Islam, Muslims and Same Sex Marriages

Islam, Muslims and Same Sex Marriages 
Its' a conversation with two articles included

This is posted at www.WorldMuslimCongress.org and at WorldMuslimcongress@yahoogroups.com – if you wish to be a member of the World Muslim Congress forum, just send an email to WorldMuslimCongress-Subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Link to this conversation : http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2012/05/islam-muslims-and-same-sex-marriages.html

---

Saeed Bhai,

As a Muslim, and as a moderator of the group, I am expressing an exception to your statement, "So let the sleeping dogs (homos) sleep but remained unnoticed."

This statement amounts to calling derogatory names like Tircha (cross eyed), Langda (Cripple), Moti (Fat women)… please be considerate and avoid statements like those in public forums and some day in private as well.

Your second statement, "But to acknowledge their rights and to go their way, annoys and incenses other segments as well who have an equal right to decry such abominations they believe were repugnant."

We all have that right to decry others.

Because Muslims annoy the right wing Christians, Pagans annoy the right wing Muslims… should Muslim and Pagans yield and beg be not Muslims and Pagans anymore? …. In a civil society, we have to acknowledge the legitimate raw emotions, but, the society as a whole cannot push the marginalized ones. No matter who they are – today, it is gays, tomorrow it would be Muslims, Jews,  Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans and others… No one should submit to the annoyance of the other, unless they are slaves.

Thank God for America and its civility, it allows a Muslim to build his own Mosque, a Hindu to build his own Temple, a Gay to practice his own life, a Pagan to practice his own tradition ….. God can do whatever he wants, neither you, nor I are responsible for the behavior of the others, including our own family members.

As long as a Gay, a Muslim, a Hindu or a Jew is not stealing your food, gas,  house, clothing, money or hurting your loved ones – he or she can live his life the way he or she chooses. The society's responsibility is limited to punishing the individual for the acts that affect public safety and those acts that an overwhelming majority agrees to abide by.

The more we know the more we can temper our opinions, and become less judgmental.

Mike Ghouse

---

Dear Syed Fayyaz Sahib,

Your point is worth consideration. The state should not have authority to frame laws forbidding personal persuasion for the citizens for happiness. But we do not live in a jungle. The legal matters and state laws are framed keeping in view the social and moral values that ooze out of religious sources or social customs and in the light of the past experiences.

We consider some things inherently distasteful and some plausible. That is a spillover from the past as the human civilization moved forward. We respect our elders because our social taboos and religious teachings tell us, although state should not bind anyone showing reverence to elders. We shun doing many things including talking about sex and sleazy jokes in front of kids because we carry an inborn restraint that it is not good to do. If all things are permitted, it would be a throwback of humanity to primitive life in caves and jungles when there was promiscuity of sex.

Sex is a passion or urge so private and exclusive to oneself. One can go to any wild extent in quenching his or her thirst by making advances on others both males and females. But we respect out kith and kin and wives and sisters of our friends because that is what makes the flowering of human civilization. This has got nothing to do with state interference or otherwise.

Having said that let us turn to legal binding for an individual to exercise restraint on his habits with regard to sex. If state should not dictate anyone to do what one likes in this regard then let the state maintain the status quo. The status quo is that there are gays and lesbians and they have been there from time immemorial and have remained marginalized faction because somehow the society do not accept them as behaving in a normal manner in observance of sexual desires. But to acknowledge their rights and to go their way, annoys and incenses other segments as well who have an equal right to decry such abominations they believe were repugnant.

So there is debate between the protagonist and antagonists what to do. The majority abhors these so in a democratic way the state has to listen to the majority while not binding the errant minority to relinquish their rights.

Here this constitutional interpolation carries political connotations and not that a marginalized segment is being given their rights. If it were so it should have been all over the world. The creation of female and male by a super power or by the system must have some logic and the logic revolves around the human procreation through a pleasure carrying natural intercourse. Beyond that there would be deviations and trespassing that can be overlooked and should be permissible but should not be made a law. It destabilizes the society and there would be Pandora box of debates and frictions ahead of us. So let the sleeping dogs (homos) sleep but remained unnoticed.

Regards,
Saeed Qureshi

---

Fayyaz,

You have made a contribution to the discussion, it would hopefully allow for all of us to expand our knowledge base and temper our opinions. We need to employ our minds and be open to a conversation. I urge those who have made up their minds and are judgmental about the issue, to stay away from the discussion, you will not have much to contribute other than pounding judgments.

All the way at the bottom is a thoughtful piece by Dr. Aslam Abdullah,  “Islam and Muslims: Same Sex Marriages” Please do read that.  My article is in the making, a part of it is shared in the comments below.

Saeed Bhai did bring a good point forward – how can a state or president makes it public, what it amounts to is a public policy?  This is the conversation taking place not only in America, but the world over.  It is a new paradigm in the making.

Indeed, if American society were ultra-conservative, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, moderate Christians and others will have no space in America.

Pastor Robert Jeffress called Islam a false religion, among a few other ugly statements, it was not just him, that attitude has been around since 850 AD. When a Syrian priest read that Quraan tells Jesus was a prophet and not a son of God, it amounted to falsifying his faith, in all honesty Muslims would act the same way, or even worse, not per Quraan but by invoking the falsities contained in the blasphemy laws.   Hence the origins of those words, what the pastor forgot to read was what the Quraan had said, as you had alluded to, "Your way is for you and my way is for me."

All of us have had ugly past, it is time to go forward. We have to learn to respect the otherness of others, let Muslims follow the Quraan, “"Your way is for you and my way is for me", and as Christians follow the Bible by embracing whoever you are, as God’s child and condemn the sin and not the sinner. You will find similar guidance in every faith with no exception.

Fayyaz, you, Saeed Bhai, and I among others, with our free minds, will not have a free space in “Muslim” nations unless we compromise what we say and write.  We love America and its freedom, and we need to preserve it. It will not affect an ounce of our faith. Faith is not about imposing our ideas on others, but rather, following it ourselves on ourselves.

Let morality be taught in Mosques, Churches, Synagogues, Temples and homes, let that morality be based on doing good and not hating others or forcing others to follow our moral dictates.  Let that morality be based on, "Your way is for you and my way is for me." Otherwise, none of us would have a space.

Dr. Aslam Abdullah’s piece on the topic below is thoughtful. I have been deliberating on the statement, “However, Islam does recognize the rights of people to reject this world view and acknowledges the freedom of people to adopt an alternative perspective, with the admonition that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions in the eyes of God.”

No one will bear the burden of others, Quran 39:7, "And no bearer of burdens shall be made to bear another's burden.  In time, unto your Sustainer you all must return, and then He will make you [truly] understand all that you were doing [in life]: for, verily, He has full knowledge of what is in the hearts [of men]."

Freedom is the God-given right of humans; Adam was given a clear choice, to eat the fruit and lose the luxury of living in the heavenly abode or listen to God and stay in the paradise.   God did not insist on obedience, nor did God program his human creation to be obedient, he gave the free will.

Is the sexual attraction to the same sex new in the society? Is it natural to humans? We do have a responsibility to know one another? Does it mean accepting each other, or learn about the other to understand his or her motivation? God says 49:13, “O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another.  Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware.”

Did God condemn the same sex relations and why? We have to find a way to understand and differentiate the values.

Do we have the right to compel others to obey God’s guidance? Then why did God not compel Adam, or even offered him the choice?

Per the holy books God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, but he did not give the authority to men to go on the rampage and kills others, indeed he said, even killing one human is like killing the entire humanity. You shall not kill others.

A few years ago, one of the Muslim Medical doctors said he will punish the Gay men to the point of killing them. When he was asked what he would do if a Gay Patient is admitted to ER when he is the serving Doctor – all in a sudden it was his livelihood.

Most of us don’t understand the practices of LGBT; our ignorance should not be the basis for calling them names, or hating and chasing them.   If we believe in God and his word, let God deal with it on the Day of Judgment with each individual.

America is God’s own country, where every one of his creation can live and let live.   Thanks to our Founding Fathers laid the ground work for such a society, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 . . . . . . .

Mike Ghouse is committed to building cohesive societies, where no human has to live in apprehension or fear of the other. His work is indexed at www.MikeGhouse.net  in 30 some blogs and 4 websites.    

---

Mike/ saeed saheb,
 
I do think being gay is a sin and the personal behavior is an open violation of Allahs commandment. My question would then be if it is a crime against state. What state has to with what people do in their bedrooms. The moral policing is not among any of the state function prescribed in US constitution. This is a job of church to preach morality based on faith and social values. In my opinion "Morality can be preached, not legislated". Otherwise, pre marital consensual sex should also be a crime, drinking liquor and working on Sunday (for christians on Sabath) and Saturday for Jews should be crime. Here, I am not advocating this vulgar lifestyle, but I would not like to impose my value system on others. This is what we say "Your way is for you and my way is for me". I dont want state to legislate on Christian faith values because I will be an infidel in their eyes and if state is in the business of imposing faith as law then they will not spare me for not believing what they believe in.
 
I do condemn that lifestyle and I would wish and pray that all those who are in this practice repent and come to straight path. However, I would not want state to be involved in peoples private matter as long as it does not interfere in someones private life
 
Thanks
Syed Hassan
 

---

To: WorldMuslimCongress@yahoogroups.com
From: MIKEGHOUSE@aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 04:08:26 +0000
Subject: MuslimsTogether :: Re: Upright Opinion: Same Sex Marriage is an Immoral Blow-out

 

Saeed Bhai,

Statistics suggest that there more straight men who are adulterous than gay and lesbians. There are more straight men who are violent to their partners than the GLBT people. There are bad guys in all religions, races, ethnicities and nationalities... we simply cannot slap an accusation against gays and lesbians unjustly. We cannot lose a sense of fairness, even if we disagree with them. I am writing a piece on the topic from a human rights perspective. Insha Allah, it will be out by Saturday.

Your statement below will not meet the criteria of non-bias.

"All over the world there is no dearth of the prowling and lecherous homosexuals preying upon the vulnerable among the human beings more distinctly the young boys and girls who cannot defend themselves againt a sex maniac or a morally deviant pervert. There are countless individuals who because of shame cannot disclose the heinous crime and abuse they were subjected to by roughnecks and insidious perpetrators."

Mike Ghouse

---

May 10, 2012

Same Sex Marriage is an Immoral Blow-out

By Saeed Qureshi

One of the hottest and bizarre topics in contemporary American politics is the same sex marriages which connotes that a male can marry a male and in a similar fashion a woman can opt another female as a spouse or married partner.

Pressed by the overpowering exigencies and inexorable dynamics of politics surfacing aggressively on the home turf and mindful of the vote bank of the homosexuals, president Obama finally gave in on moral planks and accepted the same sex marriage to be in order.

Simultaneously the North Carolina state rejected the same sex marriages. Of 50 American states 30 have banned same sex marriages and thus there are some 20 states that allow this baneful bond of two male or female individuals as married partners. But the supporters of this highly debatable issue seem to be gaining ground and wider acceptance because it is being viewed more as a political necessity to catch votes than from moral standpoint.

Last year in September the perfunctory cover of “don’t ask don’t tell” or “DADT” was also lifted by U. S. Congress. The “DADT” Act enforced in December 1993 “prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces”. Now they are free to express their sexual orientation with regard to their choice for a male or a female.

 The gays, lesbians and homosexuals are now legally allowed to serve openly in the American armed force and also to fight for their rights. Thus far they were treated as pariah segments. They remained in low profiles and suffered from the stigma that is indelibly attached to this kind of lurid and detestable activity.

In both old and new Testaments of the Bible, there are several references about the homosexuality and gays or the sexual relations between man and man with verdict of condemnation for such abominable sexual pursuits.

The scriptural fable about the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis has been commonly interpreted as God punishing the homosexual sinners of Sodom who wished to rape the angels sent to retrieve Prophet Lot, the nephew of patriarch Abraham.

Then we can find another poignant reference in chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, warning the homosexuals in these words, “If a man also lies with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”.

But paradoxically there are passages in Bible that narrate same sex relationship. For instance in “David and Jonathan” or the â€œCenturion and his Servant”. There are also theological interpretations that suggest that Bible has not categorically condemned the “mutually committed, gay and lesbian relationships". It is also inferred that Jesus did not say anything on this issue. Martin Luther the founder of the Protestant faith of Christianity, termed the story of Sodom as “The vice of the Sodomites is an unparalleled enormity”

Christian churches by and large have regarded homosexual sex as sinful. They draw their conclusions from the natural law and similar references in the Bible. Many Christian denominations view homosexuality, as sinful, while the others term it as morally acceptable.

In United States, a sizeable number of Christian faithful define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and that any sexual act outside of the marriage relationship is inherently sinful.

In ancient Rome and Greece, the homosexual practices such as relationship of an adult Greek male with a Greek youth, or of a Roman citizen with a slave have been mentioned in the history books. Even thereafter from the onset of religious eras, various societies including those of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon carry the burden of practicing sodomy and male oriented sex.

The debate of allowing homosexuals to enter into matrimonial bonds is indeed of different nature. In the civilized history of mankind, any state or society never legally permitted such abomination as it is now in vogue in many countries in Western Europe and also within the United States.

Granted the humans tend to defy and deviate for the natural course of sexual relationship between men and women. But to legitimize it as a permissible moral norm and a step towards fulfilling the imperatives of fundamental rights of human beings is simply breaking the boundaries not only set by the nature but also is infringement of the unwritten yet established social and moral law ingrained in a society.

All over the world there is no dearth of the prowling and lecherous homosexuals preying upon the vulnerable among the human beings more distinctly the young boys and girls who cannot defend themselves againt a sex maniac or a morally deviant pervert.  There are countless individuals who because of shame cannot disclose the heinous crime and abuse they were subjected to by roughnecks and insidious perpetrators.

In American society there is no bar on young boys and girls to date with each other and thus there are teen age mothers’ epidemic for which billions of dollars are spent on new born babies and the related issues. But for an adult to touch a teen or underage girl is unpardonable sin and it should be like that.

We have voluminously read about the lecherous sexual behavior and rape of Christian clerics and clergy and priestly class of the young boys and girls who were given under their supervision in religious seminaries. The Catholic Church has been busy in making financial compensations ever since the media have started reporting and revealing about these odious, gory and reprehensible violations of human dignity by the reverend fathers, holy priests and custodians of the Church.

The question is that while a common adult committing adultery is severely punished and turned into a social pariah and labeled as sex offender for the rest of his life, why the preachers and holy figures are not awarded condign punishments? On top of it the endorsing statement for the same sex marriages, of president Obama who thus far was not strong proponent of this depravity, comes as a rude jolt to the majority of this nation.

One would like to suggest to the believers and practitioners of this degrading sexual activity named as same sex marriage to repent and seek the divine mercy and forgiveness for going out of the nature’s fixed source of marriages that is between a male and a female. There can be gays, lesbians, homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals in any society but to give them blanket permission and a constitutional cover to marry with the same sex is simply shredding the fabric of established and traditional morality and ethics.

The bond of marriage looks decent and nice between two heterogeneous sexes and the underlying divine purpose was to procreate the human race as also of all the living beings and species with soul and body. To style two men as wife and husband or two women as couples or sex partners is direly repugnant.

For eunuchs and humans with no specified gender, there can be permissions to live together as they should be morally and sexually harmless to each other. Instead they might help each other in daily chores and sharing the domestic work. But to allow the males or females to live together for sexual propose is repulsive and dishonrable to say the least.

For children separated in divorces and for other reasons and in case of single parents, the government should provide places where parents can come and meet them. For those parents who remarry according to Christian religious customs, should be allowed to visit their parents in a new environ as is the prevailing practice. But for a male to marry a male or a female with a female to protect their children is a hollow ploy and cannot be defended on moral or social grounds.

The protagonists of the sexual freedom try to justify the same sex marriages by classifying the homosexuals into two groups: one psychopath homosexual and the others doing such under a legal cover of the same sex marriage. But the cardinal question is how a sexual activity that is unnatural and patently unworthy can become sanctified by merely declaring each other as marriage partners?     

The writer is a senior journalist and a former diplomat

---

Islam and Muslims: Same Sex Marriages

By Aslam Abdullah, TMO Editor-in-Chief

Physical intimacy is not simply a biological action and reaction. It is bigger than that. It is more about the value system that one prefers and adopts because it impacts not only the individual, family and the society but human civilizations, cultures as well as the rise and fall of nations.

On the one hand are Freudian followers who argue that civilization is a byproduct of repressed sexuality and on the other hand are those who in the words of J. D. Unwin believe that “in human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on per-nuptial and post-nuptial continence.”

Unwin, a sociologist at Cambridge University, published "Sex and Culture," in 1934. He studied 86 different societies and he found no exceptions to the rule that the cultures flourished during eras that valued sexual fidelity and discipline. He demonstrated through empirical data that whenever sexual mores loosened, the societies declined, and whenever they followed rigid sexual discipline they rose again. In our recent history, the fall of the Soviet society offers a recent example where Vladimir Lenin espoused a "glass of water" theory about sex, explaining that sexual desire is just like desire for food or water.

The theory collapsed, and with it collapsed the Soviet society.

However, new interpretations are being offered to explain the Freudian ideas. Barbara Ehrenreich, a widely-read and award-winning author of 21 books wrote not very long ago that sex, preferably among affectionate and consenting adults, belongs squarely in the realm of play.

This "de-moralization" of sex is promoting a new sexual ethics that legitimizes and justifies everything in the name of pleasure and freedom. What was presented as his personal opinion by President Obama about same sex marriage is an effort to legitimize the de-moralization of sex to develop a new culture where every sexual activity is fine as long as individuals engaged in the act have their consent and pleasure. His perspective is based on a world view, a world view that Islam does not share. Islam regards physical intimacy as an act of responsibility between a man and woman within the confines of contractual marriage. Islam, on the basis of its value system, takes a strong stand on pre-marital, and post-marital physical relations as well as on physical relations between people of the same gender. Islam calls for sexual discipline in society and recommends restrictions in sexual behavior to help people channel their energy in matters that are fundamental in preserving the interests of people.

However, Islam does recognize the rights of people to reject this world view and acknowledges the freedom of people to adopt an alternative perspective, with the admonition that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions in the eyes of God.

Marriage is an institution promoted and protected by all religions. Islam recognizes it as part of the revealed knowledge, a knowledge that is given by the Divine to help human beings find their way to a better life in this as well as in the hereafter. Obviously, those who do not believe in the idea of Divine revelation would find it hard to accept this notion. But this is what Islam expects its adherents to accept.

Accepting an alternative definition of marriage is like changing the revelation and the divine guidance, an act that is not supported by Islam.

Obviously, Obama and those who want to demoralize sexuality and promote the idea of extending the term “marriage” to same sex unions would not find support among the followers of Islam, because Muslims would view it a challenge to their own value system.

They can give whatever term they want to this type of relationship, but when they would refer to that as a marriage, it would be seen conflicting with Islamic value system. This does not mean that people who do not view Islamic value system should be discriminated and denied their basic rights including the rights and privileges in matters of health and education and opportunities. If Islam recognizes the right of people to reject the idea of God as the creator and master of the universe, it also recognizes the rights of people to follow an alternative value system.

We Muslims owe it to ourselves and our future generation an education that promotes the value system that we deem right for ourselves and others. We must speak out on this important issue to let the people know what we stand for.

Our political pundits have already presented the Obama perspective as an electoral and political issue. It is much more than that. It is about the value system that we adopt as our guiding principle. It is our right to share our value system with others without being intimidated and trying to be politically correct. If others have a right to promote their ideas based on Freudian ideas, we Muslims also have the right to present our perspectives based on revealed knowledge.