WELCOME TO TRADITIONAL ISLAMISM

I would like the brothers and sisters in Islam to listen to Maajid’s view on homosexuality and certain heterosexual relationships. See the end of the Question and Answer session

http://washingtoninstitute.org/audio/audio_popup.php?id=409&table=tblEvents

Marriage is effective immediately according to Maajid without the need of a State when a man and woman exchange there vows. He gives an example of Zawaj al Urufi (which he has even misunderstood). In other words for the contract to be valid, according to him, it only need be between two people and Allah! I wonder what he is talking about? Of course we need to clarify this. Does this not open the door for fitnah in Islam?

How in the world can we establish what is a marriage and what is Zina in this world? It would be impossible! Every accusation of Zina. no matter how strong the evidence,  could be refuted with the insane idea that they are married before Allah! What would be the difference between an extra marital affair and marriage then?

Isnt this rejected by the consensus of the Ulema? We shall discuss this Zawaj al Urufi in Islam. We also think that we know the source of this distortion! Rashad how are you? Shall we discuss the Social System in Islam by Taqi?

Then comes the interesting comment on Homosexuality. I quote

There is no reason why a modern day interpretation is less valid…… The evidence they cite, the prophetic tradition that they cite about homosexuals and they say that they need to be executed by being thrown off the highest building and thats HT’s line on this. It’s quite extreme. The tradition they cite is mentioned by leading theologians such as Imam al Shokani in Nayl al Awtar, Imam Asqalani in Fath al Bari, its mentioned that this tradition, these traditions, there is a few of them. They are all known as Ahadith Dai’efa (weak narrations) because the whole prophetic tradition, the whole hadith narration thing is a science. You have to look at the chain of transmission, you have to analyse the historiography and the historicity of these chains to determine whether there is an authentic or inauthentic tradition and there is so much room for difference over that. So these two Imams , uhm, despite doing what is known as Taqleed or imitating there school of thoughts position on this which is the medieval stance which was actually the same throughout the world that homosexuality was seen as an abomination, um, …speaking of the traditions themselves they said these traditions are weak. So all I am saying without prescribing anything because  that they need to be executed like Shokani and Fath al Bari are weak narrations. I am not a Mufti, what I am saying is that there is no reason why a modern interpretation has less authority then a medieval one

Now what is Maajid intending here? Well firstly according to Maajid there is nothing wrong with an interpretation that is ahistorical and violates the Ijma! Didnt Rashad rant and rave about how HT violated the Ijma here?

http://quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/106

He then goes on and says that idea that homosexuals should be executed ( lets leave the building issue aside for now) is something that is extreme and the hadiths that support this (well specifically the one where they are to thrown off high buildings) are weak. In fact, Maajid would have problems with executions generally. Let us leave that for now but of course I do not support the implementation of a capital punishment in this country! In fact, there is a difference of opinion in Islam on the type of punishment that the Homosexual will receive in an Islamic State ( that is in the Muslim world, if it is established). We then have the gem

You see according to Maajid Ibn Hajr and Shokani did Taqlid on another Medieval position (read possibly as a position that he does not like and in his head would have a probably more “acceptable” modern interpretation). Now this was not to do with the punishment but to do with the act of Homosexuality being an abomination itself!

In fact he says that there is scope and room for a modern interpretation even though paradoxically he says and I quote

 I am not a Mufti, what I am saying is that there is no reason why a modern interpretation has less authority then a medieval one

Well, well now, is he saying that even the act of Homosexuality is no longer considered an abomination in Islam and is subject to re-interpretation? We await his clarification!

Doesnt it make you cringe that Usama Hassan said we are and I quote “liars” if we think these people are heretics? Doesnt it make you cringe that representitives from the Radical Middle Way are supporting these people?

Just for you Maajid an article on Homosexuality coming up!