The Defense Of Marriage Act and a Muslim Response

Should, we, Muslims take a stand on the debate about the rights of gays and lesbian couples?

No, argue a good number of Muslim religious and social opinion-makers. They say that individuals are entitled to have their independent opinions on the issue, but as a community or as a faith we should avoid taking positions because if we take a pro-gay and lesbian approach, we would alienate our own community and lose support among those religious groups that view marriage as defined traditionally and if we oppose gay and lesbian rights, we would lose support among liberals who have stood for our civil rights in the most difficult times of our public life in the country. They even bring in their understanding of the life of the Prophet arguing that he encouraged Muslims to take this neutral path when confronted with difficult choices, especially at a time when the community was its initial stages of its formation: a position that is highly contestable given the nature of the Prophetic message and mission.
The underlying assumption is that people would view our non-decisive attitude positively and would not consider us hostile to them. Naive as it may sound; this approach has several inherent flaws that expose our weaknesses. It gives the impression that as a faith we are not ready to deal with real issues of life. It also creates the feeling that we give priority to political expediency than to a principled stand. It also causes confusion among Muslim youth who find themselves in the midst of debates on these issues daily, it suggests that even though we are part of this society, yet we are not concerned with its issues, it exposes our intellectual insecurities in stating our perspective clearly and above all it pushes us to be dormant when the situation demands that we must be very vocal and active.
We need to understand that the Supreme Court debate is not about the rights of God and humans. It is not about religious morality. It is not about the moral virtues of heterosexuality practiced within the confines of a marriage. Nor it is about the extent of permissibility in matters pertaining to sexuality.  Rather, it is about the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, that defines marriage for federal purposes as between a man and a woman and offers some 1100 benefits to thus defined married couples. This federal law impacts the life of 3.5 percent gays and Lesbian and bi-sexual Americans who have about 700,000 same-sex couple households.
There are 38 states in the USA that have banned same-sex marriage, either through legislation or constitutional amendments, while some six states (Colorado, Delaware, Hawai, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) allow civil unions, nine states (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, and District of Columbia) have legalized same-sex marriage. Obviously, DOMA impacts the life of a substantial number of citizens. 
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion. The DOMA, seemingly, violates this provision by accepting the position on marriage offered by most religions. The federal government should not impose religious beliefs of one over another and it should not give preferential treatment to one at the exclusion of the other. This, in essence, is the debate.

The Muslim position based on the principle of justice and fairness is clear. The constitution that people have given their allegiance to should be the criterion to legally define a position, and if it says that people cannot be discriminated in terms of getting benefits on the basis of their definition of the union then they should not be. The current Supreme Court debate is about the legality of DOMA.  Neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court is authorized to pass its judgment on matters pertaining to religious perspectives. It is the responsibility of religious communities and institutions to defend their belief system. The resources of a pluralistic state cannot be used to defend the position of a religious or many religious groups. If this role is assigned to the federal government then there is no limit to its power as it can do whatever it can on the basis of the rule of majority or in the name of national security.
When it comes to religious understanding of homosexuality, Islam takes a very unwavering position. Sex is within the confines of marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman. If others want to redefine sexuality and marriage within their historical context, they are entitled to it, but they should not accept Islam or Muslims in general to align with their viewpoint.

Discrimination on the basis of one's sexuality and preference over the choice of spouse, however unacceptable to anyone from their religious perspective, cannot be allowed because it violates the religious principle of no compulsion in matters of religion. Islam argues that human beings have been given the faculty of intellect and reason and not forced to adopt a particular set course Hence human beings have been given the discretion to select any one of the courses open to him. However, they should be aware that while their faculties can select a path, they cannot ensure that the selected course is also the right one. The criterion to determine right from wrong is Wahi (revelation) or the divine guidance. Islam believes that God has guided human beings to the right path through His Wahi and then left human beings free to either adopt the right course or deny it (73:3). That is why human beings are held responsible and accountable for their deeds.

Islam does not approve pre-marital or extra-marital sex and sex between the same sexes. It also does not permit sex without marriage. It does not mean that Muslims strictly follow this divine call in their lifestyle. The increasing numbers of prostitutes in the Muslim world, the high number of abortions among unwed girls, the prevalence of homosexuality in Muslim religious, educational institutions are things that no one really wants to talk about it. Despite their prevalence, Islam's position on these moral objectives has been unchanged and would remain unchanged.
But commitment to a particular lifestyle does not give Muslims the right to coerce people believe in what they believe in. It does not give them the license to persecute people because of their sexual orientation. The same rule applies to gays and lesbian and bisexual advocates who must not intimidate Muslims by accusing them of being irrational or anti-progress or conservative.
Muslims should not act on the basis of political expediency. They should always take a principled state. They are not a political group. They are a people that uphold values they claim have divine origin. They are expected to be consistent in their perspectives. They cannot pick and choose on the basis of the opinions of a few individuals or groups, because they are expected to decide things on the basis of their understanding of the divine message and the life experiences of the Prophet.

They are expected to explain their perspectives when it is needed most. Perhaps, we Muslims should have also submitted our disposition to the Supreme Court on this issue explaining our viewpoint on this case. The country does not consist of bigots. The country would understand our perspective provided we speak with sincerity and not on the basis of cost analysis of loss and benefit to any group. After all, the purpose and relevance of Islam is to speak when no one is speaking and to share an Islamic perspective with the full acknowledgement that it can be rejected by people.

Why I must not Question the beheading of Seven men in Saudi Arabia?

On March 13, in Pakistan, the country created in the name of Islam, some unidentified people killed a female social worker in open daylight and in Saudi Arabia, the country that claims to follow the Sharia beheaded seven people found guilty of stealing and armed robbery. The killers in Pakistan did not give any reason for their killing. However, the Saudi Press Agency speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Justice issued a statement that begins with the Quranic verse from Sura Al-Maida: "The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." (5:33)

So, it is obvious that the execution of seven men is based on the Quran and Sunna of the Prophet.
As a conscious human being, I feel saddened by these events taking place in the name of Islam not only in lands with a Muslim majority but also elsewhere.

But why should I question this sentence when it is arguably sanctioned by the Creator and the one who gave His message to humanity?

Why should I look for an alternative meaning of this verse that might lead me to argue that when the Quran talks of cutting off hands or feet, it might be alluding allegorically to physically restrain the criminals?  
Why should I question the judges for not opting for exile in this case?

Why should I argue that the purpose of the state is to create conditions where theft and robbery may become redundant?

Why should I argue that the biggest robbers are those rulers who have taken away the right of people to have a say in matters affecting their lives?

Why should I argue that those who are living in royal palaces are in fact stealing the money from people?
Why should I bother about the Muslim claim that the Prophet is a Prophet of mercy and Allah is a God of compassion?

Why should I even question this sentence when none of those who claim to speak on behalf of Islam are questioning it?

Why should I raise my voice, when the scholars of Islam are silently approving this sentence?

Why should I bother to remind myself that Islam talks of reform, rehabilitation, and repentance?

Why should I even ask if the due process in establishing the guilt of those accused was followed?

Why should I even say that one of the accused was about 14 years of age when he was accused of theft in 2005?

Why should I say that beheading is cruel and God does not like cruelty?
Why should I say that a Saudi preacher found guilty of the murder of his daughter was freed after paying the ransom and the seven thieves were beheaded for stealing jewelry etc.? 

I will do none of the above.

Rather, I would be quiet, not talking anything about this inhumane treatment to the prisoners or anyone else.

I would be quiet because I want to be known as a true believer who sanctions every act done in the name of Islam by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

I would be quiet, hoping I may be invited by Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj or Umra at its expenses.

I would be quiet to ensure that those who support this implementation of Sharia do not condemn me as a non-believer.
I would be quiet to ensure that no harm is done to my family and children by the gatekeepers of Islam.

I would be quiet to ensure that I am recognized as a legitimate Muslim and no one declares me a kafir (rejecter) or murtad (apostate) eligible for yet another beheading.

I would be quiet because everyone else is quiet.

But wait a minute!
Would my silence be accepted by God?

I am not sure.

Muslim Americans can be a model community for Muslims elsewhere  

It is not new to say that Muslims are divided into every conceivable faction. It is not strange to see that Muslims are using physical or verbal violence against each other on the basis of their differences. It is also not uncommon to hear Muslim scholars and leaders, living in a pluralistic society, talk about issues that are totally irrelevant to people other than a segment of the community. For instance, the recent internal community discussions whether the act of wearing trousers below the ankle would be forgiven or punished by the merciful God has no relevance to 97 percent of Americans.

We Muslim Americans have a unique opportunity to focus on issues that are relevant and useful for society in general. If we heed to the divine call of consultations, we can create a positive example for Muslims all over the world.

We know now the organizations that speak for Islam in America. We know now the activists, scholars, and writers who are deeply concerned about Islam and Muslims. We also know now the issues that our community and the country face.

How about developing a consultative methodology to help us develop a unified understanding of any issue?

Take, for instance, the issue of gun violence in our country. What if a group like ISNA takes a lead in inviting Muslim leaders and organizations to discuss this issue and produce a position paper that can be shared with the community and the rest of the country?  What if ISNA or any other Muslim organizations invite various Muslim groups and sects to discuss issues such as Shia-Sunni conflict, Sharia or women’s rights, etc. and develop a position paper?

Even if we fail to develop a unified position we can at least understand the nature of the differences that exist among ourselves and then address them later to seek some sort of reconciliation. This methodology may enable us to appreciate each other’s perspective and points of view as well as develop an affinity among our leaders. It would restore the confidence of people with the ability of our leaders to resolve their differences. Above all, a unified voice on key issues concerning the community and the country would also educate the general public about our stand on matters relevant to them.

This methodology might help us to overcome the differences that we have been living with for centuries. It would provide a peaceful forum for our scholars and leaders to iron out their conflicts.

In these days of high-speed communication, it is not difficult to consult each other on a regular or emergency basis.

How can we implement this proposal? Let us ask ISNA or ICNA leadership to invite Muslim leaders and activists to a forum in their upcoming conventions on gun violence in addition to experts on the issue regardless of their religious background. Let the forum deliberate this issue and then develop a position paper. Such a position paper, then, should be circulated among the ranks and files of each of the participating groups and after their input, a final statement may be prepared.

This is the methodology that our Prophet used in designing the constitution of Medina in consultation with the tribes of Median, Muslims and Non-Muslims together.

When we apply this methodology regularly, it would become part of our organizational culture to use consultation as a necessary tool to develop a unified position. It does not mean that we will have a consensus on every issue. All it means that we can focus on points that we all agree and then acknowledge the differences and leave them for the future leadership to address them afresh. After all, our behavioral scientists tell us that 95 percent of differences and conflicts come from our gestures and tone of voice and inability to communicate with each other. Only five percent happen to be differences on the basis of our opinions.

Bangladesh Crisis: The wounds are still green

What happened in the then East Pakistan in 1971 was shameful and what has been happening in 2013 in Bangladesh is painful.  Forty-two years separate the two eras, but the wounds are still green and the desire to seek vengeance has not died. Some leaders of Jamat -e- Islami, Bangladesh, are facing the death penalty for their alleged role in crimes against the then citizens of Pakistan. The present leadership is protesting the court verdicts and organizing demonstrations all over the country. Some have resulted in violence causing deaths and destruction.

Is there any way to ease the tension and bring to a closure the sad chapter in the history of the people of Bangladesh? Will the hanging of a few individuals who are in their 80s and 90s healing the wounds of those who suffered during the war of independence?  Does being Muslim mean anything to those who are involved in this conflict?

There is a precedent in the history of Islam where a conflict similar to the one Bangladesh is facing today was resolved in a peaceful and humane way. Perhaps a reference to that might help the people and leadership of Bangladesh to overcome their emotions in a rational way.

The Prophet Muhammad and those who accepted his message were persecuted in Makkah. They suffered torture, murder, exile, and aggression for almost 20 years. Their property was confiscated by the leaders of Makkah and their honor and dignity were defiled on a regular basis. The Makkans instigated local communities in Medina to foment trouble for the Muslim community. They even conspired to kill the Prophet and divide the community.

Yet, when Makkah finally opened itself to the Prophet and the people of Makkah accepted the leadership of the Prophet, he offered a general amnesty including those who were known for their crimes against Muslims.

The similarity is not in the nature of the two situations. One was driven by nationalistic motives while the other was more of the universal values. The similarity was more in actions to the ideas. It cannot be denied that the Pakistan army, crossed its own set rules in dealing with a population that was seeking better representation in matters that impact its life.  It indulged in actions that can easily be described as anti-Islam and anti-divine.

Similarly, it is also true that the leadership of Jamat -e- Islam, rather than trying to bring about a truce among the fighting groups, was supportive of Pakistani military action in Bangladesh and many of its prominent members were involved in orchestrating violence against innocent men, women and children.

However, after the liberation of Bangladesh, they accepted the leadership and showed their commitment to the preservation of the newly emerged state with all their resources.

During the past 42 years, they have proven their loyalty to Bangladesh. Perhaps, those who are in power now should act in a more sensible manner by offering a general amnesty to all those who may be implicated in crimes against their fellow citizens. On the other hand, the Jamat-e-Islamic should also admit its wrongdoings in the war of independence and seek an apology from the nation for those unjustifiable acts that haunt the memory of those who suffered them.

The verdict against the Jamat leaders should not be used a license to violence.  The violent demonstrations and unnecessary destruction of the people’s property and the killing of innocent individuals are acts that cannot be justified. The Jamat claims to be an organization built around Islamic values. Rather than resorting to street politics, they should enter into a dialogue with those who still view them as a party associated with the oppressors. The Jamat has a new leadership in Bangladesh that cannot be held responsible for the decisions of their predecessors. But the way its new leadership is reacting to the situation indicates that it has not yet learned the lessons from the mistakes of its past