We have mentioned Saqib Ali several times previously on Sepia Mutiny. Anna mentioned a personal challenge he and his wife faced a few years ago here. We also had posts on his campaign for the Maryland state legislature here, and then again after his election victory here
Now Saqib Ali, one of a very small number of Muslim candidates elected to public office anywhere in the U.S., has taken a public stand in favor of granting gays and lesbians the right to marry. He published an op-ed in the community paper the Gazette: here. It was also covered yesterday on NPR, which is how I heard about it. What I like about Saqib Ali’s approach is the directness with which he handles the religious prohibition on homosexual acts in Islam:
It feels like the nature of the fight for equality has changed. It has gone from being a rather niche liberal issue to perhaps the most pressing civil rights issue of this generation. And marriage equality throughout the land now feels like an eventual inevitability.
I expect some day people will look back at this fight for equality like we now look back on oddly antiquated anti-miscegenation laws. I’m proud that I’ll have stood on the right side of history: In support of full marital rights for same-sex couples.
My stance on this issue isn’t politically expedient. I am the first Muslim in the legislature. Homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Islam. As such I have evinced much grief from my most conservative supporters.
But I recognize that I represent people of all faiths and no faith at all. If I tried to enforce religion by law — as in a theocracy — I would be doing a disservice to my both constituents and to my religion. (link)
What’s clever about this is the twist on religious morality. Normally, opponents of gay marriage apply a version of a presumed Judeo-Christian morality as support for their position. Saqib Ali, coming from an Islamic background, knows full well that his invocation of “theocracy” has extra rhetorical weight; the last sentence in the paragraph quoted above hits home.
Sure, it is clever, but that’s useful only when the debate is at that level, not when discussion mostly involves screaming, which is what is happening now.
He will probably get responses from the right insinuating that he is trying to ruin America from the inside. Or, that he should first stand up for those rights in Saudi Arabia.
Wait, why is it a “twist” that Semitic Sky-God v.3.0 (Islam) thinks the same think about teh gays as Semitic Sky-God v.1.0 (Judaism) or 2.0 (Christianity)?
—Konfused Dharmic
Have you read Princeton Prof George’s response to the miscegenation issue?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322084279548434.html
Prof George’s concern for the generative aspect of marriage rings hollow. We already have the infrastructure to reward marriages producing children with tax breaks, child assistance programs, etc.
I believe that it is bold and brave and in a way, ironic that someone who is Muslim, (and would be considered a member of a non-American religion by those who still consider this a Judeo-Christian nation), is the one standing by the Constitutional rights stated by the Founding Fathers (who weren’t all Christian anyway).
I am glad he references the older laws, as people forget, even when Obama’s parents were married, it was still technically illegal in many states. Great comic here detailing this history:
http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/tomo/2004/03/01/tomo/index.html
And when he states that he represents all religions, including non-believers it is something very nice and refreshing to here.
By the way, did anyone see the town hall yesterday with Senator Specter where an attendee stated that the Koran states that all non-muslims should be killed, and Mr. Specter didn’t even respond to the claim or try to correct or educate the man ! (similar to McCain’s response about Obama being an arab – “no, he’s a good family man” – because you can’t be both I guess).
Considering this climate of fear and not-so-subtle hate, this makes the above op-ed and commitment even more welcome. I hope he hears more from supporters than conservatives.
On NPR they were discussing how in Sufism there is actually a tradition of male poets who had male ‘friends’ who were in love, and that the extreme homophobia arose more after the colonial era. Thought that was interesting.
And religion aside, this really is a basic rights issue – a heterosexual couple can meet in Vegas, get hammered and married as strangers, but a monogamous, committed gay couple cannot get the same rights. There are literally hundreds of rights related to health insurance benefits, adoption, child custody, estate, hospital visitation, etc that are all part and parcel of this issue – not just faith based ones. Every time a gay couple moves, their rights and benefits would be affected by every states different or non-existent laws. And of course, there are churches that accept and ordain gays and lesbians.
=
politician lying 🙂
Interesting. As a Muslim supporting LGBT rights he is supporting a reconciliation between the two identities; but in the language that he’s using, he’s perpetuating the idea that they are not compatible. My personal preference is for those people who claim both identities rather than playing into choosing one over the other, but it’s better than nothing.
No he is not. One can be permissive about things insofar as they are agents of the government while disliking the deed in private. Liberty means that we learn to live with the fact that stuff we don’t necessarily like is going to go on and the state has no business trying to push things one way or another.
But to suggest that a Muslim should not disapprove of homosexuality is, frankly, an illiberal attitude. Muslims, like all people, are obligated to be true to themselves first and foremost. This is the same obligation that drives gay people to be gay. You can’t deny it to one and not the other.
hello buddy how are you dear i read your comment it’s great i like it dear i learn alot of things from your comment i hope everyone likes your post dear thanx for this information. A fantastic collection of plain and striped espadrilles available here. Worldwide shipping.
=========================
sandy
http://www.espadrille.co.uk
“But to suggest that a Muslim should not disapprove of homosexuality is, frankly, an illiberal attitude. Muslims, like all people, are obligated to be true to themselves first and foremost. This is the same obligation that drives gay people to be gay. You can’t deny it to one and not the other”.
Believing in a particular interpretation of a 7th century text is now an immutable trait?
If you have a problem with their interpretation the solution is to persuade them through discussion rather than getting up on a high-horse.
I won’t get into the questionable claim that being gay is an “immutable trait” beyond pointing out that how sexuality is expressed and how relationships are structured (marriage, dating, etc.) is influenced in no small part by cultural standards.
What exactly is the definition of ‘getting up on a high horse’? How does it preclude being part of ‘discussion’? In what way is anyone being coerced against their will to accept something because someone else has suggested it? In other words, in the context of liberalism, you can’t respond to discussions by arguing that people participating in them are illiberal because they’re not discussing things. You can of course, broaden politics beyond liberalism, but if you do that, one might ask why not legally require non discrimination on the basis of non-violent sexuality, gender identity, or religion/belief both int he private and public sectors and particularly from the state.
On an aside, LGBT Muslims do exist, probably in the tens or hundreds of millions. Presumably denying their existence (some of whom are my friends) is not really okay.
Yoga, are you saying you can’t be Muslim and gay – or a Muslim who is accepting of gays ?
I like this article, especially the part about representing all his constituents. It is a brave stand, especially for a Muslim, and a very decent one in general. Would that our so-called champions of democracy who go around slamming everyone over the head with the Bible would be so clear on secular representation.
yo, das patronizing. Have you not read my “My Name is Red”
It all depends on how one defines “being Muslim.” If you mean culturally Muslim, holidays, names etc., then you can be Muslim and Gay. If you mean truly embracing the body of ideas that is Islam (and I know it is not a monolith, but it is one of the more rigidly defined religions in terms of interpreting its texts consistently) then you have a tough sell trying to legitimately argue that one can submit to Allah and still be gay. The Koran and the Sunna are both pretty clear on the issue, death penalty and all.
As for the bit abt. Sufi poets, while I am sure they existed, you cannot with a straight face argue this shows Islam accepts LBGT identity. First, Sufis are a tiny minority within the larger Umma and, second, they are considered heretics by the other two, major branches. Third, this is doubtless (although I admit I haven’t checked, a major anamoly in Sufism. To argue they are somehow representative of “classical” Islam is like trying to claim that the Ahmadis are somehow representative of Islamic doctrine writ large.
The same goes for traditional, Rabbinic Judaism. Christianity probably falls into the same boat due to Paul, although there is a little wiggle room for apologists there due to the fact that Jesus never touched the subject.
Of course, all this assumes that any given body of ideas has any existence apart from the gloss de jure. I know for some people this is a laughable concept.
Sorry for the long post, but sometimes I just find it frustrating when stock examples are trotted out to show that Group A or B is really this way, but the big bad colonialists (or fill in other external circumstance–poverty, greed, etc.) changed them into these intolerant bodies.
Yo/Zazou,
A picture is worth a thousand words. If the Muslim orthodoxy is not LGBT friendly, then how do you propose to explain this fabulousness?
http://www.foto8.com/item–Taliban-by-Thomas-Dworzak–trolley_taliban.html
And I knew the ‘colonialist scapegoat’ card would be thrown out – was just advising of something that was stated by an Muslim cultural and historical specialist.
I think that the Sufi example is apt in that although it may not be representative of the core ideology or majority (as it is chosen to be interpreted) it still shows that some can chose to reconcile the different views and live (and love) the way they wish to and still be spiritual.
I think the important thing that people forget about religion or any faith is that it is and should always be a very personal choice and every individual can choose for themselves how they wish to practice. There are many gays who are practicing Muslims and I believe they would all disagree with the statement that they are not ‘real’ muslims. The great thing here is that everyone can have their own opinion and agree to disagree without blanket statements.
I am not sure that the “colonialist scapegoat” claim is really a “card” there. It does seem like a ton of things get blamed on colonialists that are a real stretch. The BJP for example has been pinned on colonialists before by some “thinkers” (sorry for no link–too tangential to warrant the effort).
I also agree that a person should be free to believe and practice their religion how they see fit. It is one of the best parts of those countries that have chosen to embrace that approach. It will not (usually) stop the rest of the believers (who are in the vast majority and often more true to the original ideas–at least the original ideas as recorded in “the book” of the religion) from calling those people heretics and saying they do not believe what the religion says. And to be honest, in those situations, the “old believers” usually have the better argument, although not always. For instance, Muhammad was no friend to gays, and he is considered the man who is the most close to Allah, therefore it is hard to argue that a Muslim who is a practicing homosexual is practicing the religion as “correctly” as a Muslim who agrees with Muhammad.
Congratulations to Saqib Ali for taking a principled stand on the gay marriage issue. We need more politicians like him.
As to the discussion about whether Sufism is “true” Islam or not, I would firmly argue that no one has the right to decide what makes someone a “true” Muslim. This is the decision of the Pakistan government to legislate that Ahmedis are non-Muslim is so horrible. Once the state starts doing that, where does it stop? What’s to say that in the future anyone who isn’t mainstream Sunni won’t be declared non-Muslim? Even the scripture itself says that if an individual declares himself a Muslim, only God has the right to judge him.
How do you even read that in a comment that says “Muslims are obligated to be true to themselves?” If he disagrees with the idea of homosexuality and that disagreement is grounded in his being religious beliefs then that’s his deal. He is obligated to act according to the dictates of his conscience. Where in that do you see anything about it being a given that all Muslims must think and interpret their religion alike?
Generally it means moralizing rather than empathizing with people who hold opinions contrary to yours. When I read a comment like “but in the language that he’s using, he’s perpetuating the idea that they are not compatible. My personal preference is for those people who claim both identities rather than playing into choosing one over the other, but it’s better than nothing.” it sounds to me like you’re not open to the idea that he might be correct in his opinion and you might be wrong. You aren’t evaluating his statements on their logical consistency or truth value, but in how closely they mirror your own opinions.
You can fundamentally disagree with someone while still acknowledging that given their core principles, background, and logical train of thought their opinion is internally valid and consistent.
The man has ethics and I applaud him for taking the right stand.
In this case, instead of separation of church and state, it’s separation of mosque and state. To me, all the Abrahamic religions texts are very similar. The 3 religions messages are all about serving God, helping mankind, don’t cheat, don’t kill, etc. Judeo-Christian values should really be Judeo-Christian-Islamic values, in my opinion. (I’m Hindu and I guess I have Hindu-Buddhist-Jain values.)
GM, I think all religions essentially preach the same values: serve God, help mankind, don’t steal, etc. They just have different rituals and beliefs, but why fight about how God is worshiped?
As Bhagat Kabir said “Mo ko kahan dhunday bandhay, main to teray pas hoon… kahata kabir suno bhaee sado, main to hoon vishwas main”
Well, if liberalism excludes moralising then presumably most of the churches, masjids, temples, unions, environmental groups, Congress, the President, and many others in the United States should be accused of being illiberal. liberalism is the idea that you use use ideas and not force or money to reach political decisions, not that opinions should not be questioned, critiqued, or moralised about.
That said, I think I was quite fair to him, particularly since I have to evaluate what he says as a fundamentally political statement, since he has presented it as such and is, in fact, openly a politician (not closeted :). In fact, what I did, if you read the entire passage that you quoted rather than just the portion you quoted, is to say that by being a self-defined Muslim who is acting in support of some LGBT rights, he is dismantling stereotypes about Muslims and bridging divides; but in the language that he is using, he is reinforcing some.
If you read closely what he says here:
He is arguing that
a) Homosexuality and Islam are incompatible. b) Muslims are his “most conservative supporters” c) not legalising same-sex marriage would be an enforcement of religion, and therefore should be defended on grounds of secular liberalism, presumably expressing consent for Muslims to continue to be homophobic as long as they tolerate a state that is not.
So it is a carefully worded statement imo that is not quite clear on whether “all Muslims” or some subset of Muslims are “his most conservative supporters” who are against LGBT marriage. It is also not clear whether “enforcement of religion” means enforcement of “Islam.” It does not deny and in fact potentially reinforces that Islam and Muslims are universally homophobic, or acknowledge that Muslims can be LGB, which are the stereotypes that need to be broken down.
I would guess this lack of clarity in the language is by design, though that is a gut instinct based on years of hearing politicians speak and the obvious grandstanding at the top about civil rights while he identifies in a social group that is allegedly homophobic in the bottom. However, I’d concede that I could be wrong on further inspection and additionally (as I did above) that the implications of his act might be stronger than the problems with his language. I might even go as far as to say – okay, it’s good, even though it’s not perfect, depending on the context.
Anyway, mostly, it’s all very interesting – fascinating creatures, these politicians 🙂
“GM, I think all religions essentially preach the same values: serve God, help mankind, don’t steal, etc. They just have different rituals and beliefs, but why fight about how God is worshiped?
As Bhagat Kabir said “Mo ko kahan dhunday bandhay, main to teray pas hoon… kahata kabir suno bhaee sado, main to hoon vishwas main” “
That’s a question you need to ask the hard core fundamentalists – I’m clueless since I’m not an extremist and I never question how or why people worship the way they do. Also, can someone please translate the Hindi? This Telugu/Kannadiga is clueless about anything other than English, German, Spanish, and of course, Kannada and Telugu..
gm– Sorry about not translating the Hindi. It means:
“Where do you look for me (god), O man? I am with you….. Kabir says, I (god) am in faith”. In his bhajan, he outlines basically that as long as one believes in god (by whatever name one wants to call him), it doesn’t matter particularly how you worship. He goes into detail in the verses eg. “I am not in the mosque or the temple, not in the kaaba or in kailash…”
Thanks Kabir for the translation. It expresses my sentiments, too.