» Earn on-going rewards and help us do more! «

True Geordie asks about Islam and Homsexuality

share this pageShare Page
Mohammed Hijab

Channel: Mohammed Hijab

Episode Notes

Episode Transcript

© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.


00:00:00--> 00:00:19

Your brothers and sisters in Islam net from Norway are establishing a masjid a Dawa Center. This center this masjid, this educational institution will act like a beacon of light calling the Muslims in Norway back to the essence of the slum. So give generously and Allah azza wa jal

00:00:20--> 00:00:57

you debate you both debated homosexuality and you've talked to a lot of gay people in your videos. So yeah, like what is that? What is Islam say about that? And, and how do you guys view that in the modern day? I think that, you know, with homosexuality, obviously, Islam forbids, like homosexuality as a practice not as not as a feeling because no one is you can say someone is not in control or how they feel in some cases, and we accept that. So if someone feels in a certain way, then it's forbidden to act upon it like in a penetrative way, if you're a man, I have sex with another man and so on. Now, Islam forbids this.

00:00:58--> 00:01:30

It doesn't mean that if someone practices it by the way, they become an ex Muslim, or that they leave Islam or the excommunicate there's still within the folders. It's just seen as a major sin. There is obviously no Therefore when you say a major sin, or there are a number of hierarchy of sins. Okay. Yeah. So where would that rank high, very high, like, even look at one of the scholars of Islam? He says up there with murder? Something Wow, yeah, it's very well, what about a man cheating on his wife? Or vice versa? That's a major sin as well. Yeah. So if a man cheats on his wife is a major sin like, is that on the same level? Yeah, 100%. Man, both are things that in Islam,

00:01:30--> 00:02:04

that mean people will not consider it like, for example, usury, like interest, getting a loan from the bias, you know, things like that are seen as major sins on that kind of level as well. So there is a hierarchy that we have going on, which maybe some outsiders will, when they look at it, they will find it a bit strange button. Having said that, that the argument we put forward about homosexuality is this is that there's two, there's two major like ethical pathways. In Western ethics. Here, you have something called utilitarianism, and you have something called deontological ethics. Utilitarianism was spearheaded by someone called Jeremy Bentham. And that was taken on board

00:02:04--> 00:02:39

by John Stuart Mill. And it's being kind of embedded into what is referred to now social liberalism. Yeah. And the idea is, really, it's the harm principle, which is that you can do whatever you want, so long as you don't harm anybody else. And we're trying to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. So that's one way of looking at morality. Yeah, that is the way of John Stuart Mill. And it's pretty much accepted now in Western society. So when I say the liberal ethic is dominant in the West, I'm talking about these notions that you can do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm anyone else. deontological ethics is spearheaded by someone called Immanuel Kant.

00:02:40--> 00:03:18

And what he says is that, what he says basically, that there are some things which will always be categorically wrong. And if you imagine all of society doing it, and it leads to some kind of impossibility that that thing is wrong. So for example, he would say lying is always wrong, and there's no justification, even if death resulted as a result of it, lying is always wrong. These are two ways of looking at it. Now, these are the two ways that moral philosophers and ethicists in the West have looked at the I'm saying on both ways, homosexuality as a practice, there is aspersion cost on the morality of it. And I'll explain how if we say, from a deontological perspective, that

00:03:18--> 00:03:54

the things that if there were conducted by everybody, that the society would not continue, or that there'll be an impossibility. And in that sense, I either was referred to as a categorical imperative. That's why Immanuel Kant said, lying is wrong, because if everyone did it, we wouldn't be able to function in society. So suicide is wrong. Because if everyone did it, we wouldn't be able to function to death, then, by the same token, or by the same logic that homosexuality would be wrong, because if everyone did it, okay, so that's the deontological route, the more the more popular route, which is the utilitarian route or the if you like, the liberal route now, which is

00:03:54--> 00:04:13

the greatest good for the greatest, if so long as you're not harming anybody else, we would say there's actually aspersion costs. First of all, how do you prove that the harm principle is true? As Is there a scientific way that you've come to, to prove that the harm principle is true? Secondly, if even if we implemented the harm principle on homosexuality, the question would be,

00:04:14--> 00:04:35

could you make an argumentative case that actually harms more people, by way of disease or by way of contraction of this or as we know, from the NHS, that homosexual sex is more likely to spread certain diseases and so on. So could you make a communitarian argument against homosexual practice? We would argue, yes, you can. And even if you argue on the on the basis of families and so on, we were talking about the stability of certain families.

00:04:36--> 00:04:59

You can I would postulate and I would argue that actually, all of the data, almost without exception, has shown that homosexual relationships man, man, woman, woman, disadvantages the children more than a nuclear family incent in this in what sense in the sense of the child is more likely to be to include themselves in delinquency, the educational levels more or less thing, they're more likely to have psychological pathology, and so on. So

00:05:00--> 00:05:10

Even on a utilitarian basis, we would say that the traditional family setup is superior to the homosexual lifestyle

00:05:11--> 00:05:27

on those two grounds if you're looking at even from the Western lens, we're not even saying from the Islamic lens because all we have to say is that God said so, but we're not going down that route. I'm saying that if you look at from utilitarian lens or from a deontological lens, both would point to the same reality. But do you think you're reverse engineering a little bit of this and trying to sort of

00:05:28--> 00:06:05

make it more palatable for you know, when you're getting challenged on it, I sort of thing, what I'm doing is I'm using the ethics which are seen as the most superior ethics in the west, to show you that even based on those ethics, that you can make a argumentative case against the practice of homosexuality. Your brothers and sisters in Islam net from Norway are establishing a masjid a Dawa Center. This center this masjid, this educational institution will act like a beacon of light, calling the Muslims in Norway back to the essence of the slam. So give generously and Allah azza wa jal give you even more