COMMENT As it stands, it is overwhelmingly clear that same sex relations, indeed anything beyond the known standards of heterosexuality, are not acceptable in Islam.

The question now remains as to what kind of relations Muslims are to have with members of the LGBTQ community.

This appears to be where the intra-Muslim polarities on this issue really reveal themselves. Some have called for a hesitant peace: let them do whatever they want as long as they remain second class citizens without formal rights.

A very few have openly allowed for the event to go on, but rightly or wrongly, no one has presented a radical re-reading of the canon that may change the majority of Malaysian Muslim public opinion, which views Seksualiti Merdeka with much unease, to say the least.

The debates show no sign of resolution anytime in the known future and this article is certainly not attempting that.

However, it will be useful to at least clarify the problem in light of the frenzy and noise and the fallacious arguments that have been made in the process.

Whatever it is that may be said of Islam and modernity or sexuality, Islam is unconditionally at the end of the day a religion of reason, aiming to enlighten, rather than to confuse or disrupt, society.

It is in that spirit of reasoned debate that the following errors in arguments that have emerged out of the Seksualiti Merdeka controversy are listed and addressed.

Error 1:

Supporting sexual freedom among consenting adults is the same as supporting rape and theft.

"Kempen dan menuntut hak kebebasan yang mudaratnya menceroboh hak orang lain dan menimbulkan ketegangan majoriti ahli masyarakat PATUT DITEGAH, seperti hak kebebasan untuk mencuri hak cipta orang lain, seks dengan anak sendiri, seks dengan lembu dan binatang orang lain, kebebasan untuk menghina dan mengutuk agama lain dan pelbagai sepertinya." - Dr Zaharuddin Abdul Rahman, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa academician.

It has been clear from the very outset, that the demand for sexual freedom articulated by Seksualiti Merdeka is quite specific: members of Malaysia's LGBTQ community ought to be free to pursue intimate relationships with one another as consenting adults. The important concept is here is consent, whereby two mature adults agree to be in an intimate bond with one another.

It should be clear that this is in no way related to any endorsement of rape, pederasty or bestiality, which exceed, in fact disregard, the bounds of adult consent. The violation of consent is also the reason why theft is wrong. Therefore the plea from Seksualiti Merdeka is not in any way analogous to other heinous crimes.

Error 2:

The demand for sexual freedom is tantamount to the demand for absolute freedom.

"Kita bersetuju dengan kebebasan bersuara namun mestilah wujud limitasi dan hadnya, begitu juga dengan hal kebebasan seksual ini."

- Dr Zaharuddin Abdul Rahman, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa academician.

It makes perfect sense to think that total freedom from all legal boundaries will disrupt society. This is why speech that incites violence or racial hatred cannot be left unchecked. This is why laws against libel and slander also exist, to ensure that the freedom of expression cannot simply be abused to taint the reputation of innocent individuals.

A very specific demand

The demand from Seksualiti Merdeka, however, is very specific (see previous entry). At the risk of overstatement, we will find nothing at all as radical as a demand for the abolishment of all laws, or for total anarchy.

What is called for is the freedom among consenting adults to be applied equally to the LGBTQ community. It is a question of legal and philosophical consistency: the LGBTQ community in Malaysia has never infringed on the sexual preferences of heterosexuals, why should heterosexuals then infringe on their rights?

Error 3: The demand for sexual freedom is self-centred.

"Tuntutan dan kempen hak kemanusian untuk kebebasan seksual adalah terlalu self-centred dan selfishness tanpa memikirkan kesan negatif kepada kehidupan kemasyarakatan, ahli keluarga individu yang terlibat dan ahli komuniti."  Dr Zaharuddin Abdul Rahman, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa academician.

To be selfish is to stop others from pursuing what they want for our own benefit. To be selfless is to ensure that everyone gets some share of their interests and demands. To imply that the LGBTQ community is self-centred would make it sound as if they are the ones stopping us from living our lifestyle. Indeed, in this controversy, it is they who are demanding us to be less self-centred.

Error 4:

Homosexuality can lead to large-scale disruptions on the well-being of the Muslim community.

"Jika kebebasan memilih pasangan yang ingin diperjuangkan oleh penganjur sehingga tidak mengapa lesbian dan gay, cuba bayangkan seluruh lelaki dan wanita di dalam negara ini menjadi ‘lebsian' dan ‘gay', maka adalah jika diandaikan berlaku di dalam large scale, adakah ia bakal membawa sesuatu yang bermanfaat dan baik serta terpuji, hasil kerana dari kebebasan itu? Jika baik, bagaimanakah kaedah untuk mendapatkan anak di waktu itu?, adakah itu normal atau sebenarnya suatu penyakit? Jika penyakit wajarkah ia dikempen kepada ramai melalui program besar-besaran sehingga boleh memudaratkan?"  -  Dr Zaharuddin Abdul Rahman, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa academician.

This argument commits what is known as the slippery slope fallacy. It assumes, with little evidence or reason, that one thing can lead to a rather long series of events.

In dealing with such claims in regards to Seksualiti Merdeka we should keep in mind two indisputable facts:

1) Homosexuality is not a new phenomenon. It has existed, and in fact was tolerated in many cultures, throughout history with absolutely no threat to the extinction of heterosexuals.

2) Homosexuality is already protected as a right in many Western countries for decades. This has not halted new births.

There is no opportunity cost to society if homosexuals are left alone to pursue their lives.

Error 5: Human rights are artificial.

"The current movement championing the human rights of the homosexuals is actually the result of a feeling of guilt of the modern Western civilisation - represented by the current Western intelligentsia, think-tanks and policymakers - towards the treatment meted out by its past civilisation, represented by the clergy, against this group. This is especially true prior to the French Revolution which has arguably transformed the whole worldview of the West." - Abdar Rahman Koya

The French Revolution did produce and strengthen philosophical claims for the establishment of a secular polity, which in turn provided one of the key frameworks for human rights as we currently talk and think about them. The question of whether or not it holds any legacy for Muslims remains an open debate up to now, and rightly so.

But to somehow claim that guilt has been the primary motivation underlying human rights is false. Indeed one writer making this claim provided no data to substantiate it, going so far as to liken defenders of LGBTQ rights with Zionist sympathisers.

In short, rights offer the philosophical bases to justify the free association of citizens in a political community. They aim to enable, as much as possible, all segments of society the freedom to express themselves without breaching the overall unity and stability of the community.

Rights enable us to speak to be heard

Among other things, rights enable us to speak to be heard, and others the chance to respond. This, ideally, would produce a culture of rational debate, wherein the most educated arguments would succeed.

It goes without saying, of course, that the presence of rights themselves does not immediately solve all problems that a community might face. Rights, when upheld properly, merely enable a more tolerant circumstance wherein such problems can be dealt with openly and peacefully.

Human rights are principles to be upheld in order to enable a process of rational debate towards a society that is inclusive of difference.

Should arguments that call for human rights to be dismantled - arguments that effectively stand against the freedom of others - be granted rights as well? What is freedom, exactly? At what point does inclusivity work against itself?

These remain key questions in political philosophy (namely, in the discourse ethics of Habermas and Benhabib), which aim to explore the inherent flexibility (or lack thereof) of modern notions of human rights.

Muslims already committed to an unthinking vision of Muslim supremacy against the eternal evils of the Western civilisation would, of course, view such questions as unnecessary chores - but they ignore them at their own peril, especially as the Islamic world remains far behind the rest in dealing with the most important questions facing mankind, and discovering the new horizons therein.

 

AHMAD FUAD RAHMAN is a research fellow with the Islamic Renaissance Front.