Fahran wrote:Insaanistan wrote:The hadiths that say this are of virtually no validity.
You'd have to reject or recontextualize a vast swathe of classical Islamic jurisprudence to arrive at this conclusion as far as I can discern. Going by the opinions that come out of Al-Azhar and Egypt, the position of Islam on homosexual acts is controversial at the very least. I'd argue the most charitable interpretation of the mainstream application of sharia in the Dar as-Salaam is that, while a court may impose a hadd punishment on transgressors, this is not perhaps necessary in all circumstances and, furthermore, that confirming guilt is next to impossible much of the time.
SourceAll the major doctrines within the Sunni and Shi’a traditions, and most notably the Shafi School, agree that homosexual intercourse (liwat) is analogous to heterosexual zina, and should therefore be rejected. Apart from the Hanafi school, all Islamic schools take the position that homosexual conduct amongst men, and particularly the act of sodomy (i.e., anal penetration), attracts the Hadd punishment. Only minor doctrines, like Zahirism (a Sunnite doctrine) and Rafida (a Shi’ite doctrine), suggest that homosexuals should not be punished.Regarding the punishment for homosexuality, there is a consensus among the four leading Sunni schools of thought and most Islamic scholars that homosexual acts are a major sin (fahicha) and may be punishable by death. The Shafi, Maliki, and Hanbali schools generally prescribe the death penalty for penetrative same-sex intercourse, with general disagreements surrounding the mode of execution. Likewise, the Jafari School (Shi’a) also prescribes the death penalty. Only for the Hanafi School is homosexual conduct considered a slightly less serious offense and is punished through physical chastisement (at the discretion of the court); however, even for this School, the penalty of death may be awarded for a persistent offender. Likewise, for Islamic scholars who consider that the punishment of homosexuality is equivalent to the punishment for zina, the death sentence, provided the evidentiary requirements are met, may be also applied; married men who are offenders of zina (muhsan) face a mandatory death sentence, while flogging is applied to unmarried men (ghayr muhsan).
Source.Hudud punishments range from public lashing to publicly stoning to death, amputation of hands and crucifixion. Hudud crimes cannot be pardoned by the victim or by the state, and the punishments must be carried out in public. These punishments were rarely implemented in practice, however, because the evidentiary standards were often impossibly high. For example, meeting hudud requirements for zina and theft was virtually impossible without a confession in court, which could be invalidated by a retraction. Based on a hadith, jurists stipulated that hudud punishments should be averted by the slightest doubts or ambiguities (shubuhat, sing. shubha). The harsher hudud punishments were meant to deter and to convey the gravity of offenses against God, rather than to be carried out.
I believe Insaanistan is following a more liberal interpretation of Islam that many Western Muslims do, the fallacy there is they seem to be extending that same practice to the Middle East and North Africa, which isn’t true at all
