Challenging Religious Infallibility And Divine Homophobia

The doctrine of infallibility in Islamic scriptures, particularly as it pertains to moral and human behavior, is at odds with contemporary understandings of ethical standards and societal progression. This belief in infallibility holds that the Quran, as the word of God, is perfect and without error in all its teachings. While this is a fundamental aspect of faith for many Muslims, it presents several challenges, especially in the context of evolving modern values and understandings of human rights.

One of the key challenges posed by this doctrine is the limitation it places on questioning and critical thinking. When religious texts are considered infallible, there is an inherent discouragement of any form of critique or reinterpretation. This rigidity can be intellectually stifling, as it leaves little room for individuals and societies to explore or question moral and ethical issues beyond the confines of these religious doctrines. As a result, it can hinder the natural progression of moral thought and ethical practices, keeping them anchored to the interpretations and norms of a bygone era.

Furthermore, the concept of infallibility can lead to conflicts with modern human rights principles. For example, the Quranic verses and Hadiths that explicitly condemn homosexual acts, when interpreted as infallible and unchangeable, clash starkly with contemporary understandings of human rights and the natural variation of human sexuality. This clash is not limited to issues of sexuality alone but extends to various aspects of human life, including gender equality, freedom of belief and expression, and personal autonomy. The unyielding adherence to ancient texts as the ultimate moral authority can thus result in legal and social systems that discriminate against certain groups or suppress individual freedoms.

When directives related to human behaviour are taken without critical thinking at face value, without considering historical, cultural, or metaphorical contexts, the results can be ethically untenable by modern standards. This approach leaves no space for a nuanced understanding of these texts or the incorporation of contemporary ethical insights into religious practice.

Additionally, this perspective on infallibility can significantly hinder the acceptance and understanding of historically misrecognized groups such as the LGBTQ+ community. By reinforcing prejudices and promoting discrimination based on unerring and unchangeable religious doctrine, it prevents a more compassionate and empathetic understanding of diverse human experiences. It also overlooks the growing body of scientific evidence that affirms the natural variation in human sexuality.

However, in the intersection of the doctrine of infallibility in Islamic scriptures and modern ethical standards, there emerges a significant and growing faction within the Muslim community. This group, often comprising self-styled "moderate Muslims" who hold a genuine conviction that Islam, in its true essence, does not endorse such discrimination as mentioned above. They denounce classical interpretations of Islam as un-Islamic, based on the following rationale: "Trust me, bro, I am correct; they are wrong and misguided."

This movement signifies a crucial shift, representing an effort to reconcile religious faith with the principles of inclusivity and human rights rather than imposing literal religious doctrine as morally superior to "man-made" laws. (Man-made from a religious perspective; all laws are man-made).

The stance of moderate Muslims and moderate Muslim groups, such as Toronto Unity Mosque, who advocate for LGBTQ inclusivity within Islam, while commendable for its progressiveness, encounters significant challenges in justifying its assertions within the framework of classical Islamic doctrine. Moderate Muslims, while earnestly rejecting homophobia, often struggle to reconcile their progressive beliefs with the explicit content of Islamic scriptures, particularly when it comes to the unequivocal verses and Hadiths that condemn homosexual acts.

The crux of the issue lies in the approach taken by many moderates to justify their inclusive stance.

One common method employed by moderates is to assert that the homophobic interpretations of Islamic texts are mere 'misinterpretations.' This claim, while intending to dissociate Islam from discriminatory practices, faces critical scrutiny. The verses in the Quran and narratives in the Hadiths that address homosexuality do so in terms that are explicit and historically have been understood as condemnatory. To label these as misinterpretations involves a significant intellectual dishonesty, one that is at odds with the straightforward nature of the texts.

This approach is intellectually dishonest, especially because it involves downplaying or reinterpreting clear directives and narratives in Islamic scripture. Such a strategy might be well-intentioned, aimed at presenting a more compassionate and tolerant face of Islam, but it risks undermining the reality of religious oppression. If, for instance, people were to hold genuine conviction that Adolf Hitler was never an Anti-Semite and that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred, it would be a gross distortion of historical facts. Similarly, attempting to reinterpret or deny the clear homophobic directives in Islamic scripture is akin to denying a significant aspect of the reality of historical Islamic oppression and its impact on contemporary issues. This kind of historical/religious revisionism not only obscures the truth but also hinders the progress toward addressing and rectifying the very real issues of religious oppression and discrimination that exist to this very day.

It is crucial to acknowledge and confront the problematic aspects of religious texts head-on rather than glossing over them or reinterpreting them to fit a more palatable narrative.

Continuing to deny or reinterpret these uncomfortable truths not only disrespects the experiences of those who have suffered under religiously sanctioned homophobia but also impedes the development of a more inclusive and compassionate interpretation of Islam. True progress in religious thought and practice requires a genuine reckoning with all aspects of the tradition, including those that are challenging or problematic.

Like their more conservative counterparts, moderate Muslims frequently rely on the act of faith as the basis and justification for their more "progressive" beliefs. This reliance on faith, while a core aspect of religious experience, does not provide a tangible or empirical basis for ethical arguments, especially in a secular and pluralistic society. In debates around contentious issues such as homosexuality, faith-based arguments can mirror those of Islamic fundamentalists, differing only in conclusion but not in methodology.

This approach also raises a fundamental question about the nature of religious interpretation. If the interpretations of scriptures are so varied and subject to such significant differences, how does one ascertain the 'true' teachings of Islam? The appeal to 'misinterpretation' implies the existence of an authentic, unadulterated religious interpretation, yet the criteria for determining this 'correct' interpretation remain non-existent. Even with the presence of a central religious authority in Sunni Islam, akin to the papacy in Catholicism, the interpretation of Islamic texts (or any religious text for that matter) ultimately becomes decentralized and is, by nature, a highly subjective endeavour.

I acknowledge the vast diversity of subjective perspectives on the Islamic faith that exist in the world and strive to understand what people believe and why people believe what they believe. Likewise, I respond to individual beliefs and individual interpretations only rather than forcing a fundamentalist interpretation of religious scripture as the one and only “true” interpretation of a religion to which someone may not necessarily subscribe.?

That’s why I DO NOT point towards the words written in Islamic scripture and say, “This is your religion. You MUST accept it, and you MUST answer for it, for that is what has been written down.” Instead, I recognize the diversity of religious interpretations and will instead ask you what you believe and why and whether there are good reasons to warrant your belief.

While many moderate Muslims do not hold these problematic beliefs, the sad fact remains that across the world, millions of Muslims not only foster said beliefs but are also motivated by them. In the interests of holding the Islamic religion accountable for its "sins," these beliefs must be scrutinized, analyzed, discussed, and criticized honestly, regardless of how sacred anyone finds them to be. And to those progressive Muslims who do not hold these problematic beliefs, my question is this: though your interpretation of Islam is morally better, what good reasons do you have to assert that you are correct and all others are wrong?

Homophobia in the Quran

Surah Al Araf Verse 80

7:80

And remember when Lot scolded the men of his people, saying, “Do you commit a shameful deed that no man has ever done before?

Surah Ash-Shu’ara Verses 165-174

26:165-174

Why do you men lust after fellow men,

leaving the wives that your Lord has created for you? In fact, you are a transgressing people.

Lot responded, “I am truly one of those who despise your shameful practice.

My Lord! Save me and my family from the consequences of what they do.”

So We saved him and all of his family,

except an old woman, who was one of the doomed.

Then We utterly destroyed the rest,

pouring upon them a rain of brimstone. How evil was the rain of those who had been warned!

And your Lord is certainly the Almighty, Most Merciful.

Surah An-Naml Verses 54-59

27:54-59

And remember Lot, when he rebuked the men of his people, “Do you commit that shameful deed while you can see one another?

Do you really lust after men instead of women? In fact, you are only a people acting ignorantly.”

But his people’s only response was to say, “Expel Lot’s followers from your land! They are a people who wish to remain chaste!”

So We delivered him and his family, except his wife. We had destined her to be one of the doomed.

And We poured upon them a rain of brimstone. How evil was the rain of those who had been warned!

Say, O Prophet, “Praise be to Allah, and peace be upon the servants He has chosen.” Ask the disbelievers, “Which is better: Allah or whatever gods they associate with Him?”

Homophobia in the Hadiths

"Hudud" in Islam refers to a specific category of Islamic punishments that are fixed for certain crimes. These crimes are considered to be against the rights of God, and the punishments are described in the Quran and Hadith. The major offenses that fall under Hudud include theft, fornication, false accusation of fornication, drinking alcohol, apostasy, and highway robbery.

33 Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud) 4462

33 Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud) 4462

Quality of Hadith- Hasan

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

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

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

33 Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud) 4463

33 Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud) 4463

Quality of Hadith- Sahih

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

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

What Is The Correct Interpretation?

In Surahs Surah Al Araf Verse (7:80) Ash-Shu'ara (26:165-174), and Surah An-Naml (27:54-59) the condemnation of same-sex attraction and the subsequent portrayal of divine retribution is not only archaic but deeply troubling from a secular, ethical standpoint. The verses explicitly target same-sex attraction, marking it as a “shameful transgression” worthy of severe punishment. This is not a mere disapproval of a certain behavior; it's a clear indication that the very nature of one's sexual attraction, an intrinsic and unchangeable part of their identity, is deemed morally reprehensible.

The depiction of divine punishment for this 'transgression' – the annihilation of an entire group of people with a rain of brimstone –solely due to their sexual orientation–is alarmingly severe. To frame Allah's heinous act of extreme violence as an expression of divine mercy worthy of praise is not only contradictory but morally indefensible. Such a deity is not merciful, he is an abominable tyrant. Mercy is inherently about compassion and forgiveness, yet what we see written in the Quran is the exact opposite: a merciless act of destruction against individuals for their natural sexual orientation.

The willingness to inflict such catastrophic punishment on people for whom same-sex attraction is a natural disposition is tyrannical, not merciful. This portrayal starkly contrasts with modern ethical values, where the rights, dignity, and natural variations of human beings are respected and protected.

The Hadiths from Sunan Abu Dawud (Kitab Al-Hudud 4462 and 4463) are explicit in their directives regarding homosexual acts. Hadith 4462 instructs the killing of both participants in homosexual acts, and Hadith 4463 mandates stoning to death for unmarried men engaged in sodomy. From a secular and humanist perspective, these Hadiths are not just problematic; they are fundamentally abhorrent.

Firstly, the explicit command to kill individuals for engaging in consensual homosexual acts is a glaring violation of basic human rights. The notion that a consensual act between adults warrants a death penalty is antithetical to the principles of personal freedom, autonomy, and the right to the pursuit of happyness. From an atheist’s viewpoint, the idea that any religious text could justify such extreme violence is deeply troubling. It represents a moral regression, where the value of human life is subordinated to rigid doctrinal adherence.

Furthermore, these Hadiths’ endorsement of such severe punishments like stoning is particularly disturbing. Stoning, as a form of capital punishment, is widely recognized as a barbaric and inhumane practice. It's not just a method of execution; it's a form of torture, a cruel and degrading treatment that has no place in any society claiming to uphold basic human dignity.

The argument that these texts are subject to interpretation does not hold water in this context. The directives are clear and unambiguous. To suggest that killing or stoning someone for their sexual orientation could be anything but an atrocity is to indulge in moral equivocation. It's a clear-cut case where religious doctrine is in direct conflict with fundamental human rights and ethical reasoning.

The adherence to such texts as moral guides is a glaring example of the problems inherent in deriving moral directives from religious scriptures, particularly when these directives are so clearly at odds with basic human values. It underlines the necessity for secular morality, where ethical principles are grounded not in religious dogma but in a commitment to human well-being and compassion.

These Hadiths, with their explicit calls for violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation, are not just relics of a bygone era but are alarmingly relevant in perpetuating homophobic attitudes and violence in contemporary societies. They stand as stark reminders of the dangers of unquestioning adherence to religious texts, especially when such adherence leads to the violation of fundamental human rights.

The claim to an authoritative interpretation of Islam is grounded in faith rather than empirical evidence or logical reasoning.? Different groups within Islam may offer varying interpretations, each claiming that they know what Allah really wants us to do. This leads to a profound dilemma: how does one interpret Islam and determine the 'true' intent of Allah himself? For us atheists, this becomes even more problematic because from our perspective, Allah is an artificial, fictional character, yet somehow everyone is sure that they are privy to what is really in this fictional character’s mind!?

In Islam, the justification for a particular interpretation boils down to faith or personal conviction, rather than empirical evidence or rational argument. One group might insist that their understanding is the correct one, while another group may completely disagree, citing their own faith and understanding as the basis for their interpretation.

The reliance on faith for regulating human behavior through religious morality creates a unique situation where each group within the religion can assert their interpretation as the definitive one, without a clear way to validate these claims objectively. When confronted with varying interpretations, the common response is to fall back on personal conviction or the 'trust me bro' approach, which is essentially an appeal to faith.

From my perspective, this reliance on faith is problematic. Faith, to me, is not a virtue or a reliable pathway to truth; rather, it is the excuse people give when they don't have evidence to justify their beliefs. As a Skeptic, I argue that the truth has value and therefore, we should withhold belief until we have sufficient evidence to substantiate that belief. This directly contradicts the notion of religious faith, where the act of faith (i.e., the act of believing without evidence) itself is the justification for the assertion of the existence of things unproven.

This situation is particularly troubling when it comes to issues that have a direct impact on people's lives and rights, such as interpretations regarding morality, gender roles, and sexuality. The lack of an objective standard to determine the directives of a cosmic king means that consensus within the religious community has no real bearing on the truth of religious assertions of morality. What is considered morally right or wrong in one interpretation may be completely different in another, and there is no empirical way to adjudicate what Allah really wants human beings to do. Especially if you consider Allah's fictionality.