[Eng] Can Islam Legalize Same-Sex Marriage?

The issue of rampant homosexuality among Muslims in Malaysia increased. To claim that they are Muslim, while suggesting 'Same-Sex Marriage' with 'Valid Nikah' (Legal Vows). But they forget, in the Al-Quran, Allah has said this act is beyond bounds & invite bad consequences in the family institution even though they said they would engage be in accordance with Islamic Family Institution.

This article describes the 'Gay Marriage Muslim fallacies' with evidence from Al-Quran. This is just a preparation to face the changing world to argue to that people who think that way.  I wish that we could motivate these people to leave their bad deeds in so to reach Allah's Grateful Blessings.

The fallacy of “Islamic gay marriage” 

The BBC has an article today promoting a radio programme about “British gay Muslims… joining the global fight for equality and seeking gay Islamic marriage”. If the programme is like the article, it will contain lots of emotions and baseless opinions, but nothing from a credible Muslim scholar.

Asra and Sarah decided upon a ‘nikah’ – a Muslim matrimonial contract. Whilst nikahs have traditionally been the reserve of heterosexual Muslims, Asra and Sarah were aware that other gay Muslims had followed this route and the couple decided to investigate further.

“A few friends said you don’t really have to have an official Imam, but you need someone who is knowledgeable enough about the Qur’an to do it. Fortunately, one of our friends was, and she offered to do it. She’s a lesbian herself, and she said we could do it in her home.” [...]

The short ceremony was conducted in Arabic, and additional duas – prayers – were read and the marriage was essentially no different from the nikahs performed for straight Muslim couples all over the world.

But the Islamic faith vehemently rejects homosexuality, and the fact this nikah was for a gay couple is highly offensive to the majority of Muslims – including Asra’s own parents.

Offensive is hardly the point.
Their so-called “nikah” is in fact fundamentally different from an actual nikah performed for a man and woman.

One of the essential conditions of a nikah is that the two people be marriageable to one another. A member of the same sex is not, in the Qur’anic paradigm, a marriageable partner. That is even if we don’t point out that homosexual relations are a sinful abomination.


This pair even state that they gave each other a “dowry”. In a nikah, the dowry (mahr, i.e. marriage gift) is strictly from the man to the woman. So how can they invent this ruling then claim it’s the same as a normal nikah?

The article quotes from Fake Sheikh Daayiee Abdullah, whose senseless rantings we have refuted on numerous occasions. Here I reproduce for you my questions concerning his supposed “Islamic homomarriages”:

• One of the essential items of a marriage contract is the mahr (dowry) paid by the man to the woman. Who pays whom in one of your imagined ‘gay marriages’?
• A man may not marry his sister or mother. Can he marry his brother or father? Provide us some scriptural backing.
• A Muslim man may – if the law of the land permits – marry up to four women. Would you suggest the same for each man, resulting in a big complex web of men all married with each other?
• (To go further, can a “bisexual” take both men and women as married partners?)
• A man has the full obligation to provide for his wife and children, while the woman’s money is her own right to spend or keep as she wishes. What system will you devise into Islamic law for two men?
• In the eventuality of divorce, there is a difference between the procedure by the husband as compared to the wife. Which of the ‘gays’ gets the right to pronounce talaq?

Furthermore, the following Qur’anic argument disproves the very notion of a same-sex partner being considered as a spouse (zawj):

Therefore, whatever actions are carried out in pursuit of fulfilling sexual desires must be deemed unlawful unless the proper channel is followed, i.e. marriage, which Islam defines clearly as being only with the opposite sex. We select one relevant verse to begin a short discussion of this matter:

{And Allah has given you spouses (azwāj) of your own kind, and has given you, from your spouses, sons and grandsons, and has made provision of good things for you. Is it then in vanity that they believe and in the grace of Allah that they disbelieve?} [16:72]

The reference to procreation is significant, as one of the aims of marriage is indeed to bring forth new generations of humans who will worship Allah.  Furthermore, much could be said about the word azwāj (sing. zawj) with its linguistic and Qur’anic meaning as “the opposite part of a pair”. One of the numerous evidences in the Qur’an of zawj meaning the opposite sex, and indeed a very relevant evidence in this context, is the following proclamation of Lut (peace be on him). Here it is evident that the spouses (azwāj) of the men addressed cannot be male, and that homosexual partners cannot be considered as azwāj:

{“What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the spouses (azwāj) your Lord created for you? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits.”} [26:165-6]

From such verses, we establish that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Therefore any sexual activity between two men or between two women is by necessity outside the realms of marriage and, by extension, outside the realms of permissibility. In other words, homosexual marriage is unsupportable within the Islamic legal system, and by definition any homosexual behaviour is fornication; indeed, it may be considered a level worse, by virtue of including the additional element of sexual perversion.

The so-called “Imam” has here claimed that “By not allowing same-sex couples to wed, there is a direct attack on the Qur’an’s message that each person has a mate who is their ‘comfort and their cloak’”(!) Yet if we simply quote the verse to which he is alluding, we find that it says:

{Permitted to you (masc. pl.) on the nights of fasting is the approach to your (masc. pl.) women-folk. They (fem. pl.) are a garment for you (masc. pl.) and you (masc. pl.) are a garment for them (fem. pl.)…} [2:187]

Extending this beautiful concept to seeking out any “comfort and cloak” regardless of gender, is an unjustified stretch of the imagination.

Finally, for those who, like this Sarah, would tell us that we ought not to comment negatively because “it is nobody’s business”, then that ship sailed when they turned what could have been a bit of private self-delusion into a media article that promotes confusion about some of the most obvious rulings in Islamic law.