First of all I don't necessarily like that guilt by affiliation logic, as I've also alluded to before. But I go there because it's often used against Homsoexuals so I want to show it can go both ways.
And Islamaphobia has a particular political connotation that I consider dangerous. Islam I consider a false religion because it denies the Deity and Sonship of Jesus and because it teaches Salvation by works. And while I do think a strong argument can be made that the Koran makes Islam more inherently violent then most religions, I also understand the counter arguments and also know the conditions of the Muslim world today would encourage violent outbursts regardless of what their Holy Books said. So I'm hesitant to do anything that could be perceived as playing into that.
And because there is disagreement among Muslims about the Koran's position on Homsoexuality just as I question the "traditional" view of what The Bible says. But I do have one friend who is an Atheist and a Homosexual with no love for any Abrahamic faiths who's objective unbiased opinion is that I'm right about what The Bible says but the Koran does condemn it. But he is also of the opinion that Islamic Homphobia can ultimately be blamed on Augustianian Christian homophobia.
And watching Red Eye had me confident no conservatives needed the existence of Islamic Homophobia explained to them.
So for all those reasons it was something I didn't want to address..... until I saw on Youtube a show from a Christian network that was called "Imam or Molester (homosexuality in Islam)". And I went
Gays are stoned to death in Islamic countries every day, Louis Farrakhan calls for Homosexuals to be put to death in America, and radical Muslims brazenly harass gay men in the streets of London. But now Islam is part of the Gay Agenda because they found some isolated incidents to talk about.
So it began by documenting some child abuse sex scandals involving Imams. Acknowledging the similar trend among Catholic Priests but not the fact that it has occurred among Protestant and Evangelical religious leaders too. And likewise with the Caliphs and Sultans, who like monarchs of many nations do things they forbade the commoners to do. And they go and tie it into the Islamic world's misogyny.
The Koran and Muhammad definitely have some problems with regards to sexual morality given the whole Aisha situation, the details of which are debatable.
They talk about the Islamic concept that in Paradise you can do many things forbidden in this world. That is an important aspect of why the Islamic understanding of Paradise is different from the Christians (though these Christians seem to think there will be no Sex in New Jerusalem, I disagree). And they cited some specific quotes about modern Imams thinking Homosexuality is among those. That would encourage Muslims to approve of homosexual acts in this life no more then it would drinking alcohol.
Their only attempt to read Lesbianism into the Koran was taking two different passages about Paradise together to create an implication women can get the 72 virgins as well.
And they recited some seemingly Homoerotic accounts of Muhammad from the Hadiths. But to that I only say you can't have it both ways, you can't use these description that are kind of Homoerotic but by no means definitive to demonize Muhammad. But insist the exact same kind of language used of David and Johnathon has nothing gay about it.
But indeed Homosexuals have existed in the Islamic world just as they have existed in the Christian world even after Augustine, like the martyr Jean d'Arc. I have no desire to answer the question of if it's because of or in-spite of the Koran.
What interests me is the Encyclopedia of Pleasure which is a collection of Arabic stories involving Lesbianism that have been preserved. One of the stories is set before Islam, during the lifetime of Muhammad but before he had his first epileptic caesure at age 40 in 610 AD. Because at least one of the two women in the story would have been a Christian.
See Christianity and Judaism both thrived in Pre-Islamic Arabia. The Gassamid and Lakhmid kingdoms in the north were both Christian.
One of the stories told in the book is a story about the first Arab lesbian Hind Bint al-Khuss al-Iyadiyyah, known as al-Zarqa’, and her love to a Christian woman Hind Bint al-Nu`man, who was the daughter of the last Lakhmid king of Hira in the 17th century. When Hind Bint al-Khuss al-Iyadiyyah died, her faithful lover "cropped her hair, wore black clothes, rejected worldly pleasures, vowed to God that she would lead an ascetic life until she passed away…" She even built a monastery to commemorate her love to al-Zarqa'
Sahar Amer (2 May 2009). "Medieval Arab Lesbians and Lesbian-Like Women' Journal of the History of SexualityThe Lakhmid king in question is al-Nu'man Ill ibn al-Mundhir. From what we know historically he did have a daughter who's name isn't mentioned.
Nevertheless, according to creditable historical accounts, when Khosrau II demanded Nu'man's Christian daughter as part of his extensive harem, he refused the Shah's demand. In response, Khosrau II had him crushed by elephants; however, according to a Syriac chronicle, Khosrau invited Nu'man to a feast where he was dishonored and trapped;
Philip De Souza and John France, War and peace in ancient and medieval history, p. 139; Khuzistan Chronicle 9Interesting that he was so determined not to marry his daughter off in a back then perfectly normal political marriage. And we have a completely different tradition that his daughter was a very Monogamous Lesbian. I suspect the story may well be historical.
Khosrau II btw persecuted Jews in his own kingdom while supporting Jewish rebellions in the Byzantine Empire to serve his political ends. He was the villain of a lot of the history that helped make Islam's rise possible. He was an @$$hole.