American Islam's Uncritical Shift Left

The first time American Muslims decided upon a common platform for the national elections, the elite Islamic organizations – which generally ignored American-born Muslim opinion, and catered to the wealthier, South Asian elements of the community – picked George Bush. Considering the result, American Muslims are rightly terrified of making such a mistake again. So American Muslims are herding to the left, this time putting their energy behind either surprise front-runner Howard Dean, of the Democratic Party, or the less well-known Dennis Kucinich.

In this decision, though, I am alarmed – because few of these Muslim supporters address those issues on which these candidates not only stand contrary to Islamic interests, but to the most essential values of sincere humanity: Namely, these candidates, and practically every Democratic candidate, are in favor of many types of abortion and promote some form of gay marriage or recognized homosexual union. In this post, I will focus on the issue of Islam, America and homosexuality, for two reasons:

I am especially discomfited by homosexuality considering how recently such behavior became acceptable – at least in the media – throughout America (Keep in mind, America is much more religious and conservative than Europe. We are talking about a country where nearly everyone believes in God, an afterlife and angels, a country where fully half the population has doubts about evolution and favors some type of creationism).

In the case of abortion, there is a recognized and acceptable diversity of Islamic opinion. Some scholars, such as al-Ghazali, almost completely rejected it (Then again, some will criticize al-Ghazali in this regard, because he had more rigid opinions regarding women, whereas other scholars were more flexible.)

Some American Muslims are more than willing to ally with leftist, Communist and socialist groups, organizations that deny and may even mock God, yet they are afraid of allying with the right – on any issues. Imagine, for a moment, showing up at the door of the Christian right, carrying with us more numbers than Zionists could gather, and with more sympathy to perspectives on abortion and homosexuality. But of course, we would not and maybe should not do this, because the Christian right is dominated by literalist hotheads, mostly of the Protestant variety, most of whom do not have a coherent or clear perspective on homosexuality (The Bible seems confused over the issue. Indeed, it even seems to accept incest.)

Gay rights are now being promoted as part of human rights. An intentional obfuscation, to confuse the public, to make the average Joe think: “African-Americans deserved equal rights. So why not gays?” But the problem is, a distinction is passed over. African-Americans, women, children, Jews, atheists, and homosexuals, all of them, deserve human rights, because they are human. However, any healthy social system understands that human rights also deal with duties and behaviors. Further, a lifestyle does not necessarily convey rights in and of itself. The campaign on behalf of gay rights in America is trying to make people believe that gays and blacks, lesbians and whites, these are all equivalent (essentially, that is) categories.

Let me clarify: If a person is gay, they still deserve human rights. But they do not deserve gay rights. Homosexuality is, from the Muslim point of view, a great sin. One does not promote or condone rights for sins and transgressions, especially not creating identities based on sins and transgressions. That is to say, an alcoholic has rights, but there are no alcoholics’ rights in Islam. This confusion of the person and his actions, of behavior transmuted into identity and then elevated and incorporated into personality and essentiality, is absolutely wrong-headed.

In the Muslim community, we now have gay Muslim groups. They claim that homosexuality exists and should be addressed. Fair enough: It does exist and it should be addressed. However, to create an identity on a problem is erroneous, Islamically speaking. For while we should address child abuse and wife-battering, common problems (unfortunately) in our communities, this does not mean that we should create Islamic movements for child-abusers and wife-batterers. Rather, we should create groups to talk through and deal with the problem. We should not condemn and chase people out of Islam (all of us are sinners, so none of us should be too eager to push others away), but we should also not allow people's errors to go uncorrected, nor society to corrode further. Especially if we are now American Muslims and this is our country.

What worries me is that American Muslims are again showing a short-term perspective. Yes, there is much to worry about in Iraq, in Palestine, in the USA Patriot Act – but what of the moral environment we help to create? What is especially abhorrent about gay Muslim groups is that, in taking a sin and then trying to legitimize it, they wander into speech that becomes kufr – denial of clear prohibitions. Muslims, then, must consider the effect of legitimating social behaviors through their votes. Muslims, then, must consider whether there are factors in their life as relevant as foreign politics and civil rights, whether democracy can exist in a morally vacuous and meaningless environment, wherein language and command no longer have the authoritativeness they used to.

Ten years ago, we would have never imagined women kissing women on TV. What’s to say incest won’t be socially acceptable in twenty years? (I have heard the “homosexuality doesn’t mean incest will happen” argument and, frankly, it is astonishingly weak in that it fails to consider how homosexuality, a result of social degradation, further degrades a society). We might best call homosexuality a “gateway vice,” leading to more and more vices (Now we have Transgender and Transsexual Muslims.) Thanks to the amoral blessings of modern science, humans can be effectively neutered. So what would be the harm in incestuous marriage? In incestuous relationships? That is to say, outside the spiritual realm, there are no foreseeable problems. And this is the logic American Muslims are in danger of internalizing: A utilitarian Islam, predicated on immediate concerns. I applaud the desire for social justice, but this social justice and the striving for it cannot, should not and must not be separated from the transcendent.

And Allah knows best.

Comments

[Ali Eteraz]

Interesting article.

I readily agree with the estimation that action-based-identity cannot be co-mingled into humanity.

However, the corollary point about social justice intrigued me.

Razi said that the will of the creator is in congruence with the will of the people. In other words, he'd say now in Muslim America, the aspiration for social justice, if that be the end desired by Muslims, is the pursuit of transcendence (and therefore what we immanent ones deign to pursue is "religiously" sanctioned. Address this point. Without ad-hominem attacks on Razi.

[Haroon]

Salam Ali,

Regarding Al-Razi.

I actually recently read a similar opinion surfaced by Khaled Abou El Fadl (his fans have an intriguing website, www.scholarofthehouse.org, for anyone so interested). Razi's opinion is interesting, especially in the modern day, but I would ask some questions.

1. What does he mean by "the people"? Does he mean the Muslim community or quite literally the citizenry, as we quite differently understand it in the era of nation-states?

2. What happens when the will of the people clashes with the will of God; namely, God says that "he guides whom He wills." What if people teach that Allah guides certain people, without textual evidence? What then? Can we correct that opinion or allow it to be considered in "congruence"?

Finally, I have problems equating the will of the people with God and, thus, transcendence (in this sense I lean towards an Islamic "secularism"). Namely, my own problem with extreme Sufism and Wahhabism: These ideologies fail to suggest a difference between the will of God and the will of God's inferior subject, hence both equating man and God and negating God, producing a society in which God is meaningless.

That tension, between an ability to approach God's will, but to never be sure if one is perfectly realizing it, that too me creates a worthwhile, just, spiritual and aesthetic society. If anyone knows more about al-Razi, do tell...

Allahu A'alam.

[Malik]

I enjoyed the article.

I dont however think ultimately who is President will control whether homosexuality is condoned if not enjoined by the law. There are others who have far greater sway and control in this regard. There is I believe also a trend towards moral decadence if you will within society.

On a side note, the comment re Imam al-Ghazali isnt said with respect and etiquette. It didnt seem on point, nor was it addressed properly in the manner our tradition enjoins.

[sister-scorpion]

I admit to compromising on those two issues. Absolutely, but not as a reaction to the Bush fiasco and Muslims from the last election. I side with the left because I agree more than disagree with many of their stances, particularly the Greens and Kucinich.

My question for you, though, is this: then to you which candidate is best? Or do you think a non vote would be better since all candidates will have some evils?

[Ali E.]

I'm going to respond to post 2 and the questions you raised there about Razi et al.

>>1. What does he mean by "the people"? Does he mean the Muslim community or quite literally the citizenry, as we quite differently understand it in the era of nation-states?>>

I don't know. I don't think this is a relevant question pertaining to the debate. I imagine to him it was the Muslim citizens of the kingdom/area of control. For our purposes I'd have to extend the definition to all citizens of a nation-state, jews, Muslims, kafirs, bida doers, sabeans, vulture eaters, whatever.

>>2. What happens when the will of the people clashes with the will of God; namely, God says that "he guides whom He wills." What if people teach that Allah guides certain people, without textual evidence? What then? Can we correct that opinion or allow it to be considered in "congruence"?>>

1 - You have adopted a very arbitrary definition of guidance. Its an arbitrary adoption of an idea; and its arbitrary because it means that we don't know who is guided. In my estimation, all men are "guided." Because all men are endowed with common sense. If you want a Quranic authority, the word is "bayan." But even if there was no Quranic authority for the idea, the common sense of all humanit would exist as a fact. That is the "guidance" that God has given.

1a - I'm a bit concerned about your position that God guides whom he will. Does it mean that we can know who God guides? If not, does it mean that we can "figure" out who God is guiding by looking at their actions? And if only a select corps of people are "guided" then I assume only a select corps are worthy of legislating, and acting on the behalf of the future of Islam. Problematic position. Quite clerical in its outlook.

2 - Now, your concern was bigger than that, though your example was confusing. Your concern is that what happens if the "will of the people" is contrary to certain injunctions in the Quran.

Before I can address that, we have to create a separation between "personal" beliefs that are not going to be regulated by the state, and "laws", which are in the state's territory, and are the sole thing which are up for legislation. For example, a state can't legislate that there is two Gods. But a state can legislate, for example, what kind of rights we are to accord to women when it comes to inheritance (or something like that). Razi's principle only applies to this second category. So that the will of the people could not end up leading to legislation which changes the number of prayers from five to three, because the matter requires personal individual action. But it could leave up to the will of the people (no matter how it is actually evaluated...whether through direct democracy, republicanism, or...polls). You might ask, "well, what is the standard against which the will of the people is being evaluated. I think you already mentioned what the standard is: "That tension, between an ability to approach God's will, but to never be sure if one is perfectly realizing it, that too me creates a worthwhile, just, spiritual and aesthetic society."

>>Namely, my own problem with extreme Sufism and Wahhabism: These ideologies fail to suggest a difference between the will of God and the will of God's inferior subject, hence both equating man and God and negating God, producing a society in which God is meaningless.>>

Anytime anyone purports to "interpret" the meaning that God has assigned to words, one is engaging in an action which, you can argue, the actions of the individual are negating God. The option, that leaves, is 1) facial literalism, which I know you think is wack, or 2) accepting that men act on behalf of God, but that this does not mean that God has been negated.

[Al-Muhajabah]

Don't assume that because you have seen no discussion that there is no discussion. If you talk to American Muslims who are planning to support a Democratic candidate, I think you will find that they are well aware of this issue.

There is a "fiqh of priorities". If you can't do the ideal thing, choose the option that does more good than the other. If neither of the options is good, then choose the option that does the least harm.

Over and over again the scholars have said that when Muslims are considering who to vote for, they should choose the lesser of two evils, the candidate who, although not ideal from the Islamic standpoint, will do the most good or the least harm. That is the very basis on which Muslims are taking part in the political process when the system is not Islamic and the candidates are not Muslim.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are ideal. The Republicans may be closer to Muslims on certain social issues, but an increasing number of them hate Islam and Muslims. Perhaps if you are not in America, you don't realize how widespread this has become and how accepted among Republicans.

The Democrats (especially the more left-wing among them) are much more supportive of Muslims, but their position on social issues is not what Muslims agree with.

When I look ahead to what another four years of Bush will be like, I see a wrecked economy, ever-increasing war on the Muslim world, continuing attacks on the civil rights of Muslims, devastation of the environment, and on and on. That is what they have done so far and that is what they will continue.

When I look ahead to what a progressive candidate like Kucinich would be like, I see an economy that is being rebuilt, an end to the wars, a restoration of civil liberties, protection of the environment, and so forth. I do not believe that all of the Democratic candidates would bring about this, but some of them would.

So which is it? Bush's nightmare world where Muslims are under attack and under siege in America and around the world - but, hey, at least gays can't get married? Or Kucinich's sane world.

In my opinion, once we turn the country around, we can concentrate on some of the other issues of concern, like gay marriage. But if we assert that gay marriage is the most important issue, so that we vote for Bush because of it, what in the name of Allah are we bringing down upon ourselves and our brothers and sisters around the world?

I'm sorry, Haroon, but to me a vote for Bush would be the worst kind of short-sighted folly imaginable. More than that, I think it would be morally inexcusable. We know now what Bush will do to Muslims at home and abroad. How can we support that again?

I am fully aware of what the pluses and the minuses are and I have come to the decision that the pluses with Kucinich far outweigh the minuses while the minuses with Bush far outweigh the pluses. And the same is true of most every other Muslim political activst that I know.

We're not as naive as you think.

[Libre]

AM said everything I wanted to say. Thank you, sis.

I am a registered R, but it is sickening to see the
promotion and tolerance of Muslim hate in that milieu.
So for me, Nov04 will be ABB.

[Abu Rishe Al-Mawali]

salam alaikum

Indeed the problem is that Islam is far beyond the flawed sphere of partisan politics. You could say that Islam's commitment to family values puts it to the "right", yet its concern for those in need ( for example, the idea of Zakat) points to the "left". It's really a matter of weighing the pros and cons. Democrats may be a tad liberal, yet Republicans, for all their supposed commitment to family values, seem to have contempt for the poor. Anyway, in the case of 2004 elections, I think the choice is pretty much clear cut, no?

[Haroon]

Salam 'Ali,

In regards to your comments, you must first scroll by the immense insecurity of someone French up above, who is unfortunately referencing victories from the Roman era and not the three successive losses to Germany (Methinks he or she is a Muslim).

1. I mentioned the problem of a clash with the will of people and the will of God, to which you referenced, "bayan." I'm not sure what bayan is referencing here. I was referring to hidayah, or guidance, and the problems of a conflict between God's guiding a people and the people claiming their will represents His guidance.

2. What happens when that will conflicts? Namely, say, the issue of slavery in America between various states prior to the Civil War? Would the will of each state be considered the will of God, and then, on top of that, the Federal government have its own share of the "will of God"?

3. If we equate the will of the people with the will of God, what does this mean for potentially sparking (or strengthening) majoritarian and conformist political tendencies in the Islamic community? How does this help us to create a framework that might respect the good of the community, as an Islamic entity, while also respecting individual human dignities and freedoms?

[Thebit]

To the person who posted some selective information regarding the victories of the French - sorry I deleted the comment because I deemed it useless to the discussion.

[The Zionist Entity]

Zionists? hmmmm

[The Zionist Entity]

SO like Jews, you are stuck between 2 parties that really don't give a shit about you. Looks like we have more in common than you think.

[Anonymous]

It is a purely fallacious argument in suggesting racist attitudes in the Republicn party. It is an impression garnered by media and rhetoric, yet it is quite unsubstantiated. Take the issue of racial profiling, this issue is simply a question of security weighed against personal liberties. Or perhaps take the stalled peace process in Israel. The current Republican administration has been far more acommodating to the demands of the Palestinian governments than the Clinton administration ever was in its attempts to broker peace deals.
And refering to Democrats as a "tad liberal" in reference to Islam is purely ridiculous. In almost every social aspect, Islam is a very conservative religion. I have found that the blind willingness of many American Muslims in defending tyrannic, supposedly Islamic states is what has brought about the all too conformed move to the left in America.