Ten years ago, this was a red line. I used to be a blogger by that time. I used to read blogs of different people coming from all backgrounds, though mainly within the "Arab" scope. And several times I came across blogs owned by LGBTI people, blogging under fake names, blogging cautiously, trying their best to conceal their identities. The thing is, I never dared tell any one that I came across a blog owned by, say, a gay man.
My first real encounter with an LGBTI in real life dates a couple of years before that, before I became a blogger. I was still a student, and I was in the extremely crowded bookshop trying to "hunt" a textbook. And in my way out, and as I was pushing and struggling to find my way out, I suddenly found myself facing this: the bare chest of an EXTREMELY white.... human body. I almost crashed into him -he turned out to be a guy- and froze in my place in the last minute and managed to avoid the crash, but when I looked into him, I was speechless! He was wearing tight black jeans, a silk shirt that had several front buttons open, revealing an extremely white hairless chest of a man. His hair was long and blown dry, his face was shaved, he was very white, and his eye brows were skillfully formed in perfect lines. My stomach twitches as I remember the scene!
And then I worked for my current organization. Here we work in refugee resettlement. And since the first day I learned that the definition of a refugee is: someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his
nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to
avail himself of the protection of that country." Never was the word "gay" or "homosexual" or "lesbian" mentioned in the definition! So whenever anyone came to me to tell me that "the international organizations you work for are working on destroying the virtue of our communities and encourage homosexuality, and this is through protecting people who are homosexual and send them to the West" I was proud to answer: "the refugee definition made up by these "international organizations" does not list these people as refugees".
But then, suddenly, our management asked us to start noticing if any one of the refugees mentioned any concerns related to them being persecuted for being anything related to the LGBTI groups, and that was when I was introduced to this term. At that time, in 2010, we were only asked to "monitor" and "report" the possibility of receiving such cases.
Fast forward to January 2016: my boss is a gay, and I am attending a training on the understanding of LGBTI people and how to treat them in cases of forced resettlement and what language to use when talking to them!
First of all, my boss, who is a gay, is a very nice person. Never was any of the people working withing my team exposed to any awkward situations with him because of that. If the gossip lovers did not spread this information one would never know he is. He is very professional and fair, and he is nice and friendly with every one. He does not exceed his limits though.
And the debate goes on and on in Jordan regarding this issue. People whine all the time on every possible media platform that the west is trying to destroy our community by pushing us to integrate LGBTI people and accept them in Jordan. They like to threaten the people that Allah's wrath is in the way because of their lack of action towards this evil that is attempting to invade us. They try to shut up every one who tries to say anything other than: "death to gay people, death to lesbians, death to gender-changers, and death to their supporters"!
And amongst all of this, I find myself hesitant to accept this rationale: that LGBTI people should just be killed.
Why you ask? Let me tell you...
First of all, the Holy Quraan never mentioned a specific punishment for homosexual behavior.
Read the holy Quraan cover to cover, no where will you find a mentioning to the homosexual behavior.
Search among the authentic hadeeth, you will never find a single authentic hadeeth that mentions the punishment of homosexual behavior.
Yet, Allah subhanahu wa taala mentions in the Holy Quraan the story of the people of the prophet Lut, who are the old residents of Sodom and Gomorrah. According to the holy scriptures, these are the people who invented the act of anal sex between men. Allah subhaanahu wa taala has sent an angel, who has overthrown the city with all of its residents, except for the prophet Lut -peace be upon him- and few believers.
Well, this was the divine punishment for those who have INVENTED the sin. A DIVINE punishment. That is not a verdict. We cannot overthrow any one, can we?
The "verdict" to kill the committers of homosexual acts came through either a hadeeth that is not authentic enough to shed the blood of a human, let alone a Muslim, or through a historical narration.
Now consider the following:
Adultery, or "Zina", is a great sin in Islam. The punishment is either whipping, or in case the sinner was married it is stoning to death. However, the verification of the act in the case of a married sinner should go through VERY difficult procedures, and if the reporter's claim failed to meet a VERY high standard to condemn the sinner, the reporter should be whipped. The verdicts of adultery in Islam have been largely misinterpreted and misused, and the fair discussion of them needs books, not blog posts. But in any case, the harsh verdict can be understood if we take into consideration the destructive effect that results of producing bastard babies. Adultery is a reproductive process, and if a baby was brought to life because of it, regardless of how tenderly the society dealt with this baby, the chances are very small that he/she will grow up a well balanced individual. This is, of course, if we considered the chance of this individual being up-brought in a positive environment. Which is usually not the case.
However, homosexual behavior is not a reproductive one. So the damage done is only affecting the sinners. It is not a harm done to society in the form of producing imbalanced people that usually end up homeless or struggling with psychological burdens, but in the sense of: exposing the human race to extinction.
If Allah wanted us to kill gay people he would make it clear that he wants us to do. He wouldn't leave it to our interpretations if it was really a critically dangerous sin. What would be the punishment? It could be decided depending on how common has this behavior become. If it was not very common the punishment could be verbal. It can gradually increase based on how much this sin spreads. Actually, reading about the opinions of scholars about this makes one believe that a punishment that depends on how much the sin spreads makes alot of sense.
So it is a sin. I, for example, say so because in Islam it is a sin. But if I am not a Muslim, why would I think it is? Why would the whole world do before the rights' groups started to push for homosexual behavior to be considered as normal?
You say it is against nature, some people will look for a study proving that dogs and camels are know to have homosexual practice, so, no, the heterosexual behavior is not the only natural behavior. You say that homosexual behavior can lead to specific health problems, they will get case studies to you for people with these same health problems who have never practiced homosexuality and tell you there is no proof that homosexuality is the reason.
Then some one tell me: if the right to be homosexual would be considered a human right, then it would be guaranteed to all humans by the virtue of being human. If all humanity practiced homosexual behavior, human race will go extinct. And as long as this is a "human right", then you cannot grant it to some and not grant it to others! The UNESCO looks at any act exposing any culture to extinction as a crime. What about an act that -in principle- can lead to the extinction of the whole human race?
Weeks ago we had to attend an LGBTI awareness training. It was a general one, starting by addressing gender issues, and then moving to discuss gays, lesbians and bisexuals. This was the other extreme. The general orientation of the training was uncomfortable to me and many of my colleagues. They tried to force the existence in a liquid gender status to be considered normal. A thing I can never digest! Our identity is a huge part of who we are. The clearer we are about our identity the more balanced we are, and the more we are able to give. The clashes within the layers of one's identity can lead to serious imbalances, that might result in one trying to take radical measures in order to balance the scales: think joining ISIS! I thing gender is very intimate to one, and is more essential in one's identification of self, to the extent that if it went gray, it can lead to serious issues!
Also, sarcastic enough, we were taught that "homosexual" is not a term that LGBTI people like to use, because it sounds like a clinical term, which may indicate that these are sick people, or, as used to be described previously in the publications of the American Psychiatric Association: A disorder. Starting 2013, the pressure applied to the association was successful in removing that disorder form the handbook! So it is not any more considered a disorder, and "forcing" some one to receive treatment can be a human rights violation! Seriously? If -God forbids- I see that my son has, at puberty, started to show signs of female body, which will -definitely- cause him alot of discomfort (think of the discomfort resulting from the turning into the adult body of the same gender) shall I deprive him from the right to get treated? And leave him suffering and struggling with his identity until he is "old enough to decide what he wants to be"? Shall the psychological scars resulting from this ever be cured? While the issue can be easily and quickly be resolved and leave the boy to concentrate on what really matters?
Not only that. You cannot use any terminology or language that infers (choice), because LGBTI people want us to believe that their status is not a matter of "choice". They do not chose to be LGBTI, so you cannot simply convince them that this is not a good choice. It is their nature that they were born with (when did Bruce Jenner turn to Kaitlyn? How many children he had before he discovered that he is a woman?).
Duh!... For God's sake?
What I really dream of, is to get the cultural and ideological and propagandal (is that even a word?) bias out of this issue, so that people can address it ONLY from the medical/psychological point of view. I mean if people with gender related struggles could just look into themselves and ask for whatever help they need in order to overcome any struggles and got it solved once and for all. Without being judged by the community. Or pushed by the propaganda leaders to accept themselves the way they are although "the way they are" is just causing them to live in continuous agony.
If, after every one was able to address his/her own gender concerns in a neutral environment, and still some people remain with gay-lisbean orientation, we can discuss the argument that these are just different "natures", not disorders, nor choices.
Until then, we will still be forced to touch our way in the darkness of extremes!
