COMMENT Giving the LGBTQ community a platform to voice out their sexual preferences will only open the door to more vices that are detrimental to the morals of society and destroy families.

Also, this act will constitute spreading sin among Muslims and reducing us to a race of donkeys copulating freely by the roadside. Allah has given stern warning to those who advocate immorality, that they will be chastised severely, as the following verse states:

“Indeed, those who like that immorality (fahishah) should be spread (or publicised) among those who have believed, will have a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And Allah knows and you do not know.” (Quran, 24:19)

Bearing that in mind, how can an intellectual group applying the Islamic label to its name openly advocate, in addition to freedom of apostasy among Muslims, the freedom for the LGBTQ community to propagate their views in public sphere baring sensitivities and concerns of the majority, and act in a direct opposition to the above Divine injunction?

“You are the best of peoples raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah;” (Quran, 3:110)]

We must realise that as stated in the verse, in order for “the best of peoples” to emerge, the pre-conditions of enjoining good and forbidding evil must be fulfilled beforehand. Such is the purpose for conception of amar ma’ruf nahi munkar , which aims for the emergence of “the best of peoples”.

“Whoever amongst you sees anything objectionable, let him change it with his hand, if he is not able, then with his tongue, and if he is not even able to do so, then with his heart, and the latter is the weakest form of faith.” (Sahih Muslim)

In light of such commandments, the decision to ban Seksualiti Merdeka fell well within the responsibilities of the authorities, therefore ought to be commended and not condemned - especially given the lamentable failure of groups such as IRF to carry out such responsibilities as instructed by Allah SWT in the Quran.

It would have been truer to the “Islamic” label of IRF if Fuad Rahmat had advocated the rehabilitation of individuals afflicted with homosexual tendencies rather than clamouring for the freedom of these groups to wantonly and overtly trumpet their sexual orientations and practices.

Have they not also considered how Allah recounts the punishment visited upon Prophet Lot’s people for the crimes of homosexuality? How then, in the light of these divine injunctions, does one act in total opposition and still maintain an Islamic label?

Of inclusivity and tolerance

With regard to the author’s call for Malaysians and Muslims to learn to be inclusive, two immediate questions come to mind: What does it mean to be inclusive? What are its proper limits? Being inclusive implies making space for something or somebody (in this case, LGBTQ) within a larger grouping (in this case, Malaysian society). What then is the nature of this ‘space’ being demanded upon?

The word ‘inclusive’ is ambiguous, for it did not specify what sort of ‘place’ ought to be given to Muslim LGBTQs.

Of course, a person who commits a sin is not automatically considered a kafir , for we do not automatically pronounce takfir on somebody who has committed a sin, just like we do not declare a Muslim who drinks alcohol or commits adultery a kafir .

However, that should not be taken to mean that Islam as a religion now condones drinking alcohol and adultery, that drinking and adultery are no longer recognised as sins in Islam, for that implies re-forming (or perverting or distorting) Islam to suit the moral conditions of contemporary society.

It should be noted here that proclaiming takfir upon a sinner and declaring that a sin is no longer a sin are both extreme positions, and it does not bode well for one to swing violently from one extreme position to the other.

The nature of ‘inclusiveness’ that IRF likes to trumpet is not made explicit, although based on the fact that the author appears to advocate a deconsecration of values, and to exalt freedom (which is a neutral term) at the expense of justice (which in contrast, is a morally-laden term), one can safely infer that the vision of ‘inclusivity’ that it seeks to promote is founded upon the following presuppositions:

a) The preservation of the paramount right of an individual over and above his duties and responsibilities to others, for example, other people, the state, the world, God;

b) The exaltation of reason as the ultimate arbiter in moral conduct over and above adherence to religion, traditional wisdom and customs; and

c) The veneration of man's bodily wants over and above his spiritual needs, that is, man as a pure physical animal as described by modern biology and anthropology.

The assertion that open discussion on homosexuality must be informed begs the question as to what extent morality and ethics should find support from the latest discoveries in the fields of the natural and social sciences, which presupposes that these two fields are ‘neutral’ or ‘value-free’, eternally-unchanging and unaffected by the course of history.

But it is inevitable that the interpretations and subsequent directions taken by these two fields are themselves colored by the values, hopes and purpose of the dominant civilisation that produces, practises and propagates it, that is, the values, hopes and purpose of the Western civilisation.

Granted, not all of their values are incongruent to ours, but to uncritically accept foreign values without evaluating their suitableness to the requirements of justice and wisdom, as projected in the worldview of Islam, is just as extreme a position as complete and total rejection of such values.

One may also argue that (i) whatever the West approves of is not always necessarily good for us, (ii) Islam as a religion and civilisation is unlike the West, and (iii) even Western society does not as a whole entertain such LGBT demands, that is, they are individuals and groups that express reservation or opposition against such demands.

Indeed, we affirm that the religion of Islam is fundamentally different from other religions as understood and practised in the West, in that (i) Islam clearly and firmly demarcates between praiseworthy and blameworthy actions in the sight of Allah SWT, to which knowing and pious Muslims must actively conform their utterances and actions accordingly, and (ii) Islam reminds its faithful followers to guard themselves - that includes the intentions in their hearts, the utterances of their tongues and the actions of their physical bodies - and those close to them (family members, friends, neighbours) against any situation that may incline oneself towards committing blameworthy acts.

It follows therefore that every member of a community must actively ensure that the opportunities for committing blameworthy acts is narrowed and restricted, as opposed to ‘normalising’ it by making it public or parading it out in the open, for by closing the doors to evil, one tempers justice (‘adl) with mercy (rahmah) so that anyone would have enough time to contemplate repentance and avoid wrongdoing altogether.

In short, there is an objective moral and ethical standard in Islam, as projected by the Quran and affirmed by the life of the Holy Prophet PBUH, the recognition and acknowledgement of which is signified by a willing submission to its requirements in every aspect of one’s life, whether through the setting of correct intention, the utterance of good words (“A good word is like a good tree”) or the carrying out of meritorious works.

Therefore, Islam renounces any attempt to marginalise and deconsecrate values by violently uprooting such values from the fertile soil of religion, making it subject to the caprices of society, thus reducing all moral and ethical judgments to the level of mere opinions.

Furthermore, Islam does not recognise - as does Western Christianity - the separation between private and public spheres and the subsequent banishment and confinement of religion exclusively to the private sphere. It rejects the claim that the ‘proper’ place for religion is behind closed doors or locked away in the dark recesses of a believer’s heart and mind, and that it must maintain its silence when entering the public arena or that it must throw off its religious garb and suffer the levelling of its values with other opinions - the good, the bad and the ugly - brewing in the public sphere.   

‘Do not conform to the ways of this world’

Fuad Rahmat’s assertion that Seksualiti Merdeka “represents a significant shift from the commonly held attitude among Malaysians that the LGBTQ community should be left to do what they want so long as they do not seek full recognition as active and entitled citizens” is a delusional view.

If these people are already recognised as Malaysians, then they have already been accorded full recognition as citizens. What other full recognition that they require? Normal people do not require such recognition based on their sexuality, so why should we accord special status to people with abnormal sexual preferences?

In addition, publicising one’s sexuality in order to gain sympathy is a wrong way to help individuals with problems of homosexuality because it gives them false recognition and leads them even more astray and misguided. The situation is not much dissimilar to giving free syringe and drugs to a drug addict, wishfully thinking that his condition will improve.

Worse still, if similar advocacy is given to drug addicts to announce publicly their “rights” for a ‘fix’ or invite others to live wretched lives. In truth, nobody can be helped in this way because encouraging wrongdoing will not correct the behaviour when we recognise it as crime. It simply emboldens them to even worse proportions.

It is also a shame to see that the well-meaning words of a prominent Muslim scholar such as Professor Tariq Ramadan were twisted in order to lend support to the so-called ‘freedom’ of the LGBTQ to voice out their sexual preferences in public, when it is clear that he only meant that such groups should be treated with kindness and generosity, just like any other person, and that this should not be taken as condoning such sinful acts.

As for the concern of ex-communication or alienation from society, we have already explained that Malaysian society’s silence over the matter, until issue of Seksualiti Merdeka erupted, is testament that the rights to be treated as human beings are already given and that they are tolerated, so long as they do not openly promote dangerous and sinful lifestyles masquerading as human rights.

Nobody is proclaiming takfir on these groups, so to conjure the spectre of ex-communication or alienation from society or takfir are simply feeble attempts to over-complicate the issue by surreptitiously positing an extreme position with the intention that people will be fearful of it, thus preventing them from even contemplating such a position.

Indeed, if one were to take this position to its final logical outcome, it implies that a harmonious society will be one that does not have any objective moral standards to follow and where every moral judgment is merely a personal and subjective opinion. In short, a society without any law will be the happiest and most harmonious one of all - what imagination!

Indeed, there are many historical instances of societies that manage to be ‘inclusive’ in the true sense of the word (muhibbah, and not tolerance, which simply means “to endure what is unpleasant”) without having to reject religious, moral and ethical standards, such as that of Muslim Spain and Ottoman Turkey, to name a few.

Under the penetrating gaze of a keen observer, the inclusiveness being paraded today is nothing but mere superficiality and not skin deep; it is trumpeted as a matter of political currency having no lasting value because ultimately, it is not predicated upon correct and absolute grasp of human nature ( fitrah ) from which flows the correct and proper recognition and acknowledgement of his rights and duties.

True inclusiveness in Islam is not subject to political whims and fortunes, but founded upon a Quranic injunction, which implies that it is a religious duty, to which Muslims will be accounted for on the Day of Judgment, and not merely a way of winning votes on the Day of the General Election.

“The stream carries on its surface a growing layer of froth...  the froth disappears, but what is of benefit to man stays behind.” [Quran 13:17]

Yesterday : Seksualiti Merdeka: Don't get confused!

IRF's reply: Shallow arguments against Seksualiti fest -

 

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