Blogger Asim Khan says those Muslims who have made alliances with LGBTQ activists have made huge mistakes and our role as Muslims is simply to affirm the values of Islam without compromise.
Despite the bold (and predictably unevidenced) claims of those who argue otherwise, the Shari’ah categorically outlaws homosexual sexual relations.
For thirteen centuries there was no “difference of interpretation” on this matter – hardly surprising given that the Quran’ic and hadith evidence for its prohibition are decisive. That is until the advent of the postmodern epoch which reduced all fixed, immutable truths to mere “social constructs.”
And though the Qur’anic texts aren’t denied by the naysayers (the relevant ahadith are predictably dismissed as “inauthentic”), their self-evident meanings find themselves dismissed as mere “interpretations beholden to the cultural prejudices of the milieu in which they were derived.”
But this article isn’t directed at the postmodernist cohort. Any such appeal would be an exercise in futility given that hermeneutics is for them an entirely subjective enterprise, unconstrained by any coherent methodology, with all conclusions equally valid (in theory anyway, in practise conservative/orthodox interpretations are hateful aberrations deserving condemnation).
This comment piece represents an appeal to the Muslim community at large and especially those regarded as ulema – whether based in the United Kingdom or the United States.
There can be no allyship with the LGBTQ community, ever.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
And those who in the past advocated such a stratagem need to acknowledge the enormity of their blunder and of the harm that has resulted thereof. Supporting the demands of the LGBTQ lobby is completely impermissible from a theological perspective, but even laying aside such considerations in the interests of pragmatism, it was always a futile endeavour that would lead inexorably to catastrophe.
The assumptions underpinning such an approach were shockingly naive, maybe even criminally so – that by supporting their right to uphold their own moral compass one implicitly (or now with the recent Navigating Differences statement, explicitly) affirms the right of Muslims to the same and that by extending such support the LGBTQ lobby would feel inclined (or even obliged) to reciprocate.
That this was never going to happen is a painful realisation only now dawning upon some (and as much as I wanted to name them here I have refrained).
The real aims of the LGBTQ movement
For the LGBTQ movement, since its inception, was never about “peaceful co-existence;” it was never about staking a claim to a space within the public arena, free from persecution and discrimination. It was and always has been about challenging the traditional order of humanity and brainwashing children into embracing their “alternative lifestyle” as something worthy of celebration, casting them as part of a spectrum of human identities, each equally as valid as the other.
Muslims were only ever useful idiots (and don’t we just excel at that role) in this scheme. Once opposition from the non-Muslim mainstream majority had been overcome it was inevitable they would demand that we too submit. That we – and especially our children – affirm not merely our tolerance under the law of LGBTQ lifestyles but furthermore our rejection of any ascription of moral impropriety to them.
Imputing moral deficiency to LGBTQ behaviour and unions is now classified as “hate speech” and an act of “epistemic violence” towards a self-professed identity – which in the postmodernist psyche represents the only unassailable sacredness – and subject, therefore, to sanction.
And though “hate speech” might fall under First Amendment protections in the United States, in practise the ground reality in such a scenario would be nothing less than nightmarish for Muslims. Here in the United Kingdom, where we lack the protection of a written constitution and especially post-Brexit where derogation from the Human Rights Act is a real possibility, the situation would be inordinately worse.
How some came to think that by supporting “the right” of two men to marry each other would further the cause of the Muslim community escapes me. But should any still labour under the delusion that it does, then the recent Twitter exchange between Georgetown University Associate Professor, Jonathan Brown and Nathan Lean, recently awarded a PhD in Theology and Religious Studies from the same institution, should prove instructive. As much as you may be interested in “peaceful co-existence”, they aren’t.
Affirming Islam with no compromise
Our stance as a community should be to affirm clearly and unequivocally the values of Islam, which entails rejecting any compromise on the question of LGBTQ lifestyles and any notion of allyship with its votaries.
While we recognise that Shari’ah is not the law of the lands we inhabit as minority communities and we do not seek to harm or harass those who don’t share our values, we will not accept others imposing theirs upon us.
If there are alliances to be made (as I believe there are) then it ought to be with those committed Jews and Christians who still hold fast to the values enshrined in their scriptures, many of whom are also deeply troubled by the drive to inculcate their children with views antithetical to the doctrines of their respective faiths.
As per claiming one’s rights under the constitution or under statute, then I’m not sure as to what the objection to that might be. If the law of the land gives you a right which Shari’ah also affords, that is to reject the moral propriety of LGBTQ lifestyles, then what precisely is the objection to appealing to it?
If, for example, as has happened here in the United Kingdom, a school violates your legal rights (in this case by inviting a “gay Muslim” onto the premises to hector Muslim children into accepting that the Qur’an doesn’t oppose homosexuality) upon what basis will you appeal to the courts for redress – that they violated your Shari’ah rights?
Furthermore to “acknowledge” someone’s constitutional rights doesn’t imply acceptance of its moral probity. I’m sure many in the United States “acknowledge” the right of Muslims to build masajid and to proselytise their faith, yet utterly reject the moral probity of the same and would, ideally, like to see it revoked.
Where will this all end? Certainly here in Western Europe I believe life will become unliveable for orthodox/traditional/conservative Muslims in the not-too-distant future. Those who are in a position to depart for the Muslim world, I encourage to do so. The rest of us must gird our loins and prepare to (peacefully) fight for our right to adhere to our deen and impart it to our children.
Allah SWT alone is our protector and in Him let the believers place their trust.
This article was first published Da Masked Avenger blog.
