Homosexuality (All objections of Islamic Preachers answered) 🔥ʰᵒᵗ

Nature is not 100% Perfect

The biggest mistake of religious people is, they think that Nature is 100% perfect, while their 100% perfect Allah made it. Therefore, they consider it to be impossible that more than 2 genders exist in nature, while Allah created only two genders. 

But nature does not care for us (human beings), and it also does not care for the Allah of Muslims. 

Nature comes with its own colours, and we have to adapt according to nature, and not according to any so-called Allah of Muslims. 

Table of Contents:

There is no bigger proof than LOVE, that homosexuality is Natural

Homosexuality is actually based upon LOVE for each other, while sex is only one part of it. There is no doubt that:

  • Homosexual people also indulge in love with each other as straight people indulge in love with each other.
  • They also dream about their lover
  • They also feel mental satisfaction in LIVING together with their lover.
  • They enjoy having sex with each other. 

And love can never be unnatural. Therefore, homosexuality can only be considered unnatural when we deny that there exists any love between homosexuals. 

2 Objections of Islamic Preachers: (1) If love is love, why don't you drink water from the toilet? (2) Homosexuality brings more risks for STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)

But Muslim preachers came up with 2 more objections:

If love is love, then water is also water. Why don't you drink from toilet?

The comparison is a fallacy, while:

  • There is no Love & Attraction attached to any particular toilet and its water. 
  • It is never like this that you find amusement in drinking toilet water, but find no ATTRACTION and LOVE and AMUSEMENT in drinking bottled water. People don't dream of toilet water.
  • But homosexuality is a whole system, where sex is only one part of it. And this sex is completely attached to Love and Attraction and Amusement. People see dreams about their love. 
  • This is human nature. 

Religious people are making the same mistake again and again and again. 

  • We tell them that NATURE is not 100% perfect, and there exists no Allah in the heavens, who is 100% perfect. 
  • We tell them that NATURE does not care about humans, and what could be 100% perfect for them. 
  • We tell them that we humans have to ADOPT, and we have to COMPROMISE according to nature.
  • We tell them, for a Greater GAIN, we have to accept that part of nature too, which we don't find 100% perfect, or even disgusting, or even when it contains some RISKS.

1st Example: Greater Gain VS Lesser Disgust/Lesser Risk of Diseases (STDs)

Male and female genitals contain a lot of bacteria and a lot of diseases as compared to the skin of other parts of the body. They are also not fragrant like flowers, but they are disgusting due to their stinky smell, while these same organs are used for urine too. 

Why? Why didn't nature make separate organs for sex, which had no bacteria and diseases, and which are fragrant as flowers? While Nature does not care about 100% perfection for human sake. And we humans still have to compromise over lesser disgust for the greater gain of pleasure. 

2nd Example: Greater Gain VS Lesser Disgust/Lesser Risk of STDs

Why do straight humans find excitement and attraction in kissing the penis and vagina?  Male and female genitals contain a lot of bacteria and diseases, and they stink due to urine.

But NATURE does not care. 

And despite the risk of bacteria, diseases and disgust, still straight people have to adopt and make a compromise. It is known as going for Greater Gain despite the lesser disgust and lesser risk. 

Even Islam is unable to deny that dirty oral sex has NATURAL attraction and excitement, which provides mental satisfaction during the act of sex.

Thus, despite the factor of disgust, and risk of bacterial diseases, still Islam had to allow Muslim pairs to kiss each other's genitals. 

  • Here is a Shia Fatwa about kissing and mouthing each other’s genitals being Halal.
  • And here is a Sunni Fatwa that it is Halal that a wife can take the dirty penis in her mouth, and the husband can splash his semen upon her hair and face and all over. 

3rd Example: Greater Gain VS Lesser Disgust/Lesser Risk of STDs

The saliva of another person is disgusting. We also know a lot of diseases can transfer through the mouth, as saliva contains a lot of bacteria and germs. Still, humans feel a lot of attraction and love in kissing the lips of their partners and sucking their tongues. And Nature does not care if this is 100% perfect for humans or not, or if it brings diseases or not.

And humans do follow Nature for greater gain, despite the factor of disgust and risk. 

Even Islam had to allow it. Muhammad himself used to take the tongue of 'Aisha in his mouth. 

In fact, Muhammad also used to kiss and take the tongue of Hassan and Hussain in his mouth. 

In fact, Muhammad also used to kiss and take the penis of Hassan and Hussain in his mouth too, in order to show his affection and love. Please read this article:

Prophet Muhammad used to kiss the PENIS of small boys Hassan and Hussain

Objection: Homosexuality should be banned while it raises the rate of AIDS

We have already made it clear above that Nature is not 100% perfect for humans.

Thus, all types of sexual relationships come with some risk factor, and we have to compromise for Greater Gain VS Lesser Risk.

Moreover, Religious people should learn to differentiate between "crime" and "disease". In case of a crime, that particular action is banned. But in the case of disease, it is not declared to be a crime, but it is cured. 

AIDS and other sexual diseases are not only spread through the anus only but also through the vagina too (despite the fact that the rate of spread could be lower in the case of the vagina). Should we then also declare sex in vaginas to be a crime? 

Therefore, if there is a chance of the spread of diseases due to the sexual interaction of two consenting adults, then we find the cure for the disease and take precautions against its spread, but we don't declare these natural actions to be crimes and prohibit people from them.

Science has already progressed to that extent in curing AIDS, where it is considered even less dangerous than the disease of diabetes (link). Should we now declare consuming sugar to be a crime too? 

Conclusion: Instead of making sex illegal they promote safe sex better. 

Not only homosexuality but "masturbation" is also natural for humans

Humans enjoy sex through masturbation too. They could enjoy:

  • Sex between man and woman
  • Sex between homosexuals
  • Masturbation with their own hands
  • When their partners masturbate them.  

Objection: Homosexuality is not natural, but it develops due to the environment

Muslim claims that homosexuality could not exist naturally, but it is only due to the brainwashing of the environment. 

And we answer them that no one brainwashes the animals, but they are naturally involved in homosexuality. 

If homosexuality is a product of brainwashing only, then there would have been ZERO homosexuality in Muslim societies. In Islamic societies, they actually brainwash people against homosexuality, they also threaten people with draconian physical punishments, as well as eternal punishments in the hereafter. But despite all this, natural homosexuality wins over all the fears of Allah, eternal hell, and physical punishments, and religious brainwashing. 

Objection: The shape of reproductive organs is a witness that homosexuality is unnatural

And we answer religious people that the reproductive organs of animals also show they are not perfect for homosexuality, but still homosexuality is natural among them. And they are involved in homosexual activities without any brainwashing from the atheists. If any, then Allah has to be blamed for misguiding them towards the crime of homosexuality. 

Similarly, the shape of the reproductive organs of human beings is also not natural for masturbation. Still Islam itself allows the partners to masturbate each other too. All Muslims agree upon it that partners could masturbate each other (link).

All religious people had to agree upon it, while Muhammad himself used to fondle his wives during their menses (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 302).

So, when a Muslim husband is masturbated by his wife, or by his slave girl, then how religious people are going to fit such masturbation in the box of "shape of reproductive organs and nature"? 

Similarly, Islam also allows a man to marry a minor child girl (even if she is breastfed) and to make her naked, and then to rub his penis in her thighs in order to ejaculate.

The largest Islamic website islamweb.net gave this fatwa(link):

الاستمتاع بالزوجة الصغيرة.. رؤية شرعية ۔۔۔
Taking sexual pleasure from minor girl according to Sharia. 
فإنه لا حرجَ في تقبيلِ الزوجة الصغيرة بشهوة والمفاخذة ونحوَ ذلك ولو كانت لا تطيقُ الجماع وقد بيَّنَ العلماء أن الأصلَ جوازُ استمتاع الرجل بزوجته كيف شاء إذا لم يكن ضرر وذكروا في ذلك استمناءَه بيدها ومداعبَتها وتقبيلَها وغير ذلك
There is no problem to kiss the minor girl wife with intention of sexual pleasure and to do "thighing (Arabic: مفاخذہ)" which is to rub the penis between her thighs in order to ejaculate the sperms, or to do any other similar act. All these acts of sexual pleasure are permitted, even if she does not possess the power to bear penetration. According to Ulama, a husband is free to enjoy her in every way till the time no harm is done to her. So, the minor girl could masturbate him, foreplay could be done with her, she could be kissed and similar other things.

Do religious people consider the thighs of a minor child girl to be a reproductive organ and its shape to be natural for sex? 

Moreover, have you ever seen in the animal kingdom if any female partner is masturbating to her male partner or vice versa? But still Islam allows this masturbation for humans. 

The problem is that religious people believe not only their Allah to be 100% perfect, but they also believe that the "system of Allah" is also an "intelligent and 100% perfect system", and free of any mistake. While the truth is this, there exists no such perfect system in nature. According to the theory of evolution, the survival of the fittest is possible, but it does not make them 100% mistake-free and they could have thousands of problems and irregularities present in their bodies. 

Thus, the human body is also not perfect, and it could have many irregularities. Especially, human hormones and tendencies are delicate, and millions of humans are witness to their natural homosexual tendencies. 

Objection: Some people even get tendencies toward rape and robbery, should then they also be allowed?

Animals fight others for food and sex and even kill them. 

But human beings have 'Aql' (brain), and that is why they are able to distance themselves from this beastly behaviour and become civilized and learn how to share things and live in peace. Humans formed societies on the basis that one person is not allowed to hurt another person.

For example, the tendency to love someone is natural. Till love is not imposed upon the other person forcefully without one's consent, it is fully allowed to love anyone, even one-sidedly. 

Similarly, hunger is also natural. And if a person is not stealing and hurting others, then one is fully allowed to eat the food of one's own personal choice and satisfy one's hunger. 

It is the same with homosexuality. It is natural just like love and hunger in straight people, and till homosexuality is not imposed upon another person forcefully without one's consent, there is absolutely no problem in fulfilling this natural desire.

A man could also have a tendency to let himself masturbate. And Islam allows the wife to masturbate him. Nevertheless, Islam does not care about the consent of the wife, and the husband could even compel her to provide sex services. The same is true when Islam says that a man could compel the slave girl to provide him with sex services too including masturbating him and letting him play with her body and rape her against her consent. This ruling of Islam is as evil as stealing and robbing, or perhaps even worse. 

Objection: People in the west should not be allowed to have sex without marriage, otherwise, they spread sexual diseases to their multiple sex partners

This is a strange objection, while it is Islam itself which allowed Muslim men to marry 4 wives. And it also allowed the men to buy dozens of slave girls from the market, then rape them in a TEMPORARY sexual relationship (like Shia Muta), and after fulfilling the sexual lust, just sell them again to another master, who again rape them and sell further to another master... and this chain of rape of slave-girls continued. 

Therefore, if sexual diseases are spread due to temporary sexual relationships, then Islam is itself a criminal in this case. 

Objection: When atheists could ban Cousin marriages due to the dangers of diseases, why then they cannot ban Anal Sex?

The answer is very simple. In the case of cousin marriages, these are not the consenting adults who are getting affected, but this is a third party (i.e. children), who are affected and are born with deficiencies. While no 3rd party is affected in the case of Anal sex, and both partners are involved in it through mutual consent. And both of these adults are responsible for evaluating how safe their sex is, and if they need extra protection or not. 

Objection: Pedophiles also feel attraction towards children

We have already discussed human tendencies and the human system of society so that only those tendencies could be declared as crimes, in which other people are hurt and something is imposed upon them without their consent. And exactly this same problem is present in Pedophilia. 

Therefore, this Muslim claim is wrong that paedophilia and homosexuality should be put in the same category, while there is a difference between 'prey' and 'love'. In paedophilia, 'prey' is involved. While in homosexuality, 'love' is involved.

Religious people also claim that the origin of paedophilia and homosexuality is the same. But they are again wrong, while the origin of 'paedophilia' and 'rape' is the same, and the name of that origin is 'violence'. And the victim in paedophilia and rape is called the 'prey', while in homosexuality and love, it is called 'partner' and not 'prey'.

Therefore, rape and paedophilia are not (or hardly) present among women, while they don't have that extreme element of 'violence' in them.  But still a sizeable number of women are attracted towards homosexuality, while its origin is love, and the element of love is indeed present in women. 

We again repeat, NATURE is not perfect, and we always have to make compromises.

The attraction of few people towards children may be natural, but we have also learnt that children are not in a position to give their consent, and thus they are in danger of becoming prey.

Thus, there are two parties involved here, and the absence of consent from 2nd party compels us to make a compromise where one-sided attraction does not give a right to a person to involve in paedophilia.

Thus, despite their natural attractions, these people are asked to control themselves, take psychological help and all other measures which could be beneficial in such a case.

But we don't need to make such a compromise in the case of homosexuality, where both parties give their consent, and can live a happy life.

Please also read what we wrote about the tendency towards rape and robbery above:

Animals fight others for food and sex and even kill them. 

But human beings have 'Aql' (brain), and that is why they are able to distance themselves from this beastly behaviour and become civilized and learn how to share things and live in peace. Humans formed societies on the basis that one person is not allowed to hurt another person.

For example, the tendency to love someone is natural. Till love is not imposed upon the other person forcefully without one's consent, it is fully allowed to love anyone, even one-sidedly. 

Similarly, hunger is also natural. And if a person is not stealing and hurting others, then one is fully allowed to eat the food of one's own personal choice and satisfy one's hunger. 

It is the same with homosexuality. It is natural just like love and hunger in straight people, and till homosexuality is not imposed upon another person forcefully without one's consent, there is absolutely no problem in fulfilling this natural desire.

A man could also have a tendency to let himself masturbate. And Islam allows the wife to masturbate him. Nevertheless, Islam does not care about the consent of the wife, and the husband could even compel her to provide sex services. The same is true when Islam says that a man could compel the slave girl to provide him with sex services too including masturbating him and letting him play with her body and rape her against her consent. This ruling of Islam is as evil as stealing and robbing, or perhaps even worse. 

Objection: Homosexuality should be banned because it will cause the human species to extinct

This objection is also not correct, while not all people are homosexual in society, but there are Heteros and bisexuals too. That is why in ancient Roman culture, where homosexuality was common and practised on a large scale, there still existed no danger of the human species going extinct due to homosexuality. 

Similarly, homosexuality was openly accepted and practised in China, during its entire history. But despite thousands of years of homosexuality, still they didn't go extinct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China

Moreover, if the human species does not get extinct due to masturbation, then it is also not going to get extinct due to homosexuality, while more than 99% of males (including religious males too) practice masturbation. 

Moreover, lesbian couples also wish to have children, and they have a lot of ways to fulfil their wishes. 

Similarly, even if gay couples cannot have children of their own, but still they also wish to have children, and they also adopt and raise children. 

The "wish" to have children is not dependent upon being gay or lesbian, but it is dependent upon the "circumstances". For example, ancient Romans and Chinese were heavily involved in gay practices, but still they had a lot of children. It was due to the reason that in that old era producing more and more children was necessary for existence. 

As compared to ancient Romans, today humans (especially in advanced countries) are not dependent upon children for their existence in old age, but the government takes care of them. Thus, this 'wish' to have more and more children also became less and less among the 'straight' people, and many of them don't want to have any children. 

Objection: Scientists found no gene for homosexuality

The answer is simple Scientists also didn't find any separate gene for being straight too. And those Muslim men, who ask their women to masturbate them, then there is no separate gene of masturbation found in them too. And for those animals, who indulge in homosexuality, then scientists found no separate gene for their homosexuality too. 

The genes for the sex are the same, and it depends upon them how they express themselves further.

For example, there are no separate genes present for one's liking or disliking. But still some boys like fair complexion girls, and some like brown/black girls. Some like thin girls, while others like fat girls. Some like young girls, while some are attracted towards mature ladies. All this is not happening due to the presence of some separate genes, but due to the reason how these same genes express themselves. 

Objection: Animals are not homosexuals, but it is only about Dominance 

This claim of Dominance is wrong, while:

  • Male animals don't do the act of homosexuality to show dominance, but they "fight" with each other in order to show dominance. In many species of animals, males do it while they feel exactly the same urge to doing sex with other males, as they feel the urge to do sex with females. A male goat neither pairs with females nor with males, but it is ready to do sex with either of them. 
  • And there are other homosexual species of animals too, who even form pairs and they also have nothing to do with dominance. 
  • And Bonobos also don't do it for dominance, but for pleasure and for showing affection (which is another form of love). Bonobos don't form pairs with females in name of love. But they live in a family system where they show the same affection/love to males, as they show to females. 

In Humans, the most important and weighty thing is the personal testimony of a person. If one testifies about oneself to have love and attraction towards the same sex, then no other power in the universe could deny this witness of a person about one's internal feelings/tendencies.

Muslim claims that Allah also knows what one has in the heart, but the problem is that Allah of Muslims does not exist. 

 

External Links:

WikiIslam: Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars: Homosexuality

Parent Category: en