Muslim spiritual leader Aga Khan visits East Africa, amid anti "gay" protests
i would expect this posting could be classified as "hate speech" in less democratic nations. Frankly speaking, i couldn't care less if it is. let me say only that i don't hate anyone, i just don't support some people's choices, and i reserve the right to say so. if and when those choices begin to affect my own life and the life of my family, then my voice will become louder. the right to speak out and to do what i can to establish a community in line with my values, is non-negotiable. if it is not too much to ask for, let those who agree with me also be heard. of course, we have a long way to go before people begin to speak without fear. but let us make a start. open the can of worms so to speak.
Nigeria's Anglican congregation, is second in size only to Britain's. That is news to me. News.24.com carried a report in 2003 in which the typical African opinion was expressed concerning people who choose to engage in homosexual practices:
The primate of Nigeria, the Most Reverend Peter Akinola, has described the appointment of gay bishops and the blessing of same-sex marriage as "a Satanic attack" on the church.
More recently, (News.24 URL http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2162306,00.html)
Abuja - Eighteen men face charges of sodomy in a Nigerian Islamic court after authorities arrested them as they prepared to take part in a gay marriage, state media reported.
On Tuesday (August 21st, 2007), Ugandan's staged a protest calling for tougher measures by police against people who choose to engage in this particular sexual deviance, actions which are banned in the conservative Christian country. The protest seems in part to have been triggered, by a press conference held by sexual deviants (known as smug) a few days before. The protesters also took the opportunity to object to a report made by the US intern Katherine Roubos in the Daily Monitor, in which she dealt with the experiences of people who choose the homosexual lifestyle in Uganda. The newspaper is owned by Aga Khan, currently visiting East Africa. The Daily Monitor intern has denied campaiging for people who choose a gay lifestyle, saying she was simply doing her job:
I was assigned a story by the editor and I did it objectively. My job is to report on events, not my personal opinions
Notwithstanding the conservative views of Africans, some religious leaders, seeking to impress upon the world their allegiance to an idea of modernity perhaps at best, or to satan at worst, continue to insult Africans. In South Africa, conservative religious views are also ignored by the church leadership who is increasingly out of step with political, moral, and generally most social and economic realities in Azania and Africa at large. A major part of this scenario is coloured perhaps by an ingrained racism, even self hatred, which disregards Africans as backward, seeing them as needing to be led, cajoled, and if need be, whipped into a world of modernity.
In a letter to Southern Africa's Anglican Archbishop Ndungane, Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria said:
http://www.afrol.com/articles/10519
What you cited as top priorities are in this context clearly misplaced. I ask, are the issues of peace, hunger, shari'a, and HIV/AIDS, serious and prevalent, as they are, more important to the Church than faithfulness to the plain truth of Scripture?
Ugandans are rightly making some much needed noise on this issue, but they may be missing the point just a bit. Far more damage is being done by media outlets across the continent and no doubt inside Uganda as well. It may be easier to attack the Daily Monitor and it's staff, yet the real culprits are left smiling. The Daily Monitor report may just be the straw that breaks the camels back, yet i would venture to say, the camel needs a back breaking.
Aga Khan's visit is more significant however. He will officiate at the inauguration of the Bujagali hydro-power dam, a multi-national project supported by the World Bank. The Bujagali project will bring many opportunities to Uganda (Mail & Guardian, Azania), and it also symbolises in itself, new alliances and prospects for development. My strange personality smells a rat once again. Our progress as Africans is often hampered by outside influences, who see benefits in sowing division. The Daily Monitor is carrying other significant stories at the moment, yet this one report has become the cause perhaps, of many Ugandans setting the newspaper aside as an unreliable tabloid.
After reading Roubos' report, the mention of so called abuse and oppression and referring to people who choose this lifestyle with the term "gay and lesbian" seems to suggest that the reporter was perhaps out of step with African sentiments. Being American, such errors are to be expected. In Africa, (the topic being taboo from Nigeria and Ghana to Uganda and Azanian) most of us do not consider this to be abuse or oppression at all. Neither do we consider that such people are a natural category of humans, as is the popular belief in some western societies. The term criminal would suffice instead of "gay and lesbian". Roubos should have worded her report differently, and perhaps spoken more in terms of preventing inhuman treatment of those who choose to violate Ugandan law.
Those interested in reading more about the Anglican communion in particular, may wish to visit a blog entitled BOLIVIANBEAT : Building bridges, engaging Truth
p.s.
I would have liked to post this article in the "Gay group" at vox, unfortunately i have been banned from the group for some reason. My hope is that the post reaches the audience it is intended for. The view that this issue is a closed one, is unfounded. Let it be known there are many voices in places where there exist no restrictions on the expression of opposition to this issue as is the case in less democratic western societies where certain views are seen as hate speech.
Expressing these views puts one at risk of losing some alliances and some friends in the process, yet it is any person or community's God-given right to decide it's own course of action, according to it's own values. The fact i am an African, fundamentalist Christian, Catholic, Muslim, or any other number of labels shouldn't make my view any less valid.
My Groups
-
Social Justice Updated: 44 minutes ago
-
Human Rights Updated: 44 minutes ago
-
Barack Obama Updated: 44 minutes ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions, and yours should be viewed no lesser than that of any others.
=)
Aput, what exaclty do you disagree with?
On a religious point, if you say you are Muslim, you must show how this viewpoint you hold is supported in the Quran. It isn't enough to suggest that there is no clear verses which condemn homosexuality, while ignoring verses that actually do condemn it. You need to address points as they are raised, don;t just leave the argument hanging. If you cannot argue further, then admit that Islam doesn't support homosexuality. As far as I know, there are no Muslim scholars that support your view, or are you starting a new Islamic sect along with other "moderate Muslims"?
Peace be unto you,
Islam strictly forbids homosexuality. In fact, in the Qur'an, when describing the Prophet Lot, states that the homosexuals in Lot's community were "Obstructing the road" (of righteouness) and have committed an abomination that no nation before them has reached. However, it is not only Islam that holds this view. Christianity and Judaism categorically forbid the practice as well.
One thing I think we should analyze is that who determines what is considered 'acceptable' or an 'abomination'? Is it God? Is it the people? Is it our governments? Well, if we say it was the people, then at one point the people of the U.S. for example didn't think it was acceptable to give women the right to vote. Nor did they see it as acceptable to allow black people to have equal rights... So does that make it right?
If we say that God decides, then what about those who don't believe in God or those who follow various religions? I don't know the answer. All I know is that we need to use tolerance and have attitudes of peaceful dialogue to attempt to tackle these issues. Thanks for reading.
To admit Islam does not support homosexuality to me, as a person, reeks of hatred and tells me that we are not carrying out a practice of logical thinking. But then, if logical thinking were anything to go by, Isra' and Mikraj is something that will never be admitted to happening.
On a religious stand point, I've been told a lot of things. I've been told to believe in God, the Prophets, the Quran, the angels, karma and the end of days although not exactly this order.
I do believe in all of the above, however, it does not tell me to take it all word for word without interpretation, or ijtihad, logical thinking.
So when someone points out that the Quran states that if two men were caught committing adultery, I ask if this is in the context of adultery or homosexuality. Same goes for when the verse comes out for women as well.
And then there's how Lot tells his people that taking preference of men over women is wrong. Again, I look at the context. Were these straight guys who went after young boys, like the Arabs continue doing now, or homosexuals, who are, I believe, naturally inclined to same sex relationships?
It's true that no imam or religious leader has spoken out on this issue for homosexuality, but then, to quote from the Quran and not explain the points as in the contexts of the discussion is equally wrong.
Then they quote my Prophet, who says that a person should never see the privates of another of the same sex, nor should they share the same sheet (bed) with a member of the same sex.
And yet, do we follow this in all the contexts of today?
I'm not starting a religious sect, I'm pondering and trying to understand Islam as a religion that accepts all, and not simply look at excluding and ostracizing others based on race, religion or sexual orientation.
Aput, I am not familiar with the two verses nor their contexts, perhaps you can provide them for us if you want to.
The verses that I'm quoting are from 4:15-18, and 27:55-56. And also you can look into the Book of Menstruation, which is a collection of Hadith by Muslim.
Secondly, if I have lustful thoughts concerning someone with whom I am not married, that is sinful and I am compelled to correct that in my own conscience. Seeing as marriage can ONLY occur between a man and woman (this according to Genesis and every other verse where marriage is mentioned Biblically and in the Holy Quran), the answer is VERY clear. Why is it you continue to try and justify this forbidden practice? At least try not to use the holy texts to do this. Rather say that you dismiss the verses as irrelevant and/or as being imperfect. If you do that, you place yourself outside of the faith. No one places you there. Only you can do that.
Thank you for the verses. Again, these contexts do not justify what you are asserting at all. What they DO lead any honest reader to conclude is exactly what they clearly say. The fact that the issue is discussed shows the divine nature of the texts as they incorporate all human conditions. The phenomenon being included thus, and with a clear statement FORBIDDING the practice as sinful, there is (alhamdulilah) NO CONFUSION concerning this among believers.
homosexuality and sodomy is forbidden in Islam and as mentioned the people of Prophet Lot were destroyed for their immoral actions. If you are a homosexual you can still be a Muslim it does not take you out of the fold of Islam but as Islam considers the family to be the cornerstone of society it would be hard for any Muslim scholar to justify homosexuality as being acceptable as part of a Muslim lifestyle.
There's no way that a gay couple can naturally conceive a child, and those that say it does not say in the Qur'an that homosexuality is forbidden then they have not fully understood the text and justify their actions based on their own interpretation, same goes for feminist Muslim women who say that it does not say in the Qur'an that women should cover themselves. Islam accepts that human beings have "certain urges" but that they shouldn't be acted upon. I agree with Uniter that just because society accepts it, doesnt mean that it is correct. Some people use the argument that there are homosexual animals, or that they are born like that, that is what makes them homosexual, again there are arguments for and against this, and i hope that people will make their own minds up based on the information they have.
From experience, the average imam would not know how to deal with the issue of homosexuality if a member of his congregation announced he was gay, also many family members would probably ostracize the family member rather than dealing with the issue which is also wrong.( My husband has a gay uncle, the one that ran away)
May Allah help us and guide us on the straight path.Ameen.