| Radical Islamism & Jihad | Saturday, 29 Aug 2009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Killing of apostates from Islam: Pakistan, Somalia and UK | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pakistan and Burning Alive of Christians
In Pakistan the relentless hatred of Sunni Islamic fanatics towards all minorities is continuing and the reasons, like always, are based on their hate-filled minds. Therefore, at least six innocent Christians have been killed on the grounds that the Koran was desecrated. Of course, no evidence, and even if evidence, does this mean you can burn alive women, men, and children? Well in the eyes of radical Sunni Islam it does. They believed that it was their religious duty to kill innocents Verse 9:73 in the Koran states “O Prophet! Strive hard (wage war) against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, – an evil refuge indeed.” While the Hadith 9:4 says “Wherever you find infidels kill them; for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.” Therefore, in the last few weeks Christians have been burnt alive in Pakistan, converts from Islam have been beheaded in Somalia, and Christian pastors in Nigeria were beheaded for not converting to Islam. All these acts were done by radical Sunni Islamists and in every case the killers were shouting “Allah akbar” (God is great) because they believed that it was their religious duty to kill innocents because of their understanding of conservative Islam. — — Lee Jay Walker, Tokyo Correspondent, The Seoul Times |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| More… | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tag / Islamic Culture Radical Islamism & Jihad Islam and Human Rights Islamic Ideology Current Affairs War on Terror Islam
Babri Masjid: Opportunity for Muslims
| Spiritual Meditations | |
| 01 Jul 2009, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| Babri Masjid: Opportunity for Muslims | |
Muslims have gone through a traumatic period in the last several years. They have spent a lot of time in introspection. They have shown great wisdom and maturity in fending off severe and very brazen provocations. One hopes that it is this maturity that is now beginning to be reflected…. This brings me to my main plea—forgiveness. Forgiveness is the essence of both the Muslim and Hindu spiritual traditions. It is the only way out of the vicious and very debilitating grip of bad karma. It is our belief that one has to always pay individual or collective karmic debts in this or any subsequent incarnations or on the Day of Judgement. Both Hindu and Muslim spiritual traditions consider God as the greatest teacher, this world a great school, the events that involve us in this mayajaal (illusionary world) as messages. What could this Great Teacher be teaching us in this section of the school through the great Babri Masjid-Ram Janam-bhoomi drama? Perhaps the all-important lesson of forgiveness. It may take us years, decades, centuries or millennia to learn this lesson. But learn we will. There is no escaping. God is a very determined teacher. We have the option to learn the lesson now. Let us exercise it. I have a special plea to make to fellow Muslims, a plea I have never made before. Many reasonable Hindu friends asked me in the last few years of strife: why can’t Muslims make a gift of the Ramjanamsthan to the Hindus? What is the big deal? I had just one answer. No gift could be or should be made at gunpoint. Give-me-this-gift-or-I-will-snatch-it- from-your-hands-anyway is no way of seeking gifts. A gift of Ramjanamsthan at that point would probably have been cowardice. But the situation has changed now. The gun has been taken away from the hands of our spiritually evolving brothers. The law of the land has asserted itself. … Wallowing in despair would be pointless. How long will we go on commemorating the follies of our neighbours on every December 6? Nursing wounds is no sign of maturity. Wounds should be allowed to heal in a natural process. By wallowing in anger and self-pity, we will be making the same mistake as some of our Hindu brothers did. Laws of karma Laws of karma sanction one great privilege. Either of the parties to a dispute can set both the parties free of the karmic debt by exercising their right to forgive the other party and thus grow spiritually. Every calamity is said to contain the seeds of an equal or greater opportunity. The demolition of the mosque gives us an opportunity to strengthen our stake in secularism, peace and democracy. The Babri mosque is no more. It has become a victim of Hindu-Muslim negative egos. Many precious lives have been lost in the process. The ideal solution would be that both the communities come together, forgive each other and mutually decide what to do about that piece of God’s land. Let us remember that there is no mosque there now. The memory of the mosque remains. The Babri mosque can never come back. Its demolition was perpetrated by a section of misguided Hindus referred to by the Supreme Court as criminals. But Muslims should never forget that the vast majority of Hindus clearly disapproved of it. They neither rewarded with votes in the subsequent elections the BJP which was apparently responsible for the demolition, nor the Congress which had started the whole dispute in the first place in a clear bid to garner Hindu votes. Reconciliation If this mutual forgiveness and reconciliation does not take place — and if present Hindu and Muslim leaders are considered representatives of their respective communities, it is not likely to happen — ordinary people of both communities must make their presence felt and come out openly for peace at all costs. If that too does not happen, we Muslims should thank God for providing us with this unique opportunity to exercise our option of forgiveness and making a gift of a piece of God’s land on the specific condition that it be used for nothing but building a place of worship, so that its sanctity is maintained. I know this is not going to be easy. Forgiveness is never easy, except for the spiritually evolved. But I don’t think we have any other option. We have many things, important things to do. We just cannot afford to remain embroiled in inconsequential disputes. The renowned Islamic scholar, Late Maulana Ali Mian Nadwi had reacted to the opening of Babri Masjid locks the following day in these very sensible words: “Many mosques are in the possession of other people.” And indeed they are. There were many mosques in East Punjab of the pre-Partition days? But very few are left as mosques today? A Punjabi Hindu friend of mine complained of so many mosques having been converted into gurudwaras and temples. His Muslim friend (not me, some great soul) reacted: “But they are still places of worship. There is only one God, after all. No matter what you believe in, you cannot but worship the same God.” Amen. |
An Israeli View of Iranian Democracy
| Islam and Politics | |
| 05 Jul 2009, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| An Israeli View of Iranian Democracy | |
| HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iranian citizens pour into the streets in order to protest against their government! What a wonderful sight! Gideon Levy wrote in Haaretz that he envies the Iranians.
And indeed, anyone who tries these days to get Israelis in any numbers into the streets could die of envy. It is very difficult to get even hundreds of people to protest against the evil deeds or policies of our government — and not because everybody supports it. At the height of the war against Gaza, half a year ago, it was not easy to mobilize ten thousand protesters. Only once a year does the peace camp succeed in bringing a hundred thousand people to the square — and then only to commemorate the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. The atmosphere in Israel is a mixture of indifference, fatigue and a "loss of the belief in the ability to change reality", as a Supreme Court justice put it this week. A very dramatic change is needed in order to get masses of people to demonstrate for peace. FOR MIR-HOSSEIN MOUSAVI hundreds of thousands have demonstrated, and hundreds of thousands have demonstrated for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That says something about the people and about the regime. Can anyone imagine a hundred thousand people gathering in Cairo’s Tahrir Square to protest against the official election results? The police would open fire before a thousand had assembled there. Would even a thousand people be allowed to demonstrate in Amman against His Majesty? The very idea is absurd. — Uri Avnery URL of this page: http://www.newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1521 ———————– An Israeli View of Iranian Democracy Hundreds of thousands demonstrated in Teheran. Can anyone imagine this in Cairo? A thousand in Amman? In Saudi Arabia, there are never protests against election results — simply because there are no elections. In Iran, however, there are elections, and how! By Uri Avnery HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iranian citizens pour into the streets in order to protest against their government! What a wonderful sight! Gideon Levy wrote in Haaretz that he envies the Iranians. And indeed, anyone who tries these days to get Israelis in any numbers into the streets could die of envy. It is very difficult to get even hundreds of people to protest against the evil deeds or policies of our government — and not because everybody supports it. At the height of the war against Gaza, half a year ago, it was not easy to mobilize ten thousand protesters. Only once a year does the peace camp succeed in bringing a hundred thousand people to the square — and then only to commemorate the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. The atmosphere in Israel is a mixture of indifference, fatigue and a "loss of the belief in the ability to change reality", as a Supreme Court justice put it this week. A very dramatic change is needed in order to get masses of people to demonstrate for peace. FOR MIR-HOSSEIN MOUSAVI hundreds of thousands have demonstrated, and hundreds of thousands have demonstrated for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That says something about the people and about the regime. Can anyone imagine a hundred thousand people gathering in Cairo’s Tahrir Square to protest against the official election results? The police would open fire before a thousand had assembled there. Would even a thousand people be allowed to demonstrate in Amman against His Majesty? The very idea is absurd. Some years ago, the Saudi security forces in Mecca opened fire on unruly pilgrims. In Saudi Arabia, there are never protests against election results — simply because there are no elections. In Iran, however, there are elections, and how! They are more frequent than elections in the US, and Iranian presidents change more often than American ones. Indeed, the very protests and riots show how seriously the citizens there treat election results. OF COURSE, the Iranian regime is not democratic in the way we understand democracy. There is a Supreme Guide who fixes the rules of the game. Religious bodies rule out candidates they do not like. Parliament cannot adopt laws that contradict religious law. And the laws of God are unchangeable – at most, their interpretation can change. All this is not entirely foreign to Israelis. From the very beginning the religious camp has been trying to turn Israel into a religious state, in which religious law (called Halakha) would be above the civil law. Laws "revealed" thousands of years ago and regarded as unchangeable would take precedence over laws enacted by the democratically elected Knesset. To understand Iran, we have only to look at one of the important Israeli parties: Shas. They, too, have a Supreme Guide, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who decides everything. He appoints the party leadership, he selects the party’s Knesset candidates, he directs the party faction how to vote on every single issue. There are no elections in Shas. And in comparison with the frequent outbursts of Rabbi Ovadia, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a model of moderation. ELECTIONS DIFFER from country to country. It is very difficult to compare the fairness of elections in one country with those in another. At one end of the scale were the elections in the good old Soviet Union. There it was joked that a voter entered the ballot room, received a closed envelope from an official and was politely requested to put it into the ballot box. "What, can’t I know who I am voting for?" the voter demanded. The official was shocked. "Of course not! In the Soviet Union we have secret elections!" At the other end of the scale there should stand that bastion of democracy, the USA. In 1918, much the same happened in Germany. Mussolini and Hitler took great pains not to challenge the army, and came to power with its support. In many revolutions, the decisive moment arrives when the crowds in the street confront the soldiers and policemen, and the question arises: will they open fire on their own people? When the soldiers refuse, the revolution wins. When they shoot, that is the end of the matter. When Boris Yeltsin climbed on the tank, the solders refused to shoot and he won. The Berlin wall fell because one East-German police officer refused at the decisive moment to give the order to open fire. In Iran, Khomeini won when, in the final test, the soldiers of the Shah refused to shoot. That did not happen this time. The security forces were ready to shoot. They were not infected by the revolutionary spirit. The way it looks now, that was the end of the affair. I AM not an admirer of Ahmadinejad. Mousavi appeals to me much more. I do not like leaders who are in direct contact with God, who make speeches to the masses from a balcony, who use demagogic and provocative language, who ride on the waves of hatred and fear. His denial of the holocaust — an idiotic exercise in itself — only adds to Ahmadinejad’s image as a primitive or cynical leader. No doubt, he is a sworn enemy of the state of Israel or — as he prefers to call it — the "Zionist regime". Even if he did not promise to wipe it out himself, as erroneously reported, but only expressed his belief that it would "disappear from the map", this does not set my mind at rest. It is an open question whether Mousavi, if elected, would have made a difference as far as we are concerned. Would Iran have abandoned its efforts to produce nuclear weapons? Would it have reduced its support of the Palestinian resistance? The answer is negative. It is an open secret that our leaders hoped that Ahmadinejad would win, exacerbate the hatred of the Western world against himself and make reconciliation with America more difficult. All through the crisis, Barack Obama has behaved with admirable restraint. American and Western public opinion, as well as the supporters of the Israeli government, called upon him to raise his voice, identify with the protesters, wear a green tie in their honour, condemn the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad in no uncertain terms. But except for minimal criticism, he did not do so, displaying both wisdom and political courage. Iran is what it is. The US must negotiate with it, for its own sake and for our sake, too. Only this way — if at all — is it possible to prevent or hold up its development of nuclear weapons. And if we are condemned to live under the shadow of an Iranian nuclear bomb, in a classic situation of a balance of terror, it would be better if the bomb were in the hands of an Iranian leadership that keeps up a dialogue with the American president. And of course, it would be good for us if — before reaching that point — we could achieve, with the friendly support of Obama, full peace with the Palestinian people, thus removing the main justification for Iran’s hostility towards Israel. The revolt of the Northerners in Iran will remain, so it seems, a passing episode. It may, hopefully, have an impact in the long run, beneath the surface. But in the meantime, it makes no sense to deny the victory of the Iranian denier. But in elections there, only nine years ago, the results were decided by the Supreme Court. The losers, who had voted for Al Gore, are convinced to this very day that the results were fraudulent. In Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and now, apparently, also in Egypt, rule is passed from father to son or from brother to brother. A family affair. Our own elections are clean, more or less, even if after every election people claim that in the Orthodox Jewish quarters the dead also voted. Three and a half million inhabitants of the occupied Palestinian territories also held democratic elections in 2006, which former President Jimmy Carter described as exemplary, but Israel, the US and Europe refused to accept the results, because they did not like them. So it seems that democracy is a matter of geography. WERE THE election results in Iran falsified? Practically no one of us — in Tel Aviv, Washington or London — can know. We have no idea, because none of us — and that includes the chiefs of all intelligence agencies |
The Battle between Monotheism and Homosexuality
| Islam and Human Rights | |
| 04 Jul 2009, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| The Battle between Monotheism and Homosexuality | |
| Contents:
Traditional Patriarchal Norms Christianity Paradoxes: Doctrine versus Reality Gay Priests Tolerance of Homosexuality in Middle-Ages Christianity Christian Intolerance of Homosexuality and Hypocrisy Islam Judaism The Hebrew Book of Leviticus Attained Gay Marriage Rights across the World The Nature of Homosexuality Conclusions UR of this page: http://www.newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1519 ————- The Battle between Monotheism and Homosexuality By Vexen Crabtree 7 Dec 2002 1. Traditional Patriarchal Norms Religions have tended to represent patriarchal norms, enforcing a straight heterosexuality at the expense of any other sexual expressions. This primal instinct, arising from both sexuality and power relations, becomes institutionalized into the religions produced by primitive societies (and minds). Most traditional religions have happened to ritualize and dogmatize practices that tend to place heterosexual males in charge of women, families, religious communities, societies and governments. Although the direct influence of religion in secular society has receded from the government level, residues of its effects remain entrenched in some areas of law. This form of dominance ends up stigmatizing those who do fit into the scheme, notably, strong females and non-heterosexuals such as homosexuals. Modern religions have broken this mould. Wicca is an example of a religion which has redeemed the idea of powerful females, but unfortunately, it codified in its rituals and theory many elements that consider a male-female combination to be balanced and correct. It started out that Gerald Gardner, one of the founders of Wicca, and one of the first Wiccan periodicals, The Wiccan, both expressed anti-homosexual tendencies. I tell this story in a fuller form in "The Peacock vs. the Ostrich – Religious Behaviour and Sexuality" (2008). Thankfully this barrier was never strong, and, there is today no anti-homosexual movement in Wicca; its practitioners are wholly embracing of consensual sexuality in general. Another religion that has reached this pinnacle is Satanism. What they have in common is a modernity and non-monotheism, something which the rest of the opinions on this page lack. There are trends within bits of all the monotheistic religions mentioned here towards tolerance, but, for example with the Anglican church, such changes are causing serious fissures in the internal cohesion of the Church. These are issues that have been accepted by secular society and there are no large organisations devoted to non-tolerance that are not religious in nature. 2. Christianity 2.1. Paradoxes: Doctrine Versus Reality A strange contradiction and confusion exists within Christianity. Its general stance on sexuality is highly restrictive, and celibacy is enforced for priests and bishops in many denominations. Christian churches claim the right to educate others on the moralities of sexual behaviour. Yet, sexual abuse in Christian workplaces and paedophilia is rife within Christendom, and homosexuality abounds in the priesthood at a higher rate than in the general population. Politically and socially, Christian organisations have campaigned heavily against any form of gay rights, and have opposed the very idea of the tolerance of homosexuals. In 2002, the UK Government (again) pushed for greater equality for gays under the law, and (again) the principal opposition groups were Christian1. Since then, civil partnerships have been created that allow gay marriage in everything but name. A small minority of Christian institutions support gay marriage, but in history entire regions once did so. Doctrine clashes with reality. Many parts of Christian scripture are ignored nowadays; take for example the extensive dietary laws laid down in the Hebrew scriptures. This ‘old’ testament, it is said by many, is now irrelevant and Christians no longer have to observe many of its laws. The anti-homosexual versus come from the same place. The creeping re-interpretation of Scripture to fit in with the known facts of the world is the only way Christianity can survive, but when it comes to homosexuality a strange obstinance emerges. It is about time that Christian authorities applied their own much-haunted ‘moral high ground’ to its own reality, and formally ceased the continued irrational dislike of homosexuality. “When […] is the Church going to have the courage to celebrate the creativity of its homosexual members, who are more discriminated against than black people or women? For those gay people who wish to be ordained there is only one way to get through the initial interviews, and that is the humiliating one of keeping their sexuality concealed. […] It is painfully easy to remain in the closet ever afterwards, thinking that at some future date there will be an opportunity to come clean, only the day never comes. The Church, of course, encourages this silence. A description of a nervous breakdown, Jim Cotter’s book Brainsquall, reveals what a terrible price gay clergy have been required to pay for such a double standard. […] Sometimes it seems as if the Church is almost the only body left which cannot deal with homosexuality. It is possible to get elected for Parliament as an openly gay man or woman, possible to be made a cabinet minister, possible for many eminent people to be quite straightforward about living with another man or woman. […] Change, of course, is inevitable. Just as the change of the status of women in society pushed the hand of the Church to ordain women; just as the change of the status of black people in Britain makes it imperative that they are seen as full members of the Church with their own distinctive contribution; just as the change in marital habits makes churches accepting of second marriages, so change in this field too is inevitable. Maybe not this year or next year, but before too long, the Church is going to have to get up its nerve (and it is not in a bold frame of mind) and accord homosexuals full status within the Church, because, like blacks or women, they are increasingly refusing the meek and silent status enforced upon them.” "The C of E: The State It’s In" by Monica Furlong (2000)2 [Review] We have mostly been talking about mainstream Christian denominations so far, but the same hostile attitudes obtain in sects, too. Both Mormons3 and the fundamentalist scripturalists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, both maintain an anti-anything-involving-gay-tolerance stance. 2.2. Gay Priests There are large numbers of gay priests but the majority of them are not like secular gays who find solace in their identity. Christian theories of human sexuality and the practice of celibacy among priests have meant that a lack of sexual development curses many priests with an abnormal and underdeveloped sexuality. Many do not consider themselves gay, hide it, deny it, but still practice it. Some even deny that homosexual acts are homosexual simply because they themselves, they say, are not homosexual and do not have homosexual tendencies. It is doublethink, to use George Orwell’s term4. “Generally, 30% of U.S. priests (estimates established from all sources) are either involved in homosexual relationships, have a conflict about periodic sexual activity, feel compelled toward homosexual involvements, identify themselves as homosexual, or at least have serious questions about their sexual orientation or differentiation. Approximately half of these men act out sexually with others. [For example] A group of priests who gathered to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of their entrance into their religious order were sharing stories about their novitiate experience. One of the men confided that the novice master had a 2-year sexual relationship with him. The news came as a shock to most of his classmates, who considered the master the epitome of all of the virtues for which their religious order stood. But two other members of the group then confided that the superior was also sexually involved with them during the same period. Each one thought he was the only one so involved. An interesting subgroup of priests is marked by their fear of being homosexual. These men are conscientious and would identify themselves as gay if they could only resolve their internal conflict. But they cannot. They might have had no adult homosexual experience and are relying on their memories of childhood or adolescent sexual play with friends or family. Some have experimented with both sexes briefly in adult life. They are not caught in preadolescent development. They are more like the college student who fearfully asks, "Am I normal?". […] Many men fear the idea that they may be homosexual. Others are so homophobic that they cannot tolerate the idea of being close to or friendly with a homosexual person.” "Sex, Priests and Power: Anatomy of a Crisis" by Richard Sipe (1995)5 2.3. Tolerance of Homosexuality in Middle-Ages Christianity John Boswell (a Yale Historian) also notes that historical gay ceremonies carried out by the church in previous centuries were in the same fashion as heterosexual ones. “For nearly two centuries after Christianity had become the state religion, Christian emperors in Eastern cities not only tolerated but actually taxed gay prostitution. In 7th century Visigoth Spain, a series of six national church councils refused to support the ruler’s legislation against homogenital acts. By the 9th century almost every area in Christian Europe had local law codes, including detailed sections on sexual offenses; none outside of Spain forbade homogenital acts. By the High Middle Ages, a gay subculture thrived, as in Greco-Roman times. A body of gay literature was standard discussion material at courses in the medieval universities where clerics were educated. Opposition to homosexuality, as in Augustine and Chrysostom, rested on reasons unacceptable today: "natural-law" arguments based on beliefs about supposed sexual practices among hares, hyenas, and weasels; a philosophical Stoicism that was suspicious of any sexual enjoyment; a sexism that saw a degrading effeminacy in being the receptive partner in sex. All-out Christian opposition to homosexuality arose at a time when medieval society first began to oppress many minority groups: Jews, heretics, the poor, usurers. A campaign to stir up support for the Crusades by vilifying the Muslims with charges of homosexual rape also played a part in Christian Europe’s change of attitude toward gay and lesbian sex.” "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" by John Boswell (1980) The author lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies: Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece. The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek. An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic. Christianity has always contained a mix of pro- and anti- homosexual elements. Periods of oppression of homosexuals and celebration of love, homosexual or not, have came and went. Finally, same-sex marriage is not only found in early Christianity – it has existed quite freely in other cultures and civilizations. For example a four thousand year old Tomb belonging to gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep exists in Saqqara, Egypt. 2.4. Christian Intolerance of Homosexuality and Hypocrisy Despite the unusually high occurrence of homosexual behaviour amongst Christian priests, the Christian hierarchy has been particularly intolerance of visible homosexuality. Gays have faced frequent condemnations, anti political campaigns and vitriolic statements from Christian organisations. Christian Churches consistently and strongly opposed gay rights, even (and especially effectively) the liberal Church of England has done so. They opposed and ejected known homosexuals from its ranks, clergy and offices; would not allow homosexual rights committees to meet on Church property and considered AIDS to be God’s revenge on homosexuals. American and South African fundamentalists still re-iterate this point of view however, now, most Christians consider it immoral and very inconsiderate and misguided to do so. Despite the oppression of homosexuals, that the public began to consider a wrongdoing on behalf of the Church, in the late 20th century there were known homosexual sympathizers within the Church and many of its priests and bishops (much) later came out as having been homosexual all along, others of having knowingly ordained homosexuals. The fear of exposure prevented these people from supporting the gay rights movement, which is itself testimony to the fearsome anti-gay agenda of the higher-up Christian communities. These would have also been the more powerful, older and more conservative Christians. “In 1967 the Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed, not without resistance from the churches” "The C of E: The State It’s In" by Monica Furlong (2000)6 The church had its hand in making homosexuality illegal, and campaigned strongly against its de-illegalisation in the Homosexual Law Reform Act 19676. This public and active oppression continued heavily throughout the 70s and 80s (before which homosexuality was simply illegal, and very much taboo) and even in the 90s this attitude continued, with strong, rich and well supported organized Christian groups defeating several attempts by the Government to accomplish equal gay age of consent, gay rights and gay marriage. The most surprising element of all this is the failure of the otherwise liberal and tolerant Church of England to support gay communities. Every decade Anglican bishops from around the world meet at the Lambeth Conference. Homosexuality (and certainly) sexuality, has always been a hot topic there. The president of the pontifical council for promoting christian unity, who is an official from the Catholic church called Walter Cardinal Kasper said that "homosexuality is a disordered behaviour that must be condemned" and said that anti-homosexual teachings are traditional because they are the teachings handed down by Jesus. He told the Anglican Communion to issue a "clear declaration" that homosexuality must be condemned, and warned that the Anglican’s slightly-more-tolerant approach on homosexuality and women had caused serious compromises between Anglican and Catholic branches of Christiandom.7 There are groups within Christianity that are concerned with the Human Rights of sexuality, however such groups are much quieter and less numerous than those that oppose any element of tolerance towards gay people. Such groups are drowned out by the larger, more numerous and better funded anti-gay Church groups. Despite the decline of established churches in the West, fundamentalist groups that are offensively anti-gay are still growing numerically, although some liberal Churches may accept homosexuality it is likely that the most zealous Christian groups will still be of the anti- kind for the foreseeable future. In the USA I believe that the situation is different, and the liberal Churches have acted towards homosexual rights even when public opinion was against this. In Europe, the opposite was true, society in general softened to the idea of open and accepted homosexuality long before the Churches did, except in heavily religious countries such as Greece where homosexuality is still illegal. 2.5. Hypocritical and Unchristian Behaviour It doesn’t matter whether Christians "agree" with being gay or not, the actions of Christians who believe otherwise causes hate. I believe this is hypocrisy, or ignorance. It is ignorance if they do not know they are causing hate – I recommend that they get in touch with gay support groups and Stonewall, and find out the embarrassing and worrying scale of religious anti-gay hatred that gay groups face It is hypocrisy if they stand for love, but knowingly cause hate It is inconsistent if a Christian, who believes we are all sinners (including Christians and priests) but think that being gay is worse than any other particular sexuality Tolerance towards sinners was one of Jesus’ most controversial teachings, as was his preaching that those who consider themselves better than others (the Jewish religious rulers) should humble themselves and consider themselves worse. Christians should, like the good samaritan, help minorities attain equal rights even if those people don’t have the same beliefs. Equality in law, of marriage and anti-discrimination should be the prime rules of the Christian who loves his neighbour, and although there are gay-friendly Christian groups, they are sadly underwhelmed by the anti-gay Christian community. 2.6. Links The Christian Institute, an example Christian organisation that opposes gay rights. The growing evangelical movement within the Church of England, threatening to become the dominant force, is bad news for gays & women. BBC News: It is only Greek institutionalized orthodox Christian religion, not Government, that is homophobic. OCRT: The Church of England and Homosexuality. USA Christian groups oppose gay adoption despite widespread approval elsewhere. OCRT on the religious tolerance of gay marriage. 3. Islam Islam is probably the most rigidly and inhumanly anti-homosexual in its practices of all the world religions. The verses from the Koran condemning homosexuality are much clearer than those that the Christians use. In all Muslim countries and all areas where the Islamic Sharia law is enforced homosexuality is strictly illegal. All of Islam fits within the area of Christianity that we call "fundamentalist" with regards to sexuality. The debates in Islam about homosexuality are not about whether it is acceptable, but merely about how severe the punishment should be. So although there are liberal and strict elements within Islam with concern to homosexuality even the liberal opinion is the lesser of two evils. “Islamists deny human rights to gays. An attempt by the United Nations to include gay people in anti-discrimination measures is being derailed by a coalition of Islamic countries. UN sources said that Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia were doing everything in their power to stop the resolution. They hope to delay the vote long enough to kill it off entirely. Secretary of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association in Britain, George Broadhead, commented that all Muslim countries outlawed homosexuality, and the penalties for those convicted ranged from prison, flogging, execution by a variety of perverted methods – such as throwing the victim off a cliff or pushing a stone wall on to them. "The record of these countries on human rights in general is bad enough, but when it comes to gay human rights, they are disgusting."” NSS Newsline (2003)8 Very few individuals speak up for homosexuality, although there is an international Muslim gay rights group, they are widely detested within Muslim countries, and opposed and campaigned against by Muslim groups in Western countries. “According to a pamphlet produced by Al-Fatiha, there is a consensus among Islamic scholars that all humans are naturally heterosexual. Homosexuality is seen by scholars to be a sinful and perverted deviation from the norm. All Islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence consider gay acts to be unlawful. They differ in terms of penalty: The Hanafite school (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted. The Hanabalites, (widely followed in the Arab world) teach that severe punishment is warranted. The Sha’fischool of thought (also seen in the Arab world) requires a minimum of 4 adult male witnesses before a person can be found guilty of a homosexual act. Al-Fatiha estimates that 4,000 homosexuals have been executed in Iran since their revolution in 1979. 10 public executions of homosexuals have been performed in Afghanistan by the Taliban army.” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance9 The OCRT also repeat statements from Western Islamic groups citing their opinions on homosexuality, and universally Muslims state that they consider homosexuality to be wrong. “Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the ISNA [Islamic Society of North America] said: "Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption… No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education."” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance9 Islam, however, is inconsistent and illogical. It simultaneously states that all homosexuality is a moral evil, a corruption… yet it also holds that the animals of the world have submitted themselves completely to Allah. Yet, in nearly all animal species we witness homosexual behavior. This must mean that it is permissible by Allah to be gay, and that animals who have submitted completely to Allah can therefore also be gay. Islamic tradition is wrong to condemn homosexuality as an evil, and in denying that homosexuality is natural they are ignoring the facts of the world, it is an ignorant religious belief equal to that of the Christians during the Dark Ages: Where truth is suppressed because it threatens tradition and the corrupt powers of organized religious leaders. If those who submit to Allah are sincere, they must recognize Allah’s will: And such a will creates homosexuality, including homosexual people and homosexual animals, and it is not therefore the Muslims’ prerogative to question this or condemn it. 4. Judaism Of the monotheistic religions, Judaism has a healthy attitude towards sex, aside from a few superstitious laws surrounding blood. Judaism “There is no suggestion in Judaism that the celibate life is specially holy. [Sex is] the most intimate and enjoyable way of deepening a relationship. […] A man who has no wife is doomed to an existence without joy, without blessing, without experiencing life’s true goodness, without Torah, without protection and without peace.” Yevamat 62b in Teach Yourself Judaism by Pilkington10 However, religious Judaism does not accept homosexuality, and as the very concept of homosexuality was not formed at the time that the Hebrew Bible’s texts and traditions were formed, the issue was not addressed. As a result, like other closed religions that are tradition-orientated, Judaism (both the religion and the culture) has lapsed behind modern society. Reform Jews wrestle with issues around homosexuality, as initially ‘questions about the acceptability of homosexual relationships do not arise as they are condemned in the Torah’. Superstitions that arose from Judaism (in turn feeding Islam and Christianities frequently negative attitude towards sex) have had a long term detrimental effect on sexuality, even though in theory (for straight males!) the attitude towards sex itself is generally positive and normal. Having said that, it looks like organized Judaism is generally more sensible and calm about the issues of homosexuality, so perhaps it’s not that they haven’t faced it, but that it really doesn’t have an impact on Judaism because it is inherently more tolerant of sexuality. The following quote is about a Jewish Liberal movement that supports homosexuality so the comment is no doubt biased, but it looks good anyway: “The Liberal movement has become the first Jewish body in the UK to sanction blessings for gay and lesbian couples in synagogue, according to today’s Jewish Chronicle. Rabbi Frank Dabba Smith, chair of the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues’ rabbinic conference, said that there had been "no deep divisions" over the policy.” Ruth Gledhill, religion correspondent for The Times (2003)11 5. The Hebrew Book of Leviticus Three world religions (first Judaism, then Christianity and then Islam) accepted parts of the Jewish Scriptures as canon. The Christians call them the "Old" testament. There is a lot of hype about the Biblical condemnations of Homosexuality, and much of this concentrates on comments in the book of Leviticus. There are six quotations taken from the Bible that can be used against Homosexuality, and five of them are down to translation or biased errors. Jesus Christ always promoted Love over Hate and in this respect he overrode the Jewish Scriptures. In all the texts we have Jesus Christ is never quoted or implied to have spoken about sexualities. However it is a common view that the Bible condemns Homosexuality because of the way that some Christian denominations appear to be overly homophobic. The firing of gay workers normally attracts press attention. It is in Leviticus that the text can be found that can be translated as being anti-gay, but the correctness of the translations used is being questioned. A word that is being used is "abomination" as a translation for the word that in the Bible means "taboo", or "unritualistic". Some Bibles use the word "detestable", it depends on which Bible you own as to how accurate the translation is. Christians hold that the laws within Leviticus are no longer valid because we are "no longer under the old covenant". The vast majority of the seemingly pointless rules (no clothes made of mixed cloths, no buttons…) are ignored and considered replaced by the New Testament. But despite there not being a single sentence from the new testament that condemns a homosexual act as worse than a heterosexual one, the laws or comments on homosexuality are excluded from this invalidity. Here is text quoted from Truluck.com. Why don’t fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlours, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are abominations in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics? 6. Attained Gay Marriage Rights Across the World Starting with Sweden, Norway, Iceland and the Netherlands the 90s saw the beginning of the gay rights movements victories over established prejudice in an increasing number of developed countries. The damage done to equality and tolerance by Christian and Muslim rulers is slowly being undone across the developed world. Complete list of attained gay rights across the world There is not a single case of all the victories above where there have not been multiple large and mainstream Christian groups running campaigns to prevent equal rights for gays, and the Catholic Church and the vast majority of Christian denominations continue to battle at local and European levels to repeal those rights already attained. The Catholic Church has gained some ground in 1997 in exempting itself from some European gay rights conventions, and the Church of England has also succeeded in exempting itself from UK employment anti-discrimination laws. It is said that the traditional churches were wrong about slavery and anti-black racism, and that they are also wrong on homosexuality… eventually, when enough of their youth have grown up within gay-tolerant society, the Churches will change to embrace homosexuals equality as they did to embrace abolitionism and race equality. 7. The Nature of Homosexuality 7.1. Genetics and Religion The inheritability of homosexuality (i.e., its genetic basis) is a card that most think to be good in the fight against intolerance. As we demonstrate its biological basis, religionists may admit that homosexuality is part of god’s plan for humans, the same as it is for animals, and therefore decrease their prejudice. But much of the homophobia within the church is not rational, it is emotional. Rather than follow the general conservative line on genetic engineering (don’t do it)12, some make an exception when it comes to homosexuality. When superstition and prejudice are combined in the same emotional turmoil, it is no surprise to hear such paradoxical arguments. “Early in 2007, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary raised the possibility of a genetic or other biological cause of homosexuality and urged conservative Christians to consider using biotechnology to eradicate the condition.” "Babies by Design: The Ethics of Genetic Choice" Ronald M. Green (2007)13 7.2. Its Prevalence in Nature “Homosexuality is thoroughly natural. It occurs in a massive range of animal species, including humans, so appears to be part of the genetic makeup of life in general. The colourful and varied ways that wild animal species find to express intentional sexuality with other is surprising and sometimes ingenious, like the male dolphins who penetrate each other’s blowholes. Biological causes of homosexuality have been found in Human beings. All this points to the fact that homosexuality is a part of the design of nature. If nature was designed by God, then watching Bonobo Apes for a while is convincing proof that God certainly does not mind gay sex!” "Human Truth: Homosexuality" by Vexen Crabtree (2005) 8. Conclusion Abrahamic religions have contributed to the most negative and destructive attitudes towards sexual issues, especially homosexuality. Christian and Islam groups are the most vocal assailants on any legal or societal moves towards tolerance and equality. The liberal wings of some of these religions have adapted to the wide (European) acceptance of homosexuality. Many traditional religions reject the scientific, medical and psychological knowledge that we have gained about sexuality and regard homosexuality as "unnatural", a "choice" or a "moral evil". These religions are themselves immoral and evil in their attitude, causing hatred, bigotry, violence and oppression in the name of God. Homosexual communities have become accustomed to the ranting of religious fundamentalists and traditionalists. In the wider religious scene things are much healthier. Eastern history has produced less of the out-and-out violence against homosexuality. New religious movements and Earth religions are largely accepting of homosexuality, as these religions are more in touch with the natural world. Although there are Pagans, Satanists, Wiccans, etc, who do not like homosexuality very few make hateful statement such as those made by Muslim and Christian authorities. Although Judaism does not accept homosexuality, Jews have not made many such hateful comments, but partially this may be because Judaism has not yet fully faced the issues although liberal Jewish groups match liberal Christianity in their tolerance. To help eradicate discrimination against gays and lesbians, consider joining the following groups: Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA) Stonewall Or browse their websites and pick up addresses and details of MPs and organisations that you can lobby by writing letters, signing petitions or emailing, and get details of current events, in order to help prevent irrational discrimination. Links: Stonewall: Status of legal recognition of same sex marriages world wide Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association Stonewall Councils consider same sex weddings (in addition to London) Guardian Gay Rights news feed Informative medical reasons for homosexuality, such as hormones and DNA. References: (What’s this?) Boswell, John "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" (1980). New Ed edition Published University of Chicago Press, 1981. Crabtree, Vexen "Sex and Sexuality in Satanism, the Religion of the Flesh" (2002). Accessed 2008 Nov 29. "Marriage: Its Diversity and Character" (2004). Accessed 2008 Nov 29. "Human Truth: Homosexuality" (2005). Accessed 2008 Nov 29. "The Peacock vs. the Ostrich – Religious Behaviour and Sexuality" (2008). Accessed 2008 Nov 29. Furlong, Monica "The C of E: The State It’s In" (2000). First published in GB in 2000 by Stoughton. All quotes taken from the paperback first edition, 2000. [Book Review] Green, Ronald M. "Babies by Design: The Ethics of Genetic Choice" (2007). Yale University Press. Orwell, George "1984" (1949). Published by Penguin Books, London, UK, in 1989. Reprinted 1990. First published by Martin Seeker & Warburg Ltd 1949. Pilkington, C. M. "Teach Yourself Judaism" (1995). Published by Hodder Headline PLC. Sipe, Richard "Sex, Priests and Power: Anatomy of a Crisis" (1995 Hardback). Published by BunnerMazel Inc., New York, USA. A.W. Richard Sipe is a retired Roman Catholic Priest. Lecturer in the Department of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Chair of the Board of Directors of the Interfaith Sexual Trauma Institution, Minnesota, USA. (Biblio detail correct as of 1995). The Amazon link points to a modern book by Sipe on the same topic as the one referenced here. Source: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/homosexuality.html Notes: BBC News 2002 Dec 06 article "Gay couples to get equal rights" accessed 2002 Dec 06.^ Furlong (2000) p363-364.^ The Economist 2007 Dec 22 article "Mormons: From polygamy to propreity" p63-65. Added to this page on 2008 Oct 21.^ Orwell (1949). Sipe (1995) p136, 145-7.^ Furlong (2000) p11.^ The Guardian 2008 Jul 31 article "Condemn homosexuality, Vatican official tells Lambeth conference" accessed 2008 Jul 31.^ NSS news letter 2003 Apr 25.^ Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance webpage at www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla.htm. Accessed in 2002.^ Yevamat 62b in Pilkington (1995) p105.^ Ruth Gledhill in The Times Online (2003 Jun 20) accessed 2003 Jun 20. R. Gledhill was the religion correspondent for the paper.^ Green (2007) chapter "Playing God".^ Ibid. chapter "The Choices Ahead".^ 2003 Feb 17: Added section on Judaism. 2008 Aug 26: Edited the page and shuffled text around, added a few quotes. 2008 Nov 29: Added the introduction Traditional Patriarchal Norms. UR of this page: http://www.newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1519 |
Gay Ho! Gay Ho! Homosexuality Is Legal!
| Islam and Human Rights | |
| 03 Jul 2009, NewAgeIslam.Com | |
| Gay Ho! Gay Ho! Homosexuality Is Legal! | |
 Religious leaders may please keep their religious views private as it should be confined to the followers of their religion. If they have any objection, let them educate their followers on the flip side of homosexuality. Let them not try to impose their views on those who hold pragmatic views. If gays exist, let them exist. In any case they are not new in the society. They exist in the society from time immoral, though they did not come out in the open for their cause as they do today. One can now see so many gays both men and women come out in the open without covering their faces. That means they have no worry over the possible social stigma to be attached to them. The government therefore has to be very rational and take a pragmatic view before deciding on the legalisation to make homosexuality legal. In any case very few were prosecuted under the penal provisions of Section 377 of IPC. The law itself was 148 years old introduced by Lord Macaulay during the colonial rule and certainly it needs to be reviewed keeping the present situation in mind. — A.M. Jamsheed Basha
URL: http://www.newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1517 ———————- Gay Ho! Gay Ho! Homosexuality Is Legal By A.M. Jamsheed Basha July 3, 2009 Delhi High Court Delivered A Landmark Judgement On Homosexuality – Will The Govt Amend Section 377 Of IPC? It’s stunning, yet real. It took nearly 148 years for wisdom to dawn on the two Judges of Delhi High Court Justice SJ Shah and Justice Muralidhar to pronounce Section 377 as violative of Art.21 which deals with personal liberty, Art.14 deals with the right to equality and Art.15 deals with the right against discrimination (on grounds of sex) of the Constitution of India. This judgement in a sense decriminalises the acts of homosexuality between the two consenting adults (i.e. beyond the age of 18) which otherwise would attract punishment ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment. However, other provisions of the Section 377 of IPC remain untouched. Now the ball is in the government’s court. Whether to accept the judgement of the HC and bring in necessary amendment in the current session of the parliament or buckle under the pressure of religious groups like, Muslims, Christians and Hindus, and file an appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of High Court. The reactions to the Delhi High Court judgement was mixed in the country. While Gay community celebrated it in Delhi and elsewhere along with their activists, others were up in arms especially the religious groups. Muslim clerics called homosexuality prohibited in Islam and the main source of the dangerous disease AIDS, hence unacceptable to them. The Christian priests called the act of homosexuality as unnatural to human behaviour that would disturb the society, though they have no comments on the legalisation in European countries, majority of which are Christians. Hindu priests one after another, came out with a statement that the legalisation of homosexuality would bring down the values of normal family life and the traditions. The society would stand to lose the best and well protected Hindu traditions. It’s unnatural and hence unacceptable to Hindu society. While cine celebrities welcomed it, as they will see more of "Dostanas" and "Fires" with actress Cerena Jaitely on the forefront, being an activist herself of the cause of gays in the country. The political parties are in a bind. While Congress is neutral, BJP plays for time; SP is against it while Communists are the only political grouping to support the move to decriminalise homosexuality in private. Now question arises, how does the Delhi judgement help the Gay community? Whether the rulings would be applicable nationwide or be confined to Delhi alone? The answer is the main benefit of the judgement for homos would be psychological as it reduces scope for their harassment. It may over a time reduce the social stigma as well. However, it is too early to celebrate as it has not been made legal. It only freed them from criminal action. They have to wait till the government takes a stand on making it a legal through an amendment repealing Section 377 and transfer the other provisions of the same Section 377 dealing with sexual offences such as "non-consensual sodomy" and paedophilia to IPC Sections 375 and 376 dealing with rape.. The commentators say that it would greatly relieve the consenting gays of constant harassment and blackmail by the police. What will the government do now? It has already sounded before the judgement that they may bring in necessary amendments. But they suddenly were on back foot, retracting their earlier stand due to outside pressure. Now they feel relieved that the Delhi HC has spared them from a apolitically difficult decision. All said and done, the government has to do a lot of talking when someone goes on appeal against the Delhi judgement. Supreme Court may call upon the govt to explain its stand. Then the govt would be in a bind whether to accept the HC judgement and bring in necessary amendment or buckle under pressure from the religious groups, who oppose it tooth and nail. It appears that the cabinet is divided on the issue. A number of key Ministers however favour decriminalisation. Interestingly, although the government represented by the home ministry in consultation with the law ministry opposed Naz’s PIL, it was National Aids Control Organisation (NCO) coming under health ministry that took Naz’s side. It is a ticklish and politically embarrassing issue to the government has to take a bold stand notwithstanding opposition from the religious groups. Briefly on homosexuality. It is nothing new in the humanity. It has existed from time immemorial. According to Cerena Jaitely, a vocal supporter of Gay movement, there were more than 15,000 species in animal kingdom where homosexuality is prevalent. Comparison of humans with animals came for a flak from the commentators participating in the debate. Though man is also an animal but the difference is man being ‘animal rationale’. According to Plato, desire is one of three main sources of human behaviour. Desire has its seats in loins; it is a bursting reservoir of energy, fundamentally sexual. Homosexuality is a natural thing to happen in men or women who have the urge due to various circumstances and ambience conducive to such acts, genetics not altogether ruled out. It is a private thing happening between two consenting adults within the four walls of the bed room. Then why should anyone have any objection to it, as long as it does not affect the society. Many things happen within the private confines of a bedroom. Nobody could deny this happening even today. People and society therefore need to be pragmatic and grow in this fast changing world from their narrow tendencies. Religious leaders may please keep their religious views private as it should be confined to the followers of their religion. If they have any objection, let them educate their followers on the flip side of homosexuality. Let them not try to impose their views on those who hold pragmatic views. If gays exist, let them exist. In any case they are not new in the society. They exist in the society from time immoral, though they did not come out in the open for their cause as they do today. One can now see so many gays both men and women come out in the open without covering their faces. That means they have no worry over the possible social stigma to be attached to them. The government therefore has to be very rational and take a pragmatic view before deciding on the legalisation to make homosexuality legal. In any case very few were prosecuted under the penal provisions of Section 377 of IPC. The law itself was 148 years old introduced by Lord Macaulay during the colonial rule and certainly it needs to be reviewed keeping the present situation in mind. Jai Hind. A.M. Jamsheed Basha is a Chennai-based columnist URL: http://www.newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1517 © Copyright 2008-2009 www.NewAgeIslam.com |
syedmdasadullah.wordpress.com 