Inayat Bunglawala
Inayat Bunglawala is an Advisor on Policy and Research at ENGAGE, an initiative designed to encourage British Muslims to interact more effectively in politics and the media in the UK. He is also a spokesperson at the Muslim Council of Britain.
Some religious communities are not reciprocating the tolerance and respect they insist on from others when it comes to gay rights, particularly in Muslim and some Christian communities. That seemed to be the bleak message at the heart of To Be Straight With You, which was performed at the O’Reilly Theatre in Dublin last week following a sell-out three-week run at the National Theatre in London.
I had been invited to Dublin for a public discussion on issues surrounding religious freedom and sexuality alongside the production’s director, Lloyd Newson, human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, Dr Katherine Zappone and Father Michael Collins.
In Muslim communities the issue of homosexuality is very rarely discussed in a candid manner and is all too often wished away as if it is an affliction that involves other groups, not them. Not far from the surface, however, are reports of gay Muslim men being pressurised into rushed marriages by parents desperate to avoid any social stigma. The woman’s family is never told the truth about her husband’s sexuality, of course, with the result that another soul has to endure unhappiness due to the initial failure to face up to the issue. It is a highly dishonest and unethical approach.
Islamic scholars and imams should ideally be performing a much-needed pastoral role by helping in these situations and providing guidance. At the very least they should insist that any intimidation or discrimination against gay Muslims is unacceptable.
Newson’s show makes mention of Nelson Mandela’s experiences in 1950s South Africa when the teachings of the Dutch Reformed Church were dominant. In order to get around the country and spread his message of black emancipation and freedom, Mandela used to disguise himself as a chauffeur, pretending to take with him a white passenger who happened to be a colleague in the anti-apartheid movement. That white colleague also happened to be gay, and during those many journeys they had the opportunity to discuss many issues. Mandela came to the conclusion that South Africa could not properly be described as a free and liberated country until all its communities, including the gay community, were freed from persecution.
Just over two years ago, I wrote an article for Cif commending the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) for publicly backing new sexual orientation regulations that had just come into effect as part of the Equality Act 2006. The Equality Act brought the goal of a fairer society closer by proscribing – for the first time – discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of religious belief or sexuality.
The 2006 act did not in any way compel believers to change any view they had about the practice of homosexuality being against the teachings of their religion. However, it did rightly insist that if someone wanted to provide goods and services to the public, then they should do so without discrimination on grounds of ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation.
The MCB, by supporting the act in its entirely, had taken a positive step forward and had inevitably attracted some criticism from within, which I noted at the time.
Would it not be another positive step if the MCB – as a broad-based umbrella organisation – were to include a gay Muslim support group as an affiliate? There does not appear to be anything in the MCB’s constitution that would seem to preclude such groups from joining and indeed the following clause from the declaration of intent section of the MCB constitution is particularly relevant:
“[The MCB] is a broad-based, representative organisation of Muslims in Britain, accommodating and reflecting the variety of social and cultural backgrounds and outlook of the community.”
At its best, Islamic civilisation was more than willing to learn from other surrounding countries and cultures and adopt the best aspects as its own. Actively working to ensure that people are able to live free of discrimination based on one’s ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation is a worthy goal and should be viewed as an Islamic goal.
This article was first published at The Guardian.
140) Muhammad Shamin on October 9th, 2009 7.52 pm
//The fact that you are trying to justify that homosexuality is acceptable in Islam would require Islamic sources to be the basis of argument.//
Mohd shamin, i am not trying to justify anything. What any religion believe or practices do not matter to me personally. What i am trying to engage in is discussion on the fundamental of these justification to ‘what to condemn what to revere’.
Please bear in mind both Christianity,Islam originated from a part of world where most of our ancestors have not even heard of to begin with.
(This applies to South East Asia converts)
Do one not wonder what would be in the doctrine of these holybooks if it were originated from another locale?
What your religion say about anything is true for YOU, but that does not mean the rest of the world has to accept it as universal truth.
That’s my point and justification.
Kezu:
“How does secular ideology causes war?”
Secularism covers nationalism and “freedom of speech”. Under these pretentious motives, have not wars been caused? Note that the Killing fields of Cambodia caused millions of lives. What was one of the reasons? To remove religion!
“What about the concept of ‘Liberal Gays’? Are they treated differently than other ppl or other gay group? And if they can truly return to ‘normalcy’ and ‘heterosexuality’ they are no longer labeled as Gay, (no point debating liberal or radical).”
They can still be gay at heart but not practise sex. Just like what gays claim Muslims or Christians can be gay at heart. Right? My point is what you want to label Christians or Muslims, it can be applied to you to.
Lobo:
“So you have point out out wars that were not started by religions (Afghan is not???)”
Afghan War is about OIL. Nothing to do with religion – or terror for that matter.
Dude:
“Incest is condemned because of biological reasons.”
Just that? What about the magic condom which gays worship? Sperm cells cannot pass through condom, but Aids virus can. So if you believe homo sex should be condoned because the magic condom protects you, why not incest?
Not that I am promoting incest. Just pointing out your flawed argument.
Robox,
Why the need to label moderate Muslim for Fahim (meaning Dr Syed is an extremist?). How about me labelling Alex Au a moderate gay – implying you are an extremist gay?
My point is that you cannot accept what Dr Syed’s opinion, yet you call for “moderate” Muslims to understand your point. If you yourself are not “moderate” enough to accept opinion of others, who are you to label others as “extreme”?
152) Solo Bear on October 10th, 2009 3.44 pm
//Secularism covers nationalism and “freedom of speech”. Under these pretentious motives, have not wars been caused? Note that the Killing fields of Cambodia caused millions of lives. What was one of the reasons? To remove religion!//
I dont know if its one of the reason, but the main reason was ethnic cleasing.
[Pol Pot is sometimes described as "the Hitler of Cambodia" and "a genocidal tyrant".[7] Martin Shaw described the Cambodian genocide as “the purest genocide of the Cold War era”.]
//They can still be gay at heart but not practise sex. Just like what gays claim Muslims or Christians can be gay at heart. Right? My point is what you want to label Christians or Muslims, it can be applied to you to. //
So by the logic , your definition of ‘Liberal Gay’ means Gay person who do not practices gay sex? How does this relates to Christian and Muslim labeling?
To be honest, the label radical and liberal has no issue with me, whether use to label Gay, Christian or Muslim.
But my issue with your arguement is if a gay person can change to be hetero, what’s the point of labelling him with anything gay again?
(liberal or radical no longer even relevant)
Dear People,
I find this whole debate bizarre ! Muslims the world over agree that the Quran and Hadith (and hence Islam) condemns homosexuality. What is there left to argue about ?
The Non-Muslims here cannot expect us Muslims to modify Islam so as to suit their tastebuds. We Muslims cannot do that.
I think that to end this debate – we have to accept the fact that we are a diverse society. That you cannot impose your values on others.
Leave us Muslims to our own way of life. To each his own. Do NOT try to force your views on homosexuality on us Muslims. We have our own values.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Syed Alwin,
I have taken your advice and check on the muslim online to see any inrefutable arguement on stand of homosexual in islam. What i find is almost similar to what’s been debated here.
http://muslimonline.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5942
What i come to conclude for that is being gay do not mean one cannot be religious, hence Gay Muslim or Gay Christian despite the issue of homosexuality within that particular religion.
//Leave us Muslims to our own way of life. To each his own. Do NOT try to force your views on homosexuality on us Muslims. We have our own values.//
How do one force our view on homosexuality on Muslim? Simply by having online discussion?
Dont play the victim card, when you are clearly not one.
151) Kezu on October 10th, 2009 2.02 pm
“What your religion say about anything is true for YOU, but that does not mean the rest of the world has to accept it as universal truth.”
If that is the case, then Muslims cannot accept homosexuality because Islam says so.
End of story.
Dear Kezu,
I commend you for checking up on the issue ! Thats a very positive step forward. It means that you are sincere. I have just visited that thread whose link you gave above. Yes – one can be Muslim and gay. BUT as I said before – a gay Muslim lives in sin. Big sin. A gay Muslim lives a lifestyle that is condemned by Islam (both in Quran and Hadith).
That is why Muslims the world over will NOT support the gay agenda. In Muslim countries where Islamic Law is practiced – gays face a severe punishment for their lifestyle.
The point I want to make – especially to TOC and the Non-Muslim Singaporean – is that Singapore does NOT define Islam. Singaporean Muslims cannot be expected to modify Islamic teachings just to suit the preferences of the others. We cannot do that. Neither can you expect the Singaporean Muslim to be very very different from Muslims elsewhere. Muslims are bound by the Quran and Hadith. There is only a small lee-way for differences.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Hi Everyone,
Please tone down the extent of mudslinging in this thread.
Hi Dr Syed Alwi #157,
This article is not an editorial, so it cannot be said to be representative of TOC’s view as an organisation.
I am glad to see that this article has stimulated debate and facilitated exchange of opinions and positions of different camps so that the different camps can understand each other better.
Most importantly, this debate has allowed each camp to clarify and rectify their perception of the other camps.
Kudos to Oxford Dude (#90) for pointing out that nobody here has addressed the fate of the Muslim woman who is married to a male homosexual Muslim.
Cheers
Donald
Deputy Editor
The Online Citizen
Kezu (#151),
Yes, it does mean that “those books” are infallible and can be applied to any time, any place. Of course, more accurately it means that the purposes and spirit of the texts can be applied to any society in any age (i.e. are universal). Which nonessential forms can apply and which should change, however, are a matter of debate.
The doctrine of holy books thus should be generally identical, barring differences in cultural details and textual forms.
Dr Syed Alwi (#157),
I really cannot tell if you are being pro-Islam or anti-Islam.
Solo Bear (#152),
Your style of conversation isn’t very … conversational, and does get somewhat offensive.
1) Well, that is not absolutely true. It was more simply to remove opposition to the rule of the Khmer Rouge. Not excusing the atrocities committed there though.
2) You could phrase this point in a more caring manner.
3) You have been watching too much Michael Moore. Afghan War isn’t just about OIL.
4) Good point.
Robox (#148),
1) Lol, another one. Just because you disagree with some points in the religion, you think that it is over-rated. Well, I think that conversely you UNDERRATE religion, especially the spiritual portion.
2) The History of a Religion does not prove anything about the religion, except how different believers have treated aspects of their religions. It does not indicate that any believers were always right or always wrong about those aspects; it is also not valid as a critique on the aspects of religions themselves.
History of the implementations of Religious Doctrine does not put religion in its “right context”. The Right Context of a Religion – something that a liberal like you probably would refuse to understand properly – is the SPIRITUAL context, or relational context, where specific vocabulary in the teachings are translated into their appropriate meanings in their original foundation culture, and then these meanings are presented using the appropriate terminology in the reader’s/believer’s culture.
For instance, if I wanted to understand the phrase “salt and light” in the Gospels/Bible, I should first understand the STRUCTURAL meaning of “Salt” and “light”, that is how these elements functioned in people’s everyday lives. From there, I would then identify – and this is the tough part – the RELATIONAL meaning of these elements, for eg Light illuminates, so light refers to someone or something that makes something else clear. Finally, I would work out the CONTEXTUAL meaning that applies/implements the RELATIONAL meaning.
The final CONTEXTUAL meaning is the infallible, universally-applicable teaching, the LITERAL/ANAGOGICAL teaching.
Dear Arix,
I think that you just want to make wild accusations and that you are lying when you say that you cannot tell whether I am pro or anti Islam. I honestly doubt your honesty and sincerity. Because my writings are very clear. Very cleat indeed.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Kezu,
My point about the Cambodia Killing Fields is that it was not a war motivated by religion. If at all, one reason those who got killed is because they believed in god. So all the talk that religion causes war is an erroneous statement. If at all, the last 100 years shows that wars are caused by non-religious ideals. Many of those ideals are secular in nature.
“So by the logic , your definition of ‘Liberal Gay’ means Gay person who do not practices gay sex? How does this relates to Christian and Muslim labeling?”
Same way gays want to label liberal Christians and Muslims as those who interpret that homo is allowed in Christianity and Islam.
“But my issue with your arguement is if a gay person can change to be hetero, what’s the point of labelling him with anything gay again?”
That’s Dr Syed’s point also, isn’t it? Why call him a Muslim if he breaks the Islamic law that forbids homo? My point here is what can be applied to Christianity and Islam, can also be applied to homo ideals. Why are gays not willing to see that?
Arix,
“Well, that is not absolutely true. It was more simply to remove opposition to the rule of the Khmer Rouge. Not excusing the atrocities committed there though.”
What talking you? The Cambodia Killing Fields was caused by the Khmer Rouge! If you mean Cambodia fell to Vietnam after that, what war again? The takeover my Viets was quick and little blood was shed.
“You have been watching too much Michael Moore. Afghan War isn’t just about OIL.”
Michael who? I got my facts from no less than the government of the United States of America. I published it in my blog. Scroll down to the heading “Greed for Oil”
wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2007/05/pm-lees-support-on-iraq-war-is-it-right.html
162) Solo Bear on October 11th, 2009 10.46 am
//My point about the Cambodia Killing Fields is that it was not a war motivated by religion. If at all, one reason those who got killed is because they believed in god. So all the talk that religion causes war is an erroneous statement. If at all, the last 100 years shows that wars are caused by non-religious ideals. Many of those ideals are secular in nature.//
By your statement above, secular ideal in cambodian context are… Communism?
//“So by the logic , your definition of ‘Liberal Gay’ means Gay person who do not practices gay sex? How does this relates to Christian and Muslim labeling?”
Same way gays want to label liberal Christians and Muslims as those who interpret that homo is allowed in Christianity and Islam.//
To be honest, there’s nothing wrong with whatever label (radical/liberal/moderate/extremist). I dont disagree that you can apply this to any group, Gay, Muslim, Christian etc.
The only reason you feel it matters, probably because of action of religious extremist group in history which makes association with that label (radical/extreme/fundamentalist) hard to swallow.
//“But my issue with your arguement is if a gay person can change to be hetero, what’s the point of labelling him with anything gay again?”
That’s Dr Syed’s point also, isn’t it? Why call him a Muslim if he breaks the Islamic law that forbids homo? My point here is what can be applied to Christianity and Islam, can also be applied to homo ideals. Why are gays not willing to see that?//
Even Dr Syed would have agree that even if Islam condemn homosexual, but it is possible to be Muslim and gay. (just not a good muslim).
As homosex is an act of sin as defined by Islamic law. Commiting the sin do not remove one from religion. That applies to Christianity too, (Roman catholic believes in confession, no?)
Solo Bear,
I think the sole gist of our disagreement is the term ‘Liberal Gay’
I understand your arguement of Liberal gay, liberal muslim etc.
The difference is, being christian/muslim etc are not solely defined by just being anti-gay. There are a lot more to it than just that.
But being gay is different, take away the attraction to same sex, ability to love someone of the same sex, what do you have left? (either non-sexual, or hetero)
Cheers
Solo,
To reiterate my prev post see the comment from Inayat (author of the above article)
//There are a number of actions that Islamic scholars are agreed will take you out of the fold of Islam eg believing in more than one God, refusing to accept that Muhammad was the final Prophet of God etc. But being gay is not one of them I think.//
Solobear,
by the way, after my third request for you to answer “What happens when one side starts out with their side of the space not respected?” (#87) I noticed you tried to replied but got moderated. You want another shot at it?
Consider this my 4th request.
————
On the issue on Cambodia wars. It goes back to the point about whether “religions starts ALL wars”, or just that “religion starts wars”. The initial statement was the latter, so I can’t see how bringing up cambodia (even if I agree it is non-religion) is helping your point….
Solo (#162),
1) I was saying that that religious people were not killed just because of their religion, but rather because they (tended to) oppose the Rouge.
2) Hmm, fine then…
Kezu (#163),
1) Fascism actually.
2) Each POV has its good points and bad points. And technically, you can be “radical” either way – liberal or conservative.
3) Correct, in the case of Islam.
4) Same applies for Roman Catholicism. However, theoretically, confession is supposed to be sincere; that is, after confessing something, you are not supposed to repeat the same sin again.
Homosexual Orientation does not need to be confessed; homosexual behaviour must.
Kezu (#164),
I am always puzzled by people who ask such a question. You are still yourself after all. Whatever your temperament, likes and dislikes and whatever else remains the same; sexuality does not impact the rest of your life much.
Eg, I can like discussing issues on TOC whether I am hetero, gay, or bi.
Arix
Agreed, this preoccupation with label is what divide us all.
In reality what does it matter if we are hetero, gay, or bi.
Or even muslim, christian & buddist for that matter.
What we think is never the issue, is what we do that matters.
( ie imposes what we think on others )
Live and let live to all.
Dear Arix & Kezu,
The difference – for a Muslim – is whether one’s lifestyle is accepted by Islam or not. For example – the Muslim community cannot and will not have leaders who are gay. Gays lead a lifestyle that is condemned by Islam. So while a gay can discuss anything here – there are limitations to what gays are allowed to do in Islam. Certainly not leadership roles for example.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Kezu /// this preoccupation with label is what divide us all ///
Hi Kezu, i second this thoroughly
Labels are a fools game
At the ‘ultimate’ level, there is only the existence of ‘phenomena’, both physical and abstract
Thoroughly understanding this phenomena, through meditation and spiritual pursuits, brings you wisdom and enlightenment
Labelling yourself as this or that is the height of ignorance and egoism
Labelling yourself is equivalant to being foolishly attached to certain views, which are a total waste of our valuable time
With wisdom in people, there is no need for any labelling
Syed
Pardon my speculation (since i am not gay muslim).
But I am doubtful the gay muslim out there wants to or aspire to be religious leader.
Their aspiration would be similar to general gay population, to live a life without fear, discrimation and (in certain country without persecution).
Dear Kezu,
If one is a Muslim – then one ought to know what the Islamic rules and norms are. By being gay – then one is going against Islamic teachings and is “asking for it”. I do not sympathise with Muslim gays. They chose a path which they know that Islam forbids. They are therefore discriminated based on their choice to go against Islamic teachings. And in some countries which practice Islamic law – these Muslim gays face severe punishment. Thats not persecution. Thats punishment. Because they broke the law. If they do not like Islamic laws – then do not live in a Muslim country and be gay at the same time.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
#174 Dr Syed Alwi
>>If they do not like Islamic laws – then do not live in a Muslim country and be gay at the same time>>
I didn’t expect this to come from you – for someone who made numerous posts to protest how non-Muslims should impose their non-Islamic ideas on Muslims.
How about they use your argument back on you: If you do not like non-Islamic ideas, then do not live in a non-Islamic country and be a Muslim at the same time?
Please tell me if simply being gay justifies someone to attack or scold me.
i haven’t even done anything, i only said i’m gay, and you’ve made the first attack.
Dear Lop,
A Muslim is subject to Muslim Laws and Islamic Laws DO intrude into the personal domain. If you do not want to be subjected to Islamic Laws then you either quit being a Muslim or you do NOT live in a Muslim country.
Look at Malaysia – they are going to cane that woman who drank beer. Thats Islamic Law. Once you are a Muslim – you become subject to Islamic Law when you are in a Muslim country.
You do not see this happening here in Singapore because Singapore is NOT a Muslim country and Islamic Law is limited to Marriage Laws only.
In Islam – there is NO secularism. Islam does intrude into politics as well as the personal. Its just that Singapore is a secular, Non-Muslim country that you do not see this aspect of Islam. You just have to cross the Causeway and live in Malaysia – or perhaps Indonesia or Brunei – to get to know Islam better.
Islam has a say in the sexuality of Muslims and how they manage it. A Muslim cannot do as he or she pleases. There are Islamic rules to follow.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
#177
Dear Dr Syed Alwi
I can now fully appreciate your reasoning. So I suppose you wouldn’t have any issue should the state decide to overturn the Islamic Marriage Law and enforce monogamy on its citizens. After all there are many other religions for citizens to choose from and on top of that, the Malaysian border is not really that far away. Right?
Dear Lop,
Well – the State will have to first deal with the Muslims if it wants to do away with the Islamic Marriage Laws for Muslims. Not only Singaporean Muslims – but also Malaysian, Indonesian and Brunei Muslims – will oppose such a drastic move !!!!
I don’t think that the State can afford to do away with Islamic Marriage Laws for Muslims. The Muslim world will react…………….
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
#179
Dear Dr Syed Alwi
Thank you, that was most enlightening. We now know reasons are irrelevant, only numbers matter. No wonder religions are always out to recruit and convert, because once you have the numbers you can have it your way and any way, right or wrong is really secondary. And it is also no wonder why we keep tagging labels on people, because with the labels on them, being human is really only secondary. On the same note, perhaps that’s why some people place so much emphasis on their titles, because the titles speak for them, but what they actually said is really also secondary.
Syed,
//If one is a Muslim – then one ought to know what the Islamic rules and norms are. By being gay – then one is going against Islamic teachings and is “asking for it”. I do not sympathise with Muslim gays. They chose a path which they know that Islam forbids.//
Yes, I get it. The norms, punishment etc.
Its easy to just dismiss all arguement by saying the doctrine of certain religion say so. Therefore it gotta be right. It’s easy to do so, especially if one is not prone to that particular ‘sin’
To be honest, what’s not being said here is being a Muslim is not exactly the same as any other religion convert.
One are born into it. (Exp in Muslim Sg community)
Leaving it means ostracizing a person’s whole life and support group. Not to mentioned leaving ones identity behind. Its gets more complicated thereafter.
It doesn’t leave much speculation to wonder why some rather conformed and get married.
(and the implication of unhappy marriage affects more than just one party)
Please bear with me, this is not exclusive to just muslim community. In china with the stigma of male son to continue the family line. Coupled that with one child policy, many gay men have no choice but to marry some unfortunate woman due to family pressure. The Implication that follows are often unhappy and damaging.
But what i am getting at is, lets look at it from a human being to another. Is this the kind of world we all wanted? Do we really want to visit upon another human being what we do not want for ourselves?
Do we really want to gain superiority over others by the means of intolerance?
Dear Lop & Kezu,
Thats the way Islam works. You may not like it because of your own prejudices. But 1/4 of the world’s population is Muslim. When you say right or wrong – my question to you is – right or wrong according to whose values ? In Islam – homosexuality is a very big wrong !
I hate to use might. But the fact is Singapore is smack in a very Muslim region. You cannot afford to dislike Islam too much !
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
182) Dr Syed Alwi on October 15th, 2009 9.36 am
But 1/4 of the world’s population is Muslim.
my response to this point is: so?