COMMENT We read with interest the letter Religion no excuse to discriminate on sexuality written by Ahmad Fuad Rahmat, representing the Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF), published in Malaysiakini on Nov 14, 2011.

As the article pertains to fundamental issues in Islam, such as the nature of Man, the nature of Good and Bad and of Right and Wrong, the nature of Rights and Freedom, all of which must be understood properly and correctly based upon the guiding principles laid down in the Quran and enacted in the lives of the Holy Prophet PBUH, we feel compelled to respond to several key issues raised in the article, to separate the truth from falsehood, to clarify certain points that have been needlessly obfuscated by the author and finally, to set forth a correct understanding of the issue.

Rights and freedom versus haqq and ‘adl

What constitutes a right? As a language belonging to the family of Islamic languages, the Malay term for ‘right’, hak , is adopted from the Arabic haqq , which stands for both reality and truth. Its opposite is batil , which means non-reality or falsity (Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, Islam and the Philosophy of Science , in Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam, Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC, 1995, pp125-126).

Therefore, what is good is not simply a property of statements or propositions, but has ontological significance in that it refers to that which has real and true existence, while that which is bad is considered illusory, ephemeral and unreal. Indeed, Al-Haqq (The Truth) is one of the 99 Beautiful Names of God as the one who is the antithesis of falsehood, as things may become evident by their opposites (David B. Burrell, Nazih Daher, translation, Al-Ghazali’s Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God , Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 2007, pp124).

The distinctions between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and bad have been laid down by Him and communicated to mankind through Revelation (Quran) and His Messengers. For instance, the quality of mercy is praiseworthy, thus enjoined upon all mankind, not merely because of its practical utility as a social convention, but ultimately because “He (Allah) has decreed upon Himself mercy” [Quran, 6:12].

Therefore, in order for something to qualify as a person’s right, it must be real and true, and it follows that homosexuality (as a treatable psychological state) and deviant sexual practices cannot be regarded as ‘rights’ because they are not in conformity with one’s real and true nature.

Islam conceives freedom as ikhtiyar , which derives from the word khayr , meaning ‘good’, implying true freedom is choosing the good instead of the bad, the better over the worse or the best between two alternatives.

A person who is presented with a choice between what is good and what is bad and proceeds to choose the bad is not exercising real freedom. In truth, the person is trapped within his own ignorance, thus unable to make the right choice in choosing for the better, and in doing so, has committed a grave injustice to his or her own self and others.

On the other hand, human rights as espoused by the West is a product of their collective guilt over past mistreatment and cannot be considered as wholly real and true because they resulted from philosophical speculation instead of being based on Revelation.

The secular Western conception of freedom has failed to address the indignation of man, which later results in him being delegated as a mere animal, thus enabling, to use Freud’s term, “rationalisation” of any moral breakdown.

Even random (but rare) occurrences of homosexual activities engaged by animals observed in the wild or within a controlled environment were used to “rationalise” and justify homosexuality in human beings. Despite the nobility of his spirit and purpose of creation as determined by God, the secular man has chosen to place himself as the lowest of beasts by going against the very purpose for which he was created.

Enjoining the good and forbidding the bad

The author quoted Clause 43 of the Medinah Charter at the beginning of his article, which he writes as “Anyone who is wronged must be helped”.

Firstly, the source of reference for this quote was not mentioned, leaving its original meaning and context cloaked in obscurity, which prevents a proper evaluation of its significance. However, in a paper titled “The Medina Document” written by Ali Bulac, a Muslim intellectual from Turkey, Clause 43 reads as “Neither the Quraish nor those assisting them shall receive protection” and the previous clause (Clause 42) declares that “All cases of murder and fighting that occur among the people designated in this document shall be taken to God and His Messenger Muhammad. God is with those who best obey this document.” (Ali Bulac, “ The Medina Document,” in Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook , ed. Charles Kurzman, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp169-178)

The obvious difference in the wordings between the version quoted by Fuad Rahmat at the beginning of his article with the version of the same clause contained in the paper by Ali Bulac is highly crucial because it impinges upon the accurate meaning of the clause and signals the appropriateness of invoking it as a supporting argument support in contemporary discussions.

Indeed, if the wording and superficial meaning of the clause have been distorted in such a crude manner, then is there any hope that one can recover and grasp the actual meaning of the clause?

Furthermore, if the quotation of the clause is problematic even at the surface level, then what guarantee do we have that Fuad Rahmat had accurately understood the clause and conveyed to us its actual meaning, especially when absolutely no attempt was made to elucidate the context of the clause?

In short, both the content and the context of the clause he quoted at the beginning of his article are seriously compromised, which casts doubt on its validity in relation to the issue concerning sexual discrimination and religion, specifically on the reaction of the government authorities against the organisers of the event Seksualiti Merdeka and on the relationship between Islam and LGBTQ in general.

Secondly, the author did not specify under how, in the light of the discussion over Seksualiti Merdeka, homosexuals practising deviant forms of sex can be counted as people who are wronged.

Since deviant sexual practices in their various forms ( liwat, zina , etc) are considered criminal offences under the Syariah, one does not see a person who is committing such acts as a victim, but rather as a perpetrator of a crime.

Therefore, to assert that people of alternative sexualities should be seen as ‘victims’ when in fact they are fully responsible for their own doing and in control over their choices in life is truly a blatant manipulation of the clause mysteriously culled from the Medinah Charter.

The linguistic deception is even more striking, were one to realise that these acts are committed consensually and not under duress or the influence of intoxicants. Indeed, the sheer illogicality of placing a ‘wrongdoer’ in the same category as a ‘victim’ reflects the confusion that is productive of moral relativism.

The only way to help a person who has committed, or is going to commit a wrong, is by preventing him in the first place. This is alluded to in a Hadith, wherein the Holy Prophet said: “Aid your (Muslim) brother when he is unjust, or when suffering from injustice.” He was asked, “What about when he is unjust, how can I aid him?” He said, “You prevent or forbid him from committing injustice, for this constitutes giving aid to him.” [Sahih Bukhari].

The understood maxim in Syariah is “prevention is better than cure” and that punishments are as much aimed as deterrence and in educating the masses as they is corrective for the offenders.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon Muslims who wish to help their fellow brothers and sisters who are afflicted with the problems of homosexuality to do so by first counselling them against wrongdoing, restraining their sexual thoughts and desires and as a final resort, physically preventing them from committing such acts.

It is quite clear that the Medinah Charter, as cited by the author, refers to “anyone who is wronged must be helped” not “any who has wronged (himself, herself or others) must be helped”. By taking and twisting clause so that it means a criminal must be helped by publicising his freedom to practise homosexuality is against both the spirit and letter of the law.                                                

We are not told how LGBTQs, simply because of their sexual orientations and gender identities, are discriminated and persecuted against. The organisers of Seksualiti Merdeka or even the writer from the so-called Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) have not offered us any data or factual evidence to support claims of discrimination or persecution.

Prying into other people’s privacy is not prescribed under the Syariah, nor is there any government or religious body set up in order to investigate what are inside their thoughts.

Claim to a right to commit crime

Even so, what society can tolerate, much less accept, a person’s claim to a right to commit crime to be publicised in the name of freedom? If convicting a person who has committed homosexual relations amounts to discriminating and persecuting, should we then be expected not to ‘discriminate’ or ‘persecute’ robbers, murderers and rapists, come what may?

Thirdly, the author asserted that the organisers and supporters of Seksualiti Merdeka aim only to “celebrate the human rights of people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities” and not to promote homosexuality and a hedonistic lifestyle.

We may ask, if it is truly meant to create awareness for this group to be treated as human beings, why bother using the name Seksualiti Merdeka, which naturally invites probing inquiries, if not outright accusations in the first place?

Again, it is not within the purview of Muslims to investigate the sexual orientations of people, albeit Christian Spanish Inquisition-style, so why the need promote the interest of this particular group at all? Those who organise and support such an event need to come up clean and not continue this doublespeak.

The self-proclaimed experts on Islam who brazenly offer their opinions online with regard to issues of apostasy and homosexuality in Islam should be firmly reminded that Islam demands that the harmful effects of deviant acts and crimes be minimised and contained, and not be shamelessly publicised for all to see. This is clearly indicated in the following Hadith:

“He who covers a Muslim (his mistakes and shortcomings), Allah will cover him in this world and the Hereafter; Allah will be in the servant’s need, as long as the servant is in his (believing) brother’s need.” (Sahih Muslim)

It is clear that despite the denials of the organisers, the actual spelled intention is the publicising of homosexuality as a way of life.  It is on the agenda of Seksualiti Merdeka to seek into de-criminalising homosexuality, as opposed to the Syariah. By using ‘neutral-sounding’ names, they are preparing the society by ‘de-sensitising’ gradually, so that it will accept homosexuality as a norm and not as a form of evil that it is.

Tomorrow: Platform for deviant sex will open door to more vices

IRB response: Shallow arguments against Seksualiti fest

MUHAMMAD HUSNI MOHD AMIN and WAN MOHD AIMRAN WAN MOHD KAMIL are research fellows at Himpunan Keilmuan Muslim (Hakim).