Muslims in the past used to look at the Tanakh for clarification (noted in Hans Kung: Islam - Past, Present and Future) - as a Muslim one is meant to believe in the previous revelations. So it isn't as though I'd be bringing in a new idea (unfortunately some have used that cross referencing to pull on has resulted in an anti-gay interpretation of the Qur'an).
Yes, one believes that they were true, once upon a time, one believes that they were pure revelation when Big Al sent them down, but one does not look to them for shari rulings now that we have the q & s. I've yet to ever read a text where a scholar referenced any part of the Wholly Babble. Then again, 10 years of study didn't even get me close to the ocean of propaganda one must immerse oneself in in order to be considered a scholar or ustaz of any note or merit.
As for hadith; lets not try and kid ourselves - all the scholars pick and choose; the excuses are different though. They'll say "chain of narratives not strong" and I will say, "its a load of bollocks - lets ignore it" - the net result is the same.
Of course they do, but within that there is a consistency. What I'm getting is that you advocate saying who cares about the isnaad, let's throw the whole lot of them out, unless they make us feel warm and fuzzy inside. As an Alevi you don't practice ritual salat, correct? What about fasting in the day time during Ramadan and some of the other mainstream practices? So are you more of a quran only type of person, taking the hadiths here and there that sound really nice? Question, also, are you of the Bektashi persuasion? I remember many years ago when I began studying sufism reading a book that delved into homosexuality among the Bektashis. I don't remember the book now, but it was by one of these westerners who is so in love with sufism and he was a member of one of the tariqat.
Shiah (which Alevi are considered to be part of) don't view every hadith is infallible nor always applicable given that the environment can change.
But the imams
are infallible, and I wouldn't think that ali or jaafar siddiq or any of the rest of them were big fans of man on man lovin'. Shiah Islam is fairly clear on the issue of homosexuality, although I would think that your view is that Alevism, or your understanding of it, must diverge from other groups of Shiah on this and perhaps other issues. So as an Alevi, then, do you challenge this view of ali being masoom, do you say 'Well he and mo were really great, except on this and that issue?' Do you also say, 'Hey those people who transmitted nahj al balagha (or any of these other texts and sayings attributed to the imams), they got things wrong, they changed it, we don't know if that's really what he said?'
When you compare the Sunni method to the Shiah method - its not surprising seeing all hell breaking loose with stupid fatwas being announced.
I would not be so quick to crow about the superiority of the shiah method. One can see the happy results of Shiah jurisprudence on the lives of Shiah women in Afghanistan, for example.
Well, at the end of the day I find that those who don't like gays and are Muslim - still wouldn't like them if they were atheist or something else. The religion would change but the view wouldn't - just the mode in which they express their opinion. If they're an atheist they would make up some pseudo scientific justification.
That is fine, maybe it is true and maybe it is not. It's quite hard to decide what someone would be were it not for the influence of patriarchal, heteronormative, imperialist religion on his or her brain. Maybe it's what you need to say to yourself in order to stay a Muslim, I don't know. We have a member here who justified it - being Muslim and gay - until the cows came home. Or rather, until he woke up.
As Reza Aslan noted - Religion is a language people use to transmit ideas.
Personally I think he's full of crap in general. A saying like that is what religious people tell themselves in order to make it seem like religion is relevant and necessary in today's world, imo.