Talk:LGBT people and Islam

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shahzia Perveen. Peer reviewers: Mxrlena, Ryanccraw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laurapollack, NoahScafati, Simonkuflik.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roskerjellybean728.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KumaleFufa. Peer reviewers: ColorMyPencils.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hadith vs sayings

Sharif Uddin As you can see from the quotes I just added, the text reflects the cited RSs. If there are other RSs which state that these quotes don't come from hadith, we need to reflect both these contrasting viewpoints, per WP:NPOV. However, I don't see where the article you linked to refers to that particular saying. If I'm missing something, please quote the relevant passage. Also, I don't see where Rowson identifies henna and perfumed hair with the mukhannathun of early Medina, and if he doesn't, this is also WP:OR. Eperoton (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a rare hadith, but the second sentence seems to be mistranslated, at least compared to the only variant I'm aware of. The hadith in question can be found in the Arabian Nights with some discussion, and with a partial isnad in Kash al-khafāʾ (hadith no. 2997): "لا تنظروا إلى المردان فإن فيهم لمحة من الحور". Note that the second sentence can be translated as "they have some resemblance [fīhum lamḥa] to the houris", and not "they have eyes more tempting than the houris". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Wiqi55. Nice detective work! I agree that yours is a more likely translation (this idiom can be found in Wehr-Cowan: فيه لمحة من ابيه = he looks like his father), but we can't just declare a RS to be wrong based on our own reading of a primary source. That would violate WP:PRIMARY. We can, I think, list the original with an alternative translation alongside it without violating the policy. Note that most academic scholars are skeptical about the study of isnads, so this hadith could come from anywhere. In fact, the work cited by Semerdian (which I don't access to) is about the Abbasid era, so there's probably no claim about authenticity qua sunnah being made there: Wright, J. W. “Masculine Allusion and the Structure of Satire in Early ‘Abbasid Poetry.” In J. W. Wright and Everett K. Rowson, ed., Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997, p. 7. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sharif Uddin: It looks like you are misinterpreting what is meant by verification in WP:V. It's about verifying that we're reflecting what's stated in a RS (in this case Semerdian's publications). It is not about verifying whether a RS is correct in the assertions it makes about primary sources. If a RS doesn't identify a hadith it discusses, it is fine to request that additional information using a which tag, but the tags you added there were inappropriate. Eperoton (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sodomy

Sodomy is the correct term for anal sex. What is the problem? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: The problem is as I wrote in the edit summary. The term "sodomy" is often used in this narrow sense, but that's not the definition given in our own sodomy article that you linked to, or returned by a Google search, or found in Merriam-Webster. It's fine to use "sodomy" in running text, but the first time it's discussed in the article, we need to clarify in what sense it's being used here. Eperoton (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? You are confident that the men of Lot were purely wanting to have anal sex with the angels as opposed to fellatio? Come on, sodomy is fine. The point of the story of Lot is one of sexual violation and abuse of guests - it's not to say that it would have been ok if the angels had given oral sex but drawn the line at anal! Contaldo80 (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

We aren't discussing what the men of Lot wanted to do, but rather how that passage has been interpreted in the Islamic tradition. The RSs cited here state that the condemnation was interpreted in classical commentaries as applying specifically to anal intercourse between men, and not to other activities encompassed by the broader definition of sodomy such as oral sex. See for example, the cited Iranica entry, which uses mainly "sodomy" in the running text, but takes care to make clear what is meant by the term when it first discusses the passage: "Later exegetes and jurists unanimously understood this as referring specifically to anal intercourse between males". Eperoton (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems somewhat tenuous. We are led to believe that jurists (writing in the centuries following Mohammad) all understood that the men of the city of Lot (which didn't in reality exist anyway) would have wanted to have only anal sex with the angels (which do not in reality exist in any case) if they'd had the chance. Which of course they didn't get? I think you're trying to be very specific in terms of desired sex acts considering we're drawing upon a myth. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to reflect what's in RSs, in particular the Iranica article I quoted above (by the same author as the EoQ citation), which you can read in full. It seems that you aren't arguing that it isn't reliable, or that I'm not reflecting it correctly, so I don't know how to read this as a policy-based objection. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No, apologies. Thinking about this it isn't really your fault. I'm really thinking the religious debate is kind of daft and thus makes it difficult to properly describe in this article. Exegetes and jurists etc who have been influential in this area assume the angels have a gender (male) and then use the story to condemn (attempted or actual) anal sex between men - prompting the question as to whether it would have been perfectly fine if the angels had been women and been anally raped by the men of Lot or if the men had raped the angels but without anal sex. But I digress and agree we just need to reflect the sources at hand. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Kosova and Albania are not muslim states, they are secular

It is incorrect as describing Albania and Kosovo as muslim states with anti-discriminatory laws. They are secular states, and religion does not play any kind of role in regulating the laws of the state. Please do not use the names of this state to further some muslim agenda, which try to incorrectly describe islam as tolerating. It is not, and wherever there is the Islam law, there are no LGBT allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.99.155.234 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The point is that they have a majority muslim population. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

@Russianvodka: Please discuss your wish to remove content, and gather a consensus, before actually editing out content. You must prove why something should be removed, and your peers have to accept that resolution, before you actually remove content that is not obvious vandalism. Also being the tender and controversial subject that LGBT rights are, you cannot just remove information before it's been discussed. DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 01:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on LGBT in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121211142044/http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/keith-ellison-minnesota-marriage-amendment-fail.php to http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/keith-ellison-minnesota-marriage-amendment-fail.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006071318/http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/Politik_Gesellschaft/DIK/langversion_studie_muslim_leben_deutschland.pdf?__blob=publicationFile to http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/Politik_Gesellschaft/DIK/langversion_studie_muslim_leben_deutschland.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603070018/https://revolution-news.com/bosnian-lgbti-activists-demand-equality-now/ to https://revolution-news.com/bosnian-lgbti-activists-demand-equality-now/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906123507/http://www.uib.no/jais/content4.htm to http://www.uib.no/jais/content4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Queer Visions of Islam

I am at a loss to understand why this page has a large section devoted to a master of arts thesis by an otherwise not notable Rusmir Musić, when no third-party sources establish the notability of the thesis and when the only citations are to the thesis itself. There are tens of thousands of MA theses written in universities each year, but few end up being considered notable. Without third-party sources, one cannot consider this one notable. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Traditional punishment

It's not right to say the "punishment for homosexual acts" is death. This is the punishment for male anal intercourse, witnessed by four people, listed in the hadith. Because no one is going to witness literal penetration, many scholars (including the Ottoman scholars) do not take this literally. 128.135.96.214 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Although the requirements for the punishment are stated correctly in your comment, it's still right I believe to say this. This is like saying: "The punishment of theft is so and so" but the theft should be witnessed or evidenced. This doesn't contradict the fact that the said "so and so" is the punishment for theft. EditMaker Me (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Male homosexuality v lesbianism

This difference needs to be enumerated. There is no punishment for lesbianism under Islamic law. Conversely, the "orthodox" punishment for m-m anal intercourse is death. (Though it has almost never been implemented since it is impossible to satisfy the four-witnesses requirement.) 128.135.96.214 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Duplication with other articles

There seem to be a lot of issues with this article, which I am not in a position to address at the moment, but would like to raise another one: the section on "Modern laws in the Islamic world" has a great deal of overlap with various other articles on LGBT rights by country or territory, Religious views on same-sex marriage and indivdual entries on individual countries. IMO, individual countries need not be named here, and if the information held in this article is pertinent and relevant to that country and is not currently included under its individual entry it could be added there. I would like to see this section pared back to a minimum to avoid needless repetition and risk of out-of-date information remaining here when it has been updated in the main articles on the topic. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Lack of source

In the third paragraph, it states "There are also several Muslim organizations that support LGBT rights and LGBT Muslims." kindly mention the aforementioned Muslim organization for transparency and neutrality. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicop33 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikicop33, as per WP:LEAD, there is generally no need to provide citations in the lead. The article includes sections on organisations and activists. You have, however, highlighted the fact that the whole lead could probably do with updating as per good practice, and some of the content and citations probably belong in the body of the article. (Please remember to sign you comments with 4 tildes, btw.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Addition of Hidayah

I want to add Hidayah to the list of active groups as I recently attended a conference which was organised by them and felt that their presence was lacking on this website. I am currently working on research around LGBT+ Muslim activist groups and they are very active in the UK along with the other groups listed on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamieMansoor (talk • contribs) 10:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@SamieMansoor: thanks for taking this discussion to the talk page. Kleuske had a concern that the addition was "poorly sourced and promotional". WP content should be verifiable in independent reliable sources. The question here is whether the lgbtconsortium.org.uk directory has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" or simply hosts promotional content. Ideally, we'd like to have a citation to a source like a news organization. Eperoton (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I took this feedback on board and added this Metro article which describes one of the workshops Hidayah organised

https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/25/im-muslim-and-lgbt-and-i-teach-children-its-ok-to-be-both-8713922/

You can also see this newspaper article for further information

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/parkfield-birmingham-lgbt-classes-teaching-no-outsiders-acceptence

It just keeps getting deleted. I also tried to move the active groups above the defunct groups because that seemed to make more sense to me. However, this is no longer something I'm willing to challenge as it's not that important.

Thanks, SamieMansoor. The the first link seems to be an OpEd by someone affiliated with Hidayah, which would not meet criteria for reliability, but the second link looks like a news story that we can use. Eperoton (talk)

LGBTQ in Islam evolution of beliefs

I included some further background on where beliefs stem from in the Islamic faith. Both the Qur'an and Hadith, are used to cite discrimination toward the community. However, as times have changed and society is constantly pushing to gain more equality for everyone, people in the Islamic community continue to challenge the discrimination. The Islamic Society of North America, in 2013, established their approval of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ensuring that people are not discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Additionally, there have been the rise of Unity Mosques, which are inclusive of the LGBTQ community across the United States and in Canada. Laurapollack (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Laura Pollack

Thanks, Laurapollack. Unfortunately, there were a couple of problems with this addition. First, the lead should be a high level summary of the article. Some of the more specific background information you added is already covered in the body of the article, and general information about Islam is better suited for a more general article. Also, the sources you used, an OpEd and an advocacy organization website, should generally only be used as reliable sources for the opinion of the author (i.e., with attribution) and not to source statements of fact. Eperoton (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Lack of Recent Events

While reading through and editing this page, I noticed that there is a lack of recent events from news outlets. I have added some myself but believe there is still a need for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahScafati (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Criminal Punishment in Egypt

I added a relevant fact about Egypt's criminalization of homosexuality: "An Egyptian tv host was recently sentenced to a year in prison for interviewing a gay man in January 2019. [121]" This addition shows the overall negative social attitudes towards homosexuality and the extremes that the Government take it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkuflik (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Student editor's summary table

Hi Wiki-editors, I re-added the summary chart at the bottom of the page. I was working on this page as a assigned project for my class. I notice someone is keep removing it. I have a request that this is not a medical topic and I tried to added as many as countries possible on the table after doing the enough research. To me this chart was very useful for the information as you can see more than one country at one chart instead of going back and forth for the information. I put it up there to benefit my other readers as well. Requesting again, please let it be there, I appreciate your understanding in advance. Thank you!Shahzia Perveen (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shahzia Perveen: Regarding your table, Verifiability is Wikipedia policy. We can't accept material just because we have faith that it is correct. This is true whether or not it is a medical topic. Is the chart even based on references in this article? I remember looking and finding that at least some of it was not discussed in this article. It might be okay if it were immediately next to a section that contained the same information in prose and that prose was fully referenced; however that is not yet what we have here. You definitely should not edit war by attempting to re-add the chart twice unchanged. Shalor (Wiki Ed), any thoughts? -Crossroads- (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for pinging me! @Shahzia Perveen:, you won't be graded on what "sticks" in the article, just your effort. Definitely do not re-add the content, as this should not impact your grade and can actually lead to a block if you continue to try to re-add it once it's been contested. The best thing to do here is to try to resolve the issues brought up here - which is that the table lacked sourcing to back up the claims. Also, given that some of the content isn't in the article, it would be better to expand the article to include those claims (with sourcing).

Something else to take in mind when it comes to tables - they aren't always the best avenue to impart information, as it is so easy for these to be imprecise because it's limited in how much information that can be imparted. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ludovic Mohamed Z.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus about two images

Images
Ottoman Turkish manuscript from 1773 Ottoman illustration depicting a young man used for group sex (from Sawaqub al-Manaquib), 19th century

I am seeking attention about these two photos, I think the writings are enough to understand the matter, and the depiction is not further needed to add here because it does not enhance the encyclopedic quality, and if that according to WP:GRATUITOUS, images which can be offensive or vulgar to any viewer are not allowed to be added in wikipedia. Or if dont, the photos should be kept as collapsible at least. Besides the article is about Islam, mostly muslims will come to read the article and the fundamental rules of muslims is to protect their gaze, it is more important in Islam than depicting Muhammad (modestly), and the article should at least make the photos as collapsed so that wikipedia does not seem to force viewer to see the photos, by giving them option. 43.245.120.33 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We are not in the business to protect anyone's claimed morals. That's a slippery slope. You are free to avert your eyes from that which you do not wish to see, same as I might from other things I wish not to see. The specific images in question are each the only illustration for their adjacent content text. They are not purely decorative, but instead literally illustrate the specific topics. They provide authentic, contemporaneous evidence that this stuff you find icky was and is factually happening and was important enough that many people wrote and drew about it. It should be a surprise to nobody, and instead is clearly on-topic, that an article about "LGBT in Islam" would have images of an LBGT nature specifically in the context of Islam. DMacks (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

But parsian, ottoman or any other culture are not the mirror of basic Islam, the basic Islam is based on quran, hadith, the life of muhammad, his companions and his four generation followers, which are called salaf, the latter muslims are not any religious reference of Islam, whoever they are, so it cen be placed in ottoman or persian empire related article, not in an article, where the main topic is Islam. At least you can collapse the photos, so that one will click the show option who wish to see by his own will, he will then not be bound to see the photos by first indroduction with this article, and wiki will not be liable of making them bound to see these photos by giving them both options, and if they see it by their own wish, then wiki will also not be liable of it. 103.67.159.137 (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Both sections have text specifically about the Ottomans. DMacks (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I will still request not to delete but to collapse the photos to make the article universally tolerable and more easily worthy of taking information kind to all, like which i did above or equally of better syntax than that (which more precisely fits in the page with adequate space). Isn't it bad that if a huge number of people becomes abstained of having knowledge of this article only for fear of this two photos always being opened up in front of their eyes when the intentionally or unintentionally open this page? 43.245.121.38 (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That is against WP:NOTCENSORED, which is a formal Wikipedia policy. DMacks (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No collapsing in the article per DMacks. That's not done in any article. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Besides the article is about Islam, mostly muslims will come to read the article..." No, there is no guarantee that mostly Muslims will want to read this article. Non-Muslims wanting to know about the topic may want to view the article. And even if most of the article readers are Muslims, that is not sufficient or good enough reason for censorship. --50.30.178.10 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Sara Hegazy

Sara hegazy was not a Muslim but an Atheist Nlivataye (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Although I have been looking and trying to find information that would backup your claim, I have found none. Where is it stated that she was an Atheist? In this video of her, when saying, "..and you took off the hijab.." she seems to be implying she was Muslim. glowing regards, paperandscissors (contact) 06:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

She was also a communist; an important indication and though not claiming all communists must be atheists there is a correlation there Nlivataye (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Trenecito.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No mention of Idol worship in Quran by Lot to his people

The section which i would like to be removed from this page is the below one

"Some Muslim academics disagree with this interpretation, arguing that the "people of Lut" were destroyed not because of participation in same-sex acts, but because of misdeeds which included refusing to worship one God, disregarding the authority of the Prophets and messengers, and attempting to rape the travelers, a crime made even worse by the fact that the travelers were under Lut's protection and hospitality"

This text was given under the table tile "in Quran" which means anything given in this section should be present in Quran and not of personal opinion of someone. For example if some article states Abraham Lincoln was not the president of United States , i think wiki will reject it even if it is from an famous author. Similarly "in Quran" section should contain passages of only the verses from Quran. There is no mention of idol worship in Quranic verses when prophet Lot is talking to his people. Please look at the verses of Lot in Quran https://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=%28lot%29&chapter=&translator=5&search=1&search_word=all&start=0&records_display=10&phonetic= 124.40.246.231 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR does not trump WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

what do you mean by trump? Is some random article of lie is bigger than Quran on which this article section is written? That article is lying about quran and I request you to remove that reference.124.40.246.231 (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Won't do, since the policy is WP:V. See also WP:NOTCENSORED. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Junaid1068, digressions aside, Wikipedia policy is very clear about this. The edit you’re suggesting would violate WP:RNPOV, a foundational aspect of Wikipedia. What you’re proposing is that we include a theological view specific to Muslims as unvarnished truth, and that’s simply not going to happen. We reflect what mainstream scholarly sources say. And that some Muslims might get “wrong information” is immaterial. We do report what the majority theological view amongst Muslims is. So, it’s very much already there. But we can’t say it’s the truth, because it’s contradicted by archaeological and textual evidence. It’s not our job to practice Muslim apologetics, or discourage what you see as heretical opinions. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The comment "Islam is the truth, despite to even if you do not want to admit it," is a prime example of what is delaying your unblock. It is very easy for me to read that and interpret your statement as you saying that your belief in Islam will cause you to edit with a pro-Islam perspective and rejecting neutral, factual sources for religious ones.

No religion holds a monopoly on truth: not Islam, not Christianity, not Judaism, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It may feel like Wikipedia's version of truth is an atheistic truth. If so, it's because atheists don't look at religious perspectives for guidance but focus on objective, observable facts. Wikipedia's WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Reliable sources policies work on those lines: events should be written about in articles based on reliable sources, and preferably independent ones. The encyclopedia does not yield to religious doctrine or polity.

One personal note: yes, I'm a member of an organized religion. The teachings—or truths, if you prefer—of my church are the lens by which I look at my own behaviour. Other than being mindful of how I treat my fellow editors, it does not influence my editing. Even in articles related to my religion, what is "truth" is dictated by what is shown in the historical record and independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said in my edit-summary undoing your removal of that material: WP editors are forbidden to use their own literary analysis, but instead we only report what others say (as you can read, it says "someone says this", not "this is true") with cites to support that they say so. See our WP:OR and WP:WIKIVOICE policies. We actually could say "Some historians claim Abraham Lincoln was not a real person, with the role of US President at the time instead being held by a sentient potbellied stove" as long as we have citations to reliable sources saying that they make the claim. DMacks (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I support the consensus here not to remain the text challenged above (the reasoning is sound). That said it is a little odd that we reference "muslim academics". Is it important to point out that they are muslin? Does it give them more weight? If someone is an academic but not muslin but makes the same point are we suggesting that their viewpoint is less relevant? I'd like to remove "muslim" unless we're trying to argue that even within the islamic faith there are different views about what's going on in relation to the story of Lut. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to again highlight here that i am not arguing whats right or wrong. The argument is simple, the section in question is dedicated to in Quran, that space should not be given to anyone’s personal opinions, be it academic or scholar. If at all somebody is interpreting the verses differently then they have to put down that verse and explain the reason. Without an valid reason, just putting out that some academics believe is not correct. Some people believe in flat earth and wiki will not consider those articles as reliable source. Does the admin say, we are asked not to do scientific analysis and put let that info in along side spherical earth? You might create a different section called criticism or other beliefs and put that info there. I know wiki doesn’t speak from Islam point of view, only request i am making is dont give wrong articles as reliable status which is saying something is there when it is not. I also disagree with wiki that they dont do literature analysis. Only by analysis they mark a source as reliable or unreliable. Wiki doesn’t consider articles of many scientists who oppose evolution and we cannot cite them. This is analysis. In this case they have marked a wrong source as reliable source.124.40.246.231 (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Trenecito.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Public opinion among Muslims

Hi GenoV84, how is The two world maps of the percentage of Muslims per country and the countries that support LGBT rights at the UN give an impression of the attitude towards homosexuality on the part of many Muslim-majority governments. sourced? Do you feel like it is a case of eyeball estimation?

Neither source mentions muslims/islam, so how is the inclusion of the information not OR by suggesting an (unsourced) link between muslim-majority countries and attitudes towards homosexuality? See Wikipedia:No_original_research#cite_note-7. The inclusion of the maps should be conditional on the inclusion of (existing) research on muslim-majority countries and homosexuality.

And what does Raja Gemini have to do with the topic? Best, 15 (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

While you are at it, GenoV84, please provide a ref for inclusion of ludicrous phrase "Islami death penalty" before you revert it back to this article.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Basically, almot every source provided in the article, so stop quarrelling about a wikilink. GenoV84 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Basically, I am asking you to point in which source, which page, paragraph and line is used a phrase "Islamic death penalty"!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way, this project is serious enough to me, so when someone uses a pipe to deceive I find it extremely disruptive.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Try with this one, for example, alongside many others that you obviously didn't check out. Many sources and paragraphs of this article deal with the Islamic legal tradition and its prescription for capital punishment, in case you didn't notice. You sound quite angry for a simple wikilink; you should try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively. Since you have stated that this project is serious enough to me, you should get familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including Behavioral guidelines and Content guidelines, in order to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner. GenoV84 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Further reading: for a broader understanding of Islamic death penalty and other religiously-based punishments prescribed by the Sharia law, Muslim scholars, jurists, and theologians, see the following academic reference: Schirrmacher, Christine (2020). "Chapter 7: Leaving Islam". In Enstedt, Daniel; Larsson, Göran; Mantsinen, Teemu T. (eds.). Handbook of Leaving Religion. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Vol. 18. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. pp. 81–95. doi:10.1163/9789004331471_008. ISBN 978-90-04-33092-4. ISSN 1874-6691. GenoV84 (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere is to be found a phrase "Islamic death penalty", not even broad Google search gives something that inappropriate.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course, there is a "Sharia law and the death penalty", or "The Islamic Position on Capital Punishment", or "Islam and the Death Penalty - William & Mary Law School", and so on and so forth, but nowhere can be read phrase "Islamic death penalty".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be "appropriate" or "inappropriate" towards religious and/or political groups; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is NOT censored. Moreover, wikilinks aren't verbatim quotes; the wikilink "Capital punishment in Islam" was linked as "Islamic death penalty" because leaving it as it is titled in that sentence in the body of the article wouldn't be proper English grammar, that's all about it. Also, you forgot to check out the very first academic reference cited in the lead section, which also deals with the subject of Islamic death penalty and its prescriptions for LGBTQ+ people in Muslim-majority countries:

The work of hundreds of activists and experts for the protection and promotion of LGBT rights around the globe leaves no doubt that the repression of homosexuality and queerness is a global phenomenon. Indeed, as highlighted in the HRC 17/19 Resolution, as well as in the High Commissioner’s Report and in several other UN Committees’ reports, violations of human ri ghts are frequently visited upon LGBT communities, even in the most liberal and democratic states. 6 It is particularly alarming that in 2011, seventy-six states had criminal laws and penal sanctions attached, as a consequence of sexual orientation, to sexual behavior or gender identity.7 This number increased to seventy-eight in 2012. A first reading of these statistics suggests that both homophobia and the criminalization of homosexuality are phenomena of global reach. In fact, it is only half of these seventy-eight states that are Muslim-majority or Sharia-compliant states. 8 Yet it seems that there is a certain “privileged” connection between Islam and the repression of homosexuality. All five states that currently punish same-sex relations by the death penalty are Sharia-compliant: Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, and Sudan.9 The death penalty is also applied in the northern region of Nigeria, which has predominantly Muslim populations, and the southern parts of Somalia. 10 The most brutal punishments, including lashes and public stoning, as well as arbitrary executions, also occur in Muslim-majority states (namely, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Qatar, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Malaysia). 11 Some of the Islamic states that impose life imprisonment do so on the basis of the Sharia injunctions (for example, Maldives). 12 Even the most “tolerant” states still punish the offense of “unnatural intercourse” (Bangladesh). 13 Furthermore, the Muslim-majority states that criminalize same sex relationships have also proved to have the highest levels of homophobia and intolerance towards sexual diversity. 14

GenoV84 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither is about editors' POV, OR and Synth. I am not interested in lectures - you know how to use quote template, so find a quote from serious piece of scholarship where the phrase is used, with a title and page number.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention it's not grammatically correct to say "Islamic death penalty" (that's why you won't find it in serious scholarship) - unless you want to introduce to encyclopedia that there is something intrinsically Islamic in killing a person ?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

... in killing LGBT person under Islamic jurisprudence?--౪ Santa ౪^99°

According to the cited sources: Yes. GenoV84 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, wikilinks aren't verbatim quotes, and every user knows that. If you are not interested in checking out the cited sources, don't care about dispute resolution, and refuse to acknowledge the reality of these informations supported by multiple academic references cited throughout the entire article, then I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not the place for you, because you seem to be here only to propagate your personal point of view by censoring and disrupting sourced content supported by the aforementioned numerous reliable and academic references. I've wasted my time. GenoV84 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Please cease with an accusations of censorship - you are defending indefensible - there is no such a thing as "Islamic death penalty", and it's irrelevant what links are or aren't, the relevant thing is that you can't create a phrase with explicit meaning and pretend that it's just linking as usual.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you check the cited sources? No. GenoV84 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course, and I tried to find other via Google just from shear curiosity - there is no "Islamic death penalty". But I am curious still, so please, do tell - what is "Islamic death penalty"? How that thing differs from any other "death penalty", is there a "Western death penalty" or "American death penalty or "Vatican death penalty" or "Atheist death penalty"?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yet, all the cited academic sources and the quote that I provided both in this Talk page and in the article state exactly the opposite of what you claim and they all refer to the same thing: Islamic death penalty, which is capital punishment based on Islamic law, just like the Jewish death penalty is capital punishment based on the Jewish law. The Vatican actually has a prescription for death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and people were regularly executed under death sentences in the former Papal States. Atheism is not a religion, so no death penalty.... unlike Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Religiously-motivated capital punishment is an interesting topic nonetheless, but you clearly have no knowledge about it, and continue to argue about something that exists while you refuse to acknowledge its role in Islamic history, societies, jurisprudence, and current usage to justify the execution of EX-Muslims and LGBTQ+ people in the Muslim world. Blissful ignorance. GenoV84 (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If you are not interested in lecturing, then you are neither interested in knowledge nor in improving Wikipedia. Bye. GenoV84 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Aristotle, i wasn't aware you go digital now.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not interested in lecturing, quote the line where the phrase is used.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Manticore:, @VenusFeuerFalle:, GenoV84, please, do not pretend that you are doing something innocuous by inventing explicit and controversial phrase, which doesn't exists nor can be found in reliable sources, and using it for pipe in a wikilink so that you can apply Easteregg guideline. Find the way to amend the problem properly.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Your edits today on this article have violated WP:3RR. Could you please explain why you have ignored that policy? — Manticore 03:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

With all respect, I think it is kind of presumptuous to impute something to other users, because they don't agree. I don't want to accuse you of bad intentions, but this is kind of a Straw man. Noone claimed that there is a term like Islamic penalty nor is the link marked as such. It is simply a way to hightlight the article it is linked to. I don't understand how "Islamic" is explicit or controversial. Speaking of punishment when refering to an article specifically "Punishment in Islam" hides the link. This is probably also the reason why {{ping|GenoV84]] reverted an edit reasoned by "censorship". Which other reason than "censoring" can be interferred here? You claimed Users invented a term, although there isn't any term here. If you wish we can rephrase it as "punishments in Islam", but it should be clear, this link leads to the article about "punishment in Islam" not about punishment in general, for the reasons given you in the WP:EASTEREGG. If I am missing something, please clarify, but don't accuse other Users's of doing something nocuous based on (unreasoned) speculations.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Manticore:, why don't you ask your fellow editor GenoV84 the same question? They reverted my edit first, so they broke the rule fists while edit-warring, nevermind that I already started posting in tp - then you and @VenusFeuerFalle: stared reverting a whole hour after I initiated this discussion, which means that I was well inside my prerogatives. And while we are at edit-warring and prerogatives, VenusFeuerFalle shouldn't you refrain from revert too (for decorum sake) while discussion is still alive? Not to mention, your last revert is not part of this discussion, it was an edit which removed repetition - or doubling down on that how LGBT relationship is criminalized under penalty of death under Islamic jurisprudence, in the lede in the first three paras all with duplicate wikilinks - that was legitimate edit and should I start to presume why you removed it we would be on a slippery slope indeed. So, as far as presumption is questioned, you presume quite a lot for someone who registering presumption in others: you first presumed that I negating existence of "Capital punishment in Judaism", then you presumed I claimed that "Islamic" is explicit, then you presumed indirectly that I am censoring something which, if I understand well, you yourself said it don't exist, and finally, you presumed that I am assigning particular meaning to the word "innocuous".

Like all words innocuous has many meanings, no reason to presume the worst; as I explained myself at length, I am not censoring anything, i find quite disturbing to literally invent term "Islamic death penalty", which as a term or phrase has very explicit meaning completely different from the meaning that comes out of standard phrasing (in scholarship) used as such in title of the article "Capital punishment under Islamic Law", using first is distortion to the point of making syntactic perversion, which gives a new meaning and creates obvious assumption of existence of some kind of intrinsic Islamic nature to a very death penalty process - I asked all involved many times over to provide a ref for such a nature (usage of such a phrase, if you like) and you all failed (meanwhile even EASTER makes a point that in case of changed meaning you need really strong RS); this also shows that I never said "Islamic" is explicit, instead I claim "Islamic death penalty" has explicit new meaning; "Capital punishment in Judaism" exists and I used it to make a point that there is no Judaic or Jewish death penalty. Now, I have cleared the lede from duplicate statements and created better phrasing for the problem but you removed it without before you engaged in discussion, but let's look past that, so that you can focus on explaining why would you revert my last edit, what's makes it unacceptable for you exactly?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

So you're suggesting to change the article lead from However, some hadith collections condemn homosexual and transgender acts, prescribing the Islamic death penalty for both the active and receptive partners who have engaged in male homosexual intercourse to However, some hadith collections condemn homosexual and transgender acts, prescribing the Capital penalty in Islam for both the active and receptive partners who have engaged in male homosexual intercourse, instead? This is you are warring about? About phrasing?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC) edit: By the way: Yes your suggested change is bad grammar. "Islamic punishment" is grammatically correct, just like people speak about "Islamic culture", "Islamic society" etc. I think this is that GenoV84 tried to explain. Find a reason to the remove the term "Islamic", since you arguement "this is an invented phrase" is invalid, because nobody invetned a term in the first place. For example: "Islamic X" is not a term. It is simply an adjectve describing X (X can stand for society, penalty, Books etc.) This is just English grammar. By removing the (frequently used) term Islamic, however, you are ommiting a specification of this WikiLink. This is also why you have been accused of censorship. Please rethink your intentions here, consider English grammar, and think what exactly you are objecting here. Your claim that User invented a term is not applyable.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am really struggling to understand what you are writing - I am sorry but, really, I am having a hard time to catch your drift. My English is barely usable, but, boy, to my abilities to understand yours is even worse. But, that being said, I think that my intentions were more than clear, and series of explaining, which I provided in my posts here from the beginning, should suffice for even the weakest user of English, or the finest connoisseur of literary English, if we are to consider both extremes.

What exactly isn't clear to you? What is to ponder upon when I say that "Islamic death penalty" has no reference, nobody use that absurd phrase, and that its utilization results in distorted meaning and context, too much off to be allowed as a pipe justified by EASTER; and when I say that we have two statements in two subsequent paragraphs in the lede which, literally, both say the same thing, using same wikilinks and same refs. When I rephrased it, removing duplicate statements without losing an ounce of meaning and context, amending the problematic "Islamic death penalty" phrase in the process, you bluntly removed it while the discussion is still ongoing, and before you showed an effort in chipping in few arguments of your own ! So, what is that you don't understand? The phrase "Islamic punishment" could be used in some discourses, sort of, but either way we need ref for it, with high probability that sources using it exist, thus, could be easily found - on the other hand, phrase "Islamic death penalty" is nowhere to be found in RS (actually, broad Googling gives 0, zero, results for the "Islamic death penalty" query, even in right-wing media did not think to use that phrase), and unless you can proved such reliable source(s) you should remove it as contested phrase, absurd and highly controversial. I wonder how many times will I be compelled and asked to repeat myself on this.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I withdraw my agreement with you regarding existence of the phrase "Islamic punishment" - there is no such thing either. You can check yourself, search via Google or whatever. I am unable to find such phrase.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I can try to fix some mistakes. Longer texts on Wikipedia usually cause laggs on my end and I get in a hurry. I also tend (both in English and German) to get lost into too much details because I (errorneously?) think it helps readers to understand the point. Sorry for that, I hope it is clear now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, you do what you think you should, but you are still unclear as before, but I think I can at least conclude that you are defending GenoV84 stance, and reject all of my arguments out of hand - that's obvious for two reasons, first, most glaring is that you are still unable to nail the exact phrase down, you think that problematic phrase is "Islamic punishment" instead of "Islamic death penalty" - get it, it's not "Islamic punishment", that is not the phrase used in text, it is "Islamic death penalty". Either way, one or the other, invented or not, grammatically correct or not, for phrase with such an explicit (and absurd) meaning you need reference, which neither you or GenoV84 provided (as an additional reason, you are the last editor I would be willing to take her/his word on grammar issues, after this exchange!) - is this enough for you for removal of that phrase - do I really need to point out that it's outright racist phrase and no self-respecting academic is using it anywhere ever, which is the reason you can't even Google it nowhere.

Further, paragraph which I rewrote for the lede, removing duplicate statements without losing an ounce of meaning and context, amending the problematic "Islamic death penalty" phrase in the process, you bluntly removed without giving any reason of any substance, while the discussion was still ongoing, and before you showed an effort in chipping in few arguments of your own --౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If you still think it is unclear, my ability to write English doesn't seem to be the issue afterall. Maybe you should calm down, take some days off, come back and read carefully. Maybe then you will unerstand that we desperatly try to explain you. Everyone has bad days, especially then you something considered a minor change turns out to be a huge trouble. I can relate to this on a certain level. But it looks like, there is a consens that your edits are not helpful and you won't listen, despite several users trying to explain it in their own words.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC) edit: Okay fine, I give it another shot: Yeh, I don't see much of a difference between "Islamic penalty" or "Islamic captical punishmen", both are punishments, both follow the pattern of "Islamic" + "insert an action here" (let it be punishment, captical punishment, death penalty, culture, Holy Scripture or whatever). And no, there is, as far as I know, no rule determining a degree of "explicit content" for terms (!), which must be avoided. If there is any, provide the rule. Maybe we all just don't know it. Show this rule, show why the term "Death-Penalty" must be censored or at least cenosored when following Islamic. Would support your point. Btw, my pronounce are on my User page. I prefer they/them over his/her.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

1. decorum preservation.... Are you serious? Explain what is your definition of decorum preservation, because you have demonstrated to be unable to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, yet you also pretend to have the high ground to judge other users' conduct while claiming to have discussed with them respectfully because of decorum preservation, which can't be found anywhere in the article's Talk page, since you have repeatedly attempted to censor and disrupt sourced, encyclopedic content supported by multiple academic and reliable references in the article through many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries with a presumptuous attitude both towards me and other users (@VenusFeuerFalle: and @Manticore:), despite the fact that in my first reply I suggested you to try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively, because there's absolutely no need to behave that way during a dispute resolution, especially considering the fact that this entire discussion and edit war that you started is about something so innocuous as a wikilink.
2. In my very first reply, I also suggested you to get familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including Behavioral guidelines and Content guidelines, in order to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, and to check out the cited sources before accusing other users of ill intent both through your many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries and messages on the article's Talk page, which is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. You did neither of those things, apparently.
3. You're lucky that the aforementioned editors didn't report you to WP:ANI due to your reiterated insults, personal attacks, and offensive remarks towards them; for example, by insulting the user VenusFeuerFalle for expressing his own opinion and suggestions on the article's Talk page, denigrating him for being a non-native English speaker: I am really struggling to understand what you are writing - I am sorry but, really, I am having a hard time to catch your drift. My English is barely usable, but, boy, to my abilities yours is even worse. But, that being said, I think that my intentions were more than clear, and series of explaining, which I provided in my posts here from the beginning, should suffice for even the weakest user of English, or the finest connoisseur of literary English, if we are to consider both extremes.
4. So far, I haven't seen any attempt by the user Santasa99 to cool down and behave properly towards other users, neither to check the cited sources, nor to find this mythical reference containing the Strawman designation that he/she seems so desperate to cry for. Furthermore, he/she didn't even try to properly cooperate with other users by providing this source in the first place, and continues to avoid doing so. Instead, he/she continued to explicitly deny the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty despite the fact that all the cited sources state exactly the opposite of what he/she claims, resorted to insult and denigrate other users multiple times, and continued to dismiss my explanations for the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty and related Sharia-based legal prescriptions for capital punishments and modes of execution in Sharia-compliant Muslim-majority countries (including crucifixion, beheading, stoning, burning people alive, throwing people off buildings, etc.) paired with citations of multiple academic and reliable references, which he/she asked for (But I am curious still, so please, do tell - what is "Islamic death penalty"? How that thing differs from any other "death penalty", is there a "Western death penalty" or "American death penalty or "Vatican death penalty" or "Atheist death penalty"?) and can be found in the very first paragraph of the article's lead section, by stating the same phrase over and over again: I am not interested in lecturing.

Begging for evidence when the evidence has already been provided with reliable sources and quotes, then dismissing the provided evidence by stating the same phrase over and over again (I am not interested in lecturing) with no counterarguments and without refraining from making personal attacks and offensive remarks about other users, is starting to feel like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I called Santasa99 out on that as inappropriate behaviour twice; instead of refraining from his/her reiterated tendentiousness, personal attacks, and disruption to illustrate his/her point, he/she refuses to take accountability for his/her inappropriate conduct by pointing the finger at other editors repeatedly. Meanwhile, user Santasa99 has continued to denigrate the user VenusFeuerFalle on the article's Talk page for being a non-native speaker of English, regardless of good manners and civility: as an additional reason, you are the last editor I would be willing to take her/his word on grammar issues, after this exchange! (the text is highlighted in bold in the original comment on the article's Talk page, not my addition). Moreover, there's obviously no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policy WP:EASTEREGG. It's depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote his/her own point of view, without providing any verifiable sources that support their opinion, resorting to insult and attack other users instead of collaborating with them respectfully. GenoV84 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I am starting to feel harassed by your replies, filled with unsubstantiated accusations (you did that on our first encounter in the first edit-summary directed at my first edit on the article, and it didn't ceased yet), and if this continue I will be compelled to seek resolution at ANI. Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Amending deficiencies in LEDE

Ok, here's what I intend to do, based on our core content policies and guidelines: I intend to remove any usage of the phrase "Islamic death penalty" based on core content policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research, and more specifically, based on our guidelines MOS:NEO (additionally WP:NEO) and MOS:CONFUSE. As additionally explained: no participant in this discussion provided us with a WP:reliable source which uses phrase "Islamic death penalty" failing the core content policy WP:VERIFY, all that involved editors tried is: either to justify usage of this neologism (and double entendre euphemism) as pipe by referring to WP:EASTER, but they never explained why this specific construction is necessary as such at all, and never accepted the argument that used like that absolutely changes intended meaning of the wiki-linked title Capital punishment in Islam ("death penalty under Islamic/Sharia jurisprudence/law") making "death penalty" intrinsically "Islamic", thus breaching the core content policy on WP:NPOV; or to refer to a sources which use phrases like "Islam and death penalty", "Death penalty under Islamic jurisprudence", and similar, thus breaching the core content policy on WP:OR. I intend to do this removal by rephrasing two sentences/statements which expressing exactly the same information, using exactly the same wiki-links, and exactly the same references, and are both inserted in the WP:LEDE, only few lines apart. By amending this repetitiveness, I intend to remove usage of constructed controversial phrase "Islamic death penalty" based on aforementioned MOS:NEO and MOS:CONFUSE breach.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Finally, something that resembles a proposal to compromise. In my opinion, the wikilink would be more encyclopedic if we replace "Islamic death penalty" with the most appropriate terminology related to the Sharia legal system and its applications, i.e. terms currently used by legal scholars in the fields of criminal law and Islamic studies. For example: Rudolph Peters (Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Amsterdam, Netherlands) in Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law: Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-first Century uses the designation "Islamic criminal law", while Man Baker (Associate Professor at the College of Humanities & Social Sciences, Zayed University, UAE) in Arab Law Quarterly uses the designation "Islamic legal ruling". Javaid Rehman (Professor of Islamic Law and Muslim Constitutionalism and Human Rights, formerly Head of Brunel Law School, Brunel University, London) and Eleni Polymenopoulou (Lecturer in Law at Brunel Law School, Brunel University, London) in Fordham International Law Journal, when referring to capital punishment and related modes of execution in Islam and in the legislations of "Sharia-compliant" Muslim-majority countries, always refer to the various classical and modern interpretations of the "Sharia law" by Muslim jurists and scholars. Let me know if you agree and have more suggestions. Also, I would like to know what other users think about these terms, if they agree or disagree about replacing "Islamic death penalty" with them, if they consider these terms to be appropriate, how they can be implemented in the article, and if they have more suggestions. GenoV84 (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I welcome more precise descriptions like "Sharia-law" or "Sharia jurisprudence". Especially since this drifts away from the impression Islam is entirely law-focused. For example, there are obviously Islamic strants which disagree with this sorts of penalty, especially in countries in which an interpretation of Sharia is not applied.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not intending anything differently from what I tried earlier - if anything, this intention is much more substantial in comparison with my earlier edit, which was reduced to removing only one word. However, even before my intervention article lead section already had one acceptable formulation, but is buried between existing duplicate statements WP:SECONDMENTION, expressing literally the same information, and containing duplicate wiki-link on Capital punishment in Islam, but differently piped which amount attempt to WP:POINT, which is disruptive editing - first statement contains syntactically fallacious construct formatted with syntactic ambiguity "Islamic death penalty", which is contested because it fails more than one MOS guideline per WP:EPSTYLE, for instance WP:TONE, WP:PERSUASIVE, WP:FORMAL, and is used as pipe for the first wiki-link version, while the second statement is formulated in a way I am content with and which also contains different but appropriate pipe for the same wiki-link. Now, as I explained above (actually from the beginning), by merging these duplicate statements into one coherent, we are going to amend both problems - remove repetition and remove pipe formulated as "Islamic death penalty".

Further, as I observed and noted, but can't emphasize enough, the second statement explains everything that article needs about death penalty under Islamic/Sharia law/jurisprudence in plain English, with clear expressions, and is acceptably formulated (per our core content policies and guidelines), which means that we just need to bring part of the first statement and merge with the second. But, the main thing is that I already did this once, I merged these duplication into one perfectly coherent and understandable sentence, without losing an ounce of meaning and context, amending the problematic "Islamic death penalty" phrase in the process, but that was bluntly reverted without giving a reason of substance for such a revert.

So, after two days of unpleasant back-and-forth, the simplest way to resolve this, after all, is to reinstate my last edit via History tab.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not. Your edits were reverted by multiple editors in accordance with policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED, you attempted to apply those changes without consensus in the midst of an ongoing discussion, and you violated the WP:3RR rule multiple times, as user Manticore demonstrated both on the article's Talk page and WP:AN3 ([1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]). There is still no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED. Me and user VenusFeuerFalle have proposed new solutions by providing and citing multiple verified, neutral, academic, reliable references that contain more encyclopedic, formal, and specific legal terminology that could be used to replace the wikilink without incurring in a violation of the aforementioned WP policies. Unfortunately, user Santasa99 has NEVER provided one, single, reliable source that could support his point of view, while simultaneously stuffing himself with words like "substance" or "evidence" and demanding reliable sources which I have provided and cited firsthand multiple times, all of which meet the requirements Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. If there is anyone here that should amend for his reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors, that's you, not us. GenoV84 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, if those reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors on his part weren't already enough, Santasa99 seems to (almost) entirely disregard the other editors' opinions and proposals regarding the appropriate terminology and solution, by explicitly stating that he doesn't care and will continue to do exactly the same thing that he did before, i.e. unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content without consensus:

1. Ok, here's what I intend to do, based on our core content policies and guidelines: I intend to remove any usage of the phrase "Islamic death penalty" [...] I intend to do this removal by rephrasing two sentences/statements which expressing exactly the same information, using exactly the same wiki-links, and exactly the same references, and are both inserted in the WP:LEDE, only few lines apart. By amending this repetitiveness, I intend to remove usage of constructed controversial phrase "Islamic death penalty";
2. I am not intending anything differently from what I tried earlier - if anything, this intention is much more substantial in comparison with my earlier edit, which was reduced to removing only one word.

How do you expect to collaborate with other users without providing any evidence that could validate your viewpoint, especially if you're not even willing to compromise with them when different solutions and proposals have already been made? GenoV84 (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

So, you reject this from the beginning: Some hadith collections condemn homosexual and transgender acts,[5][7][12][16] making them forbidden in traditional Islamic jurisprudence and liable to different punishments, including stoning and the death penalty for both partners, the active and receptive, who have engaged in male homosexual intercourse,[1][2][6] depending on the circumstances, country and the legal school.

Explain to me why are you rejecting this?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

For the same reasons that I and the editors VenusFeuerFalle and Manticore have explained before. See my replies and the other editors' replies above. GenoV84 (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: the report for edit-warring on WP:AN3 has been closed and concluded with the result "Warned" for the user Santasa99 by the admin EdJohnston: Result: User:Santasa99 is warned for breaking 3RR at LGBT in Islam on 12 February. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Santasa99 is convinced that the phrase 'Islamic death penalty' should not be used in Wikipedia, and has made a detailed proposal at Talk:LGBT in Islam#Amending deficiencies in LEDE for removing it from articles. If they embark on this plan without prior consensus there will be consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC) GenoV84 (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

EdJohnston never said that, Manticore never explained anything - they did not participated in this discussion, you never explained anything on this paragraph, in so much so that you actually didn't bothered to see that this paragraph already exist in two separate parts in the article.

Are you now refuse to work with me, do you think that somehow goal is accomplished and now you don't need to explain to me anything? There is no need for consensus on removal of unsourced claims - you still need source for your specific construct "Islamic death penalty".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes he did: [7]. Stop lying, it won't help. GenoV84 (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You are reaching, and you are impolite, EdJohnston never said that HERE! - you copy/pasted board conclusion here and even used his signature, probably without asking him, which is another deception, in line of many, used as a mean to bludgeon and derail this discussion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, the admin EdJohnston said that on WP:AN3: the only thing that I did was to quote his closing message and diff to the related revision, i.e. I provided the evidence to demonstrate the truth. Again. As always.

I've been polite and respectful during the entire dispute resolution; sadly, it couldn't be said the same for you. Accusing me of being impolite and of trying to derail the discussion while you have repeatedly insulted me and other editors, and simultaneously reporting me at WP:ANI hoping that I will get blocked, is definitely another violation of WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS on your part, and clearly not even a smart move, especially after the warning directed to you on WP:AN3. GenoV84 (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, he said that there, not here, but you called me a liar when I objected to your attempt to derail discussion by implying that since I was warned you don't need to discuss anything with me - why would you bring entire post along with admin's signature here?

However, now that you have been warned by User:El_C in ANI board, will you be fair and copy/paste his warning here as well? That warning says something specifically about false labeling.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, you got warned once again [8], so that's twice I guess. GenoV84 (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Enough, both of you. I'm very close to blocking you both from the article and talk page. Santasa99, I can't make sense of your here–there thing RE: AN3. What is happening? GenoV84, err on the side of an error rather than "lying," please. Santasa99, lying ≠ liar. GenoV84, you are using bold to excess in some of your comments, tone it down, please. Now, I've told both of you what needs to be done (WP:DRR), so either do it, or go do something else. El_C 17:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Huh, I am not sure now if you want me to explain or it's rhetorical - OK, you asked, don't block me, OK? There is my intent espoused in just few posts above, and, absolutely unexpectedly, GenoV started making sense in their one reply (not quite, but it was enormous improvement over their all previous posts, which means without any personal innuendos), but then EdJohnston warned me over editwarring at AN3, and GenoV copy/pasted Ed's ruling here(?!) (all with admin's signature) and change their discussion tone back to old remarking that here's what admin said, with a sense that they took this warning not only as an argument victory, but as if we have nothing to talk about anymore.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Concur, lying ≠ liar - that was non-English speaker's blunder.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cross-Cultural Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aalle176 (article contribs).

"Bacha bazi" is out of scope

Putting this stuff here makes as much sense as putting Rape, sexual slavery and child molestation at Heterosexuality. -Daveout(talk) 12:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"incorrect identity cards", "wrong identity cards"

These phrases seem to push POV. Evidently the governments of the countries in question do not believe the cards are "wrong". Equinox ◑ 14:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle is not a Muslim Scholar

The article cites Scott as some sort of authority that is qualified to argue for a different interpretation of the story of the people of Prophet Lot, Prayers of God be upon him.

There is a huge difference between a "research scholar" and Muslim Scholar. Not anyone who claims to be a scholar is automatically granted or accepted as such. There are strict qualifications, including but not limited to peer acceptance and testimony by other established Muslim scholars. Scott is no such person, not even close.

He has absolutely no qualifications, nor do his opinions carry any weight in this matter. We have strict unanimous consensus among scholars of Islam since the beginning of Islam that homosexual acts are prohibited, and that the story of the people of Prophet Lot, Peace be upon him, clearly indicates this. Not just in the Quran, but the many authentic Hadiths as well. To attempt to deny and "reinterpret" those Ayat and Hadiths is bending and denying logic and authenticity, not to mention clear language and consensus.

Scott is not a Muslim scholar ('alim or Faqeeh). A Faqeeh is someone who has deep and intricate knowledge of Islamic Fiqh (Jurisprudence), and has qualifications to deduce rulings or issue fatwas on certain topics.

It is very well established among even beginner students of Islamic knowledge that we have something called in Islam (known in the religion by necessity - معلوم من الدين بالضرورة). These are axiomatic givens that have no room for interpretation, such as the prohibition of intoxicating drinks, the prohibition of pork, the requirement of Salah, Fasting, and Hajj for Muslims, prohibition of fornication and adultery, and so on. Homosexual acts fall under this category, and hence no Muslim scholar would ever argue or attempt to come up with a different "interpretation" for its prohibition. Insisting to do so after explaining the truth and crystal clear evidence of the matter, and that it is not open for interpretation may very well render that person outside the folds of Islam if he has any semblance of mental sanity.

My strong recommendation is to remove Scott's reference from the article. 24.127.250.116 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Muslims do not have dominion to declare who is or is not a scholar of their religion. Wikipedia is a scholarly project not a religous one. It is never bound by what a religion wants or thinks about itself, but instead generally goes by external/independent sources. DMacks (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course we do. It's the same with any governing agency or entity. Can someone decide to call himself the president of the United States and expect people to accept that? Or can someone claim to be a scientist without credentials and expect that his views carry any weight? There needs to be acceptance from peers as well as a lineage of scholarly education and qualifications. 24.127.250.116 (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. So we need for example someone on faculty at a college or university who specializes in a certain field, who has published books or journal articles...evidence that they are generally known for scholarship in that field. DMacks (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Kugle is a tenured Islamic Studies professor at Emory University. End of debate. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

He is not a scholar of Islam, big difference, not end of debate. He literally invented new things not found in the tradition to appease his desires. 24.127.250.116 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

And I am certainly appeased. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Just being employed by a university does not give one credentials to talk about a subject matter when it lies outside their domain. This is very obvious. Scott is not a scholar of Islam. 24.127.250.116 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

He's a tenured professor of Islamic Studies. Those are tangible credentials here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Outside observer here: Then why not use that terminology in the article itself? It appears that "Islamic scholar" also has a different meaning within the religion of Islam itself. If you say "Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle, a professor of Islamic studies at ___, claims..." you not only avoid ambiguity but give more information on why he is a valid source. — trlkly 16:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. If that's what it takes to eliminate the confusion. That's clarified now. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrong citation on 29 April 2023

but modern Western historians have concluded that the Islamic prophet Muhammad never forbade homosexual relationships outright

IS WRONG! That is simply and utterly false. There is a hadith by the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Ibn 'Abbas said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ‘Whoever you find doing the deed of the people of Lut, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 1456; Abu Dawud, 4462; Ibn Majah, 2561. This hadith was classed as sahih by Shaykh al-Albani in Sahih al-Jami’, no. 6589)

It is clearly forbidden. Please change this information if you truly want to publish only facts. 39.36.173.70 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to simply remove this line, it is not only wrong but also irrelevant to the article 39.36.173.70 (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The personal interpretations or opinions of editors are not relevant to the article; Wikipedia reports what others have written or said, not what its editors think. See also WP:SOAPBOX. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

All citations are of non authority in Islam only personal opinions.

Every single citation in this page is a non authority on Islam but simply personal opinions. Islam forbad homosexuality because Allah simply forbad it and it is very clearly stated in the Quran and Hadith. Obviously the people responsible for this misinformation don’t care about the truth but only their personal agenda. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that the Prophet Mohammad did not forbid the action of homosexuality. First it is Allah that forbids not Prophet Mohammad . He is a messenger of Allah, he obeys Allah’s commands which clearly says in the Quran that sodomy is a a sin that deserved Allah’s punishment of the people of Sodom! 65.95.226.52 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• You can state your personal opinions on this talk page, but citations in article space do not have to meet religious standards--only WP:RS. And please don't come here to give your personal opinions on sodomy or whatever; that's what Facebook is for. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"the Quran and Hadith" The Quran is not a reliable source for Islam, as it has no reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, we need "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors" Dimadick (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Transgender history

We have a section dedicated to the history of homosexuality. LGBT is also about trans people who are not necessarily gay (even if we consider people by their gender assigend at birth). I feel like there is some undue weight. Maybe we can add a transgender history section, if sufficient material is available, or trim the homosexuality section? Especially since other sections also treat the issue of homosexuality and anal intercourse in much detail. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't that rather depend on the transgender history that's available? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Completely unprofessional bias

I'm not even sure where to begin with this trainwreck of an article, carefully written to prioritize modern, progressive analyses of sexuality in Islam that very few Muslims or Muslim authorities actually accept. The main device it uses is looking at things with a purely sociological lense in which the actions of certain Muslims throughout history are divorced from what Islamic law actually says.

The introduction implies that Muslims accepted the LGBT throughout history until the West enforced prejudice on Muslim-majority countries in the 19th century. Yet the article itself goes into detail about how literally all the normal positions of Islamic law forbid gender fluidity and homosexuality to such an extent that all schools unanimously uphold capital punishment for sodomy based on the Hadith. How can this be reconciled with the ludicrous claim that the Prophet "never forbade homosexual relationships outright?" The prevalence of homosexuality in pre-modern Islamic polities, most of which was in the form of pederasty, doesn't mean that Islam inherently condoned it. Pederasty is NOT synonymous with the LGBT as we understand it today, that is an anachronistic interpretation and certainly not something that most people today would support. Plenty of claims in this article are not sourced at all, such as how normal medieval Muslims "usually apprehended the idea (homosexuality) with indifference, if not admiration."

If there are viewpoints of Islam's relationship with the LGBT that are minority positions, then you have to acknowledge that they are considered fringe, unpopular and irrelevant in Islamic legal circles. Instead, this article priorities these arguments while obscuring the Islamic stance. Numerous paragraphs are devoted to progressive interpretations of Islamic texts from academics who are not even proper Islamic authorities such as Scott Kugle, yet erudite refutations of their work from Muslim scholars are only passingly mentioned in single lines. This is an encyclopedia of established information, yes? Then why are random American academics who support the LGBT given multiple subsections discussing their work while the traditional Islamic positions are framed as "Wahhabist," informed by 19th century "Christian law," etc? The editors dance around these issues by claiming that they only accept rigorous academic citations and that primary Islamic texts are not "reliable sources for Islam." That's a very amusing response. It's obvious to anyone who reads this article that mostly one particular kind of historical study is referenced, and those are secular studies that support the LGBT movement and claim that Muslims tolerated it until the big bad colonizers showed up in the 19th century.

If you want to be honest about how Islam views the LGBT then perhaps focus on citing actual Muslims instead of white academics from Western countries and removing claims with no citations. You can't dance around the Islamic basis for why modern Muslims generally oppose the LGBT by citing books talking about how pederasty was common in the Middle Ages or ignoring that modern Muslims cite their reservations about LGBT behaviors from their holy texts, not 19th century Christian influence from colonial law. This is not a professional, balanced article in the slightest. HVAC84 (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"based on the Hadith. How can this be reconciled with the ludicrous claim that the Prophet "never forbade homosexual relationships outright?" " Very easy to reconcile. The Hadith were not written by Muhammad, and there are various different opinions on their historicity. Dimadick (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not the time and place to speculate on the veracity of the Hadith. What matters is that Muslims accept them as reliable words of the Prophet, and as an encyclopedia documenting the beliefs of Muslims that are informed by those Hadiths, it is necessary to represent their views on the matter and how it shapes Islam as a worldly force that affects everyone. Your opinion here does not matter in the slightest. HVAC84 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Dimadick's opinion does not matter, and neither does mine, nor yours. Roscoe and Murray's opinion does. Uness232 (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I do see a point somewhere here. In the modern interpretations section; there does seem to be an attempt to equate the influence of very influential Muslim scholars with academics who are more well known in their own academic community than among Muslims. The result of that might indeed be a misrepresentation of current opinion. I am willing to have a discussion on what is WP:DUE or otherwise.

The history section, on the other hand, is about historical frameworks and realities; not anyone's legal opinion today. Therefore, the Quran (and by extension contemporary exegesis and jurisprudence) are, beyond being dis-preferred due to their WP:PRIMARY nature, not even appropriate sources for the section. If you have secondary historical sources that disagree, you can link to them, and we can discuss.

Beyond that, however, the history section doesn't even claim what you say it claims, even the first paragraph introduces a more nuanced reality:

Societies in the Islamic world have recognized "both erotic attraction and sexual behavior between members of the same sex". Attitudes varied; legal scholars condemned and often formulated punishments for homosexual acts, yet lenient (or often non-existent) enforcement allowed for toleration, and sometimes "celebration" of such acts.

This points to a diverse set of opinions in terms of homo-eroticism and homosexuality, not that everyone was fine with all homosexual acts. Uness232 (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: Which "modern interpretations". I tried to locate it, but could not find it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: This is a potential issue they brought up in a much less acceptable way, and that I've tried to be charitable in my interpretation of. If we are to look in the very beginning of this section, Kecia Ali writes that "contemporary scholars disagree sharply about the Qur'anic perspective on same-sex intimacy." I can see how this could be thought of as an unbalanced summary of our other sources; in the vast majority of contemporary devotional (i.e. non-academic) scholarly circles of Islam, there seems to be a very strong agreement that Islam and LGBT-rights are fundamentally incompatible, as incorrect as that may be. [9]

Kecia Ali's statement is definitely true in some countries, such as the United States, where recent liberalization has also affected Muslims to a large extent, as demonstrated in the article text and sources: In a July 2017 poll, Muslims who say homosexuality should be accepted by society clearly outnumber those who say it should be discouraged (52% versus 33%), a level of acceptance similar to American Protestants (52% in 2016). But as pointed out elsewhere in the article, in many parts of the Muslim world, this "sharp disagreement" does not seem to exist. In Muslim fundamentalist regimes, such as Iran, for example, the discourse on the issue is argued to be "settled"; with virtually no high-ranking cleric taking a "gay-friendly" stance (though admittedly, transgender identities are generally thought of as permissible), and the sources on the modern part of the history section concur. Even in secular Muslim-majority countries, such as Turkey, almost all LGBT-friendly discourse takes place in the secular sphere, with the Diyanet, which arguably represents mainstream Muslim opinion and generally stays out of controversy, stating that gay people cause sicknesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. There does not seem to be this near-equal split in legalistic communities (unlike what Kecia Ali implies) on acceptance, and legal penalties seem to agree with this conclusion.

Dror Ze'evi's explanation here may be pertinent: that an old, pre-modern, largely pro-sexual diversity discourse, that competed with, influenced and sometimes superseded legal discourse in the Muslim world, slowly disappeared in the 19th cenutry (partly due to the Western influence), and nothing (except secularism, a supposedly "foreign" concept according to many modern Muslim discourses) replaced it. This change was, if we are to buy Ze'evi's (and some other scholars') arguments, very powerful and complete, and modern legal discourse followed unopposed; which seems to be why new LGBT-friendly discourses are not commonplace at all in the Muslim spaces of the Muslim-majority world, being seen as only an outgrowth of secularism. It could be argued that the section needs to give appropriate weight to this context and its results.

Therefore, it might not be wise to give equal weight to American scholars, especially those who are academic scholars and not faqihs (see this situation here) as representing modern Muslim legal/religious perspective. They are more well known in academia and in LGBT communities, not in the mainstream Muslim community, and especially not in Muslim-majority countries.

I want to finish by saying that everything I've said here is of the nature of a preliminary comment, that this could be discussed thoroughly and the the resulting text should be a result of careful reexamination based on WP:DUE. I just wanted to raise a point; I am aware that not all of my points in this little blurb can be inserted into the text. Uness232 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This is true. I have not seen the section, because I did not expected to find it under "Scripture and Islamic jurisprudence". Optimism is clearly a misrepresentation. Within the Islamic world, LGBTQIA is alrgely seen as a foreign Western liberal movement (as partly reflected in this discussion here). Even when issues such as Transgender are tolerated, for example, in Iran, it is treatened from an Transmedical perceptive, not an LGBTQIA issue. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why research scholars are part of the jurisprudence section in the first place. A researcher on Islam is not, as you said, a faqih, thus not qualified to make a jurisprudental claim. There can give an opinion on the Quran from a historical perspective but not on a juristical one. Secular researchers should not be part of the Muslim Jurisprudence section in the first place, except when Islamic jurispruedence itself is their study subject. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You say:

The prevalence of homosexuality in pre-modern Islamic polities, most of which was in the form of pederasty, doesn't mean that Islam inherently condoned it. Pederasty is NOT synonymous with the LGBT as we understand it today, that is an anachronistic interpretation and certainly not something that most people today would support.

The article points this out multiple times:

The conceptions of homosexuality found in classical Islamic texts resemble the traditions of classical Greece and those of ancient Rome, rather than the modern understanding of sexual orientation. It was expected that many mature men would be sexually attracted to both women and adolescent boys (with different views about the appropriate age range for the latter), and such men were expected to wish to play only an active role in homosexual intercourse once they reached adulthood.

The medieval Islamic concept of homoerotic relationships was distinct from modern concept of homosexuality, and related to the pederasty of Ancient Greece. During the early period, growth of a beard was considered to be the conventional age when an adolescent lost his homoerotic appeal, as evidenced by poetic protestations that the author still found his lover beautiful despite the growing beard. During later periods, the age of the stereotypical beloved became more ambiguous, and this prototype was often represented in Persian poetry by Turkic slave-soldiers.

This is also why the lede notes "some homosexual behavior", not "LGBT people", as being accepted, or at least tolerated. Uness232 (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"I'm not even sure where to begin with this trainwreck of an article"

Maybe by sticking with the talkpage guidlines. When the issues are explained in an factual matter, other Users can follow the objection.VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a very amusing response. It's obvious to anyone who reads this article that mostly one particular kind of historical study is referenced, and those are secular studies that support the LGBT movement and claim that Muslims tolerated it until the big bad colonizers showed up in the 19th century. If you want to be honest about how Islam views the LGBT then perhaps focus on citing actual Muslims instead of white academics from Western countries and removing claims with no citations.

I would love to engage to counter such delusional non-sense, since there are strong assusations and hatred towards, not only academics, but also people of color who stick with an objective meassurement instead of blindly following ideologies. However, WP:FORUM permitts it. Instead, I would suggest to remove any further incivilized expression of thought and providing misinformation, instead of engaging with it. If this person wants to rant about its own views being in odds with facts, they are free to find social media spaces in which they are free to live out whatever they want to believe in without any regards for reality and facts. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not interested in arguing about the inherent perspectives we may share or differ on, as much as I chastised the editors. I only want to bring to attention that the perspectives of this article are indeed unbalanced. Many "facts" on this page are incorrect. It does not make sense to say "the Prophet of Islam never explicitly forbade homosexual relations" when a myriad of Hadith cited in the same article show that he did. Not enough is done to distinguish pederasty from our modern notions of LGBT and homosexual acceptance, because even though pederasty is discussed in detail, it is not emphasized that pre-modern acceptance of homosexuality was usually synonymous with pederasty. It gives casual readers the impression that all kinds of homosexuality are ostensibly "LGBT" throughout history and that Islam's history with homosexuality is separate from its history with pederasty, such as how it says there was "de facto tolerance of homosexuality" without describing what that homosexuality entailed compared to our modern notions. The article is clearly framed to say that anti-LGBT attitudes among Muslims are informed by Western colonialism without acknowledging the role that Islamic law and primary texts themselves play in forming those beliefs and providing maintenance to those Western legal codes. And the emphasis given towards liberal academics in America is too overwhelming throughout the article and sometimes not even relevant to the section they are in.

The article is written in a way that would only satisfy those few American academics themselves who subscribe to these minority views on Islam and the LGBT. It doesn't reasonably represent the standard positions of Islamic jurisprudence both from a religious and a secular perspective. Muslims and non-Muslims alike are likely to be equally confused reading the article and wondering why it details how Islamic jurisprudence unanimously and violently condemns sodomy but then also says that homophobia among Muslims is a modern phenomenon. There is more nuance needed to be clarified. HVAC84 (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@HVAC84: I can see some truth in a few of the things that you are saying (though admittedly not many of them). What I don't see any of on your end, however, is any attempt to bring academic sources that disagree with this article, or for the framing issues, any suggestions of improved wording. I personally think that the article makes clear on multiple occasions how pre-modern homoerotic relationships were distinct from modern homosexuality, that there was a wide gap between legal scholars' opinions and popular realities when it came to pre-modern homosexuality etc., but you are free to suggest improvements. Otherwise this is WP:NOTFORUM; please take your rants somewhere else if you are not here to suggest improvements that we can evaluate and take action on, if consensus is established.

You also seem pretty unresponsive to @Dimadick's comments explaining why academic scholars might take the position you think is impossible. Perhaps it could be better explained in the article, but again, the solution is not to endlessly rant. I see you just responded to it; thank you, though the main point still stands.Uness232 (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Easy. Islamic juriprudence's opinion might be a modern phenomena, not reflecting an actual traditional opinion. They adopted European values in the 19th Century. This was mostly when Muslim scholars studied in the West and became the paragons of education for the Muslim World. This happened mostly because the Muslim world felt in need to keep up with the West, who had the upperhand at that time. So they started to "reform" Islam in accordance with whatever they perceived as advanced and proggessive at the time. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yet another article about Islam and Sexuality?

I think this is now the third article about this subject. We have Zina which is discussing legal matters on sexuality, we have this article, and we have Sexuality in Islam and often, they discuss the very same things. My suggestion is: Would it help to focus in this article on modern to post-modern only? LGBT(QIA) is a movement of the second half of the 20th century. Projecting such issues into pre-Modern times is anachronistic. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

These types of conceptual overlaps are inevitable I suppose. However, LGBT people are obviously not coextensive with sexuality, and Zina should only be talking about legalistic tradition/fiqh (unlike Sexuality in Islam, which you know the problematic state of). I would therefore prefer separate articles.

Limiting this article to modern and post-modern periods would be problematic, in my opinion, as most LGBT-related articles are not limited to this scope (Homosexuality, LGBT history and such), and limiting this article's scope alone would cause problems in terms of contextualizing the current state of things. Beyond that, some pre-modern cultural items have survived to our day (tropes in gay culture, or something like Lubunca), and that means that a certain amount of continuity has held. Uness232 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair points. I for my part get confused over the articles and I am always surprised to find similar new ones I probably forgot about already. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024

Requesting to add this part in modern interpretation section: Zakir Naik claimed in a public lecture's question-answer that, the cause of homosexuality is not genetic, because research of gay gene (Xq28) was later proved as false and the man (Dean Hamer) who claimed to discover it, later himself identified as a homosexual, thus he falsely claimed the discovery of this gene as genetic; The actual cause of it is satisfying sexual desire outside the law of Allah, which is lawful marriage in Islam; when someone meets sexual desire outside marriage such as premarital and extramarital sex, gradually he or she gets bored and doesn't get pleasure, then he or she tends to find new experience and tries new ways to have pleasure, by this way, at a level of this line up, people tends to homosexual activities, which has happened in present western world; thus, it is not genetic, rather than a psychological choice. 202.134.13.134 (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Zakir Naik? Is this the doctor of medicine who stated that there is no sufficient proof that the heart pumps blood? When one of his theories are properly published by an independent peer review article, we might consider him as a reliable source. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done but reworded: I've simply paraphrased the requested edit. I've also redone some of your sources due to what appears to be improper formatting. Let me know if there are any other changes you'd like made.

P.S. Please use {{Reflist-talk}} on talk pages for listing references.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 11:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)