very real and very strong. There are many people who find themselves attracted to members of the same sex and yet do not want those attractions. For those who are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation, it should be noted that change is indeed possible. Research studies have revealed that change of sexual orientation does take place (see Spitzer, 2003; Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002). It is not a quick or easy process, but as with any other therapeutic issue, varying degrees of change are achievable through therapy and other means.
The inaccurate concept that homosexuality is solely biological is extremely misleading. Many therapists tell their clients that homosexuality is biological and therefore unchangeable. These therapists encourage their clients to embrace a gay identity, even when such clients are seeking change for their orientation. In doing so, therapists negate clients' rights to self-determination. Clients have the right to choose their own goals for therapy and should be allowed to pursue the path they desire. Clients should not be discouraged from pursuing change when change is what they seek. In order for clients to have the options made available to them, it is vital that therapists as well as clients become better educated on this issue.
References
Anastasia, T. (1995). New evidence of a gay gene. Time 146, 43.
Byrd, A. D., & Nicolosi, J (2002). A meta-analytic review of the treatment of homosexuality. Psychological Reports, 90, 1139-1152.
LeVay, S. (1996). Queer Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nicolosi, J. & Nicolosi, L. A. (2001). Preventing homosexuality in today's youth. InterVarsity Press.
Satinover, J. (1996). The gay gene? The Journal of Human Sexuality.
Spitzer, R. L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32:5, 403-417.
Whitehead, N. & Whitehead, B. (1999). My genes made me do it: A scientific look at sexual orientation. Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417

Refuting open promotion of Homosexuality by Express Tribune: Introduction

2012-04-13T13:10:00.002-07:00

Late in 2011 few blogs in express tribunes appeared promoting Homosexuality. These articles raised some outdated arguments for justifying homosexuality and even suggested radical reinterpretation of Islamic to text to support their claims.
They claimed that this act happens frequently in Pakistan in some particular area. I know this act happen in our society behind close door and we have no problem with because that is between them and Allah. And it very different from what homosexuality is perceived in west. Here what is apparently and supposedly homosexuality is mostly because of desperation and trend of late marriages. That is why Prophet commanded us to hasten for marriage.
When these people openly start promoting this act and want social recognition then it is a big problem for Muslims. As in west and in many countries they have legalized Same Sex Marriages and relaxed right for homosexuals because of political pressures.

As being Muslim, dealing with Muslims and living in a Muslims majority society I will focus this issue from Orthodox Islamic point of view. I will be objectively handling the matter from both religious perspective and non-religious. I think this issue was needed be addressed as LBGT campaigns are corrupting the Muslims societies and even many people who don't lie in this category are showing sympathy towards them. I tried my best to be balanced and unbiased in the research. In the end the I also suggested solutions to Muslims who struggling with this. So read my research before labeling me Homophobic, Backward or against freedom.

I will discuss the following in the coming posts:

Purpose of this blog

2012-04-13T12:18:00.001-07:00

On internet being exposed to different view of Islam and Islamophobia really concerned me. Specially locally in Pakistan various ideologies are spreading in parallel among people that is created lots of confusion I created this blog to address these issues Inshallah and I will be more focused on local issues.

Heterodox Ideologies

Will discuss deviant ideologies that are being spread in the name of Islam and contrast them to orthodox Islam aka. Sunni/Salafi.

Modern Contentions

Modern contentions being put forward by west to Islam like beating of wife, slavery, homosexuality and apostasy. I will reply them from orthodox Islam's point of view.

Revisionist Ideologies

I will discuss here ideologies like humanist, secularism, moderate Islam, modern Islam and Quran-only Muslims.

Modernism has absolutely nothing to do with “getting with the times”. The people who advocate this idea are simply deprived of any knowledge. Modernism in this field is what many academics have coined as “a break from tradition” of which can entail being against religious, political, or social views. There are other clausal appellations that can be applied to all or most modernists of the world and some of them can actually be applied to people who are targeted in this present work. Aspects of modernism include certain principles which consist for example like “modernists believe that reason, not religion, is the final authority”.

Irreligiousness

Most important of all. Although the above mentioned issues have many links to this. They might be intermediary stage to this. But this is spreading quickly in a particular mindset. A mindset which is obsessed with empiricism i.e.science is only tool for making conclusion. And yet most of them are filled with outdated cliches. Whether they call themselves atheist, agnostic or deist. They all have a problem with religion. According to them anyone who follows a religion is backward, living in dark time, reject science and blah blah.