Gay Marriage and Islam: A Muslim Response
Posted: February 4, 2012 Filed under: articles by Paul Williams, Christianity, Islam, Militant Secularism, The Bible, The News 7 Comments »
- The Bishop of London, Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres
Today’s London Times proclaims:
Bishop of London backs gay marriage rebellion among clergy
“The Bishop of London has welcomed a rebellion by nearly a quarter of his clergy calling for churches to be permitted to register for civil partnerships.”
This is reported fully today in The Times but that article is behind a paywall.
The Mail Online has a free version:
“Nearly 100 clergy have joined a rebellion over a Church of England ban on civil partnership ceremonies.”
“The clergy have signed a letter demanding that the General Synod, the Church’s parliament, allow priests to hold ceremonies for same-sex couples in their churches.”
So how does Islam view the prospect of ‘Gay marriage’?
I think some preliminary remarks are in order:
People who complain that Muslims refuse to fit in with what are called “civilised values” are unaware of just what is being demanded of Muslims. These values are part of the air we breath whether our politics are of the left or right, conservative or liberal. They are the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age.
I think they can be summarised in four ways:
Firstly, man is now the measure of all things and nothing is to be judged in relation to an absolute or to a transcendent reality.
Secondly, man is both judge and criterion of judgement. There is no higher court of appeal or source of pardon.
Thirdly, whatever happens occurs within earthly time, for human existence stretches only from birth to death. Mans earthly life is therefore unconditionally important; to live is the supreme value, at death the game is over and lost.
Finally, there is the conviction that man is basically good; the evil which surrounds him is never his fault. It can only be blamed on institutions, on society, the economic system or defective education.
These beliefs, so readily taken for granted, cannot be reconciled with Islam (or traditional Christianity). What we do in this life echoes in eternity and we will be held to account for all our actions and thoughts by a God who is both completely just and the most merciful of all those who show mercy. Mankind is called to submit to Gods will, not to do our own will. As Jesus is reported to have said to his Lord, ‘May thy will be done, not mine’. This spiritual disposition is vanishing fast from Britain’s Christian churches, which have made some astonishing compromises with the spirit of the age. But Muslims see religion as a citadel resistant to decadence and changing tides of opinion, not as one strand in the pattern of modern life – the western way of life – but as an alternative to it. Those who have gone astray are invited to return and that is that. For Muslims there is one fixed mark, set down in the midst of times flow and that is the Faith as it came from God through the Prophet.
So back to our question: ‘How does Islam view the prospect of ‘Gay marriage?’
Muslims, and the dwindling band of traditional Christians, find this campaign to legitimise so-called ‘gay marriage’ astonishing (and abhorrent) for two reasons:
The very idea that men and women can alter God’s clearly expressed will seems like presumption and blasphemy. The Christian churches, it seems, are trying desperately to keep up with the times and are in dereliction of their duty to be faithful to the revelation they received.
Secondly, God has expressly given us his commands in the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran. They cannot be changed. We, as Muslims, stand should to shoulder with those few remaining traditionalist clergy who resist these compromises with modernism and secularism.
Traditionally Christianity has taught unambiguously that a priest or a Bishop is somebody who ought to live by the Bible and accept that the Bible’s teaching is quite clear in this matter – that heterosexual marriage is the right and only context for sexual relationships. And Muslims of course agree.
To the surprise of many, we have the ironic situation where Islam is not a threat to traditional British values, which historically are based on Christian values, but their ally. Islam complements and reinforces them. I could duplicate many times over the same point: whether it be the sanctity of life, opposition to abortion on demand, the rejection of euthanasia and assisted suicide, or the respect and courtesy due to women, Muslims find a natural affinity with the few remaining traditional Christians in our churches, and hence with the best of British values and culture which were formed by the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.
But of course Islam is a challenge to the forces of atheist materialism that reduce the individual to a mere consumer of goods; it is a challenge to those hedonist philosophies that deny God and worship the man-made idols of short-term pleasure and greed.
In conclusion, we must ask why have the churches at the beginning of the 21st century abandoned the teaching of the Torah, Jesus of Nazareth, the Catholic Church, and the Protestant Reformers?
Perhaps a consideration of the larger social context will suggest a possible solution.
Muslim philosopher Shabbir Akhtar in his excellent book The Quran and the Secular Mind (2008) comments provocatively (p.7):
‘We must note that there are now few authentically religious Jews and Christians in the West even among the clergy and the rabbinate. All intellectually sophisticated Jews and Christians are secularised and, in their attitudes towards domestic issues, as opposed to foreign policy, are typically humane capitalists whose religious beliefs serve as a decorative veneer on their underlying secularised religious humanism. All charges are variations on the stock Muslim accusation, rooted in the Qur’an, that Jews and Christians have achieved a cosy accommodation with the world – or with modern secularism, in our day – at the cost of being unfaithful to their dogmatic traditions. Modern versions of Christianity and Judaism appear to be carefully disguised variants of secular humanism. Predictably, therefore, many Jews and Christians, unlike virtually all Muslims, live conscientiously and comfortably within the arrangements of the liberal secular humanist state. Islam is now unique in its existential decision, though not intellectual capacity, to confront rather than accommodate the secularist world-view. It is a faith whose adherents are sounding a lone note of courageous defiance in the battle against secularism while other trumpets are blowing retreat.
It’s good to read all these words, let’s face it we do love to here the sounds of our own voices. However it is my contention that our God, whether we are Muslim or Christian is a God of love. God loves to love us and bless us, irrespective of gender, race or orientation. It is we humans that ‘make God’s love too narrow, by false limits God will not own’. So let’s, each one of us continue to pontificate (sic) on the nature of God, whilst God carries on loving us!
Michael, love is not enough to base a moral code on. Love alone would validate incest, adultery, fornication, and even bestiality. God’s commandments in Torah, gospel and Quran are desperately un-PC and out of step with the liberal spirit of our age.
But we are called to be in the world but not of it…
It is absolutely right that the Bishop of London should call for this issue to be tabled at the Synod, given that so many clergy are demanding the right to officiate over civil partnerships. He’s really said very little else in this instance- this is a bit of a non-event. Sentamu’s position was more interesting.
I think it’s difficult for anyone with a fundamentalist, literalist exegetical approach to understand how some clergy could be pro-Gay marriage, The situation is not that liberal Christianity has become an aesthetic ornament for Secular Humanism, rather that within Anglicanism a simultaneously inductive and deductive approach now prevails over a purely deductive, fundamentalist one. Occurring as it does within a secular domain, this approach to moral rights and wrongs has a reflexive relationship with secular values. Thus instead of shoehorning secular values into an uncomfortable, outdated Christian brogue, liberal Christians are rehealing said brogue with biblically sourced leather but using modern methods, all under the watchful and loving eye of God
This approach is permitted/endorsed by the fact that the NT is not considered the verbatim, immutable world of God (interestingly one of the main criticisms levelled at the NT by many Muslims!). (Most) Anglicans still believe in God’s authority and desire to please God, so we must assume that that motivation remains paramount over ‘(living) comfortably within the arrangements of the liberal secular humanist state’, and that therefore they are supporting these approaches because they genuinely believe it is what God wants.
Incidentally, homosexuality in the modern context of longterm, fulfilling relationships is not covered in the Bible or indeed the Quran, where what is dealt with are sodomy and neglect of one’s wife. The liberal clergy’s wish to officiate over same sex unions suggests they view them as entirely distinct from the grubby promiscuities present in the bible, and with which homosexuality was exclusively associated in less enlightened, pre- Queer identity politics times.
Some prominent muslim theorists have proposed liberal interpretations of the quran in this respect-notably Zia Sardar.
Nice post bro, but Ziauddin Sardar is not a ‘prominent Muslim theorist’ and does not have scholarly authority nor is he an academic expert on exegesis or such. Nor is he a ‘normal’ lay Muslim of any variety. He is a modernist with heterodox views, he is free to hold these but he does not represent the mainstream of Islamic thought. As you know, every religion has a right to define it’s orthodoxy.
A ‘long term, fulfilling’ relationship between two men or two women is presumed to involve physical contact extending to but not limited to sodomy and oral sex. If it does not then it is called ‘friendship’ or ‘brotherly/sisterly love’, so I do not find your distinction of gay marriage and sodomy to be realistic or helpful. And neither would most gays or heterosexuals, who would feel that they should be allowed unlimited consensual physical contact in a marriage.
Hey,
I wasn’t distinguishing between gay marriage and sodomy (although, let’s be honest, they’re not the same; one is a sexual act and the other is a proposed legally binding contract), nor was I suggesting that gay marriage, as it might be sanctioned by the Church of England, should preclude sexual intercourse. I was just making the point that homosexuality as it exists today is not dealt with in the bible or quran, and that the liberal clergy calling for it to be instituted clearly see biblical references to sodomy as relating to a different mode of sexual practice entirely.
Nor did I suggest that Ziauddin Sardar was mainstream; he is certainly heterodox. He is also certainly prominent- he has three international bestsellers, four Professorships and thousands of public appearances under his belt. Re: Scholarly authority- perhaps he doesn’t have any according to islamic credentialist criteria (eg no ljazah), but he’s primarily an autodidact and so no doubt has to deflect such accusations from the orthodoxy as a matter of daily routine. He’s a scholarly authority in the western academic sense of the term, where authority is (or should be) a meritocratic notion rather than a point of permission- hence the Professorships and other accolades.
For me, the Archbishop of York’s comments were remarkable a) for rightly highlighting the semantic/linguistic aspect of the issue (relating to the elasticity/plasticity of the term marriage) and b) for wrongly presenting it as a matter of history/tradition, rather than exegesis.
My opinions on the issue:
-Civil Partnership is legal and that is a good, right thing.
-I couldn’t care less if it is called marriage in the secular, legal domain.
-the Church should not be forced to officiate over same sex marriages
-It is right that this argument is taken to the General Synod
Fair enough, good points again.
I would say though that you will find that the vast majority of ‘liberal’ Muslim intelligentsia have a problem with the prominence afforded to people like Sardar. They see this as a case of the ‘acceptable’ (secularised) and ‘unacceptable’ (orthodox) forms of Islam. So these people’s prominence is not usually a function of their academic or other prowess but their utility in expounding heterodox views which liberals would like to be mainstream in Islam. This is fine, but these people engage more with the media than academia or the Muslim community to get their views across. They have the ‘ear’ of publishing houses and such when they write books with titles like ‘Journeys of a Sceptical Muslim’. They are rightly seen as arrogant and undermining the community since they do not engage with it but rather those hostile to it to get their legitimacy. It’s like me taking my ‘problems’ with Christian theology to a third party who I know does not like Christians, and using that prominence they give me (because of my hostility, say to the Catholic Church) to get a platform and voice while never bothering to confront the Christians themselves. This is Sardar and his gang much of the time i.e they are a Trojan horse operation.
Regarding homosexuality, the Quran is pretty clear as I understand it, it simply tells you not to satisfy you ‘lusts’ with men;
”And [remember] Lot, when he said unto his people: “Will you commit abominations such as
none in all the world has ever done before you? (7:81) Verily, with lust you approach men
instead of women: nay, but you are people given to excesses!”‘
The confusion may be that the story of Lot is given in more detail later in the Quran (11:69 onwards) where there is a ‘men attacking men’ type incident, but the above quote makes it clear that homosexual action is disliked. This does not mean that there is a phobia of or discrimination against gays, and in fact the Ottoman Empire decriminalised homosexuality: that is not to say that it is APPROVED of, merely that it is not possible to convict someone of a crime in regards to it, like private fornication or adultery much like being stingy is condemned, but as long as one pays one’s taxes in Islam, it is not possible to seek any measure against one in the Shariah.
Thanks for the comments all round, and great post, bound to generate much discussion!
There are actually specific tradition(s) of the Prophet (PBUH) stating that a time will come when men will marry men and women will marry women.This was even referenced by Hamzah Yusuf in a public lecture a while back. So there seems to be a specific disapproval of marriage and sexual activity or it’s simulacrum between anything other than a man or a woman, since Islamically marriage is not a secular but a religious or divinely ordained institution. Anyone wishing to have secular ceremonies and to acknowledge them is free to do so, but there is to be no compulsion in their recognition, just as we do not compel anyone to recognise our religious definition of marriage. The State again has yet another definition, which may be one or the other.
The Islamic position is that there is an extensive and inclusive system revealed by God to aid our moral and day to day decision making process, God acting as the facilitator for an objective moral standard that transcends human bias. Reasons are given for his ‘decisions’ and we are free to take them or leave them. Further, we are free to use our intellect and differ in what these rules mean and how to apply them, but we have to be fair and objective. We are explicitly warned not to be swayed by things like discrimination, or even enmity and hatred:
5:8
O You who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness
to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating
from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. And remain conscious of God:
verily, God is aware of all that you do. (Asad’s translation)
In applying our moral reason in Islamic terms we should also not be swayed by fashion or social consensus either, that is still not objectivity. Once we start to ‘reason’ based on what feels good to us or what society has currently agreed upon we have swerved from objectivity into fashion or hedonism. It is no longer the rational method, which is commanded in Islam.
So, to be coherent in the Islamic position, IF God claims that he has made us a system for moral guidance and this is seen to cover everything from marriage contracts to personal hygiene and how often you should cut your toe nails, then it would be a glaring omission for Him to wait thousands of years for liberalism to come along (in fact liberalism is a very old idea) and fill in the gaps about gay marriage etc. So that’s the way we look at it. I’m not imposing the same on Christians, it’s up to them.
In short, Islam believes in freedom of expression, sexual, speech, whatever. But when these freedoms involve other people, then they have to be tempered according to a ‘first do no harm’ principle. So when a young lady’s freedom to wear a short skirt in public infringes on my freedom not to be titillated, then we need to reach a compromise. But who decides where the compromise lies? We say God, because he is not human and thus objective. Liberals say something different which usually means social consensus or what feels good or what does not do PHYSICAL harm to others. Same goes for homosexuality, once it is brought into the public sphere then there is regulation, if it is not public then there is no problem, apart from God’s stated displeasure at the act.
All this is assuming that it is even possible to arrive at moral judgements in a reasonable manner without God in the first place. For example, what is the rational reason for prohibiting incest? Especially before the advent of Genetics? Is there one? Who are you harming by marrying your sister if she loves you and you love her? So we need to talk about how to reach moral conclusions in the first place.
Now with the decriminalisation of homosexuality by the Ottomans in 1862 you can see a policy of respect and tolerance not achieved by others for many more decades. If two men wanted to live together, in an Islamic system where there is a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy on sexual conduct, they are fine and are not denied any rights other than to openly promote a gay lifestyle. They could even adopt children as long as they did not make it a ‘gay adoption’ issue. You may say that the ‘openly gay’ or ‘promotion’ aspects of the lifestyle are essential, but I would say not necessarily, and you do not see heterosexuals having festivals and parades to express their sexuality, this kind of stuff is often imposed onto the gay community (sometimes by itself) due to their ‘minority’ status, and they should not have to buy into it. Further, if gay people DID want to argue for or promote homosexuality in an Islamic state, they can do so in the form of a public debate against Muslims or whoever. If Muslims are willing to debate the very existence of God in an Islamic state, then gay marriage is no problem. The caveat is that it has to be a public debate, not an ad campaign or posters by United Colours of Benneton ASSUMING things, they have to come out into the arena of ideas and if they can win then good on them. I think this is pretty fair and the bottom line is you can be gay unhindered, why do you need to promote it to others any more than we need to have adverts for heterosexuality?
As Muslims, we love and accept gay individuals same as anyone else, but we make it clear that we do not see their behaviour as the overall moral ideal. This is not surprising to my gay friends, as they frankly do not ‘accept’ or understand my attraction to women, but they do tolerate it. Tolerance does not mean that people should ‘pretend’ that they ‘get it’ as is the case nowadays. Despite having close gay friends and associates, I find their behaviour baffling. That does not mean I seek a mandate against it or them, but nor does it mean I will be promoting it, just as I do not expect them to promote a heterosexual lifestyle (nor do they). In fact ‘forcing’ people to accept it under the banner of progressive values often has the opposite effect and causes people to react very badly.
And I think that will be the result of the CoE controversy, since it is obviously not a theologically motivated reinterpretation, which would be fine, but is being done under social pressure, namely that of the prevailing doctrine of Liberalism, which itself has not been arrived at by free means but rather by a level of imposition and a militant understanding of what is the ‘Good Life’. If it were a genuine reinterpretation it would have been done long ago when the Church in Europe was a lot more vital and intellectually curious. This, to me, is done to show the Church who is boss, and some of them are saying (to liberalism): ‘You are’.
Much like the Architect in the Matrix Reloaded said when under threat (I’m paraphrasing):
‘There are degrees of survival we are willing to accept.’
If the issue at hand was something more central to Christianity, like ‘Is Jesus God?’ and a bunch of Anglican scholars and clergy under pressure from a dominant Islamic civilization and said: ‘Well, actually, that was then, and there is a lot of leeway for interpretation, so now it’s not so important’, most people would recognise it for the ideological bullying that it is, but becase this is something they feel they can ‘get away with’, and may give them some much needed legitimacy with dwindling congregations, no one cares.
There is the same ‘secularisation’ in Islam: where Islamic ‘clergy’ give legitimacy to essentially secular and heterodox ideas like driving bans for women and the beheading of Indonesian maids or whatever merely to get favour from the ruling elite in places like Saudi Arabia. They, just like the CoE, make complicated theological justifications for what is ultimately, an unacceptable and humiliating compromise, merely so they can keep their social standing while all around them, the Rome of their religion burns.