Well, India has become the latest in the list of ‘enlightened’ countries which are allowing homosexuality in the name of equality. And we have so many ‘intellectuals’ among us who advocate accepting this, as it is ‘hereditary’, ‘natural’ and what not.
The immediate provocation for this blog was actually an article that appeared in a leading newspaper which quoted someone named 'Saleem Kidwai, author of Same Sex Love in India, a Muslim'. In that article, he says, “I can quote numerous examples of Muslims, including saints and poets, who were venerated even though they supported homosexuality or were gay themselves. Mir Taqi Mir is one example. Look at Sarmat Shaheed aka ‘Hare Bhare Shah’ whose grave is at Delhi’s Jama Masjid. Thousands of Muslims go there to pay respects though Shah’s homosexuality is well-known.”
Stop this BS.
Don’t use examples of people doing something to prove a point that has been clearly pointed out as an abomination in the Qur’an. Do I use the Qur’an – which I believe is the word of Allah – or these two examples of individuals that this person points out? I am not aware of Hare Bhare Shah, but I am clear on one thing – either this person is not a homosexual or he is not a shaheed / holy man. We have all seen how incidents are corrupted and people deified over time, especially in our part of the world.
Since Saleem Kidwai has quoted two examples - neither of which really stick - let me quote only two verses from the Qur’an here.
Walootan ith qala liqawmihi ata/toona alfahishata ma sabaqakum biha min ahadin mina alAAalameena. Innakum lata/toona alrrijala shahwatan min dooni alnnisa-i bal antum qawmun musrifoona.
We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?” “For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.” (Qur’an 7:80-81; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Just two verses in Chapter 7 (Al-A’raf), clearly stating that homosexuality is transgression beyond bounds.
And what happened to the people of Lut who transgressed?
Waamtarna AAalayhim mataran faonthur kayfa kana AAaqibatu almujrimeena
And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime! (Qur’an 7:84; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
For anyone who needs more proof, I would suggest reading Chapter 26 (Ash-Shu’araa), Verses 161-174, which relate the entire episode of Lut and what happened to the people who chose homosexuality over legal married life.
And as for myself, I shall repeat a prayer said by Lut himself.
rabbi onsurnee AAala alqawmi almufsideena
"O my Lord! help Thou me against people who do mischief!" (Qur’an 29:30; Translation by Yusuf Ali – part of verse)
That is Islam’s stance on homosexuality. What about the other major religions?
Let’s look at Christianity? Only 2 verses again.
Do you not know that the unrighteous and wrong doers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived, (misled); neither the immoral and impure, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, Nor cheats - swindlers and thieves; nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
And most predominantly Christian countries count homosexuality as natural!
Judaism? I personally found this to be strongest in its denouncement of homosexuality. And I shall content myself by sticking to two verses once again.
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
And this is where I find what I mentioned earlier as the strongest denouncement.
The Oxford English dictionary defines abomination as a cause of disgust or hatred. In other words, one can read the above verse as lying with a male as with a woman is a cause of disgust or hatred in the eyes of God!
Now consider the position of this verse. It is interspersed between two other verses – one referring to child sacrifice (Leviticus 18:21 - And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD) and the other pertaining to bestiality (Leviticus 18:23 - And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion).
The Jewish word for abomination is ‘Toaiva’. Let us consider some other acts in the Jewish religion that are also considered ‘Toai’va’.
Eating non-kosher foods is also called a Toaiva-abomination, so is incest (specific mentions in Leviticus for the interested), child sacrifice to their gods, using a seer or magician to contact the dead or predict the future.
If there was a clearer proof of the abhorrence of such act, I am yet to see it!
Hey, but I am referring to all the three monotheistic religions. And we’re in India, where all these three religions are in a minority. C’mon folks, haven’t we seen Kama Sutra, Khajuraho etc.
Right, and then some people have seen the ancient Hindu religious and moral texts, like the Manu Smriti for instance, which says-
A kanya [unmarried woman] who pollutes (another) kanya must be fined two hundred (panas), pay the double of her (nuptial) fee, and receive ten (lashes with a) rod. But a stree [married woman] who pollutes a kanya shall instantly have (her head) shaved or two fingers cut off, and be made to ride (through the town) on a donkey. (Manusmriti 8:370-371)
Giving pain to a Brahmana (by a blow), smelling at things which ought not to be smelt at, or at spirituous liquor, cheating, and an unnatural offence with a man, are declared to cause the loss of caste (Gatibhramsa) (Manusmriti 11:68)
I have again restricted myself to two verses here, but again, it is interesting to see the punishment for a homosexual coming immediately after that of someone committing bestiality. See the parallel with Judaism? Those interested could check out Manusmriti 11:174-175.
And as for Saleem Kidwai and others of his ilk, I would only say-
Summun bukmun AAumyun fahum la yarjiAAoona
Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path). Qur’an 2:18; Translation by Yusuf Ali)
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent post Bhaijaan!!!
ReplyDeleteExcellent introspection on mythological scriptures and immense powerhouse of info as usual - no wonder I missed it for quite sometime!
ReplyDeleteHowever, although 377 and homosexuality means as much BS to me (I am homophobic!), I will differ on the point of view that this specific form of sexual preference is an 'abomination'.
In fact I like to stay away from such words deeply rooted in religiosity. According to me anything we see through the glass/facade of religion, whose sense is essentially bound in literary expression of individuals - biased by human nature, is something we can do without. Else, the judgement is skewed from the first point.
When we detach ourselves from all such earthly biases and look at people and places from an elevated level of spirituality (NOT read religion), I cannot see how this Act matter much. It didn't matter before nor after this hooplah. Physical manifestation of love is manifold and unaccountable. It lay in various layers and forms. This is something we can hardly decry or follow without personal orientation. And that, as medically proven, is well beyond the control of any human being.
If the proportion of oestrogen is more than testosterone can we control the flow of hormones which drives such orientation? Even before that, should we at all try to change a person? Then what are we creating? Then why do we oppose cloning?
So many questions, very few people can answer. My humble opinion - we are nowhere near those great heights of thoughfullness to really understand this mystery of nature. Nobody knows whether it is a curse or just one other color of The Beatuiful Harmony of Mother Nature.
very well written article. Are we really serious about religious scriptures and follow them. We revert to quote at our convenience ( generally speaking ) . For example all religious scriptures talk about being honest, being faithful, being righteous...
ReplyDeleteDo we follow these. Social values have changed and we are calling it evolution.
>>A G
ReplyDeleteMy argument is: Who decides what is to be taken as Good, if not Best, for social values. If a person is not honest or faithful or righteous, is the Religion to be blamed for the mischief? Would you blame the government if an officer breaches any code of conduct?
Religion plays a vital role in showing the limits, and that when and what causes transgression. If one wants to transgress and would like to call it "evolution" to cover up, then again it is his account with the Almighty, as Good stands clear from Evil and Unlawful.
“Nay, Allaah never commands Fahshaa’ (evil deeds, unlawful sexual intercourse). Do you say of Allaah what you know not?” [al-A’raaf 7:28]
“And those who, when they have committed Faahishah (illegal sexual intercourse) or wronged themselves with evil, remember Allaah and ask forgiveness for their sins; — and none can forgive sins but Allaah — and do not persist in what (wrong) they have done, while they know” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:135]
“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts). That is purer for them. Verily, Allaah is All-Aware of what they do” [al-Noor 24:30]
Also, You can catch on the Complete story of Prophet Lot (Lut) [Peace be upon him] by Ibn Katheer at:
http://islammessageofpeace.blogspot.com/2009/07/stories-of-prophets-prophet-lot-lut.html
Thanks for your comments, and especially Pinaki. I missed your discussions, dude!
ReplyDeleteSpecifically answering your point about physical manifestation of love, I shall not use the 'glass / facade of religion' except for once. (Though I thought those were strong words - even coming from you.)
Religions say that we are the most superior or evolved of all beings on earth. (That's the once :-)). Even science and all of us humans say that we are the most superior species. In other words, that puts us in a position of authority and power. And authority and power without responsibility is tyranny, right?
Now, being superior, we have the power to kill, but do we use it indiscriminately? No!And the ones who do, are despised and reviled (or sometimes considered superpowers :-), but that's another story).
Assuming that I use my authority and power to rape women and pass it all of as 'an expression of my love', would you accept it?
A civilised society also needs to stay within certain said and unsaid moral and civil codes. The very creation of a male and a female sex and the birth of offsprings only by a consummation between two genders points to the code, even if one were to disregard all religious texts. If that were not so, there could have been only a single gender.
Anyway, we could keep debating this point ad nauseum, and we are all entitled to our opinions. I have put forth mine, and I shall respect your prerogative to put forth yours, even if I do not agree with it - and with valid reasons to do so.
It is an honor to know that, Sir. I reciprocate the same with as much if not more excitement. Somehow, the engrossment factor of such discussions gets to me pretty easily. :)
ReplyDeleteNow, to the point of 'inflexion'; I have used this word intentionally and rhetorically. To lay it bare for the rest - a point of inflexion exists across various streams of knowledge. To illustrate for easy recognition:
* In Science: The simplest form lay in inflexion point during the phenomenon termed refraction of light.
* In Art: Anamorphic is a very reputed and fascinating form of painting. An apparently meaningless scribble magically transforms into a well formed picture/portrait once it is reflected from a certain point. I suggest you go ahead and learn more about it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphism
* In Philosophy: An oft used expression, mostly used in psychoanalytical studies.
This 'inflexion' point exists in every unending debate - on the truth and the false, the right and the wrong, the god and the devil, et al. The point here is, no matter what the argument, there are always two faces.
It's like these two sheep on opposite sides of the fence. Sometimes some phrases makes me steal a quite chuckle behind the eyes of society - lambs of god, what a phrase! :)
We are the most intelligent and ingenuous species on earth - for now. We are advancing and coping with the externalities of advancement - for now. Come to think of it though, if religions were beliefs, then we have just handful number of beliefs left - compared to the world couple of centuries back. So, if beliefs are getting more concentrated, more compact, so are the unwritten social rules and norms.
All these ramblings will not make sense unless I concentrate myself to the specific topic of sexuality itself. So, if we are saying that there is a minimum code of conduct, this code itself is subject to change, to metamorphosis - that's evolution, right?
Also, the point that two sides of the male and female has been created, I have a very odd view of this. Not so long ago zoologists declared significant news (which was obviously drowned in run-of-the-mill apocalypse-obsessed journalism and Page3!). A mother whale had procreated within herself. This was unheard of beyond microscopic organisms and earthworms. In many journals, it was reported, to wade over an alarmingly skewed sex-ratio, some variety of fish transform across genders for survival. This, I believe, is a proof of two things:
1. We humans, in male and female forms, are not the ultimate creations. Creation is in evolution. We too will evolve - into a society where who how procreation will advance?
2. Nature has its own way with its elements. I am just trying to relate on a very fuzzy level here - Why would you think 'cloning' comes bursting into the news once 'homosexuality' is out of the closet?