My Dear Asif
Assalamu alaykum
I thank you for your feedback
on this issue and deeply appreciate the concerns you have voiced in your
email.
While totally agreeing with
your last two points, I would like to express the following in response to the
rest of your email:
1. I do acknowledge that some
parts of the article could have sounded offensive to our religious clergy.
Consequently, in the very next issue of the journal (Sep 05), we published a
public apology for this. However, we must be fair to the author too: The
article is actually a powerful satire, and like all satires it must be
understood in line with its own subtle approach. In my personal opinion, there
is perhaps only one objectionable insinuation in the whole article, and you
yourself have pointed to it: symbolizing our religious clerics by the word
‘‘beards’’. Since this can and has hurt feelings, we deeply apologize for it.
But, would it be just to conclude on the basis of this one instance that the
whole article is nothing but an expression of disdain for the religious
clergy?
2. As far as the issue itself
and the arguments which it discusses are concerned, they have been published
to give an alternative view point on the subject. The column ‘‘Viewpoint’’ of
the journal, as you might be knowing, is reserved for this purpose, and of
course is open to all our readers to present views which may not necessarily
agree with that of the journal.
3. The fact that homosexuality
is a deviant sexual behaviour is unquestionable. We have thus published
answers to questions on this issue to this effect. (For details, one can look
up the Sep/Oct 98, Sep 2000 and Feb 2001 issues of the journal. Let me quote
some portions from the answers I myself have given on this issue:
Aberrations, you see, can be of two types:
congenital or acquired. If they are congenital and also contagious, their
“carriers” should be treated and confined to some rehabilitation centre so
that the deviation does not spread. After all, do we not isolate those born
with AIDS from the society to protect people from them? Similarly, do we not
treat kleptomaniacs and give them allowance? Likewise, do we not treat many
new born babies who are born addicts to heroin because their mothers are
heroin addicts? The important thing is that an effort be made at the
individual and collective level to end such abnormalities. It is definitely
not a sin to be born “addicted” to certain ailments, but surely it is no
virtue not to try to come out of it when one can.
In other words, whether homosexuality is a
genetically compelled phenomenon or not is a discussion which has no bearing
on it being a sexual aberration. So if Dr Elvyn Hooker or other scientists
have conclusively proven that sometimes homosexuality is genetically
compelled, this does not mean that homosexuality is a morally acceptable
behaviour. One must keep in mind that the nature on which the Almighty has
created human beings tends to get perverted in societies where promiscuity and
nudity are rampant. This perversion often manifests itself in human behaviour.
So, if some people are genetically compelled to homosexuality, many are
“environmentally” compelled to adopt it. In either case, a person’s will and
determination and medical treatment may often lead him out.
… and if the problem is congenital as you seem to
claim, then even this does not give you the license to go ahead, for it is not
a sin to be afflicted with a problem, but it sure is one not to make an effort
to get out of it. If there is something truly beyond your capacity, then the
only thing it may warrant is that your accountability in this regard will be
proportionate to the free will you can exercise. Moreover, you should consider
your state as a form of trial and test – the principle on which the Almighty
has created this world. He created people in various moulds in various
circumstances in order to test them and reward them if they succeed in this
test. If He has deprived people from some faculty or some ability, it is to
test them. He has created children who are born blind or handicapped in some
other way. If God is unfair to you, then perhaps He is even more unfair to
such children. I think that the correct way to look at such departures is to
understand scheme of the Merciful Creator on which He has created us, for
though each one of us has different circumstances, yet each one of us has an
equal opportunity to enter the Kingdom of Heaven on the basis of the effort we
make.
4. Let us also take a look at
the way our religious clergy in general have faired in this issue: Every now
and then, we hear of incidents in which a religious teacher has sexually
molested a young boy. This is of course a horrendous act, and deserves as much
condemnation as possible. Such horrific perpetrations may not be the conduct
of the vast majority of our clergy, but does not a vast majority of them often
end up ridiculing, censuring and showing great disrespect to people who have a
proclivity for homosexuality? Instead of showing concern patience and
prudence, do not some of them go as far as far as ex-communicating
homosexuals? I do not entirely agree with you on the fact that the author has
attacked the traditional scholarship in general and has attempted to disparage
it. I think he has grievances against members of our religious clergy who have
perhaps mishandled the issue. To me the author has given vent to emotions
which have boiled because of the fire we ourselves have so injudiciously
ignited.
As a representative of the
religious community, I, in my humble capacity, have in fact tried to make some
amends by at least presenting what such people think, feel and have to face
even if one may not agree with them. Many of them are sincere Muslims and feel
genuinely perturbed at this tendency they find in themselves. They too stand
in prayer by night and whole-heartedly spend in the way of God by day. They
too love their neighbour the way they love their own selves. They might be
nearer to God than many of the righteous we see around us. What right have we
to malign and abuse them and regard them among the ‘‘untouchables’’. Is this
not vanity and over-inflated self-esteem on our part? Are we not crossing the
limits in trying to tell others that they have crossed their limits?
5. I would also like to state
that if a certain issue has not been properly handled (which is the case in my
humble opinion in this issue), then a difference in opinion which has been
expressed in a harsh and derisive tone should be tolerated with magnanimity.
If people have been treated harshly, it is but natural for them to retaliate
harshly. One must try, in such circumstances, to respond to their arguments in
an academic manner and stop feeling offended by the tone. In presenting the
message of Islam, should we measure the morality of our addressees with our
own yardstick? Is not the example of our beloved Prophet (sws) different in
this regard? Do not patience, empathy and affection conquer more than
resentment, rage and anger?
Thank you once again for your
concerns.
Fond regards,
Shehzad Saleem
|