Dr. Bilal Philips, an influential Islamic scholar, will be speaking at the Canada Day long weekend conference hosted by the Muslim Council of Calgary. He is well noted for his literalist approach in prescribing the death penalty for "homosexuals" under Sharia law. However, he is neither God's spokesperson, nor does he speak for all Muslims.
Early in May, the Islamic Circle of North America, a conservative Muslim organization, expressing fear on the destruction of family, released a press statement against President Obama's support for same-sex marriage. Around the same time, Muslims for Progressive Values, a dissenting grassroots organization, citing the Islamic emphasis on justice, welcomed the President's courageous statement. Like dissenting denominations in Judaism and Christianity, Islam is not a monolith.
Conservative Muslims argue that by using variants of the phrase "you approach men lustfully instead of women" in verses 7:81, 26:165-166 and 27:55, the Qur'an condemns same-sex relationships as a transgression. However, dissenting Muslims argue that such a reading fails to appreciate context and linguistics. They also mention how extreme fanatics have bastardized the sacred texts by quoting verses stripped of their context.
Based on a contextual analysis, it becomes clear that the Qur'an is portraying a picture of coercion, exploitation and inhospitality. Specifically, verse 29:29 alludes to highway robbery and verse 15:70 refers to Lot's people prohibiting him from entertaining guests. Secondary Muslim texts, including "The History of Al-Tabari" and "Tales of the Prophets" further elaborate on this context.
Based on a linguistic analysis, Alabama based Dr. Hussein Abdul Latif indicates that the Qur'anic words for male and female connote non-receptive and receptive entities respectively. As such, the prohibitive phrase can be construed as approaching an unwilling partner rather than a willing partner. Thus, even the stand-alone phrase appears to connote exploitation.
Furthermore, based on past authorities, both Dr. Hussein Abdul Latif and Dr. Scott Kugle at Emory University have argued against the authenticity of texts attributed to the Prophet on this issue. This only substantiates how conservative Muslims mask their prejudice behind dubious texts.
Conservative Muslims, however, have tradition by their side. They can easily refer to countless manuals of jurisprudence that did not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual homosexual conduct defined specifically as "male anal intercourse." However, it is important to understand the context in which the classical jurists formulated their opinions.
Based on texts from 1500 - 1800 CE, Harvard based Dr. Khaled El-Rouayheb, has stated that homosexual expression in the Arab-Muslim world predominately occurred in the context of pederasty or power imbalanced relationships. The active-passive dichotomy wherein the passive partner, usually a beardless boy or a male slave, is a far outcry from contemporary same-sex relationships based on mutual love and respect.
It should, therefore, not surprise us that Muslim jurists, maintained a prohibitive stand on homosexual relationships based on the coercion depicted in the Qur'anic verses and the exploitation inherent in the overwhelming majority of homosexual expressions of their time. Contemporary examples of such conduct include the sexual coercion of Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison and the exploitation of the dancing boys of Afghanistan.
In the Classical Muslim period from the 9th to the 12th century, jurists operated in an environment where the influential polymath Ibn Sina set the tone for medical opinion that treated "passive homosexuality" as a nasty psychological phenomenon worthy of punishment. It seems that Ibn Sina's opinion eclipsed that of Al Razi, another polymath, that "passive homosexuality" resulted from the female sperm overpowering the male sperm during conception.
Rather than accepting sexual orientation, many contemporary conservative Muslim clergy either equate homosexuality with alcoholism or view it as a choice of sexual misconduct. However, Dr. Hashim Kamali, a renowned scholar at the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies in Malaysia, has stated that both science and Islamic jurisprudence confirm that sexual orientation is inherent.
Factoring changed social milieu and advanced knowledge of human sexuality, it seems that a renewed Islamic perspective on the issue of same-sex unions is warranted today. Several scholars like the 13th century jurist Imam Qarafi harrowingly critiqued the failure to account for differing conditions and special circumstances in legal rulings.
Conservative Muslims, like their Jewish and Christian counterparts, unwittingly condemn their gay sons and daughters to the closet or cloister. In the false dichotomy between God's law and human reason, their choice is clear. However, disregarding the need for faith to be reasonable and life-affirming, any religious viewpoint is futile.
American Rabbi Harold Schulweis has clearly stated that he cannot condemn innocent people to a life of misery, pain, torture and anguish. U.S.-based Conservative Judaism and several Christian denominations bless same-sex marriages. Likewise, based on the Prophet's teachings, progressive Muslims, allude to a higher ethic to support loving same-sex unions.
The Prophet's teachings paraphrased as "do not harm and accept no harm', 'wish for your brother what you wish for yourself" and "facilitate, do not cause difficulties or cause people to detest the law" evoke radical love and are as relevant today as they were 1400 years ago.
All Muslims agree on that.
All Muslims also agree that drinking alcohol, eating pork, marrying sisters, usury, giving false witness, back-biting etc all of these things are haram. Fornication for men, defined as sexual intercourse with someone other than one's wife, is also considered haram. I dont think any Muslim scholar would even suggest that sexual intercourse with someone who is not one's wife is halal.
But is fornication practiced by Muslims? Of course it is. On a daily basis world wide Muslims engage in fornication as well as other haram actions. And these Muslims go on with their lives (unless they're caught of course, which is very rare), no one suggests that they are no longer Muslims.
Based on this definition of fornication/zina, there can be no doubt that the act of homosexual intercourse also falls under fornication/zina, at a minimum. Hence by ijmaa/consensus, also considered haram.
That's not to say that the actor is condemned for all eternity or whatever. But the actor has to accept that he is practicing haram and that Allah will punish him for that, as He will punish all Muslims for all the haram we do (drinking, smoking, back-biting, cheating, usury, missing prayer etc etc). The actor of a haram action cannot justify his action by saying "Its not actually haram".... simply because it clearly is.
Let the attacks begin...
Further, just for your scientific edification, any perusal of well known natural science journals will inform you that homosexual pair-bonding (not just casual homosexual sex activity) has now been observed and well peer-reviewed in something approaching 1,700 mammalian and avian (read: descendants of the dinosaurs) species. So where you get the idea that only heterosexual sex is "natural" is indeed mystifying.
I don't suggest you speak with any ill will. Then again, nor do I when I tell you that your education in science is lacking, and that an earnest attempt to educate yourself might relieve you of the biases and misperceptions you hold due to an unfortunate ignorance of science.
The ongoing condemnation in Uganda against homosexuals is one aspect of this. On the one hand, it's easy to be horrified by the proposal of death sentences for homosexuals, and rightly so. But on the other hand, it is important to remember that this is a country where there have been ongoing campaigns of kidnapping of children to use them as soldiers, rape victims. If you look through the perspective that considers "homosexual" and "pedophile" synonymous, the motivation becomes clearer, even if that point of view is completely wrong. The solution becomes clearer to, because simply saying "tolerate homosexuality" won't help until you change awareness about what homosexuality is.
This was the attitude in north america until very recently, as well. You can watch old awareness videos about "beware of homosexuals!" from the 50s that said exactly the same thing - being "gay" meant preying on young boys. It's taken a lot of work to make people understand how that was never true.
Right now, the division we make between "straight" and "gay" are very recent phenomenons. Creating a space in cultures for the modern understanding of sexual orientations, where people are free to express their love in ways that are healthy and consensual, is an important project around the world.
This very tidy, academic postulation on the relative merits of what one scholar said in 1372 or 891 or 1214 does nothing to negate the fact that Wahabist teaching still calls for, aids and abets the killing of homosexuals and "infidels", not to mention the subjugation of women. One can try to spin Islam for PR purposes, but it has really contributed nothing to the planet but misery and horror, torture and terror, slavery and death. Let us hear no more from Islam whatsoever please.
Islam contributed NOTHING NEW that is good and beneficial to humankind.
All of that stuff (respect your elders,be good to guests) existed beforehand.
Now it acts to REDUCE the humanity of its followers by making them accept horrid tenets like killing apostates and throwing male homosexuals off hills (according to the hadth books).
It is usually unreported,but much of the homophobic violence and rape in Brussels is conducted by Muslims...DISPROPORTIONATELY.
Not Hindus and Sikhs but MUSLIMS...and they have the Quran and ahadith to back them up!
I have my opinion and so do they.But if their opinion threatens my existence as a gay Ex Muslim I PROTEST!