Moon Sighting to Moon Fighting

Some time ago when the Sultan of Turkey decided to introduce electricity in the Mosque of the Prophet, the religious scholars and leaders opposed it on the ground that something created artificially cannot occupy a sacred place. It was not different than the opposition, the scholars raised to the printing press when it was first introduced. They, in fact, banned the printing of the Quran and declared it haram (not permissible). Then the loudspeaker was introduced and the religious scholars opposed its use in Masajid saying that the voice radiating from it is artificial. Then the television was introduced and Muslim scholars called it the daughter of Satan and then the internet also met the same fate.

At every turn of human progress, the so-called Muslim religious scholars have always created major obstacles causing immense loss to people who followed them. The irony is that when the progress bulldozes them and make them irrelevant, they succumb to the changes and shamelessly accept them denying vehemently their own earlier stance. For instance, the traditional religious scholars of Islam in India were opposed to the learning of English language and they even called it an act of disobedience to Allah, yet their descendants are not only living in English speaking countries but also making appeals for funds in the English language. In fact, their sustenance is dependent upon their knowledge of English. 

There is only one word that describes their attitude: hypocritical. Our community is led in religious matters, by and large, by those who are hypocritical in their attitudes. A hypocrite is the one who acts on the basis of self-interest in matters involving people and changes his or her position accordingly.

As long as the leadership of the community is in their hands, Islam would remain a stranger for Muslims and an irrelevant faith to people in general. 

They and people like them are the ones responsible for the current sorry state of affairs of Muslims in the world. They are the ones who get the podium week after week and they are the ones who run our Islamic centers and masjid. In the words of the Quran, "Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path). (2:18) 
Their attitude to change is best described in the Quran in the following verse when it says "

"When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah has revealed:" They say: "Nay! We shall follow the ways of our fathers." What! Even though their fathers Were void of wisdom and guidance? (2:170)

Their attitude is based on their defiance of the Quran and the Uswa (example) of the Prophet

They are still adamant in their refusal to acknowledge the supremacy of the Quran and the way the Prophet implemented it. Moon sighting is one such issue that has become a moon fighting issue. A few years ago, a scholar of Islam refused to lead the Taraweeh prayer on the first night of Ramadan, saying that according to his school of thought, the moon has not been sighted and the method of calculation to determine the new month is haram (prohibited).

A simple act of determining the birth of the new moon has been presented in such a complicated manner by these scholars, that the entire Muslim world has been living under its curse for ages. The purpose of moon sighting as explained by the Prophet was not moon sighting itself, but it was to determine the birth of new moon to begin the new month in a scientific and calculated manner according to the tools of the time of the Prophet. The prophet knew the Quranic verse that says clearly: “It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light, and measured out stages for it (moon); that you might know the number of years and the calculations. (10:5) and his main objective was to ensure that unlike his tribal practices, Muslims should not fall to the trap of arbitrarily deciding the number of months or days of months.  In order to make his point clear about the purpose of moon sighting, the Prophet further elaborated that if you don't see the new moon on the 30th of the month, start the new month the following day. So simple and so pragmatic. In other words, determine the beginning of the month with accuracy. 
In our time, Allah has given us tools in astronomical science to determine the birth and sighting of the new moon. If we do not use it, we are not only denying the laws of Allah but also defying Him. And this is what is precisely happening in the Muslim world for centuries. No one is willing to take a stand on this issue because of the culture of intimidation these leaders have created. Any challenge to their position is easily turned into a challenge to God and anyone who challenges God is either ex-communicated or killed. The profanity of these so-called scholars has contaminated the mind of our youth who have been given a false understanding of faith.

Yet the so-called protectors of Islam, i.e., scholars have turned this simple act into a major conflict on moon sighting. Now every year, thousands of hours are wasted in deciding something that can easily be calculated according to the laws of Allah and about the laws of Allah in a disciplined manner. Nothing that is happening in the physical universe is happening without his laws and knowledge. We human beings are discovering his laws, according to our level of understanding. For almost 8,000 years we believed that the earth was flat, but we never longer now, because we have acquired the knowledge that was already in existence in the universe.

But our religious scholars say no to this knowledge and defies Allah and his laws by saying one does not need to understand these laws and use them for the purpose of improving one's life. Unfortunately, we have given them the responsibility of raising our younger generations. Our youth has been handed over to them like sheep and the future of Islam has become tied to their status and position. Their magical spell on people is as such that despite being rational in all matters of life, people refuse to see the absurdity of these scholars in their arguments.

In our world today, the so called religious scholars are the biggest impediment in developing a simple and accurate understanding of the Quran. They are defying God by reciting his words and they claim they are the protectors of religion. The Quran describes them aptly when it says: "The similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of Allah. and Allah guides not people who do wrong."(62:5)

A New Quran Center in Delhi

In the Zakir Nagar colony of New Delhi, a new Quran center has made a very humble beginning. Started by the sitting principal of Delhi's oldest college, the Delhi College, the Center offers free coaching classes to class six and class ninth and tenth students in mathematics, science, vernacular language, and social studies. There is nothing unusual about teaching these subjects, but what is unusual is that students would also have to spend one hour learning the meaning and message of the Quran. They would be required to take tests, if they fail in the Quran test, the privilege of tuition-free coaching would be withdrawn.
The new center is run by the Yumna Quranic Education Trust. This is the first effort of its kind anywhere in the world where students are encouraged to study the Quran with meanings combined with modern education curricula. There are several unique features of this center.
1. The money was not raised through fundraising appeals. Dr. Mohammad Aslam Pervaiz donated his hard-earned money to purchase the building and he assumed the responsibility of taking care of its running expenses.
2. Not a single dime was taken from any of the existing religious institutions or government agencies or foreign organizations. No Qatar, no United Arab Emirates, no Kuwait, and no Saudi Arabian money are involved in running this center.
3. The Quran Center does not belong to any school of thought or ideology. It has no loyalties other than the loyalty to serve Allah and His prophet and the people.
4. Its emphasis is on the understanding of the message of the Quran in a language that is understood by the students easily.
5. It is not dependent upon its survival on anyone other than on the one in whose name it is initiated, i.e. God Almighty.
6. It is not an intellectual exercise on the part of a few individuals, but a bold effort to impart the meanings to those who are sure to play effective roles in the upcoming generations of Muslims.
7. The idea is to duplicate this type of center to different parts of India depending on the need.
8. It is meant to help students improve their life on the basis of the teachings of the Quran.
The center is the logical culmination of two annual Quran conferences that took place in Delhi in 2011 and 2013 under the leadership of Dr. Pervaiz.The Center would ensure that these conferences are organized regularly not only in Delhi but in different parts of India as well.

In the Muslim world where the Quran has been reduced to the level of memorization, recitation, and reading without understanding, there is this bold effort to communicate the message to the younger generation of the grassroots. While memorization, recitation and reading are good, they are not the main purpose of the Quran. If this was the case, Allah would have revealed the rules of Tajweed along with the Quran. The rules of tajweed were developed by people who later came to be known as a scholar. They were based on the linguistic and sound notation rules to ensure that their recitation creates an impact on the heart. The main purpose of the Quran was and is to understand divine guidance and live one's life accordingly.
This is the purpose that one finds missing in most institutions created to teach the Quran. Recently, in fundraising, the director of a Quran Institute boasted that his school has produced 100 plus huffaz (those who memorize the Quran) in the last 15 years. How many of them really understand the Quran and grasp its meaning. He did not like the question and even memorization brings huge rewards. When you have a culture in established Islamic schools, that the Quran is not a book to be understood, how can you extract any guidance from it?
The ideal situation is that people understand the Quran in the language in which it is initially revealed. Yet in the last 1400 year history of Muslims, it did not happen. But until that happens the guidance cannot be postponed or understood through secondary or third sources. It has to be understood directly from the Quran and from the Prophet. This Center is making this task easier for our younger generation, at least in India.
The Center is also establishing the example that knowledge cannot be split into secular and religious. All knowledge is created by the Creator and hence without the one, the other is incomplete. Let us hope that this new effort succeeds and help our younger generation, at least in India to grow under the shade of the Quran to live a life that is meaningful and worthy of living.
The address of the Center is:
The Quran Center
244/5 Zakir Nagar, New Delhi 110025

Where are they? The Shia and Sunni leaders

The debate about the events some 1400 years ago that resulted in the martyrdom of Imam Hussain is still on in Muslim leadership circles all over the world. Each describes the other as deviant, unworthy of Islam and a violator of Islam's fundamental principles. Each justifies violence against the other to please God, they both believe in and each denounces the other as the worst enemy of Islam. Extremists on both sides are not tired of accusing each others' most revered personalities of crimes against them.
Yet, the religious leaders of both communities constantly engage in rhetoric reminding its followers that the Islam they preach is the most tolerant and the most peaceful religion.
Majority of Muslims that are not involved in this conflict among leaders is bewildered and often tends to believe that all these acts of violence are engineered by some hidden powers, including the not so hidden US, Israel, India, and Great Britain and many others. A few are willing to admit that there is a serious theological, political and social problem in relations between Shias and Sunnis.and those committing acts of violence are Muslims belong to either of the two communities.
The debate about Caliphate as championed by many Sunnis and Imamate as promoted by the Shias is irrelevant in our times. Even in places like Saudi Arabia, a 100 percent Muslim majority country with Sharia laws does not claim itself to be a Caliphate and the Shia Iran still waits for the arrival of its hidden Imam to return. Yet, in the name of their sects, both have been killing each other for long.
Non-Muslims have a right to ask this: "If Muslims cannot tolerate their internal differences and do not know how to handle them peacefully, how can we be assured that they would not act violently against others with whom they might have fundamental theological and religious differences?"
No one can resolve the differences that have existed among Shias and Sunnis forever. Even those who are considered the most pious among Muslims, i.e., the companions of the Prophet or their followers were engaged in these differences. So what can be expected from those who are living the legacy of their predecessors?
So what can be done?
Differences cannot be resolved, but the violence can be controlled. Rather than resorting to violence, the leadership of the two communities can engage in a serious, peaceful dialogue built on the fundamental divine principle that human life is sacred and it cannot be harmed. This is possible when those who are considered great spiritual leaders of the two communities instruct their followers that violence is not permitted in Islam and human beings cannot be killed for their theological differences.
The leadership has to repeat this message from every pulpit and vow to protect human life. It is possible to achieve peace between the two communities, but it requires a new style of leadership. This new style demands that leaders stop playing God and act as servants of God, whose obligation is to ensure the sanctity of human life of not only Muslims but of all others.
Without that, it is almost impossible to control the forces of violence unleashed by the hatred that has been nurtured for centuries in the name of Islam.
At people's level, we can stop promoting those leaders who talk the divisive language and incite them against the others. It is a difficult task, nevertheless, it is doable. At least in the US, those who are Shias and Sunnis can prevail upon their religious leaders to refrain from using a language of hatred and violence against each other.

A Salute to America

There, in the small curvy streets of the hill town Kathmandu, the Capital of Nepal, a few girls are being introduced to other residents of that small house. They all have one thing in common. Until they met, they were all living like slaves bought by their owners in India, Bangladesh or Pakistan. An elderly woman was instrumental in buying them back from the owners and bringing them to the house, she had prepared from her own money. Many of these girls came from Islamic and Hindu backgrounds.
No, that woman is not a Nepalese. Nor she is a Muslim or a Hindu. She is a white American woman who moved to Nepal to help these enslaved women buy their freedom. Once the girls are freed, she teaches them skills that would help them stand on their own feet financially. She teaches them dignity and living in harmony with others. She encourages them to continue to follow their faith.
Why?
Then there is this young man who was deployed in Pakistan in 2005 to assist the earthquake victims. Subsequently, he formed the Community Disaster and Relief Services and decided to settle in Pakistan to provide relief to deserving communities in Pakistan. With over 100 employees and hundreds of volunteers, this young man has devoted his life to educating the poor, the neglected and disadvantaged children so that they face the future challenges of life effectively. He left his well settled life in the US to live in conditions that many upper class rich Pakistanis would not identify with.
Why?
Then in Las Vegas, there are these 10 or 12 young men and women who take time from their busy professional life and go to Chennai, India, to live among young lepers who they clean with their own hands and who they teach music so that they can take pride in their own abilities despite the stigma that society attaches them.
Why
There are hundreds of Americans who have volunteered their life and resources to help the poor and the neglected mostly in the Muslim world. They are unknown to Muslims with the exception to their beneficiaries.
Then there is this group of immigrants who moved from Pakistan or India or Bangladesh to this country in the late 60s and made a life for them on the basis of their hard work and integrity. Now they are spending their resources in building schools in various smaller towns of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh to help educate the poor and the needy.
Why?
They do this because they believe in the goodness and they believe in serving humanity. Perhaps the verse of the Quran, “you are the people whose task is to serve and secure the good of the people,” applies to them most appropriately. Perhaps they are the ones who deserve at least silent thanks for each one of us as they do not want to be recognized for what they do.
They are there serving people regardless of 9/11 or 7/7 or violence that often permeates in Pakistan and Iraq or other parts of the world. They are there as a sign from God that good and evil are not equal and if someone is doing wrong, good should always be given the priority.
Many Muslims blame America for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and Muslims criticize America for drone attacks. But Muslims are not the only ones who feel this way. Millions of Americans have made their rejection of the military adventures in the past and continue to do so. But these Americans do not punish fellow Americans for the mistakes in foreign policies. They never abandon their commitment to good.
Can’t we Muslims be more rational, realistic and fair in our assessment of what the citizens of this country have been doing in different parts of the word? Can’t we Muslims be appreciative of them and remember them in our prayers for the good they are contributing and can’t we Muslims join their hands to strengthen their work rather than being critical of America always?
But this is the America we Muslims rarely talk in our institutions and homes. This is not how Muslim groups and parties in the Muslim world introduce America to their followers. They pick on everything that is negative in America while ignoring their own ills.
Don’t you think that these Americans deserve a salute from all of us, and don’t you think that we are blessed to be among people who have goodness in their action and no amount of negative talk about Islam prevents them from continuing to do what they have been doing.

Boston Bombing and Muslims: The inability to handle the dissent effectively is the main cause of violence

Every time an act of terror is attributed to a Muslim, the debate about Islam, Muslim history, culture and relationship with the West or the non-Muslim world becomes dominant in our academic circles, homes and the media. Muslims argue that the action of a few cannot be used to judge their community, while many non-Muslims view all Muslims as potential terrorists.

Both are right to a certain degree. If someone commits an act of terror in the name of a faith or an ideology, however, twisted their logic may be, what is the guarantee that others belonging to that ideology or faith would not follow the same behavior? Similarly, why is it that an entire community is punished and defined in the image of a few criminals, unknown to the community.

The failure to understand the causes of such behavior on the part of isolated individuals and groups would always lead us to behave in a manner that would further complicate the issue. Both, the Muslims and their critics need to evaluate their responses to incidents of terror when they occur.
Non-Muslims need to understand that Muslims are not a monolith group. Their diversity is self-evident in their divisions on social, ethnic, cultural, political and economic lines. They do not have a single leader. They are not represented by a single organization and no single group can claim to speak on their behalf. Often the differences among them are the manifestation of the power play of the opposing groups. They even have differences in their understanding of their scriptures on key issues. However, the general consensus among Muslims is that human life is sacred and it must be respected. If one acts contrary to the general belief, then, it should be considered an isolated action and the entire community cannot be held accountable for that.

The Boston bombing explains this clearly. Two brothers acting in isolation acted arbitrarily on the basis of their understanding of their faith and history and committed what Muslims rightly describes crime against humanity. Their action should be considered a deviation from the norm.
However, Muslims have to look at their own community critically and understand why do individuals commit these acts. The one issue that Muslims have often failed to handle effectively is the issue of dissent. How should they resolve the differences within them and with others? Despite the fact that the scriptures of Islam and the lifestyle and teaching of Prophet provide ample guidance to deal it effectively, Muslims have often responded to their differences in a tribal, feudal or conflicting manner. Dissent frowned within the community. Critical questioning is discouraged by many. Those who take an opposing viewpoint are either ostracized or isolated or even declared non-Muslims. It is not uncommon to see Muslims refusing to pray behind fellow whom they differ in details. Rarely one finds a Shia Imam leading the prayer of Sunnis and vice versa.

In our books of jurisprudence, the dissent is often punishable by death. Our history is a witness of the sectarian violence that has been led by religious leaders on the basis of their differences in the details of the faith. The war between Iraq and Iran is a testimony of that juristic style where both parties first declared each other non-Muslim and then engaged in mass killing on the basis of their readings of the Quran. In our history of the earliest Muslims, we read about wars among the companions of the Prophet on the basis of their political differences. The violence against the grandson of the Prophet is evidence of that methodology of dealing with differences arbitrarily on the basis of power play.

The use of this methodology where violence is justified against the opponent is malice, we have been living for centuries and it must be handled tactfully and directly by our generation of Muslims. The Quran is against violence. It describes war a reprehensible act. It invites people to peace and reminds the believers that the best way to resolve the difference is not to act on the basis of the feelings of revenge or anger, but on the basis of understanding others viewpoint or forgiveness or responding wrong with right. It even quotes the prophet when he was asked to tell those who were opposed to his ideals:
"O messenger tell your people “You may do whatever you choose; I will not interfere. On the other hand, do not interfere with my program. The results will soon show to whom success will eventually belong. Allah’s law is those wrong doers can never prosper.” (6:135) or 

"Remember! Deeds which create balance and harmony in society and in one's own self, cannot be like the actions which create chaos.  If disorder and chaos has affected society, the best way to get rid of these would be to do more constructive work.  (This would offset the ill effects of their misdeeds and stop further deterioration.  It would have one more advantage that) The severe enmity or hatred that has developed between yourself and the one who was responsible for creating disorder, would turn into a close friendship." (41:34)

The Quran suggests that dissent must be acknowledged and accepted.  It is thus imperative that we address this issue effectively. Unfortunately, the community, by and large, ignore the scriptures when it comes to seeking guidance. It accepts the interpretation of individuals in defining God and his message. It is a common practice among Muslims to quote this scholar or that scholar in defining verse of the Quran while ignoring the text. A great majority of Muslims lack a meaningful, direct connect with their scripture and the messenger, Prophet Muhammad. They rely on the understanding of the scholars of the divine guidance and the life of the messenger without attempting to directly relate to the Quran. The Quran for them has become a book to seek the blessings and not guidance. Thus, in crucial issues such as respecting human life, freedoms of expression, they tend to rely more on the opinions of those scholars who were influenced by their history, culture, and politics. It seems that they have left the task of following the Quran to the Prophet, while they are satisfied with their loyalty to their scholars and parties.

It is, thus, imperative that we address this issue urgently reminding ourselves of the ultimate purpose of the divine guidance that in the words of the Quran is to create a disciplined, non-anarchic society where the interests and dignity of all are secured and guaranteed, where Muslims' presence in communities the live with is a source of comfort and peace. This would happen when they assure them that they can live with each other peacefully without resorting to even a language of violence accepting the differences. Unless that happens, we should be prepared to suffer the consequences of violence for a long time.

Should We dialogue with Islamophobes?

Islamophobes in the US are well known through their regular columns, speeches, and talk shows. They include people from all races and ethnic groups as well people of non-Islamic religions. Among them are also those who claim to be former Muslims, as well as Jews, Christians, Hindus, atheists, and liberals. Their arguments are well known and the responses of Muslims are also well-publicized or documented. Perhaps an innovative approach is needed to address the issue as we cannot live in a state of perpetual fear and hostility. Muslims through their organizations, local, regional or national, should invite the well-known critics or Islamophobes for dialogue either directly or through interfaith councils moderated by a neutral person. The agenda of such a dialogue should be well defined and a code of ethics as well prepared. The purpose of the dialogue should be to understand and seek clarifications as well as explain and clarify concerns. Regardless of the outcome, the doors for the dialogue must remain open for the future.

Such an approach might help both the groups to at least disagree with respect and dignity. The accusations against Islam and the clarification given by Muslims are documented, but a face to face dialogue might help both to see the human face of the other. In our civilized world, a dialogue is the only way to understand and clarify alternative positions.

As Muslims, we should not expect all to agree with our theology or religious perspectives. We cannot demand that people should view the world from our angle. All we can hope is that our angle or perspective is better understood by others.

We are not naive to believe that the accusations against Muslims and Islam are the outcome of serious and sincere efforts of others to understand Islam and Muslims. There are those who are acting as agents of other groups who have remained in the background, but there are certainly those who are genuinely concerned about certain issues related to Islam. The door of dialogue must not be closed to anyone as this is the only way forward in our world.

Even if the other party refuses to join us in dialogue, we can at least tell those who are watching the two groups with anxiety and fear that we made efforts to clarify our position. Perhaps this path of dialogue would open new avenues for us and we can play a more proactive role in defining ourselves rather than being defined by others.

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.