#69 - On Revisionist Arguments (Part I)

This is part I of a 2-episode series with Br. Mobeen Vaid addressing revisionist arguments pertaining to homosexuality within Islam.

In this episode, Mobeen and I discuss the sociocultural backdrop of this kind of revisionism, particularly within Islam, and we address relevant arguments related to terminology as well as the story of the people of Prophet Lut (PBUH). What are the broader assumptions taken for granted by revisionist narratives? Does the Qur'an explicitly and unequivocally prohibit same-sex sexual acts? What were the people of Lut (PBUH) condemned and punished for according to textual proof? Do the themes of "rape" and "consent" have any room in the interpretation of the relevant verses? These and other questions are explored in this episode.

Resources used and references mentioned in the episode:
- "Can Islam Accommodate Homosexual Acts? Quranic Revisionism and the Case of Scott Kugle" by Mobeen Vaid

Chapters

• 0:39 Episode Introduction
• 2:20 On the Sociocultural Backdrop of Revisionist Movements
• 19:06 Arguments Related to Terminology
• 28:42 Arguments Related to the Story of the People of Lut (PBUH)
• 1:08:13 Ending Remarks

Transcript

Waheed  00:39
Assalamu alaikom wa rahmatullahi ta’ala wa barakatuh, and welcome back to “A Way Beyond the Rainbow”, this podcast series dedicated to Muslims experiencing same-sex attractions who want to live a life true to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and Islam. I'm your host, Waheed Jensen, and thank you for joining me in today's episode. Today's episode is part one of a two-episode series with brother Mobeen Vaid, and in these two episodes, we will be addressing and dissecting a lot of the common revisionist and progressive arguments used to normalize and promote homosexuality among the Muslim community and religious communities at large. Br. Mobeen is going to be joining me this season in a total of five episodes, two of which are going to be these episodes and then he's going to be joining me again, inshaAllah, later this season in our series on gender dysphoria and transgenderism. Br. Mobeen is a Muslim public intellectual and writer who focuses on how traditional Islamic frames of thinking intersect the modern world. He has authored a number of pieces on Islamic sexual and gender norms, including the article Can Islam Accommodate Homosexual Acts? Qur’anic Revisionism and the Case of Scott Kugle, as well as other articles including the article “And the male is not like the female” Sunni Islam and Gender Nonconformity parts 1 and 2, all of which have been published on Muslim Matters, as well as other articles and lectures that you can find online. So let's get started with part one of our two-episode series on revisionist arguments.

Waheed  02:20
Assalamu alaikom Br. Mobeen.

Mobeen 02:22
Wa alaikom assalam warahmatullah!

Waheed 02:23
How are you doing today?  

Mobeen 02:25
I’m doing well, alhamdulillah. 

Waheed 02:26
Alhamdulillah, jazak Allah khairan for joining me, I'm very, very excited and grateful that you are on “A Way Beyond the Rainbow”, it's such an honor to have you with us.  

Mobeen  02:33
Wa iyyak, it’s my honor to be here. 

Waheed  02:37
Alhamdulillah, the honor’s all mine. Okay. So these two episodes that are back-to-back are going to be addressing the revisionist arguments and the arguments that are proposed by the “progressive” Muslims. And we will talk a lot about the writings of Br. Mobeen, particularly the one on Scott Kugle, which is entitled, Can Islam Accommodate Homosexual Acts? Qur’anic Revisionism and the Case of Scott Kugle, which was published on Muslim Matters in 2016. And I will add all of these references in the episode description for everyone to check out, inshaAllah. Before we dive into the meat of the topic and go through the article, as well as a lot of different revisionist arguments, let us start this episode by kind of exploring the socio-cultural backdrop and rather see where all of this kind of revisionism comes from. So if I were to ask you, what are these progressive/revisionist movements, in essence, within Islam, and how do they operate?

Mobeen  03:40
Jazak Allah khairan, that's a good question. I think definitions can be difficult, especially today. When we speak of progressivism, people, especially in the West, they tend to think of progressivism politically. And revisionism as well carries different connotations to different people. Oftentimes, revisionism is a positive activity or effort, you need to revise things that have been traditionally ossified or kept in place. So both of those things, you know, when people apply them to Islam and say, “Oh, progressive Muslims!” the immediate confusion can be, well, who are you talking about, and why is that a negative thing? And so I think it's important just to sort of lay the groundwork of what the groups are that we're discussing. 

In the context of Islam, when we talk about progressivism and revisionist movements, we're referring to a very specific movement that emerged probably in the 90s, maybe slightly before that, but I think in the 90’s is really when they got up and going. At the time, it was a formal movement, and so there was a progressive Muslim union, there were academic works that were being published. Progressive Muslim Anthology was published in the early 2000s. That movement as a formal institution has since disbanded, but their key ideas and thoughts continue to animate a particular type of reform, and that reform sees inadequacy in Islam as traditionally upheld, and it challenges core commitments and beliefs that Muslims have held since time immemorial, basically since the time of the Prophet (PBUH). It takes a radically different approach to Scripture and Revelation. It has a different relationship to the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH), it obviously takes a much, much more critical look at tradition. 

Progressivism typically relies on some sense of suspicion when it comes to all of this, that what we're dealing with isn't just revelation that came directly from God and that was sort of objectively manifested in the example of the Prophet (PBUH), who was divinely guided in his actions, and then faithfully upheld by a tradition thereafter. But instead, we're dealing with something that perhaps had wisdom associated with it, but was subjected to the errant activities of human beings and men. Human beings are faulty, and they have their own biases and prejudices. And it is an effort to really bring to the forefront the prejudices and biases of Islam as traditionally understood, and to re-articulate a sort of new Islam that seeks to unravel those biases in the interest of producing an Islam that can coincide with modern notions of equity, liberation, individual agency, and a number of other sort of popular intellectual fads and trends that are prominent in our day and age.

Waheed  07:04
Makes sense. Jazak Allah khairan. So, this is basically an introduction into what they stand for or how they think. But if we are to kind of think about, what are the pressures, the cultural pressures in particular that are kind of driving such reinterpretations in the first place? What do you think are the main driving factors in particular? 

Mobeen  07:28
Yeah, well, they're probably the same pressures that have driven changes in other faiths, sort of the theological understandings in those faiths. So Christians and Jews have been experiencing this for far longer than we have, denominational schisms that sort of bear these differences out. The cultural pressures are many, it's not easy to sort of overcome one's culture. Some of those cultural pressures relate to the fundamentals of who we are, and why we're alive, why we exist. At its core, I think we have to ask whether theology simply affirms our individual interests or desires for personal fulfillment? Where that may come or whether, you know, religion is something greater, whether it is the work of apprehending and rationalizing our place in this world? Is it how we discover salvation through submission to God? Is it going to transcend our parochial narrow circumstances as individuals who are confused and trying to provide us guidance in the darkness of this world? Or is it just something that is supposed to give us our latest sort of kick of subjective happiness? You know, there’s sort of a fundamental point of contention there. And I think that many of the cultural pressures or factors effectively just surround that in various ways.

Waheed  08:51
Right. And you just mentioned, like the Christians and the Jews, they have their own revisionist movements within. And so, my follow up question would be: in what ways are the Muslim revisionist movements in particular following the footsteps of their corresponding, you know, Christian and Jewish movements to kind of create these LGBT inclusive theologies? And where have these attempts led them - whether we're talking about the Christian or the Jewish movements and then following their footsteps, the Muslim ones?

Mobeen  09:22
Sure. Well, I think in the case of homosexuality and LGBT, most of the arguments that we see from Muslim reformists and revisionists on this front tend to be recapitulations of what Christian and Jewish reformers have already done and said. In fact, if you are familiar with queer positive scholarship in those traditions, you can typically find considerable overlap, even down to the language they're using. And the language people doing the same thing in the Muslim community are deploying, and so there's quite a bit of overlap and similarity between those too. I think what we're seeing now, with Muslims, at least, and Muslims who are attempting to further and promote reform, are people who, to a certain extent, have given up on the theological work and are actually producing reform through the sociological and political. So the idea is focus on reconfiguring people's intuitions based on culture and cultural transitions, and then the theology will sort of follow suit. The idea that we don't really need to rewrite the Quran or try to argue differently about the Quran; we will just produce a type of people who are so emotionally invested in a certain political, social and cultural dynamic, that the religion just won't make sense anyways. And so, they'll reform themselves unconsciously, it’ll sort of follow suit. It's a logical byproduct of how they're living at that point, and how they're thinking about everything else.

Waheed  11:05
Makes sense, Absolutely. And when we talk about all of these movements and narratives, and we will dive deep into some of the arguments that are presented, but just as an introduction, what are some of the broader assumptions that are being taken for granted in these movements? These assumptions are nowadays gaining a lot of popularity, and they're becoming part and parcel of our understanding, especially among Muslims, among the Muslim youth, especially in the West, this is picking up the momentum, you know, as they say, so what are some of these broader assumptions that are being taken for granted in particular?

Mobeen  11:41
Sure, I think we mentioned some of them. There are added assumptions, of course, things of power and hegemony, of corruption, and the work of Ecclesiastes who appropriate divine command, or divine writ, and use it to advance their own interests, prejudices and preferences. There are also underlying assumptions about Scripture and Revelation - is the Quran really the Word of God, is the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH) a source of religious guidance, etc.? And so, in reality, these assumptions really hit at the core of what it means to be a Muslim.

Waheed  12:18
Of course, absolutely. And so we find ourselves as Muslims and as religious people, whether Christians or Jewish, and we as Muslims, you know, we are trying to articulate defenses and counter arguments against all of these revisionist arguments, like you have beautifully done, mashaAllah, in your works. So what are other reasons? You've mentioned a couple of those, but what are other reasons that we find ourselves having to articulate these defenses and always being on the defensive that you can think about? You mentioned theology, we put theology first, and everything has to follow suit, whereas with revisionist movements, it's always social or cultural, and then theology follows. What are other reasons?

Mobeen  12:59
Well, I mean, there are a lot of reasons. One is because it's confusing, right? I mean, you're sort of growing up in a society surrounded by Pride marches and TV shows with queer characters, and your children are getting exposed to all of this, and their schools are teaching queer and trans-affirmative teachings, and you have a dedicated Pride Month, and, everywhere you go, there's rainbow flags, etc., and the list goes on. You're just immersed and saturated by all of this, and your community, and everyone around you, is being affected, and you're trying to reconcile all of this with a religious tradition that seems to not really be in conversation with all of these things, and seems to be unclear on some of it, because you really don't understand it fully. And so this is why you really have to do the work of elaborating how that religion speaks to all of these things, and all of the social phenomena that you see in front of you. Because if this is the context that you're really situated within, it's natural that you're going to look at your religion strangely, at least, right? You're just going to look at it with some questions, especially when you find that it takes issue with all of these things in various areas and aspects. And so I think that's important, as well as the fact that, you know, we have to do that work as Muslims, because we have traditional books, traditional literature, and all of that, but then you have all of these like emerging social currents. And we just have to remain in conversation with it, to be able to provide people guidance about things that they may not see or seem obvious to them. It's, as I said, it's easy to get confused today, right?

Waheed  14:43
Absolutely, 100%. And if I may add something, I used to be influenced a lot by these revisionist movements back in the day, and I used to say that a lot of their arguments hit home, because they operate on an emotional basis. And then when we see the counter arguments coming from an Islamic perspective, a lot of them are coming from a rational perspective. And so they're not really on equal footing, there's a lack of equilibrium. And then with people who are part and parcel of the struggle, who are really dealing with this day in and day out, the emotional arguments are very attractive. And the rational arguments, you know, we've been talking about this a lot in the podcast, when someone is really in a lot of pain, no amount of rational argumentation is going to really help at that point. So I think that that is something that needs to also be taken into account when we respond to a lot of these revisionist arguments, which inshaAllah we're going to be doing during these two episodes.

Mobeen  15:40
Yeah, no question. I totally agree with that. I do think that sometimes just expositing plain theology can come off as a bit technical and dispassionate and detached from the types of challenges and problems people are having. And I think, at times, you have, especially in the West now, you have to be able to bring the theology into conversation with everything that's going on. And so, even as you've done in your podcast, where you begin dissecting the notion of the identity and everything else, I mean, those are the types of things that we just have to get much better about communicating, when it comes to explaining the apprehensibility of theology above and beyond just the explicit commitments that are in the Qur’an and Sunnah themselves.

Waheed  16:27
For sure. The last question I'll break it down into two. So I'll ask you now, what are some examples of progressive organizations or websites that you know in the West? So you can just mention some of them, the prominent names. And then I'll ask you about Scott Kugle and his book.

Mobeen  16:41
Yeah, I think the organizations, you know, they're not really too prominent. They kind of exist at the margins. One of the biggest ones is called “Muslims for Progressive Values”. They're a bit of an activist organization, but many progressives have issues with “Muslim for Progressive Values” for different reasons. That's been my experience. Frankly, I would say that the place where one will encounter progressive Muslim thought most frequently is in academia. So that's where progressive scholarship and thought tends to take hold the most. And that's where they tend to have the most influence - their scholarly output. And so, if you think about names, there’s obviously Scott Kugle, that’s a big one. Aside from Scott Kugle, you have others – Omid Safi was the editor of the Progressive Muslim Anthology. You also have Kecia Ali, who's a major progressive Muslim voice on feminism and gender issues. Amina Wadud, obviously, although she's less influential in the Muslim community, based on some of the things that she said in the past. But yeah, I think you have a collection there, people across the board that you might run into, and they tend to be figures that are coming out of academia more than anywhere else. 

And in terms of Scott Kugle. I think that was the other question, right? Like, who is he? So, Scott Kugle is one of the voices who was active within that movement. He was probably the first academic that tried to make a theological argument for the permissibility of gay and lesbian sexual relationships, and the sanctioning of homosexual acts and practices. He contributed to the Progressive Muslim Anthology with a chapter or a section on homosexuality in Islam and then later elaborated on those arguments in a book dedicated to that topic. And I believe the book is called Homosexuality in Islam. And so he has become a person who is sort of an intellectual leader within that movement, specifically on homosexuality, and just, you know, sexual reform in general.

Waheed  19:06
And what you did in your article was you read his book, and then you assembled a synthesis of counter arguments whereby you dissected each and every argument of his and you presented them in your article. So what I did was I read your article itself, and I extracted the most important points that we would like to discuss together in these two episodes, and then I divided them into major themes as you had done yourself in your piece. But one major theme that you stress on is related to terminology. Many of the arguments that the revisionist or progressive movements present conflate many concepts, like identity and sexuality. And they adopt sort of an essentialist paradigm when it comes to sexuality or identity versus the constructionist argument, which, you know, according to your piece is the proper/orthodox Islamic position, whereby sexuality is not an inherent part of our identity, “I am not gay, I am not lesbian, rather, I have same-sex attraction, or same-sex lusts”, and so on and so forth. And you have touched upon this and elaborated on this a lot in your article, and we have touched upon this as well in the podcast across several episodes, where we talked about how our Shari’ah, in particular, uses terms that relate to actions rather than attractions or desires. And we talked about the difference between both, and actually Shari’ah doesn’t even address sexual identities in particular. 

And it's very important to see when the identity paradigms are adopted, you know, “This is who I am, you are rejecting me and my humanity if you don't accept me and my behaviors…” Now, I'm going to play the devil's advocate throughout these two episodes, and I’m going to be asking you some of these arguments and see how you will respond to them, inshaAllah. There's a counter argument to some of the arguments that you presented, which is the idea that, you know, you opted out of using concepts like consent and sexual preference and identity in your paper, because you argued that these are not present in Islamic discourse. But by the same token, Scott Kugle, protests the use of liwat (sodomy), since these are not mentioned in the Qur’an, and they came later. So my question is, there are certain things that are not mentioned in the Qur’an that are valid realities nowadays, and vice versa. You know, human understanding evolves, and we use new terminologies. So how do you respond to all of this?

Mobeen  21:43
Yes. So I think the question of terminology always boils down to the substantive reality that that terminology is referring to and speaking about. The problem has less to do with terms; you always have developments with terms and categories. But the question is, “Well, what do those terms and categories speak to?” And so the challenge with “consent”, for instance, and using “consent” as the arbiter for licit sexual relations is that, well, in Islam, there can be sexual relations that are fully consensual and are still impermissible and immoral. Zina - fornication as well as adultery - both of them being a very strong example of that, and the fact that a man and woman consented to doing that type of sexual act has little to no bearing on the impermissibility and prohibition of the act itself. And so the smuggling in of foreign concepts and using them to undermine Islam is where these terms become problematic. And sometimes it's not so much undermining Islam explicitly as it is confusing the issue in a way that doesn't make what Islam says particularly clear. And so that's where the objection comes in. 

Certainly, you know, okay, well, these terms don't exist or are not present in Islamic discourse. Fine. The question is, “Why is that a problem?” And that's the type of thing I try to elaborate on in the paper. So the question is, well, why does a question like sexual identity become a problem for us as Muslims? Why is it an issue to reduce people to their sexual temptations and their desires? Is this the essence of who a human being is? How are we supposed to develop our own sense of being and our own identity as Muslims? And, you know, how does our own sexuality factor into that or not factor into that? I think that's the question. 

So I think that's the difference between something like liwat, for instance, which okay, yes, it's not explicitly [mentioned] in the Qur’an. There are some Hadith reports which are contested, that do make use of the term. But the substantive reality that liwat speaks to, which is the sexual act of sodomy, absolutely is in the Qur’an, in the story of Lot, or Lut (PBUH), and his people, so it certainly speaks then and has a direct relationship to that, and so the terminology itself doesn't necessarily become a problem there. And there's plenty of terminology like that where okay, you know, we use terms in the Qur’an and Sunnah, even in fiqh and usul that weren't explicitly said in the Qur’an, but they speak to the same reality, and so it doesn't necessarily become a problem. What does become a problem is when new terms and new categories are used to upend revelation, or are used to smuggle in foreign ideas and concepts that create the output that makes the apprehensibility of Revelation more difficult. 

Waheed  24:48
Beautiful. So it's not a problem with terminology per se, as new terms or old terms, but rather where they stand in relation to Revelation and our theology, correct?

Mobeen  24:57
Absolutely. I mean, look, we're having this podcast in English, right? And so all the terms we're using are not in the Qur’an or Hadith, right? We're using translations, we translate those concepts into a different language. And there are deep differences at the level of assumptions when it comes to languages themselves, but that's why we have to do the work of translation, right? We're trying to pick the terminology that represents those beliefs, values and concepts most appropriately.

Waheed  25:29
For sure, absolutely. Well said. And you elaborate more on this in the paper, and we have also spoken about this a lot in the podcast. So I encourage everyone to read Mobeen’s paper if they haven't done so already. But before we move on to the next theme, while we are on the topic of terminology - there's this argument, we have to mention this, because it is out there and needs to be addressed, even though it's very weak, and it can be really dissected very easily, but a lot of people fall prey to it, which is the argument that, you know, “homosexuality” is not forbidden in the Qur’an, because the word “homosexuality” itself does not exist [in the Qur’an]. Similarly, you know, the Qur’an says nothing about “gay marriage”, so it's clearly not something that the Qur’an forbids. How do you respond to this?

Mobeen  26:18
Yes, so the word “homosexuality” is a fairly recent word – we’re talking about the 19th century, in terms of its origin. And so the idea that the Qur’an would use that exact same terminology is a specious argument in my view. Why would one expect.. I mean, that's sort of an anachronism to expect that to begin with, or to try to transpose that into the past. In the Qur’an, Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala certainly speaks about sodomy, which is specific same-sex acts. He also talks explicitly about licit sexual activity and what licit sexual activity entails. And so, to say that Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala provides no guidance relevant to whether or not homosexual acts are permissible or not is a red herring, because He certainly does, as is the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH). So I don't think that’s a real argument at all. It’s just quibbling with terminology in a way that's being a bit slipshod.

In terms of, you know, the Qur’an saying nothing about gay marriage, well, it says something about marriage, right? Certainly, and it provides the context and the circumstances and the stipulations through which marriage is licit and valid. And it does not validate gay marriage, right? And it's obviously going back to the story of Lut (PBUH) which very explicitly rebukes and reprimands them for their practice of sodomy, for approaching men lustfully instead of women, which is about as explicit as you can get, and it's clearly forbidden. And so the whole concept of gay marriage is an anathema to the marital enterprise that exists throughout the Qur’an and Sunnah and the fiqh tradition thereafter.

Waheed  28:01
Great! Jakak Allah khairan. Is there anything you'd like to add to the section on terminology before we move on to the next section?

Mobeen  28:08
No. I mean, again, I think it's important for us to be careful and to discern between terms, especially in a discourse like this one, simply because when a person uncritically applies contemporary terminology and begins to try to assess the tufts with it, they can produce very strange conclusions. And like this is one of the primary means by which people do this, especially when it comes to homosexual revisionism and reform.

Waheed  28:42
Alright, so the second section is about the story of the people of Lut (PBUH). And this story and what it carries has become very contentious in the modern world and postmodern revisionist arguments, where they try to reinterpret the verses of the Quran and say, “Well, it's not about sodomy, it's about so many different things, it's about rape” and all of that. If it's consensual, then it's okay. If it's not consensual, then becomes a problem. And we have all of these arguments right and left. So let us address this clearly, prophet Lut (PBUH)’s people, what were they condemned for exactly? And can you please provide solid uncontroversial proof for this, because a lot of people are becoming more and more confused about this, even though the verse in the Quran, as you said, is very clear? But it's creating a lot of confusion. So can we address this please?

Mobeen  29:37
Yeah, so it's perhaps one of the most unambiguous reprimands in the Quran, and it is one that's repeated multiple times in the context of Lut (PBUH) speaking to his people “إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِنْ دُونِ النِّسَاء” (Qur’an, 7:81), that you all approach men with sexual lust instead of women. There is no more unequivocal, clear, categorical statement that one will find; it is black and white, right? And it is repeated, it is the emblematic sin that his people committed. And it is referring to them approaching other men and committing sodomy with them, and not taking for sexual interests or sexual acts women, right? That's really the crux of the repeated verse in the Qur’an that one finds when those people are mentioned.

Waheed  30:32
Right. And how do you respond to the argument that it was actually rape? Because, again, like the people were known for all of their crimes that were committed against others, and it was not just homosexual relations or sodomy in particular. One of the counter arguments is, “Well, it was rape, it was nonconsensual; if it were consensual, then it would have been okay.” And then they would elaborate and say, “Well, the entire society, including women, was engaged in ‘codified hedonism’, casual sex, right and left, to the point that they started engaging in non-consensual sex”, which was rape then, and so that was the next level, and they were eventually destroyed because of this. And this is one of the arguments that they present. At the beginning, it was adultery, it was consensual, but then it evolved into rape, and it became problematic, and that's why they were destroyed. Hence, if we say that, then, well, consensual, same-sex acts are not haram, but rather when it becomes rape, it becomes problematic. How do you respond to this? 

Mobeen  31:39
Yeah, I think we just have to be, again, there's quite a bit of interpolation and reading into the verses what they don't say, right? There's no evidence to suggest that the sexual acts between men are taking place in a non-consensual capacity. You know, if that was the case, the indicants or explicit mention in the verses would be far more explicit along those lines. And it doesn't say that. It just says that “إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِنْ دُونِ النِّسَاء” (Qur’an, 7:81), that you're coming to men with sexual lust instead of women. That's it. It's not saying, “Well, you're sort of manhandling these men and coercing them into sex in spite of their disapproval, or against their objections” right? There's nothing like that in the verses themselves, it doesn’t say that at all. And there's nothing like that in the Sunan [plural of Sunnah] of the Prophet (PBUH) where he indicates that as well. 

Certainly, there were other sins that they were engaged in. And so we're talking about a community that was guilty of many vices, and some of those are mentioned in the Qur’an as well in terms of cutting off the path and things like that. And so we're talking about people who had, you know, to a large degree, succumbed to their own base desires and were engaged in all sorts of evil activities. But on this particular account, there's no sort of like, this evolution narrative is based on a storytelling that doesn't have any basis in Scripture itself, right? Like there’s nothing in the Qur’an and Sunnah that would support that. It's just a sort of invented story around what's taking place. And that's sort of the challenge there. 

Waheed  33:16
Right. And then the punishment towards the end. So we know the story in the Qura’n, Allah explains that clearly, how, you know, the angels came in the form of human beings and then the people of Lut, they stormed Lut’s house, and they wanted to take his guests. And, you know, that entire story we know in the Qur’an, and we've discussed it also previously in the podcast. Now, the question is, was the punishment solely because they tried to rape the angels at the end of the story? And this is actually used also as an argument, because they say that Lut’s people wanted to rape the guests, the guests were angels, and that's why Allah sent down the punishment on them the very next day. How do you respond to that?

Mobeen  33:57
So the idea there is that, you know, that there's the rape attempt of the angels and all of that. I guess that argument, again, it's not so firm. I mean, clearly, the angels came in a very handsome form. And so, Lut (PBUH), immediately when he sees their handsomeness, he's concerned, right? And he takes them in as his guests, and he is trying to protect them from the acts of his people. So, I mean, there's certainly uncontrolled sexual lust with respect to those people, right? In fact, Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala uses the term "سَكرَتِهِم", that they're just intoxicated with their lust. And that's how they are wandering and attempting there to gain sexual access to these men. I don't know that they were necessarily trying to rape those men, certainly they were trying to gain sexual access, it's possible that if they got access to those angels, that they would have attempted that. But there's no evidence to suggest that that's all that they were ever doing. I mean, what you have to contend with is the fact that every other verse that speaks about their ongoing behavior is just talking about them having sex with other men instead of women, right? So, you know, just using that particular anecdote to generalize about their problem and say, “Well, you know, they were just this unfettered against other men all the time.” Well, no, these are people who are foreign and strange and not local to the land, and they're coming there, and they already have this act of practice amongst one another that is being done, presumably in some pleasurable and consensual capacity, and how they see another group of men that are sort of foreign and they want to impose themselves on these foreign guests, who Lut (PBUH) is trying to protect against these men. And so that's the way I would sort of generally respond to that - it's potentially possible with the angels that they were just trying to get access to them, and Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala knows what they would have done with that. But the idea that every single sexual act that they had before that was just nonconsensual, and that was the crux of the problem, is not scripturally or revelationally supported at all. 

Waheed  36:26
Right. For sure. And, also, we know from the Qur’an that the angels came to Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) first, and they told him that we're going to destroy that town before they went to Prophet Lut (PBUH). And so, chronologically, it doesn't make sense that the only reason that Allah destroyed them was because they wanted to rape the guests, whereas the decision for destruction actually came before that anyway. So… 

Mobeen  36:49
No question, yeah. That's an excellent point, that the destruction was already there [to take place], and the decision had already been made. And, you know, Ibrahim (PBUH) he said, I'm getting concerned  “قَالَ إِنَّ فِيهَا لُوطًا” (Qur’an, 29:32), that Lut (PBUH) is in there, right? That it’s close to Lut (PBUH) and all of that. And Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala says that He will save him and his family, except for his wife.

Waheed  37:17
Indeed, absolutely. And you also mention in your paper that Kugle uses this argument that Qur’an condemns the infidelity of the people of Lut (PBUH) because they had women and children, but not the act itself. So, had they been single, for example, the Qur’an wouldn't have condemned that. But you mentioned that clearly, which is the idea that they approach men with shahwa (lust) and that should be the litmus paper for us as Muslims - any act of approaching someone from the same, or the opposite sex even, with lust or desire is what is prohibited, correct? 

Mobeen  37:54
Yeah, I mean, this is, again, it goes back to taking some creative license with the verses and trying to build a story around it that the verses themselves don't support. I think many people can concede that Lut (PBUH)’s people are quite wicked and evil and did a bunch of other things. The idea that we have this whole story of, “Well, you know, they had these wives and these kids at home,” like, that's not actually what's mentioned in the verse, right? What is impugned and condemned is a very specific act repeatedly, right? I mean that's what's condemned. Not that you have wives at home, and you're leaving them, or you're committing infidelity or things like that, this or that sort of adultery. That's not what's being mentioned in any way. Their children aren’t being spoken of. I mean, this is very sort of modern in the way that it's trying to read in a broader story into this, and then use that sort of concocted story to revise what the verse itself is actually explicitly saying. And, I mean, the fact that we just don't know, I mean, it's quite possible, maybe some of them were married, who knows? But what we know is that the act itself, substantively, is viewed as wrong and condemnatory on its own two feet, right? That that is the issue, right? Whether all of these other attendant circumstances are there for some, they aren't there for others, or whatever, is irrelevant to the fact that what the verse is speaking to is a particular sexual act between two men, and not to that act only within a certain set of stipulated conditions that would otherwise have made that same act licit, moral and valid.

Waheed  39:50
Correct. Absolutely. And it just crossed my mind right now, as you were talking about this - and I know that you and I were mentioning this before we started recording - one argument that follows this is that the profile of the people of Lut (PBUH) is different from that of a lot of men and women who struggle with same-sex attractions. So, we know from tradition, also from the Christian and Jewish narrations of the story, that they were already married, they had their kids, but then, eventually, because they were so intoxicated in sin and crime, that they left their women, and they came on to men, and they engaged in that for a very long time, such that it became their emblematic crime, which is engaging in sodomy. And they were public about it, and they were boastful. So, clearly, the profile of these men - if we want to say that they were bisexual at least, or they left their women, well, clearly, there were women involved, that they had families at the beginning, but then they shifted, as opposed to men and women who struggle with same-sex attractions, or gender dysphoria, who would say “We are nothing like them! We have found ourselves to be dealing with these attractions ever since we were young, we did not choose them, we certainly don't want to act upon them. But the struggle gets real, and sometimes we feel like we may be cornered, and we feel like those verses do not address us.” Would it be safe to assume that this Qur'anic prohibition applies to everyone, regardless of their “profile”? How do you address this? 

Mobeen  41:35
Yes, I mean, again, the “profile” of the verse is not sort of laid out as relevant, and that's the case for any prohibition, right? We don't necessarily apply all sorts of contextual psychosocial profile considerations when it comes to prohibitions on anything in the Qur’an, whether it's alcohol, consumption of swine, or zina (fornication/adultery), which is another sexual prohibition, right? The idea that a person is in a particular context or situation, where that particular sin becomes more tempting or difficult to resist is irrelevant to the fact that, as a norm, this is the prohibition that applies. 

Now, the question of, you know, there are sort of people today who ineluctably experience same-sex sexual desires at young ages, perhaps when they come of age, are those people identical to the people of Lut (PBUH)? No, they're not, because the people of Lut (PBUH) were sinful, and they were sinful in a number of ways, and they were acting on those things, which is the relevant marker through which we view sin. In fact, one of the things that scholars are very strong about in the past was disparaging people through poor labels, right? And so you have entire chapters of fiqh that relate to what’s termed "قذف" (qathf), the whole notion of slanderous accusation, where a person would be suspected or just angrily called a sodomiser a luti, for instance, or an effeminate man a mukhannath, and oftentimes, books of fiqh will talk about punishments that a person who says something like that should be subjected to. Scholars took that very seriously, that you don't just like bandy these terms in disparaging ways towards people, because what they relate to is, you know, are acts that, if those people are indeed acting on, are sinful. Obviously there's no identity discourse at that time. It's just something that, you know, would be a slanderous accusation, and so that's a punishable offense, just to give you a sense of how that was taken. And so the acts themselves are objectively prohibited, irrespective of the type of person who struggles with temptation to act on them. And sort of the overall profile of the individual is only relevant for us insofar as we have to minister to those individuals and help guide them to a place where they can find comfort and wholeness both with themselves and the guidance of Allah. 

Waheed  44:08
Absolutely. Jazak Allah khairan. One supporting argument to some of Kugle’s arguments is the fact that people would argue that the practice of homosexuality and pederasty by medieval Muslims was “proof” that homosexuality was not scripturally prohibited until later Islamic scholars came and started “projecting” their own biases, and they started emphasizing the theme of sodomy or anal sex over the theme of adultery, infidelity, or even nonconsensual relations, and they “derailed” the scholars that came after that. How would you respond to this? 

Mobeen  44:54
Yeah, so, I mean, that's just disproven by the texts themselves. So the earliest exegetical commentaries that we have, the earliest works of fiqh, the earliest books that are produced maintain a prohibition of this. And so, you know, the idea that this simply came later or is a later invention, it's not… Like if someone's looking at intellectual history and theological history, that’s not supported just on that basis alone. And so, you know, I think that’s the type of argument that could be easily disproven just by doing a casual perusal of fiqh works that talk about this, that sort of predate these later scholars that they're referring to. 

Waheed  45:42
The idea that if people practice these things does not make them okay, right? 

Mobeen  45:46
Yeah, I mean, look, people have always practiced sin at various levels in various types of places, the proliferation or practice of sin just doesn't constitute a religious ruling on anything, right? There are various times and places, for instance, where drinking alcohol was very, very prominent in Muslim societies. In fact, there were certain places and times where, you know, the cups, for instance, that they would pour wine into for Muslim governors, and sultans and others had Scripture, verses of the Qur’an engraved on them, and they would be drinking alcohol in cups like that, and stuff like that. So there's sort of like a brazenness to it all. But that doesn't mean that they thought that شرب الخمر (the drinking of alcohol) is suddenly halal, like it's permissible to drink alcohol. They were committing a sin, right? And you have no fiqh or ahkam (rulings), and none of those scholars are saying, “Hey, look, the most powerful people in our society are doing this, we're gonna give a fatwa to support that simply because, you know, we're feeling the crunch a little bit based on our circumstances and what we're in the midst of!” No, they're upholding what Islam says, they're maintaining all of those rulings, right? They're just surrounded by a social situation in which the practice of that particular sin has become a little bit more popular, and that’s all it is, right? And those types of things can happen at various points in time, where things that are un-Islamic become a little bit more popular or predominant. And that doesn't necessarily change the ruling at all, right? 

Certainly, we live in societies where many of those things become the case. And we're not just like changing Islam because many things that are un-Islamic have become prominent around us, but rather we just reinforce what Islam says, we recognize that more Muslims have succumbed to temptation and failed to uphold the types of moral obligations that they have. So we remind them of making tawbah (repentance) and repenting, and remind them that anybody, no matter how often they fail individually, they can be redeemed in the eyes of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala. There are people who sinned and Sahabah (companions) who sinned in the time of the Prophet (PBUH), their obligation was the same as ours, their obligation was to repent, and to ask Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala for forgiveness, and we have to do the same when we fail and we struggle and we have setbacks. Probably we're all going to have setbacks throughout our lives, but we just keep asking for forgiveness, and it doesn't matter how popular or widespread certain impermissible practices are, that doesn't make them permissible, right? That doesn't change religion on its own, and Allah knows best.

Waheed  48:34
Absolutely! Beautifully said, jazak Allah khairan. Another counter argument is - and I know that you have touched upon this before, but let us just briefly address this as well here - a lot of people argue that the sole reason for Prophet Lut (PBUH)’s prophethood was to call for people to avoid homosexual acts. And so if this can be brought into questioning, if it's proven that there were other crimes that were committed, so the whole thing can be disproven altogether, how do you respond to that?  

Mobeen  49:09
Look, no prophet was sent for the sole reason to call against a sin, right? You have plenty of prophets who Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala mentions in the Qur’an that are called to remind their people of Allah, to call them back to His guidance, to remind them to worship Him and to pray and to do this and to do that. There are plenty of things, but to also speak against the sinful things that they're doing, right? And so we see this with Shuʿayb (PBUH) and his people, where he goes there and they are exploitative and evil, certainly immoral in their transactions of buying and selling. In fact, one of their objections to Shuʿayb where “They said, "O Shuʿayb, does your prayer command you that we should leave what our fathers’ worship or not do with our wealth what we please?” "أَوْ أَن نَّفْعَلَ فِي أَمْوَالِنَا مَا نَشَاءُ" (Qur’an, 11:87). This notion that “Okay, well, why do you care what we're doing with our money? Just back off a little bit!” And so, you know, when we look at the sort of ministry of Lut (PBUH), if we’re to deploy that term on him and what he's calling his people to, he’s certainly calling them to the worship of Allah and His obedience and to follow his example, etc., but he's also calling them against their sins. In one of the verses in the Qur’an, Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala mentions multiple sins, which we've mentioned here, such as, you know, cutting off the path and highway robbery and some of these things. But, in addition to that, I mean, the vast majority of verses, where they are mentioned, the repeated act that he is calling them against is sodomy, it's homosexual acts. And that is the most commonly raised sin that he is calling people against in the book of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala. 

Waheed  51:24
Indeed. Another common question is, because female-female same-sex acts are not included in the verses of qawm Lut (people of Lut), then does that mean that they're okay? 

Mobeen  51:34
No, so I think it's worth mentioning, and because we've been talking about it enough, that the sexual ethics of Islam are not completely contained exclusively in the verses of Lut (PBUH), in the sense that, if it's in the verses of Lut (PBUH), then it's not OK, and if it's not there, then it is OK, something like that. No. You have a very developed Islamic tradition, both in the Qur’an and Sunnah that speaks about what is permissible sexually, and that is repeated throughout the Qur’an. “Except from their wives or those their right hands possess” (Qur’an, 23:6). That is a consistent mention. And there's a qa’ida, an axiom, in fiqh that says "الأصل في الأبضاع التحريم" that the presumptive or default when it comes to sexual acts and behaviors is that they’re impermissible. That's the default. And so, you know, someone tries to seek out license for things simply on the basis of them not being mentioned in the Qur’an, well, you know, bestiality is not mentioned in the Qur’an, necrophilia is not mentioned the Qur’an, there are a number of sexual acts that are not mentioned in the Qur’an. And I'm not sort of equating them with, you know, lesbian or female-female sexual acts, I'm simply saying that they're not mentioned. And they're not mentioned in the story of Lut (PBUH). 

And so, the assumption there is not one of permissibility it's one of impermissibility. That's the default assumption when it comes to all sexual acts and practices outside of ones that are explicitly delineated as permissible within the Qur’an and Sunnah. And the corpus of that permissibility is not simply in the specifics of “Here is who's permissible for you”, but also in all of the details that attend that, that tell you how that permissibility is supposed to be engaged. And so, when it comes to marriage, how a person gets married down to the details of like the wali (guardian), the witnesses, “ask and answer” and how that's supposed to take place within the relationship itself, what the relative obligations and rights are. And then, when the relationships get dissolved, how those relationships are supposed to be dissolved, right? You have all of that detail, and none of that detail speaks to homosexual marriages or homosexual relationships that can be developed in any way. The idea is that, if there was ever to be a permissibility for them, it is simply inconceivable that none of that material would find its way into the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH), or like we wouldn't have a single Hadith where, “Hey, if it's two men, you don't need a wali (guardian), and you could do this”, like that is just not conceivable that that would have never found its way there. But instead, the consistent mention of it, the most explicit mention is of sodomy and the outright prohibition of that. And then, obviously, you know, the permissibility and the permissible sexual relations always being paradigmatically heterosexual. And Allah knows best.  

Waheed  54:49
It makes a lot of sense, jazak Allah khair. And the last question that we'd like to ask in this section is, you know, it's quite a contentious topic, I would say, when it comes to Prophet Lut (PBUH) offering his daughters when his guests are found, and his people came and they barged in, and they wanted to take the guests, and then we know that prophet Lut offered his daughters. Can you explain to us why the Prophet Lut (PBUH) did that, and what evidence do you have to support this? Because this seems to be confusing a lot of people, and we need to kind of explain this clearly. So was it a mere gesture? Was it because he was just so fed up with his people? Or was he referring to the town's women in general as his daughters and not actually his daughters that were with him in that house? And how do we know for sure? And why is it even a contentious topic to begin with?

Mobeen  55:43
Yeah, I mean, there are a bunch of things going on there, and I think it's a good question. In the verse itself, he directs the people to his daughters, he says “هؤلاء بناتي هن أطهر لكم” (Qur’an, 11:78), so you have these people that are coming, and this is when he has the angelic guests at his home, that are extremely and exceedingly handsome, and the people in the verse are described as coming running, "يُهرَعونَ إليهِ", they’re just running towards him. And this [verse 11:78] is what Lut (PBUH) says to avert them to that. Now, part of the reason some of the scholars say no, that these "بنات", these daughters, are not his daughters, but just the daughters of the Ummah, so to speak, speaking to the town's women and the women that are there. And there are different proofs - one of them, some of the scholars say, “Well, he only had two daughters, and so why is he using the jam’ (جمع/plural) of "بنات" (daughters), instead of the muthanna (مثنى/dual), right? So that'll be one proof that they'll use, among others. They'll say, you know, that the women of the Ummah of the prophets are their daughters. Some people will say things like that, and Allah knows best, right? But it's a tafseer (exegesis) that some of the scholars and the mufassireen (exegetes) have taken on this verse. Others have not said that, they've just said, “Hey, you know, daughters is daughters”, and we can say that it's possible. Allah knows best that it was his daughters, who knows, right? But that's just sort of a general comment in terms of was it his daughters or not? But, you know, that difference of opinion is at least worth being familiar of or with. It seems more likely, and Allah knows best, that it was probably the women overall, just because of a limited number of daughters and a whole town of women. And certainly speaking to - one would assume - more than two men. 

So the question of why did Lut (PBUH) do that? And I think this is, you’re right, like this becomes a question for a number of reasons, partly because a person would look at that, and it doesn't seem to map on to how we think of homosexuality today, partly because we talked about sort of the psychosocial profile, and the psychosexual profile of how we think about homosexuals today is that they have this immutable, dispositional identity, and everything within that identity is essentialized as part of who they are, and the prospect of them ever finding sexual interest in someone of the opposite sex is beyond implausible. It's impossible, absolutely and totally impossible. So if Lut (PBUH) is saying this to his people, he must be talking to some behaviorally bisexual men, or men who are possibly open to becoming bisexual, right? And so the idea is, are we talking to or dealing with two different types of human beings? Are we dealing with a qualitatively different type of person today than we were in the past? 

In terms of whether it was just like a mere gesture, I don't think that that's a real strong argument, in terms of “Oh, he's just saying it rhetorically without any genuine interest in that or being sincere”, and so this is why this point becomes so contentious, right? It becomes contentious because people say this. And they look at that and say, “Well, this has nothing to do and no overlap with the type of human beings that we're actually encountering today that are struggling with same-sex attractions.” And I think that there are a couple of ways that we can respond to that. I think, first and foremost, we can certainly concede that, in certain areas, we're not seeing a direct overlap with qawm Lut (people of Lut) and people today, certainly not in the sense that, as we said, the people of Lut were guilty of many sins, right? Many sins. And certainly a believer who does experience same-sex sex desires, not only has he not done anything wrong, but he's certainly not immediately the psychosocial equivalent of, you know, an extremely wicked community. There's a big difference there. So a person who just feels these desires shouldn't feel like “Khalas (that’s it), I’m part of qawm Lut now!”, just on the basis of the desires alone, that doesn't make a person that on its own. So, I think that's an important distinction to remember. 

Again, I think the question of the permissibility is impermissibility of same-sex relationships, we've already discussed that, in terms of the unequivocalness and categorical nature of the verses that talk about approaching men with sexual lust instead of women, as well as the overall sexual ethic of Islam, and the way in which that is carefully and exhaustively delineated throughout the Qur’an and Sunnah, and how it really doesn't find or exposit any dispensation or accommodation for same-sex behaviors or same-sex relationships. So there's that as well. Now, the question that we have to ask ourselves, and I think that this is perhaps part of the discussion, at least, is, “Well, you know, are people today who carry that identity so immutably bounded to a particular sexual interest that they can never find or discover a relationship with someone of the opposite sex?” even a platonic one, it doesn't necessarily have to be the most sexually active relationship in the world, but perhaps even a platonic relationship in which they may be able to find contentment, wholeness and a happy life alongside. Certainly some people have, I don't think we should foreclose on that. I know that this is a contentious topic, partly because of what has taken place in the “conversion therapy” space. And when you begin to talk about this, people assume that you're somehow supporting that type of activity. And that's not what I'm discussing. What I'm saying is that the mere possibility of someone who experiences sexual desires to someone of the same sex, they might actually be capable, at some point, who knows, of finding and discovering a real, happy relationship with someone of the opposite sex. 

Certainly the opposite seems to be the case today, right? We have plenty of people who are normatively attracted to people of the opposite sex, but then they sort of, you know, because of the sexually open society we live in, they end up sampling queer relationships and they sort of become “bisexual” in some ways, simply through acting on their bisexual curiosity, right? And suddenly, they're just in these very sexually libertine spaces. But we see enough of that, right? We see a lot of that, and we see the growth in the number of people that are identifying as queer. And, you know, certainly not all of those people are just dispositionally, immutably, you know, bound towards same-sex attractions, like that's the only thing they experience - there's a complex cocktail of individuals that are participating in that entire arena. 

And I think, you know, certainly for people who normatively, either dominantly or exclusively experience same-sex desires, I think part of that has to be looking at, okay, well, you know, there are different reasons through which we can examine why a person experiences what they do experience, and we can help bring that person to a place of personal wholeness, and help them find fulfillment, potentially in an opposite-sex family, in the sense that there is a possibility that they can have a family relationship, it doesn't have to be a closed door for everybody. And then for other people, just like people who have opposite-sex attractions, it's possible that they’re never going to get married, and plenty of people with opposite-sex attractions, dominantly or exclusively, end up living their lives today, for a variety of reasons and circumstances, where they are unable to fulfill that sexual urge and desire, and are unable to really have a marriage, let alone children and everything else. And so, you know, for a lot of those people today, the task is really finding human fulfillment in other domains of activity, in other domains of their life. And I'm not suggesting that it's easy, I'm simply suggesting that it's possible. That's all I'm suggesting. And I think that this becomes a very controversial discussion, partly because what is presented is a sort of impossible proposition for individuals, instead of sort of opening a couple of doors that are closed, and then having a broader view of overall human living and experience. 

Waheed  1:04:52
Beautifully said. 

Mobeen  1:04:55
Yeah, I don't know if there's anything perhaps you want to add to that, but that would just be my general thoughts on a question like this.  

Waheed  1:05:00
You beautifully answered that, mashaAllah. And we'll talk more about the intimacy and marriage arguments in the next episode. I just wanted to see if you wanted to add something here, do you find it relevant if I could ask you this or not? You can just say no, because I've heard this, and I don't know if it's worth addressing here. Some people said that, if you're taking the argument that, okay, the people of Lut were coming to rape the guests, and then prophet Lut offered his daughters, and assuming that “his daughters” means his two daughters, he offered them and he’s like, “Rape them but don't rape my guests!” I mean, it’s obviously absurd. But how would you respond to something like that?

Mobeen  1:05:41
I mean, for us, it's unconscionable that a prophet or any of the prophets would be open to something like that for their own daughter. I mean, that is such a morally abhorrent and reprehensible act for even a semi-decent human being. I mean, we're not even talking… I mean, someone doesn't have to be a wali (saint) of Allah to see that as just a really transgressive and morally reprehensible act. The idea that a prophet of Allah would just be blasé about that and be okay with his own daughters being subjected to effectively gang rape is completely such a gross accusation against any human being, let alone a prophet of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala.

I think that that argument, not only is it مستحيل عقلاً (mentally inconceivable), it's impossible when we're talking about prophets themselves, because we believe that prophets, to us as Muslims, have a sort of ‘isma (عصمة/protection from committing transgressive acts against Allah and His mandates) attached to them when it comes to especially major sins and things like that. There's no disagreement on that, that they have a Divine protection against that. So, the idea that they would simply engage in things like this or be OK with something like that is not the discourse that's indigenous to our tradition at all. And certainly not the example of the Prophet PBUH and the Sahabah or anything like that, you know, you look at the example of the Prophet (PBUH), the protectiveness, care and love he has for Fatima (RAA), for instance, let alone his own grandchildren, Hassan and Hussain (RAA). You look at that example, and then you look at the example of the other prophets, e.g. Ibrahim (PBUH) with Isma’il (PBUH), and you see Ya’qub (PBUH) with his sons. I mean, you see love, care, affection, and nearness, and all of that. The idea that a prophet of Allah would just offer his daughters up on a platter like this to a bunch of conniving, sexually unfettered and out-of-control men to just be brutalized like that almost leaves you speechless.

Waheed  1:08:02
It’s absurd. Yeah, 100%. 

1:08:13
And with this, we have come to the end of today's episode, which was part one of our two-episode series on revisionist arguments with Br. Mobeen Vaid. In this episode, as you have seen, we kind of explored the socio-cultural and broader backdrop of revisionist movements within Islam, as well as some of the arguments presented that are related to terminology, as well as particular shubuhat or revisionist arguments pertaining to the story of Lut (PBUH) and his people. In the next episode, inshaAllah, Mobeen and I are going to be continuing our discussion and examining some of these arguments pertaining to punishments of homosexual acts, as well as Islam and sexual liberation, acceptance of sexual minorities, and, finally, the topic of marriage versus celibacy in the context of same-sex attractions. Until next time, stay safe and healthy, this has been Mobeen Vaid and Waheed Jensen in “A Way Beyond the Rainbow”, assalamu alaikom wa rahmatullahi ta’ala wabarakatuh.