Shaykh Riyad Nadwi responds to C4 show February 2, 2006Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Homosexualists, Media, Queer Muslims, Responses, Shari'ah.
I’ve come across a number of blog posts and forum discussions commenting on the programme last week, to which I responded in two parts. Most of it has, sadly, been along the typical knee-jerk lines, with many people simply unable to get their heads around the idea that people like those portrayed in the documentary actually exist. While it is nice to know there is still a level of innocence among our youth, we really need to wise up to what’s going on, if we’re going to: (a) protect our religion from corruption; (b) help people with their very real dilemmas.
I draw your attention to the following detailed article by Dr. Riyad Nadwi of Dar al-Uloom Oxford. He attained a PhD in Psycholinguistics after in-depth Islamic studies in India, including with the phenomenal Sheikh Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi.
Sh. Riyad’s think-tank, the Oxford Cross-Cultural Research Institute, “aims to cut through the ‘spin’ that surrounds contemporary debate to provide a fresh, independent commentary on current affairs.” It’s worth looking through his other articles.
Today’s article focuses mainly on the historical and scientific aspects of the issue, with comments on the agenda behind the movement and the documentary. Some excerpts:
Having recognised the futility of reliance on the genetic arguments in a society that accepted natural selection, the queer lobby, building on Wolfenden’s 1957 “condition” argument, diverted the focus of attention from “behaviour” to one of “rights”. Instead of seeking acceptance based on sexual preference, they managed to convince the media and politicians that their genetic assumptions were a foregone conclusion and they were now a “genetic entity” worthy of “minority” status.
In response to these embarrassing studies of monozygotic twins, the gay lobby has often resorted to claiming that “it is not all about genes”. Environment also plays a part. Our response to this schizophrenic escape should be that they cannot have their cake and eat it. The scientific community is in agreement that environmental influences on behaviour are, by and large, receptive to therapy. They are not like skin colour, which is identical in monozygotic twins. When the queer lobby campaigns on the basis that homosexual orientation is unchangeable because of genes and declares, “Just as a person cannot help being black, female, or Asian, we cannot help being homosexual. We were all born this way and as such we should be treated equally,” they cannot be allowed to seek refuge with “environmental factors” whenever the genetic evidence proves them wrong. Environmental influence is a door they have shut upon themselves by promoting this “gay-gene permanence” myth.
There is a difference of opinion on the punishment in Islamic law for individuals involved in rare and isolated homosexual acts, as indeed, there are different rules pertaining to people born with malformed sexual organs. But these differences should not be used, as they have been lately, to blind people from the fact that the Quran and the Scriptures before it are categorical about the sinful nature of this activity, especially if it turns into a mass movement with proselytising proficiency and a mission to claim a significant percentage (10%) of the population.
An interesting twist to this story is that these people, despite appearances, are not primarily concerned with gay rights per se. Just as the queer movement adopted the clothing of the civil rights movement to promote its own agenda, people like Dr Kugle and other so-called “Muslim intellectuals” are riding piggyback on the gay and feminist movements to further another agenda. Homosexuality is a crucial component in a coordinated mission to force a reformation on Islam.