Original post by Jhansen23A very good question.
When conservative Muslims claim that “homosexuality” is a major sin, they are basing their opinion on a DERIVED rule as opposed to a clear-cut law found within the Qur’an, as in the case of intoxicants (5:90), pork (5:03), fornication (17:32) and incest (4:23).
As a general rule, all major prohibitions of Islam come mainly in the form of a direct and clear statement in the Qur'an. These statements generally use variants of the following words: ‘Do not’, ‘Forbidden’ or ‘penalty of Hell’. Snippets of the following verses, depicting the prohibition of intoxicants, pork, fornication, incest, murder, slander, usury, gambling, disobedience to parents and associating partners with God, would substantiate this line of argument.
... intoxicants and games of chance … are only an uncleanness, … shun it therefore … (5:90)
... Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine… (5:03)
.... And go not nigh to fornication; surely it is an indecency and an evil way (17:32)
... Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters... (4:23)
… do not devour your property among yourselves falsely, … and do not kill your people… (4:29)
… do not find fault with your own people nor call one another by nicknames… (49:11)
… Allah has … forbidden usury… and whoever returns (to it) – these are the inmates of the fire; they shall abide in it. (2:275)
… you shall not serve (any) but Him, and goodness to your parents. …say not to them (so much as) "Ugh" nor chide them ... (17:23)
The above list indicates that in contrast to other sins, same-sex conduct, despite being branded as a major prohibition, surprisingly DOES NOT appear to be expressly and clearly prohibited in the Quran. Nonetheless, conservative Muslim scholars generally quote one of the three verses - 7:81, 26:165-166 or 27: 55 – to substantiate their claim that same-sex unions stand prohibited in Islam. Apart from the use of the word azwājikum (wives) in verse 26:166, these verses more or less contain the same information.
... Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people (7:81)
... What! Do you come to the males from among the creatures? And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits (26:165-166)
... What! Do you indeed approach men lustfully rather than women? Nay, you are a people who act ignorantly (27:55)
WITHOUT paying attention to the context, some scholars extrapolate from such verses to apply them to all same-sex conduct. However, ignoring the context is contrary to the traditional methodology related to the applicability of qiyās (analogy), which applies only if the situations and circumstances of the two cases are similar and in the absence of other circumstances that render the analogy void. This suggests that the context of both situations, that of the people of Lūṭ on the one hand and Muslim gays and lesbians on the other hand, have to be meticulously studied to look at the parallels and differences in order to gauge the applicability of drawing a ruling from one case to another on the basis of qiyās. As such, the verses indicate that the people of Lūṭ exceeded limits by approaching males as a collective nation, which suggests that the purport of the verses is different from addressing a minority of men and women whose constitutional orientation is towards members of the same sex. Moreover, where exceeding limits makes sense in the case of a collective community of married people, whose sexual and emotional human needs are met through their spouses, it is not clear how limits are exceeded in the case of a minority of gay men and women whom conservative Muslim leaders deny their genuine need for sexual expression by prescribing them to remain permanently celibate.
This is the discussion that is ensuing between gay Muslims and Muslim leaders atm.