|
 Is
this the Mountain that will Break the Back of Civilisation
as we know it? By
Shaykh Riyad Nadwi, PhD
01 February 2006
Homosexuality
has made the headlines in the past month with unprecedented
frequency, from a series of high profile public celebrations
over civil partnerships (so-called “gay marriages”)
to Oscar-nominated blockbusters and a chain of political
career meltdowns following forced confessions of homosexual
behaviour. Behind the smoke screen of lame excuses (e.g.
lack of honesty in politics), the tendency to shy away
from endorsing this behaviour remains as alive as it
was in the 1950s when Sir John Wolfenden popularised
the idea that homosexuality could only be a “condition”
rather than the result of conditioning. The major difference
today is that instead of changing man-made laws, all
energies are focused on challenging God’s laws
and warnings. This is especially ironic since Wolfenden
had defended his recommendation to decriminalise homosexual
activity on the grounds that he was only “concerned
with crime and not with sin”. Nowadays sin seems
to have become a primary obsession.
In
the last fortnight, Channel Four continued its “attack
religion” series with two prime time documentaries
on homosexuality: one on “Gay Muslims” and
the other on “Gay Bishops”. In the first
programme we were told that, “the chances are,
[we] are all related to a gay Muslim and [we] don’t
even know it”. So said the president of a support
group calling itself “Imaan”. It is interesting
to note that the choice of this name, which means “belief”,
may have been to pre-empt the likely scepticism among
Muslims about its existence.
Following
the clip of a “Mr Abdullah” dancing in a
gay night club, the Channel Four commentator Sonia Deol
informed the viewers that “Mr Abdullah is a practising
Muslim… he is well-known on the local Asian gay
scene”. He “prays regularly” and he
also dances wildly to rock music throughout the gay
pride parade. In addition to a string of incoherent
reporting, the programme was also offensive to Muslims
with its home-grown philosophy and ad hoc exegesis (tafsir)
of the Quran. A “Mr Adnan” declared proudly
in the programme that, “the love I offer to my
[male] partner is a form of worship,” whilst one
Dr Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle argued that “Islam
does not address homosexuality as an identity”.
According to him, the prohibition of sodomy is merely
“a matter of interpretation… when you are
talking about the Imams there is just not an acknowledgement
that there is a sexual orientation dimension to people’s
personality. You have no rational control, but until
there is that very basic acknowledgment that people
have different inter-dispositions, a straight imam is
really not going to be able to deal with a gay Muslim
at any level”. Put bluntly, the underlying assumption
is that homosexuality is determined by genetic composition
and people should, therefore, be exempted from accountability
for acts of sodomy or lesbianism as long as they claim
to be gay.
The
Natural Selection Trap
If
you are wondering why it is that some people are so
keen nowadays to change the words and meanings of religious
texts to justify their behaviour, in stark conflict
with the clear pronouncements of those texts, a simple
explanation will suffice. The answer may be found in
the fact that, despite the pretence of having solid
evidence, those who accept the theory of evolution and
claim that sexuality is governed by genes are faced
with a colossal consistency problem.
According
to the theory of evolution, human beings evolved through
a process of natural selection. That selection has chosen
sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction
as the means to propagate and preserve the genetic make
up of the species. In this process, it is necessary
to accept that any gene guiding its host away
from reproductive sexual activity would have been selected
out of existence. The theory depends heavily on the
supposition of long periods of time – hundreds
of thousands of years – for selective reproduction
and this places the gay gene theory in jeopardy. Put
simply, according to this logic, if cave men clubbed
their fellow men over the head instead of women,
or practised abstinence on account of an inability to
find same-sex partners, their gay genes could not conceivably
be in existence today. Natural selection would have
extirpated them from the human genome.
The
only satisfactory way out of this conundrum for evolutionists,
at least until the 1950s in the UK and the 1970s in
the United States, was that homosexuality was predominantly
the result of psychosis. Indeed, until 1973, the standard
official reference guide for the American Psychiatric
Association, the “Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders” (or DSM), listed
homosexuality as a treatable sexual disorder, an illness
that was routinely treated by psychiatrists with varying
degrees of success. The experts at the time argued that
while genetic traits such as skin colour were traceable
through identifiable inheritance patterns, homosexuals
are only identified by their claims and actions rather
than a trait or gene.
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.
By
adopting the language and posture of human rights activists,
they were able to shift the attention of policy makers
and public opinion away from taking the genetic assumption
to its theoretical conclusion, i.e. that the gay gene
should have been selected out of existence many hundreds
of years ago.
The
Genetic Evidence Myth
The
gay lobby likes to quote sensational, media-spun research.
To name a few examples: Kallman’s 1952 research,
which all future attempts failed to replicate; Dr Simon
LeVay's (1991) brains research which was grossly misrepresented;
and Dean Hamer’s (1993) X chromosome research
that could not confirm whether the “gay gene”
was present in heterosexuals. However, a major headache
for such people is that, among homosexuals of monozygotic
(identical) twins, nearly half are paired with heterosexual
siblings. If, as they claim, “this is a condition
based on the genetic make up of the individual”,
then it becomes necessary to explain how on earth two
people with identical genes (monozygotic twins) can
have different sexualities? Some studies have placed
the concordance rate as low as 38 per cent, which means
that in 62 per cent of twins studied, one sibling was
not homosexual. In this area of research there is a
large, indisputable body of evidence. For example, in
the extensive study conducted by Bailey et al
at the University of Queensland in Australia with over
14,000 Australian twin subjects, they found that if
one twin was homosexual, 62 per cent of the time his
identical brother was heterosexual. For lesbianism,
it was 70 per cent (Bailey, JM; Dunne, MP; Martin, NG
(2000): Genetic and Environmental influences on
sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian
twin sample. J. Pers. Social Psychology 78, 524-536).
If a “homosexuality gene” did exist, then
the rate of homosexual orientation in identical twins
should be 100 per cent but there is a consensus in the
scientific community that sexuality in monozygotic twins
has never been found to be so. Indeed, some studies
have found that even adoptive brothers shared a concordance
rate higher than that of non-twin biological brothers
(Byne, William and Bruce Parsons (1993), Human Sexual
Orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50:228-239).
If there were a significant genetic influence on homosexuality,
the result would have been the reverse.
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. It is a myth they have used
effectively in conjunction with “civil rights”
rhetoric to browbeat major mental health associations
into condoning the position that “although there
is insufficient research on the matter, it is nevertheless
unethical to attempt reparative therapy on homosexuals”.
“Homophobia as intimidation’ is one of the
most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who
would disagree with the gay activist agenda” (Former
President of American Psychological Association, Dr
Nicholas Cummings speaking in conference at the Marina
Del Rey Marriott Hotel, 12 November 2005).
The Numbers Myth
Queer “evangelists” persist in their claims
that 10 per cent of the population is homosexual, a
figure that is more than double that of the oft-cited
Kinsey Institute report (Kinsey et al, 1948,
1953). The most authoritative study of sexual practices
in the United States is the National Health and Social
Life Survey (NHSLS). According to the NHSLS statistics,
2.8 per cent of males, and 1.4 per cent of females identify
themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (Laumann et
al, 1994). However, only 0.9 per cent of men and 0.4
per cent of women reported having only same-sex partners
since the age of 18. The 2000 Census revealed that the
total number of households in the United States is 106,741,426.
Unmarried, same-sex households number 601,209, which
translates to 0.42 per cent of the total – less
than half of one per cent. So, in order to portray accurately
the 2000 US Census Bureau’s ratio of homosexuals
in TV sitcoms, you would need 199 heterosexual actors
to every one homosexual. In reality today, the ratio
in TV sitcoms in the United States (and the UK very
soon) is one homosexual among four heterosexuals (Harrub
et al 2003, Apologetics Press, Inc.).
The
“Impossible to Change” Myth
When
children are born with a genetic condition such as Down’s
syndrome they remain in that condition for the rest
of their lives. Many homosexuals, in contrast, are found
to fluctuate between heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual
orientations. The fact is that single-sex populations
(e.g. prisons and boarding schools) or gender-separated
societies with a low or nil marriage rate tend to gravitate
towards fulfilling their sexual impulses with same sex
partners. Chaplains and counsellors in prisons routinely
report on the trauma of heterosexual inmates realising
that they might be turning into homosexuals, only to
discover on release from prison that it was the situation
that had led them to think and feel that way. Out of
prison, not only did their heterosexual orientation
return but their revulsion towards sodomy had returned
to almost the same intensity that it had been prior
to their incarceration.
According to a recent study conducted by Texas Tech
University researchers J Travis Garland, Robert D Morgan
and Amanda M Beer, despite the fact that 99 per cent
of prisoners described themselves as initially heterosexual,
the longer a prisoner remained in prison the more likely
he was to acknowledge a homosexual orientation. The
study found that those serving shorter prison sentences
were more likely to maintain a heterosexual orientation.
“[H]owever, inmates currently serving a longer
sentence experience a significant shift toward a sexual
preference for the same sex” (Garland et al, (2005)
Impact of Time in Prison and Security Level on Inmates'
Sexual Attitude, Behavior and Identity, Psychological
Services, Vol. 2, No. 2, 151-162).
Evidence for effective rehabilitation therapy in homosexuals
is emerging on a regular basis. One study in particular
deserves attention because its author, Dr Robert L Spitzer,
is a prominent psychiatrist who used to be considered
a champion of the gay movement. He had played a major
role in the removal of homosexuality from the “Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”
(DSM) in 1973. Rather surprisingly now, after conducting
a study of 200 subjects, he says that “mental
health professionals should stop moving in the direction
of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in
sexual orientation. Many patients, provided with informed
consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed
if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational
choice to work toward developing their heterosexual
potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions”
(Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No.
5, October 2003, pp. 403-417).
The most significant aspect of Wolfenden’s 1957
Report was not that it was instrumental in decriminalising
private homosexual activity in a number of western countries,
but rather its role in promoting – despite the
testimony of numerous psychiatrists and psychoanalysts
to the contrary – the idea that homosexuality
was merely a “condition”. We now know that
when compiling the report, Sir Wolfenden’s Eton-educated
son, Jeremy, informed him that he was homosexual. It
would not be unreasonable to explore the emotional and
psychological implication of that disclosure upon Sir
John Wolfenden at the time of compiling his report.
We need to reassess the fundamental assumptions of the
1950s in the light of what we now know from a large
body of research on monozygotic twins, prison inmates
and reparative therapy.
Seeking Refuge in Religion
Religion has become another distraction device in the
gay movement. In 2004, the former Democratic presidential
candidate and Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, signed
a bill legalising civil unions for homosexuals in his
state. He argued: “The overwhelming evidence is
that there is a very significant, substantial, genetic
component to it. From a religious point of view, if
God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not
have created gay people” (Vande Hei, Jim (2004),
Dean Says Faith Swayed Decision on Gay Unions,
The Washington Post, p. A-1, 08 January).
The attraction of securing legitimacy in the religious
(“creationist”) camp is its potential to
provide a way out of having to deal with the unnerving
inconsistencies inherent in the evolutionist camp, where
natural selection poses a problem. All that gays would
need to say is “God made me this way”. Period.
Unfortunately for them, God happens to be categorical
in His condemnation of this activity and His retribution
when it is endorsed by society at large.
The Scriptures (the Torah, the Bible and the Quran)
are unanimous and unambiguous on this matter. “Thou
shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
an abomination” (Torah, Leviticus 18:22). “If
a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”
(Torah, Leviticus 20:13). “Then the Lord rained
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from
the Lord out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities,
and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities,
and that which grew upon the ground” (Bible, Genesis
19:24).
“We
also sent Lot. He said to his people, Do you commit
lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed
before you? For you practise your lusts on men in preference
to women; you are indeed a people transgressing beyond
bounds” (Al-Quran, 7:80-81). “What! Of all
creatures do you come unto the males, And leave the
wives your Lord created for you? Nay, you are people
transgressing all limits.” (Al-Quran, 26:165-166).
“We also sent Lot, As a Messenger: Behold, He
said to his people, Do you do what is shameful though
you see (its wickedness), Would you really approach
men in your lusts rather than women? Nay you are people
grossly ignorant” (Al-Quran, 27:54-55). “And
remember Lot: Behold, He said to his people: You do
commit lewdness such as no people in Creation ever committed
before you. Do you indeed approach men, and cut off
the highway? And practise wickedness even in your councils?
But his people gave no answer but this: they said: Bring
us the Wrath of God if thou tell the truth!” (Al-Quran,
29:28-29). “When Our decree issued, We turned
the cities upside down and rained down on them brimstones
hard as baked clay! Spread, layer on layer. Marked as
from thy Lord. Nor are they very far from those who
do wrong!” (Al-Quran 11:82-83).
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.
Piggyback
Agenda
What
is it that makes people like Dr Scott Kugle in the Channel
Four programme and others go out on so weak a limb to
try to justify homosexuality and sodomy in Islam when
there are so many explicit verses in the Quran warning
of dire consequences?
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.
Incredible
as this may sound, there are groups of such activists
who enjoy the backing of governments, academic institutions
and large publishing houses. A significant part of what
we saw on Channel Four was, in fact, consistent with
that agenda to use the gay debate as an excuse to deconstruct
the Quran.
The
two fault lines through which they hope to shake the
foundation of Muslim attachment to the Quran are homosexuality
and feminism. Sarah Eltantawi, Communications Director
of the Progressive Muslim Union of North Americag, said
in an interview on Veer Towards Queer/Radioactive Radio
in the US (12/01/2005): “One thing that we realise,
many of us, especially the founders [of the PMU], is
that what separates progressive Islam from other aspects
of the community is along the fault lines of gender
and sexuality… sometimes the only thing that is
different between progressives and conservatives is
gender and sexuality issues… we see that as very
central... this is the fault line…
as Professor Omid Safi writes, and he is the Chairman
of PMU, gender and sexuality need to be used as a measuring
stick for broader questions.”
When
asked how she would go about convincing Muslims who
are reluctant to accept homosexuality in Islam, she
responded: “Yes, that’s a really important
question. I think one thing that I have just noticed
that is really important and something that really works,
is to simply incorporate more queers in daily Muslim
life so that it becomes extremely hard to discriminate
when someone is... praying next to you or standing next
to you… so I think incorporating gays and lesbians
in daily Muslim affairs would, I think, be a very revolutionary
thing to do”. Muslims will be well advised to
remember the words of Paul Wolfowitz at this point:
“We need an Islamic reformation and I think there
is real hope for one” (Paul Wolfowitz, David Ignatius,
The Read on Wolfowitz, The Washington Post, 17 January
2003, p. A230).
In
conclusion, I say to members of the support group “Imaan”
and all the so-called “Muslim intellectuals”
who think they can attack Islam and deconstruct the
Quran with postmodern mumbo-jumbo, please remember that
it is the Word of God you have chosen as your target,
God, Who says: “We have, without doubt, sent down
this Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)”
(Al-Quran: 15:9).
|
|
