Would an Islamic nation in Britain tolerate homosexuality? By
tolerate I mean allow people to live their lives this way without state
interference. Christianity does not tolerate homosexuality but it is
not punishable by death. Would an Islamic state therefore 'condemn
death' Britain's 6.6 million homosexuals?
To start with, the figure of 6.6 million (or more than 10% of the
population) sounds propagandistic. Whilst few dare speak out
against the practice of homosexuality due to the pressure exerted
by gay rights groups and echoed in the media, the majority of the
population do not regard it as an acceptable way of life. Islam
condemns and outlaws homosexuality. As far as Islamic law is
concerned, the rules are that the state does not interfere in the
privacy of people's homes, but it would need to safeguard public
decency by preventing any public advocacy for homosexuality.
Such activity would come under the heading of public incitement.
The death penalty the questioner mentions only applies to a public
display of lewdness witnessed by several people.
Posted: 28th April 2002
In response to
your answer on homosexuality, you appear to be making assumptions on
peoples views on the subject. I would not agree that 6.6 million (or
1 in 11 of the population) is 'propagandistic' as that is
statistically what it should be. Or are you and your party just
scared that homosexuals outnumber Muslims in the UK? I am
heterosexual myself, but I believe in peoples right to be what they
want to be. I do wonder if your parties position would change if the
government acted to outlaw Islam?
The questioner did
not give a return email, and we thought it proper to add to the
answer originally given by dispelling a few common
The first is the
assumption that the mere existence of a condition justifies its
validity, and that decisions are to be taken on the basis of how
much support there is rather than on the question whether something
is morally justified. The logic of this argument would suggest that
if the number of pedophiles increased in the UK, they would have to
be protected by law against discrimination rather than prosecuted.
For the same argument, that homosexuality is a condition which the
individual cannot overcome, could be made for pedophilia. The moral
argument, on the other hand, is that both are unnatural and a danger
to society. UK law, however, accepts one and outlaws the other,
simply on the basis of greater pressure and support for the former.
The second issue is that just because somebody has an inclination,
this does not mean it must be followed. People desire other people's
property, yet we do not encourage them to help themselves. If we do
not take decisions as to what is morally proper and what is not, we
end up with a selfish law of the jungle, where might is right, even
if we call it democracy and majority voting. People afflicted with
unnatural conditions like homosexuality or pedophilia need
treatment, not encouragement. Moral decisions are based on divine
rules. God eradicated the city of Lot even though they almost
unanimously agreed in their aberration; from a secular (democratic)
point of view they had every right to decide on their own fate. From
a religious point of view, their violation of divine injunctions
sealed their fate. Therefore, in an Islamic ruling system, people
may only decide their own affairs inasmuch as they do not transgress
the clear boundaries already demarcated in the divine revelation.
Muslims are not as irresponsible that they would grant a society the
right to destroy itself which would be the logical conclusion of the
line of argument presented by the questioner. This issue does not
affect only the topic of homosexuality. The loss of moral standards
by secular society equally has led to calls for the legalisation of
euthanasia and suicide, and a society advocating such madness must
As for numbers, the
government does not collect statistics on sexual orientation, and
different interest groups claim different figures to further their