Saturday, 17 April 2010

Islam and Homosexuality

These are the words from a famous Arab poem by poet, Abu Nawas.

'Perfumed Garden' by Abu Nuwas:

O the joy of sodomy!
So now be sodomites, you Arabs.
Turn not away from it--
therein is wondrous pleasure.
Take some coy lad with kiss-curls
twisting on his temple
and ride as he stands like some gazelle
standing to her mate.
A lad whom all can see girt with sword
and belt not like your whore who has
to go veiled.
Make for smooth-faced boys and do your
very best to mount them, for women are
the mounts of the devils

Islam PROMOTES homosexuality in truth

For the last 2600 years, the Muslims and their ancestral tribal sects have practiced pederasty! When Muhammad formed the Muslim religion he took pederast practices of the region, mixed it with the Greek pederast views and formed a religion.

That is, the Muslim's have practiced 'same sex pedophilia'! While their beliefs regulate that a woman must be a virgin at marriage, sex is not forbidden to either men or women. That is, sex between same sex is encouraged, and so long as it is done it the 'proper Muslim' way. As with the Greek culture, adult men are encouraged to form relationships with young men just reaching puberty. These adult men, are then encouraged to form a sexual relationship with these young men.

The whole system 'stinks', since the adult Muslim men are taught to perform homosexual sex upon the young men. It is so warped, in that, as long as an adult male 'gives' sex to the younger man, it is accepted. The younger man, is then expected to do the same to a young man, once he reaches maturity. Homosexuality is separated into compartments within the Muslim culture. If an adult male sodomizes a younger male (8-14), then he is still in control, and not committing a sex crime according to their warped Scriptures. And once the 'sodomized young male' reaches maturity, he must also continue with the tradition, sodomizing younger males.

Since we have all heard about the 'beheading' aspect of the Muslim religion, regarding homosexuality, let me explain. If an adult male decides that he likes to have sodomy performed on him, he is now considered 'gay', and not 'homosexual'. If a man is considered 'gay', he will be 'beheaded' in the Muslim religion. It is all about control, and some warped concept of 'manhood'.

Looking at the women of the Muslim religion, many women belong to harems. The rich sheiks of the Muslim religion, also have a 'control issue' going on with the women of the region. Women are purchased from families, in order to control the bloodlines. Unless a man of this region has money or power, he must choose from the lowliest and plainest of women to marry. This further enhances the 'elitist regime' the Muslim's are so fond of…

Sheiks are known to have dozen's of wives and even more concubines in which to have sex with. This would leave the 'wives' with many nights that they would not see their husband, and therefore their only source of sexual pleasure. (Adultery is punishable by death, and even the accusation holds the death penalty).

And yet, adultery, in the Muslim religion, is only concerned with heterosexual sex. Women in harem's are known to learn lesbian ways. So much so, that the men of the Muslim religion, began to perform the clitoridectomy, to keep the women from practicing lesbian relations.

I would like to take you into the Muslim/Islam Culture, and show that for the last 2,600 years or more, this culture has practiced 'Limited Homosexuality'. In fact, this culture PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL PEDERASTY, as a way to retain Virgin women to marry. What we have here, is some 'highly sexed' individuals, that refuse to curtail their behavior, rather, they will force sex upon young people, in order to retain their 'so called' strict regime of 'sexual doctrine' of the Muslim faith.


Firstly, the Muslim rulers sincerely held that faith in Islam meant the guarantee of houris, the most beautiful virgins that one can imagine. Paradise is the abode of polygamy where men have all the rights to sexual indulgence and women are loaded with the obligations to please them. Thus, the Muslim rulers and nobles of India treated sexuality as a form of worship without having any moral qualm at all.

Islam maximises the sexual scope not only in this world but also declares carnal enjoyment as the goal of life-after-death, which can be achieved by gaining entry into paradise through the agency of the Prophet Muhammad only. This philosophy has devastated the Muslim mind all over the world: it is opium which keeps believers in a state of insensibility; they forget all about realities of life and moral obligation to enjoy the delightful vagaries of make-believe saturated with sexual sweetness.

The cosmic order of the Quran is intentionally incomplete.

Man needs to engage in holy war to make other men submit to the will of G-d to complete the order. It is the duty of Muslim men to initiate non-Muslims into Islam by method of submission. The Nafs (non-Muslims) are conceptualized as passive males. This implies an erotic element of the holy war of submission. In a sense, initiation and submission into Islam entails conquering non-Muslims by sexual aggression: fighting passive sodomy with active sodomy. This is obviously a contradiction and supports keeping silence on the issue.

To encounter effects of Feminine Charm, Islam has exploited man's dominance urge, which demands sexual gratification by command (instead of solicitation or submission), and thus stimulated the male lek behaviour, leading to harem-building.

To understand ancient views of homosexuality, it is important to recognize that the "superstitious" ancients distinguished (1) sexual penetration of "non-males" (i.e., men who were either naturally impotent with women or castrated) from (2) sexual penetration of "males" — maleness being defined as the capacity to play the male role in procreation. Prior to the advent of rational philosophy, the ancient world generally considered the first category to be acceptable, in some cases even sanctified, while on the other hand, sexual penetration of adult free males was universally condemned as being opposed to and destructive of the nature of the male. The sexual use of free boys and beardless youths was controversial because of their ambiguous status as pre-males, and where it was allowed it was strictly controlled, as in ancient Greece. The sexual use of male slaves was permitted because slaves were not accountable for and had no rights regarding the use of their bodies, which belonged to their owners.

Of course, human history is full of predators known as conquerors, who carried out murder, persecution and abduction of women to satisfy their lust for power, plunder and prestige. They knew that their misdeeds were sheer acts of barbarity dictated by personal ambitions but Jihad, the behest of Allah to destroy non-Muslims, not only sanctified these atrocities, but also raised them to the apex of piety, purity and probity."


Secondly, the Muslim rulers of India were determined to impress the Hindus with their power, pomp and prestige.

They wanted to appear as extraordinary kings, whose might, magnificence and martial excellence must be acknowledged by their Hindu subjects. After all, running harems of several thousand women bubbling with beauty and zest, is not a child's play. Of course, the Hindu Rajahs also had their seraglios but they ranked as sinful brothels because the Vedas do not stamp lust, lechery and lewdness with piety, purity and probity.

However, in Islam, the situation is totally different; it is morally and legally right to murder non-Muslims for abducting their women with a view to turning them into concubines; having sexual intercourse with them is no sin; even flogging and selling them at will is permissible.

This points to the fact that the term "homosexuality" is used with many different meanings, and it is indeed very important to expose and overcome an underlying confusion of terms which goes unnoticed here as well, and which is firmly rooted in the popular imagination and has not been thoroughly abandoned even by science. It has enormous impact, because it causes barriers to understanding and communication that may even have disastrous practical consequences.


The Qur'an generally scorns "approaching males in lust", as well as the castration of males, as the sin of the people of Lot (Qur'an 7:81, 26:165-166, 27:55, 29:28-29).

7:81: "Indeed you approach males in lust excluding women…"

Arabic: "Innakum lata'toona ar-rijaala shahwatan min doon in-nisaa'i."

26:165-166: "You approach the males of the worlds and forsake those whom your Lord has created for you for your mates."

Arabic: "Ata'toona adh-dhukraana min al-'aalameena, wa tadharoona ma khalaqa lakum Rabbukum min azwaajikum."

27:55: "Will you indeed approach males in lust excluding women?"

Arabic: "A 'innakum lata'toona ar-rijaala shahwatan min doon in-nisaa'i?"

29:28-29 "Most surely you are guilty of an indecency which none of the nations has ever done before you; What! do you come unto the males and cut the passageways [i.e. vas deferens and/or urethra] and do so in your private clubs?"

Arabic: "Innakum lata'toona al-faahishata ma sabaqakum biha min ahadin mina al-'aalameena. Innakum lata'toona ar-rijaala wa taqta'oona as-sabeela wa ta'toona fee naadikumu?"

But the Qur'an does not prohibit using, as passive sex partners, the ancient category of men who by nature lacked desire for women, since such men were not considered "male" as a result of their lack of arousal for women.

This kind of man is often known as "gay" in modern times, but in the ancient world he was identified as an anatomically whole "natural eunuch." Although the Qur'an never uses the word eunuch [khasiyy], the hadith and the books of the legal scholars do. Furthermore, the Qur'an recognizes that some men are "without the defining skill of males" (24:31: "ghair oolaa il-irbati min ar-rijaali") and so, as domestic servants, are allowed to see women naked. This is a reference to natural eunuchs, i.e. gay men.


Homosexual activity by homosexuals (eunuchs) is not spoken of in the Qur'an, which mentions only the unjust homosexual rape perpetrated by straight men against other straight men. Besides the Lut story, sexual exploitation of straight males is also alluded to in the assurance that prophet Joseph's slaveholders "abstained from him" (12:20: "wa kaanuu feehi min az-zaahideen").

But the Qur'an and hadith also have traces of the permitted homosexual desires of straight men. There is even a hadith in Bukhari, admittedly giving not the Prophet's opinion but that of Abu Jafar, according to which a pedophile is prohibited from marrying the mother of his boy-beloved if there is penetration:

(Bukhari LXII, 25) As for whom(ever) plays with a boy: if he caused him to enter him, then he shall not marry his mother.

Arabic: feeman yal'abu bis-sabiyy: in 'adkhalahu feehi falaa yatazawwajanna 'ummahu.

(This rule is accompanied in the same chapter by prohibitions against a man marrying both a mother and her daughter.) Apparently according to this hadith, even sexual penetration of a boy is not considered sodomy, because if it was, surely the sodomite would have more worries than whether he could marry the boy's mother!

Like whether he preferred to die by fire, stoning, or falling from a high tower! These are some of the punishments mentioned in the hadith for "doing as the people of Lut did."

The distinction between pederasty (sex with boys) and sodomy (penetration of "males") was commonly, albeit not universally maintained throughout the ancient world, and indeed survived throughout most of the history of Islam until at least the nineteenth century (in spite of the futile objections of some medieval scholars). Apparently, boy-love was considered okay by many people because, like "natural eunuchs," underage boys also lacked the "defining skill of males" (sexual potency with women). The Qur'an itself gives support to pederasts in its glimpses of paradise:

52:17-29 And they shall have boys [ghilmaan] circulating among them as if they were hidden pearls.

56:22-23 and dark-eyed ones [hoorun 'eenun], the like of hidden pearls

76:19 And immortal boys [wildaanun mukhalladoona] will circulate among them, when you see them you will count them as scattered pearls.

2:25 And they shall have immaculate partners [azwaajun mutahharatun] in [the gardens] …

4:57 And they shall have immaculate partners [azwaajun mutahharatun] in them …

One of the great male Sufi contemporaries of Rabi'a al-'Adawiyya provided a divine justification for a pederastic relationship, which was repeated without a hint of disapproval in a 10th century book about great Sufi women:

One day Rabi'a saw Rabah [al-Qaysi] kissing a young boy ["huwa yuqabbil sabiyyan"]. 'Do you love him?' she asked. 'Yes,' he said. To which she replied, 'I did not imagine that there was room in your heart to love anything other than G-d, the Glorious and Mighty!' Rabah was overcome at this and fainted. When he awoke, he said, 'On the contrary, this is a mercy that G-d Most High has put into the hearts of his slaves.'

(Quoted from as-Sulami, Early Sufi Women = Dhikr an-niswa al-muta 'abbidat as sufiyyat, translated by Rkia E. Cornell, Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 1999, pp. 78-79.)

Besides boys, straight Muslim men were occasionally interested in grown adults as well, provided they were not "male." There is a hadith in which the Prophet's companions asked whether they were allowed to use men (presumably prisoners of war) as "eunuchs" to fulfill their sexual urges, since they were far from their wives.

Bukhari LXII 6:9 [Narrated by ibn Mas'ud:] "We used to fight [in battle] together with the Prophet, peace be upon him. There were no women with us. We said: O Messenger, may we treat some as eunuchs [a laa nastakhsii]? He forbade us to do so."

The version in Bukhari LXII 8:13 says that rather than let the companions "treat [some] as eunuchs" in the absence of their wives, the Prophet "allowed them to marry corrupted women" [rakhasa lana an nankih al-maraa bil-shaub] from the vicinity, and he recited to them from the Qur'an: "O ye who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression."

The fact that Muhammad forbade the companions from designating men as eunuchs is not the point here. Of course, using a straight male as a eunuch was wrong — that was essentially the sin of the people of Lut. But what about using a eunuch (i.e. one who permanently lacks arousal with women) as a eunuch? Given that ibn Mas'ud made reference to the use of eunuchs for sexual gratification, and given that the Prophet understood what he meant, that indicates that the use of eunuchs for sexual gratification was known in Arabic society, and was considered a use that was appropriate to eunuchs.

Since eunuchs were not considered male, there was no prohibition against it, not even in the Qur'an.

Eunuchs were still sex objects for straight men in the Mamluk dynasty, according to David Ayalon in Eunuchs, Caliphs, and Sultans: A Study in Power Relationships (Jerusalem, 1999). They not only served to prevent older Mamluks from having sexual access to younger trainees:

The eunuchs seem to have served as a shield against homosexual lust in yet another way. They themselves formed the target of that lust, thus diverting it from the youngsters. They are described as being womanly and docile in bed at night and manly and warlike by day in a campaign and in similar circumstances (hum nisaa' li-mutmainn muqeem wa rijaal in kaanat al-asfaar; li-annahum bin-nahaar fawaaris wa bil-lail 'araa'is). [Arabic quoted by Ayalon from Abu Mansur al-Tha'alibi, Al-Latâ'if wal-Zarâ'if, Cairo 1324/1906-7, p. 79, lines 1-7; and the same quote from Tha'alibi in his Tamthîl wal-Muhâdara, Cairo 1381/1961, p. 224.]

As for the issue of whether Muhammad himself expressly acknowledged that some people by nature refrain from heterosexuality, thus being natural eunuchs, consider the following hadith.

It is related that one of the Prophet's companions, Abu Huraira, went to the Prophet, saying that he was a "young male" who "feared torment for his soul," but that he "did not find the wherewithal to marry a woman" [innee rajulun shaabbun wa ana akhaafu 'alaa nafsee al-'anata wa laa ajidu ma atazawwaju bihi an-nisaa'a].

The Prophet remained silent, even after Abu Huraira repeated his statement three times. Finally after the fourth time, Muhammad said: "O Abu Huraira, the pen is dry regarding what is befitting for you. So be a eunuch for that reason or leave it alone." [ya Abaa Hurairata, jaffa al-qalam bimaa anta laaq fa'akhtasi 'alaa dhalika au dhar] (Bukhari, LXII 8). (For comparison, consider that when Uthman came to Muhammad asking if he could be permitted to live a life of abstinence, he was rebuffed.)


The following look at the Quran will give you an idea of just how warped Muhammad really was!
He and his male followers believed that Jesus mother Mary, was a eunuch. I haven't quite figured out how they could justify Jesus' birth, but since the whole idea is so completely ludicrous and filled with homosexual lust, that I suppose they could justify anything!

Another intriguing example of a gender variant woman is Jesus's mother Mary. According to ancient notions about procreation, males were the only ones capable of producing seed. It would be impossible for a woman to give birth to a child, let alone a boy, without receiving seed from a male.

In Christianity, this problem is solved by making G-d the male father of Jesus. According to the Qur'an, however, G-d does not procreate. This means that the seed that became Jesus came from within Mary. If Mary carried viable seed originating from within her, then by ancient definitions, she was a male, despite appearances to the contrary. So the Qur'an says that, when Mary was born, her mother declared that she was a female baby, but G-d knew better:

(Qur'an 3:36) Lord, surely, I have brought it forth a female — and Allah knew best what she brought forth — and the male is not like the female…

Arabic: Rabb, innee wada'tuha unthaa wa Allah 'a'lamu bimaa wada'at wa laisa adh-dhakaru kal-untha …

The Quran further describes lesbian women as well. And as shown above, Muhammad allowed members of his own army to choose whether they would be homosexual or heterosexual. Sex is the primary objective within the Muslim and Middle Eastern cultures. Just as in the current homosexual culture.


Alexander, the Great, though a Macedonian, proved to be the ambassador of the Greek culture, which had been imbued with homosexuality, having an intoxicating Divine flavour. He was not only a rare military genius but also possessed some great political and administrative qualities.

He fell in love with eastern manners; he wore eastern dress and had two eastern queens, but his heterosexuality was just a cover-up for the eastern politics. He was a homosexual like the Greeks, whose culture he loved and practised. Hephaestion and Bago are two of his well-known catamites. Through him, and afterwards his generals, the Greek culture known as Hellenism, flourished in the Middle Eastern countries. It was given an extra ictus by the fact that Alexander claimed to be a g-d and was acknowledged and worshipped as such throughout his eastern dominions.

The habits of g-d are bound to have a quick and lasting influence on the character of ordinary mortals. It penetrated the guts of the Persian poetry so deeply that it has become living eroticism in the mystical form of versification and has spread to all the Muslim countries where the Persian language has flourished.

The Arabian peninsula was no exception. Not only the South worshipped female deities connected with the Greek tradition but hellenism also reached the North, the land of the Prophet Muhammad. We find the name of Alexander, the Great, mentioned in the Koran as Dhool Karnain.

"They will question thee (Muhammad) concerning Dhool Karnain. Say: I will recite to you a mention of him…"

One ought to note that the name of Alexander the Great was not unheard of in the Hijaz (the Prophet's country) because people were curious to know more about him. Again, the Koran depicts Alexander, the Great, as a righteous man to whom Allah spoke and also left the making of vital decisions:

We (Allah) said, "O Dhool Karnain,
either thou shalt chastise them,
Or thou shalt take towards them
a way of kindness " (The Cave XVIII: 85)

It is quite clear that the Koran has not condemned Alexander, the Great. Instead, he has been displayed as a righteous man, whose judgement Allah trusted and respected! Obviously, his homosexuality had no bearing on piety. This fact is supported in the already quoted Mount LII: 20, which states:

"While they (boys) hand therein (paradise) a cup One to another wherein is no idle talk, no cause of sin, and there go around youths, own, as if they were concealed pearls."

These verses describe two facts clearly:

1. All Muslim men shall have "their own" boys who are pretty like pearls, and

2. there will be "no cause of sin;" it means that so liberal shall be the laws of paradise that lasciviousness shall not count as a sin.

That this interpretation of the above Koranic verse is correct and honest, is corroborated by the facts of history. About the high society of Arabia during its heyday, Professor Philip K. Hitti wrties in his famous "History of the Arabs" (10th edition, p. 341):

"The servants were almost all slaves recruited from non-Muslim peoples and captured by force, taken prisoners in time of war or purchased in time of peace The white slaves (Mamluk) were mainly Greeks and Slavs, Armenians and Berbers.

Certain slaves were eunuchs (Khisvan) attached to the service of the harem. Others termed Ghilman, who might also be eunuchs, were the recipients of special favour from their masters, wore rich and attractive uniforms and often beautified and perfumed their bodies in effeminate fashion. We read that Ghilman in the reign of al-Rashid, but it was evidently al-Amin who, following the Persian precedent, established in the Arabic world the Ghilman institution for the practice of unnatural sexual relations.

A judge under al-Mamun used four hundred such youths. Poets like abu-Nuiwas did not disdain to give public expression to their perverted passions and to address amorous pieces of their composition to beardless young boys."

These historical facts conform to the highly erotic Koranic description of the paradisaic boys, who are ever-young, pretty like pearls, dressed in silk and brocades, and wear bracelets. Above all, like Ganymede they serve wine in cups of crystal. These boys are not servants as the Muslim scholars pretend because a servant can be old, ugly and poorly dressed.

The Persians (Iranians) had acquired love of homosexuality from their conquering master, Alexander the Great and his Greek soldiers. This practice was made lawful among the Arabs by the Koranic description of the beautiful boys: al-Rashid and al-Amin were prominent rulers and leaders of the Muslim world, which treated them as the Model of Behaviour.

This is the reason that the Qazis (Muslim judges) who were expected to live, and dispense justice according to the principles of Islam, kept harems of boys unashamedly.


Homosexuality, and specifically sodomy, was not introduced into India by Muslims. Under Muslim chiefs, however, homosexuality entered Indian court life. Harems of young boys were kept by Muslim nawabs and Hindu aristocrats in the sixteenth century.

The Emperor Babar wrote romantically about his famous love affair with the boy Baburi at Andezan in the Tuzuk-i-Babri. Dargah Quli Khan, an important official in the principality of Hyderabad, observed important homosexual activities and homosexual love in the life and culture of Delhi on the eve of Nadir Shah's invasion. His personal diary, Muraqqa-e-Delhi: The Mughal Capital in Muhammad Shah's Time, contains same glimpses of gay life during his three-year stay in Delhi, between 1739 and 1741.

Azam Khan, one of the chief nobles of the empire, is described in this memoir as "a pederast [who] is fond of beautiful girls as well. Whenever he is informed of the availability of a lad or a beautiful girl he endeavours to be the buyer." Similarly, Mirza Munnu, a man of notable birth is also perfect in this sort of sodomy.

He acts as a guide to the novices who in turn feel proud to imbibe this trade from him. He organizes mehfils (shows) where groups of lads are made available. His house is the palace of Shaddad (an impious king and founder of Bagh-e-lram, where all the beautiful whores get together), full of fairy-like lads and lasses…

Again, Sultana is a twelve-year-old, olive complexioned catamite, whose coquetry reflects itself in his dancing … He is a bud who competes with flowers or the flame of the lamp facing the light of the sun. The audience wishes to hear him repeatedly and their thirst for a vision of his beauty is not easily quenched.

Mian Hinga is a fair complexioned youth and in his white dress looks fresh as the jasmine flower. He holds an assembly outside the walls of the Imperial Fort … Many renowned people go for walks to the chowk and, under the pretence of buying rare objects, watch him perform … he looks as fresh as dawn dipped in dew … in spite of many invitations, he never visits anyone at their residence.

His fans have to visit his house if they wish to derive pleasure from his acts. (Muraqqa-e-Delhi, translated by C. Shekllar and S. Chenoy)

In Islamic Sufi literature homosexual eroticism was a major metaphorical expression of the spiritual relationship between g-d and man, and much Persian poetry and fiction used gay relationships as examples of moral love.

Although the Koran and early religious writings of Islam display mildly negative attitudes toward homosexuality, Muslim cultures treated homosexuality with indifference, if not admiration.

The classic works of Arabic poetry and prose, from poet Abu Nuwas to the Thousand and One Night, treat gay people and their sexuality with respect or casual acceptance. The Arabic language contains a huge vocabulary of gay erotic terminology, with dozens of words just to describe types of male prostitutes.

Erotic address by one male to another is the standard convention of Arabic love poetry; even poems really written for women frequently use male pronouns and metaphors of male beauty. The association of homosexual feelings with moral looseness appears to be a comparatively recent phenomenon (lohn Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, , and Homosexuality).

This quote comes from a present day Islamic site:

The punishment prescribed in Islaam for anyone who openly professes to be a homosexual is clear to all believers.

In Islam 'Hadd' or publicly ordained punishments are for sins committed openly. When a person openly commits a sin for which Allah has ordained a public punishment it becomes the duty of the Muslim ruler to punish him. But any sin done in private is a matter that the doer has to resolve with Allah through repentance.


hausofkhan said...

Finally, something that can say I'm not wrong, I'm sick of people telling me I'm going to hell, when I know I haven't chosen to be like this.

Anonymous said...

people are not codswallops to believe ur absurdity that ur article reflects throughout. Do u think they r so much?...if yes than u r simply a sort of a mule who is produced off when male horse mates wd female donkey, who thenceforth could neither maintain its race nor could produce one of its own........U have a christian & jewish tinge, but lemme tell u, go thru ur book, u will surely fuck urself then......the previous two and a half thousand years are eloquent testimony to the fact that the more u create hurdles in the way of islam, the more it expedite the process of expansion.....had it been so as what u have pointed out aforesaid, people wd not have revered islam so much.....they r not too much fools than u...take a break...u r frustrated out of unemployement