The Opposition recommends that votes on it be cast as a matter of conscience.
Now the mainstream Muslim group in Guyana has its say.
On the heels of a full scale verbal war stoked by protests from Christian fundamentals in the religious world, the Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana (CIOG) has joined the controversial debate on whether or not to afford legal rights on the basis of sexual orientation, claiming its objection is not based “so much on a desire or willingness to promote discrimination. Rather, it is based on the fact that specific legal protection on the basis of `sexual orientation’ without definition or qualification gives tacit legal legitimacy to practices which are considered criminal in the religion of Islam, i.e., all forms of homosexuality.”
“It is foreseeable that such a legal nod of approval (subtle as it may be) of these practices may pave the way for greater social (or even legal) acceptability in the future which, from the perspective of all Muslims including those of Guyana, is an undesirable and sinful outcome,” says Mr. Kerry Arthur, Education Director, Dawah Department, and Assistant Chief Executive Officer of CIOG.
Representing about 90 per cent of the country’s Muslim populace, the CIOG “stands in firm opposition to what is being commonly referred to as `the sexual orientation bill’ which apparently is about to be re-presented to the Parliament of Guyana,” according to Arthur.
“Though the general purpose of the bill may be commendable (the prevention of wrongful discrimination) particular offence is taken to the section(s) of the bill that expressly identify(ies) `sexual orientation’ as a prohibited basis for discrimination,” he said on behalf of CIOG.
Islamic Jurisprudence
Arthur explained in length the Islamic Ruling on Homosexuality of Dr. Taha Jaber Al-`Alwani, President of the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences and President of one of the foremost Councils of Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) in the United States.
Dr. Al-Alwani states:
“…We would like to mention what is stated in the Noble Qur’an about it (homosexuality) and about the people who engage in this activity as well as what befalls them of painful worldly punishment before the severe punishment of the Hereafter. The intent here is to show the great deception placed by those who allege that the Qur’an does not find this homosexual crime reprehensible. Allah, the Almighty, says: “We also (sent) Lot: He said to his people: ‘Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.’ And his people gave no answer but this: they said, ‘Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!’ But we saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who lagged behind. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!” (Al-Araf: 80-84)
Allah, the Almighty, revealed the actions of the people of Lot with the term “abominable” [lewd, atrocious] and their villages were named as villages that committed “wickedness”. Furthermore, it is known that the word “fahisha” (abominable) in this context means the act of adultery and the actions committed by the people of Lot of (male) sodomy and (female) lesbianism.
This group claims that these verses do not indicate that this type of sexual conduct is prohibited but merely discouraged. They claim that if this conduct had been prohibited the Qur’an would have stipulated explicitly a legal punishment for such an affair and therefore the lack of any text that stipulates a punishment for such conduct shows that it is something allowed. But a necessary connection between legal punishment on the one hand, and something being prohibited on the other hand, is not an accurate observation because (as we know) polytheism is a grave injustice and it is considered the greatest sin by Allah. Despite this, there is no Shari’ah statute or legal punishment that can be applied to polytheists, whether they are Magians, cow worshipers or any kind of polytheists.
Thus, a punishment is one thing and an action being sinful is another thing.”
Dr. Al-Alwani says, “great sins like that of Lot’s people are often punished in the Hereafter because its punishment is greater than this worldly punishment and the humiliation of the Hereafter is greater than the humiliation in this world.”
Who’s right or wrong?
While admitting he had scant knowledge about sexual orientation, it was Moulana Mohammed Ali Zenjiban, Assistant Director of the International Islamic College, whose voice of support among individuals wanting the government to consider giving fundamental rights to sexual minorities that put a different, more liberal spin on the Islamic stance.
Zenjiban spoke on the issue at a poorly attended public forum last month organised by the recently formed `Students Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination’ (SASOD), a group with a membership of 15 mostly University of Guyana (UG) students.
Zenjiban said he offered his support not because he endorses “the act” but, according to him, “we have to ask ourselves if we want to build a religious government or a religious State in Guyana, or do we want to continue to have a secular State with international laws submitting itself to the norms of the modern world.”
“As far as homosexuals are concerned, in the Islamic world, they are so oppressed…many of them have been beaten in the streets, maybe killed. You are not supposed to kill somebody because he is a homosexual,” Zenjiban stated.
He added: “For those who like to surf the Internet, there is a website of the Gays and Homosexual Muslims. Because they are so oppressed and they thought their voices should be heard - they have a website - www.al-fatiha.net.”
Zenjiban said in New York, these kinds of Muslims have a mosque in which the Imam is homosexual, a member of Al-Fatiha. “…Definitely the followers of that mosque who pray may also be homosexuals,” he remarked.
Founded in 1998, the Al-Fatiha Foundation is a registered US-based non-profit, tax-exempt non-governmental organisation dedicated to Muslims who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, questioning, those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity, their allies, families and friends.
The parent website endorses Al-Fatiha as a medium that “promotes the progressive Islamic notions of peace, equality and justice.”
“We envision a world that is free from prejudice, injustice and discrimination, where all people are fully embraced and accepted into their faith, their families and their communities,” says the Al-Fatiha group out of Washington, DC.
Al-Fatiha started in November 1997 when its founder, Faisal Alam began a listserve, an Internet-based e-mail discussion group. This listserve now hosts more than 275 subscribers from more than 20 countries around the world, according to Al-Fatiha, Arabic for `The Opening’. Subscribers of the listserve decided soon after to meet in person at a three-day retreat in October 1998 in Boston, Massachusetts at what became the First International Retreat for homosexual Muslims.
At the end of the three-day retreat, participants decided that an international organisation was needed in order to address the specific issues and problems facing them.
Al-Fatiha has grown to include seven chapters in the U.S - in Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York City, San Diego and Washington DC. Affiliate and sister organisations exist in three countries: London, Canada and South Africa.
In 2003 and 2004, Al-Fatiha plans to start future chapters in other major metropolitan cities in the United States that have large Muslim populations. Local chapters hold social events, discussion groups, parties, regional retreats, and participate in local homosexual Muslim events.
Arguing that religion cannot discriminate, Zenjiban reasoned that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were “robbers, thieves; they used to rape men after they took away their belongings, so God destroyed them not only because they were homosexuals…there were other sins that the people committed in that country.”
Dr. Al-Alwani has said scholars have come to a consensus - based on what has been revealed in the Qur’an and what has been authenticated in the Prophetic Tradition (Sunnah) - on prohibiting both behaviours (gayness and lesbianism) because in each of two actions, there is “an assault on the humanity of a person, destruction of the family and a clash with aims of the Lawgiver, one of which is the establishment of sexual instincts between males and females so as to encourage the institution of marriage.”
His edict was: “Viewing (material) desires as aims in themselves is a deviation from one’s natural disposition and a departure from the natural order. If the trend in the West is to legalise this conduct, it should be noted that such things did not materialise until after religious values had been diluted and had been changed to relative values that glorify individuality and make pleasures as an end and aim.”
“The Muslim need to take precautions against these deviants and not to give them any opportunity to mix with and corrupt their children. Furthermore, they are neither fit to establish masjid and frequent them, nor are they fit to lead those who frequent the masjid whomever they may be. More importantly for them is to seek a cure for themselves from their own illness, to purify their souls from whatever filthiness became attached to it, and return to a sound path instead of mocking and ridiculing the sentiments of Muslims,” according to Dr. Al-Alwani.
Among the commentaries on Allah’s words by Islamic scholars are: “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is oft returning, Most Merciful.
In Hadith, the Prophet clarifies the gravity of this abomination by saying: “Allah curse the one who does the actions of the people of Lot” repeating it three times; and he said in another Hadith: “If a man comes upon a man then they are both adulterers.” Verily, the punishment here is the burning of both homosexuals (the actor and acted upon) or stoning them with rocks till death because Allah Most High stoned the people of Lot after demolishing their village. As for lesbians, the Prophet said about them: If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both adulteresses”.
“In brief, verily this conduct, whether it comes from two males or females, is considered an abomination and a crime. The fact that some religious groups, due to being pressured, have allowed their followers to engage in this conduct cannot be considered as justification for prohibited actions,” Dr. Al-Alwani said.
On the touchy ideology of men marrying men, Mr. Vidyartha Kissoon from Help & Shelter last month said at the SASOD public consultation that the Constitution of Guyana has long since recognised Common Law relationships and suggested “someone will have to have a discussion on what exactly is marriage.”
Kissoon alluded to South Africa and said he recognises that due to its Constitution, it is possible that someone will challenge those laws in order to acknowledge same sex relationships.
“Does this mean that they will want to beat down the doors of the church asking the priest to marry them? Hardly likely,” Kissoon remarked.
According to him, the religious community is not unified on the subject of homosexuality.
“There are many people who have abused religion in the past to practice the worst forms of discrimination and acts of violence. Slavery continued, for example, by many Christians…Apartheid had its Christian perpetrators, as did Nazi Germany,” Kissoon said.
He rejected the belief that homosexuality is related to pedophilia.
Kissoon also responded to the argument that homosexual relationships stops procreation, quoting from a named Hindu source that it might be “nature’s way of controlling population growth”.
Among other rights, the `sexual orientation’ Bill in question enshrines as a fundamental right a person not being discriminated against on the basis of his/her sexual orientation. The National Assembly based on recommendations from the Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) approved the Bill on a 55-0 vote on January 4, 2000.
The Christian, Hindu and Islamic communities were represented on the CRC. The representatives were Rev Keith Haley and attorneys-at-law Vidyanand Persaud and Shahabudeen McDoom respectively.
The problematic clause (15) of the Bill states: “In this article the expression `discriminatory’ means affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their or their parents’ or guardians’ respective descriptions by race, place of origin, political opinion, colour, creed, age, disability, marital status, sex, gender, language, sexual orientation, birth, social class, pregnancy, religion, conscience, belief or culture whereby persons of one such description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which other persons of the same or another such description are not made subject or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not afforded to other persons of the same or another such description.”
Three years ago, the church leaders from the Guyana Evangelical Fellowship were urging followers of Jesus to fast and pray for three days to ensure that President Bharrat Jagdeo rejects what was described as a “gay rights” provision in the Constitution. Newspaper advertisements helped to spread the word to all Christians countrywide.
In a comment three years ago to the Associated Press (AP), the President stated that he would look the bill over since he believes it may be too broadly phrased.
The President was quoted as saying: “It will surely add a measure of legitimacy to homosexuality by saying that it will protect people with a certain sexual orientation. This is not part of the Constitution in any other Caribbean country so why is it in ours?"
Free online subscriptions such as the `ANZAC Prophetic List’ available at anzac-subscribe@welovegod.org readily provide and advertise to more Christians worldwide information meant to get them on their “knees praying for God's intervention” in topical religious/social issues including homosexuality.
Citing cases and real laws in several countries like Belgium, Canada, England, Australia and the United States, which have `pro-gay’ legislation, a recent ANZAC informational stated, for example:
“In 1998, an Evangelical pastor in Sweden preached about Sodom and Gomorrah. He told his congregation that homosexuality is still wrong and God will judge people who practice it. The Courts ruled that the pastor had violated Sweden’s anti-hate laws, and sentenced him to jail. In the name of tolerance, the Swedish Courts refused to tolerate the truth of the Bible.”
“In June 2002, the Swedish Parliament approved a Constitutional Amendment which outlaws speech or materials which are unfavourable to homosexuality. In order to become effective, the Amendment has to be passed a second time, by a new Parliament, which was elected in September 2002. The Swedish government said that it hopes this will happen in 2003. According to the Constitutional Amendment, it would be a crime to teach that homosexuality is a sin, or to say that Scripture verses prohibiting it apply today. People convicted under this law could serve two years in prison. Homosexual activists could come to church services with tape recorders to catch pastors and church members who criticise homosexuality. This would apply not only to preaching, but also to private conversations.”
Further: “In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that same-sex couples are to receive the same spousal benefits which normal married couples receive. It also directed the Ontario government to pass legislation giving homosexuals all of the benefits of marriage except for the term “marriage”. That includes the right to adopt children. The Canadian federal government has removed every legal distinction between normal married couples and same-sex couples.”