Assalaamu 'alaikum.

An article of a fairly typical flavour appeared in the Times
(London) on the 7th of January 2006, by Ben Hoyle:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1974216,00.html

It explores the phenomenon of "gay Muslims", displaying the same
superficiality expected from people who cannot grasp religious
frameworks of thought and experience (this applies to the writer and
probably the interviewees too, however Muslim they are in other
ways).

The tag-line claims that "The conservative mainstream is forcing
Islamic homosexuals into sham marriage and a secret sex life". The
understanding of Islam and the Muslim community is simplified to
quoting Sir Iqbal Sacranie, "Britain's most senior Muslim figure".
That is true on the level of political organisation, but not in
other ways - such as scholarly legitimacy, or popular loyalty, for
example.

Calling Dr. Zaki Badawi "the country's other top Muslim" is amusing,
as it implies that we have some sort of ranking system, presumably
based on piety (see Qur'an 49:13)! What makes him top, we really
don't know. He was described by a writer on the notorious Muslim
Wake Up website as "perhaps the most powerful friend of gay Muslims
in Britain". He might have earned this distinction by his advice
to "gay Muslims" regarding civil partnerships, not directly quoted
in the Times article, that they ought to "take advantage of their
financial benefits so long as they are not sexually active." It
would be most interesting to hear his justification for this advice,
which either amounts to legitimising what is prohibited by God, or
to cheating the system.

To clarify: we do not hold that people are sinful (or in any way
less worthy) because of who they are, or what they feel. More
radically, we assert that sexual feelings should not be used to
categorise and define people, either to push them into accepting
that they have a certain "orientation", or to consider them as part
of a "community" of like-feeling people - let alone a "minority"
that should demand rights according to these definitions. This is a
philosophical position we take, and it is the best understanding
according to our scriptural interpretation.

That is the reason for placing "gay Muslims" in quote marks. It is
neither a denial of the empirical reality of Muslims who are same-
sex attracted, nor a denial that people who identify as "gay" can be
Muslims religiously.

Our criticism of Dr. Badawi's apparent position (which seems to be
that living as a "gay Muslim" is fine as long as no sexual contact
is involved) is that it fails to address the underlying
contradictions in the notion. Furthermore, for two men (or two
women) to live together is uncontroversial in itself. However, where
the intention is to replace the Islamic ideal of spouse-hood
(whether or not physical contact is involved) with a notion of same-
sex partnership, this is an act demonstrating contempt for the
nature God Almighty has created for mankind.

Finally, we note the complete one-sidedness of Ben Hoyle's article,
in that no Muslim scholar or commentator is called upon to give an
explanation of the negative Islamic perspective on these issues, or
to explain where Sacranie is coming from in his comments. There are
links to Imaan and Safra as "havens for gay Muslims to share their
experiences and receive support and advice", but of course
StraightWay is not considered, because we treat people as humans and
Muslims before insisting they are "created gay".

We have a unique, faithful way of solving the dilemmas that so many
brothers and sisters are facing - more and more are finding us and
finding their own way forwards - but we will always be criticised by
the homosexualists, especially the "gay Muslim" movements, which are
not even interested in dialogue with any mainstream Muslim bodies,
StraightWay included.

11th January 2005