|
The Editor
Renaissance
Al-Mawrid, Lahore
Sir
Subject: Trivializing homosexuality
In Mr Junaid Bin Jahangir’s article on homosexuals
and homosexuality, published in Renaissance (Aug 2005), the author, while
showing a sympathetic attitude towards the homosexual people, seems to have made
disdainful remarks about traditionalist scholars. Though inactive in your
journal for some time as a member of your editorial board, I should like to
express my strong disapproval of what appears to me a very disparaging attitude
towards traditionalist scholars. I am not writing this letter to adduce any
arguments, but should like to assert some views, especially as Mr. Javed Ahmad
Ghamidi’s very humble student:
1. My teacher, Ghamidi, always
taught me to proffer honest and decently worded critique of opposing ideas, but
with respect and benevolence for the person behind the ideas. I personally asked
him once about one or two of his articles (written quite some time ago) where he
deviated from this wonderful principle, and he only expressed his remorse in
admission of his rather inadvertent mistake. This admission on his part has only
enhanced his credibility in my view. The point I am trying to make is: Was it
really not possible for Mr Bin Jehangir to express his opinions without making
fun of “beards.” I personally do not regard the beard as part of the shari‘ah
(Divinely revealed guidance to our Prophet; I think it is part of a man’s nature
though), but when I began wearing it, I took it as a directive of the shari‘ah.
I don’t know what is so funny about a person who wears a beard and a certain
length too, understanding it to be the requirement of religion. To many, it is
more than shari‘ah. It is a symbol of their love for the Prophet (sws).
Ridicule, in this case, was highly non-academic, absolutely irrelevant, and very
unethical – to say the least.
2. I take strong exception to
trivialization of such grave deviances from human nature as homosexuality, which
in my understanding of Ghamidi’s views, has been severely condemned by the
Qur’an. It is a grave sin, and no social progress, mores, or philosophy can
change that fact. Yes, in my opinion, Ghamidi does say that when a sin has
completely pervaded the society, it is advisable in most cases not to begin
reform through criticism of the sin but through reminding the sinner of the
basics of religion and gradually helping him/her to come out of it. Similarly,
at the societal level, mere emphasis on punishments is often futile if the
society itself has not really been reformed otherwise through education as the
laws are quite often circumvented in such a case. Again, it is not in the nature
of our religion to make a sinner lose hope in the mercy and forgiveness of God;
it is also in the nature of our religion to give hope to a sinner that all
extenuating circumstances will be considered by God so that someone not able to
come out of a sin immediately might be able to do that gradually; also, it is
not in the nature of our religion to expose a person guilty of a sexual
transgression (as fornication – not rape though), especially where chances of
reform are better for him/her in not disclosing his/her offence. However, all
this certainly does not mean that a grave sin as homosexuality should be
trivialized. If the purpose that Mr Bin Jehangir had was to point up the
principle that none of us has the right to make judgments about the sinner, the
point should have been made in relation to the Islamic tradition itself. It is
quite clear from the Qur’an and the history of the Prophet’s life that even when
it becomes necessary to punish a person legally for a transgression, it is not
our place to comment on his/her fate in the Hereafter, which Judgement is God’s
alone. If some “bearded” people, who might not even be scholars of Islam,
condemn homosexuals against this spirit, it would be very unfair to disparage
the whole Islamic tradition of scholarship simply because of a few people.
3. Furthermore, if a Muslim
collectivity with its own political and legal authority (for example in an
Islamic state) decided, after ascertaining the absence of reasonable extenuating
circumstances, that a homosexual be given a legal punishment, why would it be
morally or democratically wrong? Why don’t the Muslim people have the right to
make their own laws in accordance with their own understanding of right and
wrong? If individual freedom is the ultimate sieve for sifting out right from
wrong, why do so many states in the US and provinces in Canada still regard
consensual incest between adults as a crime? And who decides the age of consent
in any case? Why must we judge our values by their standards? And what right do
they really have to judge us. For example, I agree with Ghamidi that a Muslim
state today does not have the right to wage war simply to propagate its
religion. However, if the opinion of the classical/medieval jurists that the
Muslim state has this the right and duty were true, how would it be different in
essence from the concept of Manifest Destiny whereby the US annexed many of its
states or from the same concept under the different garb of democracy and
freedom whereby the US sees it as its moral burden to invade an independent
country and cause death and distress to thousands of civilians there? We have
our own understanding of moral values and their hierarchy, and we should have
the intellectual and moral ability to critique this understanding from our own
perspective. In relation to this principle, I should very much like to know how
homosexuality can be trivialized.
4. If the purpose of this
article was to give any credence to the “gene theory,” it would have been
advisable for the journal to publish articles presenting critiques thereupon as
well so that the readers could be made aware of the fact that this theory is at
best theory. Again, it is not the place to offer counterarguments, but I should
like to mention that few people would disagree that, at least, the attraction of
a man to a woman (in short the proclivity of a man to commit fornication in the
absence of legal, moral, and social constraints) is quite well-established in
contrast to the “gene theory” justifying homosexuality. If some people are
genetically inclined towards homosexuality, many men are inherently inclined
towards having physical relations with attractive women. But what does that
really mean? Who did ever say that humans are not inclined towards sin; if sin
did not have any inducement, why would we do it, and what would be our test?
But, does this mean that our inclination is then the justification for the sin?
Quite obviously, at best, it may only become the basis for God’s forgiveness and
mercy if the offender accepts the mistake after committing it and repents
honestly and tries sincerely to come out of it. And, in case someone really
believes that homosexuality is permitted in Islam or considered a triviality,
the arguments for this assumption should be given on the basis of the Qur’an and
the Sunnah rather than on the basis of social and biological theories, for that
is primarily how Muslims try to determine the dictates of their religion: from
the Qur’an and the Sunnah, not social or biological theories, etc. Similarly,
for someone who believes that research in these areas has proved that the
precepts of the Qur’an and the Sunnah are not practicable, one could have a
separate discussion to point out how untenable these theories themselves are.
Nevertheless, even if they were proved correct, it would only mean that certain
human beings have genes that render them incapable of controlling certain
actions. If such a proposition could be proved, an offender (a sodomite, a
murderer, a fornicator, et al), in relation to the general principles of the
shari‘ah, could be exonerated and perhaps confined to a treatment facility; it
would still not prove that the offence per se (as murder, fornication, adultery,
homosexuality, incest, bestiality, etc.) has become a boon for society. (More on
this later insha Allah).
5. I should also very strongly
like to suggest that the purpose of this journal be very clearly spelt out. If
it is the policy of this journal to let anyone express his or her opinion, it is
imperative that the contributions expressing the views of the magazine be marked
separately from the ones that don’t, and, for provocative articles as Mr Bin
Jehangir’s either the viewpoint of the magazine be given as well or a counter
article be published so that the readers are fully aware of all the arguments on
both sides of the spectrum.
6. It is also important that
the contributors of articles and other academic writings in the magazine adhere
to the ethical norms of citing sources in accordance with acceptable academic
standards. It is regrettable to note that many of Ghamidi’s views are published
without any proper citation or source acknowledgement, quite often with
inaccurate depiction of his ideas and research, which may be highly misleading
for many readers.
7. The same principle should be
kept in mind in publication of books and works by Al-Mawrid, its affiliates, and
circle of friends. It is highly regrettable again that some of Mr Ghamidi’s
friends, who are not even the regular students of religion – let alone being
scholars --, have published substantive portions of his research work in their
names without source citations – at best, with some nominal acknowledgement of
Ghamidi’s “contribution” (ustadh ka fayd) in the preface. Such publications are
highly unethical and, for their inherent weaknesses, very dangerous as well in
terms of inappropriately representing or, rather, misrepresenting his thought
and research; they must be discredited and disowned by the institute.
Needless to say that I have no personal grudge
against Mr Junaid Bin Jahangir. I remember him very fondly as my student at LUMS,
and wish him all the best in his higher studies. However, I do reserve the right
to disagree with his views and the way some of them were expressed in the
article in question.
Best regards
Asif Iftikhar
Lecturer, Islamic Studies
LUMS. |