1st Narrative: Homosexuality as Shaitan's Misguidance

In the beginning, Islamic preachers presented the narrative that:

"Human nature does not encompass homosexuality; rather, it is Shaitan who misguides people into it."

As evidence, they referred to verse 7:80 of the Quran, which highlights the absence of homosexuality before the time of the nation of Lut {And We sent Lut – when he said to his people, 'What! You commit the shameful acts which no one in the creation has ever done before you?' Quran 7:80}.

However, a question emerged: "Why doesn't Shaitan flee when Muslim homosexuals recite the Islamic Prayers of لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله (Meaning: There is no power or strength save in Allah)?" According to Islamic belief, this prayer should be sufficient to ward off Shaitan and his misguidance, as nothing is more powerful than the name of Allah.

This narrative of Shaitan's misguidance led to the practice of sending homosexual individuals to Mullahs who perform Ruqyah (exorcism) accusing them of being possessed by Jinns. These practices only exacerbated the emotional turmoil faced by homosexual individuals.

2nd Narrative: Homosexuality as a Disease

The prayer of لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله (i.e., There is no power or strength save in Allah) failed miserably in curing Muslim homosexuals and enabling them to overcome their homosexuality.

Consequently, Islamic preachers introduced a new narrative where Shaitan's role diminishes. This time, they regarded homosexuality as not misguidance, but as a DISEASE. Instead of resorting to Ruqya/exorcisms, homosexual individuals were subjected to so-called Conversion Therapy, which unfortunately resulted in extreme depression.

However, it is important to note that this disease narrative is a relatively recent development. It emerged in the last century when doctors initially attempted to treat homosexuality through medications and consultations. Over time, these methods proved unsuccessful, and subsequent scientific studies debunked their efficacy.

3rd Narrative: Homosexuality is although innate, but it is a TEST (Trial) from Allah

The first two narratives failed miserably. 

Moreover, contemporary scientific research has demonstrated that homosexuality is indeed an innate aspect of human nature.

Consequently, modern Islamic apologists proposed a new narrative that acknowledges the innate nature of homosexuality, absolving individuals of responsibility for their same-sex attractions. However, they argue that despite its natural occurrence, Allah prohibits acting upon such desires as it is deemed a Test/Trial from Allah. Feeling attracted to a person of the same sex or falling in love with them is not sinful, but engaging in same-sex acts is considered sinful, punishable by the most severe means, including death.

However, it is crucial to challenge this third narrative presented by Islamic preachers. Nowhere in the Quran or Hadith is homosexuality referred to as "innate" for a few individuals, and Allah created it only to take the TEST of those few individuals.

A similar pattern emerged in the past when scientific studies highlighted the risks associated with cousin marriages. At that time, Muslims accused the scientific community of corruption. However, as time passed, many Muslims eventually accepted the findings of scientific studies, recognizing them as reflective of the Ultimate Truth.

Likewise, with regards to homosexuality, a change in attitudes is inevitable. Science has already influenced the perceptions of many Muslims. Nevertheless, they cannot jump to this narrative that they accept homosexuality to be innate, before declaring Islam to be wrong, which advocates the 1st narrative of "misguidance from devil" only. Yes, even the 2nd narrative of DISEASE is also non-Islamic and has no proof in the Quran and Hadith.  

Please do challenge this 2nd and 3rd narratives, and demand Muslim apologists to first declare Islam to be wrong before going to these 2nd and 3rd narratives. 


Image Format: 1 & 2

How to Conduct a Fair Evaluation Using AI Models

The correct prompt for evaluating the arguments of this article with the help of AI:

If you also want to evaluate the arguments of this article with the help of AI models, then use the following prompt. This prompt forces the AI to conduct a review on an unbiased basis.

Prompt:

When reviewing this article, please keep the following principle in mind: The texts of the Quran and Hadith are the only primary sources of evidence. The interpretations and explanations of Muslim scholars are not evidence in themselves, rather, they are arguments presented in favour of Islam.  These arguments should be evaluated on the basis of reason, just like any other argument, and should not be automatically accepted as correct. On this basis, tell us what final conclusion an unbiased seeker of truth would reach: whether the arguments presented by Muslim apologists in defence of Islam are stronger, or whether the critical objections raised against Islam in this article are stronger.

Why is this prompt necessary?

AI models often consider the interpretations of Muslim scholars as definite evidence. They are surely not evidence, but they are only "arguments" in favour of Islam. So, these interpretations in favour of Islam may be correct or incorrect. Unless the AI is clearly told this distinction, it continues to treat every interpretation by the scholars as final proof in defence of Islam, after which no “criticism” of the Quran and Hadith can ever be considered valid.

Note:
The AI’s response is not a final judgment. The final decision must be made by you, using your own reason and understanding. The value of AI lies only in helping to organize and analyze arguments, provided that it is guided with clear and fair instructions.

About the Author & This Website

About the Author:

All arguments and analyses on this website are written by the author. AI tools are used only for spelling, grammar, and clarity improvements.

A Necessary Clarification: 

This website is not a “neutral” or purely academic platform.

Think of a courtroom, where a judge or jury listens to two opposing sides.

We represent one side. It is not our role to be neutral. Our responsibility is to present our case honestly, with arguments and evidence.

You, the reader, are the judge and jury. Your role is to remain fair, to examine all sides, reflect carefully, and then reach your own conclusion with sincerity.

Read more →