Petition UK Government to support traditional marriage

[Eric H]

If you feel that marriage between one man and one woman is sacred, then consider signing this petition please, UK residents only.

http://c4m.org.uk/aboutus/

The Coalition for Marriage is an umbrella group of individuals and organisations in the UK that support traditional marriage and oppose any plans to redefine it.
The Coalition is backed by politicians, lawyers, academics and religious leaders. It reaches out to people of all faiths and none, who believe that marriage is the most successful partnership in history and should not be redefined.
The Coalition draws upon a substantial body of evidence showing that marriage – as it has been understood for thousands of years – is beneficial to society, and that changing its definition would undermine that benefit.
The Coalition’s petition demonstrates that there is broad public opposition to redefining marriage. The Coalition is committed to a reasoned and courteous debate on this issue, and will highlight any intimidation or intolerance shown to supporters of traditional marriage.

In the spirit of praying for the sanctity of marriage

Eric

['Abd-al Latif]

Brilliant post.

[IAmZamzam]

Last time I checked Lot did not attempt to force the people of Sodom to give up their sinful lifestyle (although they really do seem, in context, to have been “approaching males” only in the sense of, you know, brutally gang raping people—and abandoning their wives to do so). Last time I checked he merely did his best to convince these people to change their ways of their own free will, walked away when they refused, and left the enforcing of Allah’s judgment to the angels. Last time I checked there is no coercion in religion, and this is what distinguishes truth from error. Last time I checked the definition of “fallacy of appeal to tradition” was “a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or ‘always has been done’” (nizkor.org).

Last time I checked my own country has been through all of this before, and it wasn’t pretty.

[IAmZamzam]

Forgive me. My tone may have been a little off.

Let me explain now that I have nothing against you if you disagree with my about the first part. In fact I am always the first to defend you guys, and not just because you tend to come from among my own. I will always be the first to rush to someone's side the moment they're called a bigot or a "homophobe" just for--**GASP!**--holding a contrary viewpoint on the subject of the practice of homosexuality. I used to feel the same way myself. I have even, on some occasions, pounced like an animal on the hypocrite who does that, telling them that unless they hear someone making a stereotype or acting hateful just because a person is gay then that someone is not a "homophobe" in the slightest, and that "you, in fact, are the bigot for calling someone else a bigot just because they happen to not share all of your own values. And you're a hypocrite too. Double whammy." So don't think I'm an unreasonable fellow. But when it comes to depriving people of their rights I'm not going to be unreasonable about that either. Law and morality are not even the same topic anyway.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[tearose]

I can't believe I'm reading the above rant. I don't even know where to start. How can you compare interracial marriage, which is permissible within Islam, to same sex 'marriage' which is haraam and a major sin?

Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by 'depriving people of their rights'? What rights?

Finally, just wanted to add the following point from http://spa.qibla.com/

'The prophet Lut was sent to a group of people who were infamous for their depraved behavior. The men of the community were known for having sex with other men. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Arabic can tell that these verses are talking about men who engaged in consensual sex with other men, eschewing the women who were created for them. Rape is simply not an issue'

[Berries'forest]

Does not morality define law. The issue of gun use for example is being revised because it hold dangerous threat to other peoples lives. My two cents...

[Berries'forest]

Tearose it is justified by saying that both stem from fear this is where I suppose they stand 'equal'..

[IAmZamzam]

How can you compare interracial marriage, which is permissible within Islam, to same sex 'marriage' which is haraam and a major sin?

What it all boils down to is compelling your religion onto others. It's not up to us to determine what's "permissible".

Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by 'depriving people of their rights'? What rights?

...

Finally, just wanted to add the following point from http://spa.qibla.com/

'The prophet Lut was sent to a group of people who were infamous for their depraved behavior. The men of the community were known for having sex with other men. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Arabic can tell that these verses are talking about men who engaged in consensual sex with other men, eschewing the women who were created for them. Rape is simply not an issue'

What "points"?! That just boils down to, "Anyone can plainly see that I'm right."

Does not morality define law...

No, keeping order and safety in society defines law. In fact you've pretty much said that yourself: "because it hold dangerous threat to other peoples lives".

[tearose]

it is justified by saying that both stem from fear this is where I suppose they stand 'equal'..

If you mean that opposition to these types of marriage stem from fear, that is incorrect. My opposition to same sex 'marriage' is not based on fear. It is based on the fact that this is forbidden in Islam, and that we have a duty to oppose major sins becoming a normal part of society. I'm sure many others have a similar perspective - not that they are afraid.

[Berries'forest]

No not you my dear. I mean the link...

[Berries'forest]

Iamzamzam. I didnt say anything about that particular matter. I meant it can be dangerous if it were legal. Morality should define the law and tearose has a point.

[tearose]

What "points"?! That just boils down to, "Anyone can plainly see that I'm right."

The point is that is just one example of the many scholars throughout the history of Islam who have had the same interpretation of these ayaat. I only chose that particular example because it specifically addressed the point you made about rape. If you want to suddenly introduce a radically different new interpretation, what are you basing it on?

[Muhammad]

:salamext:

We've had a number of discussions on homosexuality in general in other threads. Let's try to keep this one focused on the petition :ia:.

[tearose]

No not you my dear. I mean the link...

I understood sister. I was trying to figure out why a Muslim would want to post such a link.

[tearose]

:wasalamex

Sorry about that. As regards the petition, the main problem with it is that you are bringing together a lot of different groups who are united on the fact that they don't want to see these changes, but otherwise have different perspectives on marriage. So, I wouldn't necessarily want to sign a petition supporting 'Traditional Marriage' because that isn't really what I believe in. Eric H said

If you feel that marriage between one man and one woman is sacred

Well, as a Muslim I wouldn't limit it to one man and one woman because we can have polygamous marriages. It feels like they have tried to make it a postive rather than negative campaign by saying 'We're for traditional marriage, rather than against same sex marriage' but that is the very reason why I would have major doubts about signing up to it.

However, if people do decide this petition is a good idea, I'd be interested to know why IamZamzam thinks signing this petition equates to forcing your religion on somebody, and exactly which rights people would be deprived of.

[GuestFellow]

I believe no cares what I have to say. Signing this petition is pointless for me anyway.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you tearose;

Well, as a Muslim I wouldn't limit it to one man and one woman because we can have polygamous marriages.

My apologies, the question of polygamous marriages did not cross my mind, if it causes any problems, please can a mod remove the link or thread.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

[tearose]

Greetings and peace be with you tearose

My apologies, the question of polygamous marriages did not cross my mind, if it causes any problems, please can a mod remove the link or thread.

greetings and peace to you too. I don't think there's any need to remove it; it's an interesting question. I just have a doubt about whether I could really support the campaign because of that issue, but in sha Allah I will ask somebody more knowledgeable what they think.

[IAmZamzam]

“You have a radically new interpretation”…Yet another appeal to tradition fallacy. But yes, it is true that talking about homosexuality is one of those religious message board clichés which really should be abandoned.

I wouldn’t think that signing this petition amounted to compulsion in religion if I could be convinced that either (1) more nonreligious people were doing it or (2) the religious people could make a more persuasive case that they had secular reasons for doing what they’re doing. Making it illegal to do something because you think that your religion says it’s wrong to do that thing amounts to coercion in religion.

What rights would people be deprived of? Well, in my country at least you can start with these.

[tearose]

It's not an appeal to 'tradition', it's respecting scholarly consensus. I have never seen any disagreement among the scholars on this issue.
I clicked on the link. Those 'rights' are not part of Islam. So why are you advocating for them?

[IAmZamzam]

Pardon me, then. The correct term would be "fallacy of appeal to the majority".

Not part of Islam??? Caring for your fellow man is somehow not sunnah now???

Look at it this way: people are going to be getting together and living together whether you allow them to or not. We may as well accept the fact. Barring cruelly and ludicrously Orwellian measures it's hardly feasible to stop it. You may as well not give them a hard time about it. You may as well give them their financial break, especially in a hard economy like this, and leave the judging for Judgment Day.

[Tyrion]

It's not an appeal to 'tradition', it's respecting scholarly consensus. I have never seen any disagreement among the scholars on this issue.
I clicked on the link. Those 'rights' are not part of Islam. So why are you advocating for them?

'respecting scholarly consensus' applies more to what you do as an individual. It does not mean you can force something 'the scholars' say onto others, especially onto those who aren't even Muslim.

[GuestFellow]

^ Tyson lives!

[tearose]

"fallacy of appeal to the majority".

If you don't respect the scholars what do you do when it comes to matters of fiqh?

Not part of Islam??? Caring for your fellow man is somehow not sunnah now???

You must be joking. The 'rights' that you posted are basically financial and legal protections for people in same -sex relationships. Caring for your fellow man is not done by rewarding them for engaging in major sins.

If you don't even realise that homosexuality is haram, I don't know what else to say to you.

[tearose]

'respecting scholarly consensus' applies more to what you do as an individual. It does not mean you can force something 'the scholars' say onto others, especially onto those who aren't even Muslim.

One of the things we have to do as individuals is dawah. We also have to have a good effect on the local community and try to discourage major evils which emerge. That's not forcing anybody. They have the opportunity to make their case, and so do others who disagree with them.

[IAmZamzam]

If you don't respect the scholars what do you do when it comes to matters of fiqh?

Respecting somebody =/= automatically always agreeing with them.

You must be joking. The 'rights' that you posted are basically financial and legal protections for people in same -sex relationships. Cring for your fellow man is not done by rewarding them for engaging in major sins.

Rewarding somebody =/= treating them as equals, especially when you're not realistically going to be able to stop them from doing what they're going to be doing anyway.

If you don't even realise that homosexuality is haram, I don't know what else to say to you.

Frankly I'm not very interested in whether it's haraam. That's up to the Judge of All Mankind to deal with, not the judges of the Supreme Courts. What business is it of theirs?

[GuestFellow]

One of the things we have to do as individuals is dawah. We also have to have a good effect on the local community and try to discourage major evils which emerge. That's not forcing anybody. They have the opportunity to make their case, and so do others who disagree with them.

I know I sound wrong for saying this but sometimes I think some people do not deserve Dawah.

[Muhammad]

:salamext:

I'm not sure why this petition is causing mixed feelings. It's not about anyone forcing anyone to do anything. It's the law of the country that is changing, and so we are simply voicing our concern about the direction in which it's changing. If we as Muslims have an opportunity to stop an evil becoming worse in society, then we should do what we can (and indeed have been encouraged to). Other people of whatever religious group or thought also have the same right to petition the government to do what it is that they want. Moreover, this isn't a case of Muslims enforcing Islam on others - we have people of all backgrounds, religious and non-religious, sharing one particular viewpoint of how they want their society to be.

We have already had a thread discussing the whole issue of morality, religion and homosexuality here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-marriage.html

[IAmZamzam]

I understand how good your intentions are, and like I said I'm always the first to get your back as soon as anyone starts calling you "homophobes" just on general principles even if you haven't issued a single slur beforehand. So I hope you guys will extend me the same courtesy and not be on my back when I say that...sorry, but technically speaking this is forcing things on people. I apologize but I just don't know how else to look at it. Trying to keep someone from marrying someone is trying to force them not to marry. Where is the flaw in this logic?? I fail to see it.

[GuestFellow]

:wa:

Let society collapse. They created this mess in the first place and deserve to buried in it. That is when they will release how utterly stupid and pathetic they are.

[Muhammad]

...sorry, but technically speaking this is forcing things on people. I apologize but I just don't know how else to look at it. Trying to keep someone from marrying someone is trying to force them not to marry. Where is the flaw in this logic?? I fail to see it.

But this argument can apply to anything - making it illegal to murder, steal etc. Those people are also forced not to do what they might want. The law has to prevent these things to stop a greater harm occurring to society. And as Muslims, we have even more reason to support their prevention.

[GuestFellow]

^ You can't actually see a direct harmful impact from homosexual relationships unlike theft. It's a long-term impact which will be negative. The negative effects are more subtle so it is more difficult to prevent these relationships because not many can see the harm that results from it.

[Muhammad]

Smoking also has a subtle, long-term impact, but its harms are still recognised, enough for it to be banned in certain public places.

And yet homosexuality does have some direct consequences like transmission of certain diseases.

[GuestFellow]

Smoking also has a subtle, long-term impact, but its harms are still recognised, enough for it to be banned in certain public places.

And yet homosexuality does have some direct consequences like transmission of certain diseases.

Yes but not all homosexuals engage in homosexual sex. Some argue that they use protection.

The problem is that's not convincing the public. It's a valid argument but unfortunately most people in Britain appears not to be affected by this.

The long-term effects I'm referring to are family structure breakdowns. This is one of the reasons why the Roman Empire collapsed.

So once British people see the breakdown of family values and structure due to homosexual relationships, which will affect the country then they return to old traditional values...I think.

[Muhammad]

That is where the petition comes in - so that the people who are convinced are acknowledged. :)

[IAmZamzam]

In ancient times, yes, it was dangerous, because they didn't have the medical knowledge and resources we have now. And that was part of the prohibition too. I would've mentioned that earlier, had I not first left the house in a hurry and then come back to the board too late for you not to have made that shrewd suggestion not to discuss this aspect of things further. But since you're the one who brought this up, didn't The Prophet prohibit anal sex with women as well (Sahih Muslim 8:3365)? It was dangerous then. But the people who try to pass it off as dangerous now have been taken seriously mostly within their own circles, and by, shall we say, their own doctors. There is perhaps still slightly more risk from anal, but it's no longer much of an issue at this late date.

Smoking, on the other hand...well, actually, I don't know if that should be illegal either but it's much more dangerous. It certainly doesn't disrupt the functioning of society on the whole to let anyone smoke. I have no problem with smoking being banned from certain public places and there's a good reason for sexual activity to be banned from them too (libraries spring to mind...)

However "society in general" is a very, very big place to ban anything from, and so one must never be hasty about making that kind of decision, especially when there are a lot of groups of people living there who do not share your religious views.

[GuestFellow]

That is where the petition comes in - so that the people who are convinced are acknowledged. :)

If it is simply for the sake of acknowledgement then I don't think much can happen.

[tearose]

know I sound wrong for saying this but sometimes I think some people do not deserve Dawah.

It's not for us to decide who deserves it, brother. Our duty is just to pass on the message as best we can.
May Allah guide us all.

I'm not sure why this petition is causing mixed feelings. It's not about anyone forcing anyone to do anything. It's the law of the country that is changing, and so we are simply voicing our concern about the direction in which it's changing. If we as Muslims have an opportunity to stop an evil becoming worse in society, then we should do what we can (and indeed have been encouraged to).

I only have mixed feelings because it means signing in favour of a definition of marriage which is not Islamic. On the other hand it could be that we can do so with the intention of warding off a greater evil and one which is relatively new in the UK. But I don't have enough knowledge to make that decision.

Frankly I'm not very interested in whether it's haraam.

Well, if you can say such a thing, that says it all really. Ridiculous.

[IAmZamzam]

Well, if you can say such a thing, that says it all really. Ridiculous.

We already have the power to petition the one true Judge on the issue of ethical matters, and the one true Being who has the power to turn people's hearts. We've had it all along. You want to do that? Go do it now. All I'm saying is that I'm recognizing what's relevant to this subject and what isn't.

[Darth Ultor]

If you feel that marriage between one man and one woman is sacred, then consider signing this petition please, UK residents only.

http://c4m.org.uk/aboutus/



In the spirit of praying for the sanctity of marriage

Eric

What does it matter if a secular courtroom officiates a wedding between same-sex couples? As long as they don't force churches, synagogues, or mosques to do it, it's not harming you or your faith.

[Muhammad]

:salamext:

But since you're the one who brought this up, didn't The Prophet prohibit anal sex with women as well (Sahih Muslim 8:3365)? It was dangerous then. But the people who try to pass it off as dangerous now have been taken seriously mostly within their own circles, and by, shall we say, their own doctors. There is perhaps still slightly more risk from anal, but it's no longer much of an issue at this late date.

This practice still carries clear risk today - it is recognised that diseases like HIV are more prevalent amongst gay men.

Smoking, on the other hand...well, actually, I don't know if that should be illegal either but it's much more dangerous. It certainly doesn't disrupt the functioning of society on the whole to let anyone smoke.

Smoking at one time was a very fashionable habit, promoted in all kinds of media. Now that the ill-effects are better recognised, it is being discouraged and even banned. Strangley, despite the ill-effects of homosexuality, it is going in the opposite direction where it is now becoming encouraged. And yet its disruption on society is far greater, it could be argued, than smoking.

However "society in general" is a very, very big place to ban anything from, and so one must never be hasty about making that kind of decision, especially when there are a lot of groups of people living there who do not share your religious views.

I mentioned in the other thread that, 'the issue of same-sex marriage is a minority issue. A High Court judge told the Times Newspaper: 'So much energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1% of the population, when we have a crisis of family breakdown...' 'He added that the breakdown of marriages and its impact on society affects 99.9% of the population, which is where more investment and time should spent.'' Again I will point out that the opposition to homosexuality is not unique to Muslims, but rather a teaching of many if not most religions, and is not limited to the religious domain.

What does it matter if a secular courtroom officiates a wedding between same-sex couples? As long as they don't force churches, synagogues, or mosques to do it, it's not harming you or your faith.

Greetings, this has already been discussed in the following thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-marriage.html

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Darth Ultor;

What does it matter if a secular courtroom officiates a wedding between same-sex couples? As long as they don't force churches, synagogues, or mosques to do it, it's not harming you or your faith.

I am not sure that people will always have that freedom to opt out, read how Dutch law is almost making it compulsory for church ministers to wed gays.

As their landmark gay marriage law continues into its second decade, the Dutch are left tidying up its loose ends. On the agenda is a move to end the right of civil servants to refuse to register gay marriages if they say it is against their conscience or their religion. They can do so only on the condition that someone else in their municipality will officiate at the ceremony.
That clause, which originated as a compromise, may be phased out by another one.
According to COC Netherlands, there are precisely 40 local officials in the country today who refuse to register gay marriages. Under a proposed amendment, those 40 would maintain the right to bow out of gay marriage ceremonies until they retire. But new civil servants entering the state bureaucracy will be henceforth required to promise to register all marriages, gay as well as straight.
“This is a country that likes to find pragmatic solutions to problems,” Mr. van Soeren said with obvious pride.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/wo...er08.html?_r=0

In the spirit of praying for families

Eric

[IAmZamzam]

I'm sorry but you guys cannot just speak vaguely of "disruption on society" and "long term ill effects" and expect it to have some effect on me. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.

By the way, I don't know what it's like where you live but smoking is very strongly discouraged here. And I'm sure that pro-homosexuality attitudes wouldn't be so encourged would it not have been for all the deeply passionate backlash against people speaking out so strongly against it.

[Berries'forest]

By the way, I don't know what it's like where you live but smoking is very strongly discouraged here. And I'm sure that pro-homosexuality attitudes wouldn't be so encourged would it not have been for all the deeply passionate backlash against people speaking out so strongly against it.

But it's not about where we live or our environment. It is about obeying the word of Allah. We cannot particpate in making it legal within our societies. If pre-maritial relationships are prohibited the same applies for same gender relationships. We cannot compare it to smoking; the latter affects your personal and other people's health and the former is a threat to moral codes of scoiety. If we do this then arguements for drinking can be used in this example, if it is forbidden we should stay away from it as much as we can and pray for those whom have fallen for it but we can't change the commandments of Allah we would be defying Him.

[IAmZamzam]

I'm not the one who compared it to smoking, berries, I was just working with the analogy that was handed to me. I also never said anything about changing the commandments of Allah. All I'm trying to do is get people to remember that those commandments are not the same thing as the law. You just can't seem to get those two pages in your mental dictionary to stop sticking to each other. Under LAW it may as well just say "see ETHICS". Is there anything that's immoral which shouldn't be outlawed?? Do you have any idea how dangerous that kind of thinking is?? I would trust no one but a prophet to set up such a legal system, ever. Common people are too fallible and too prone to bias and self-deception. We are talking about politicians here.

[Berries'forest]

Is there anything that's immoral which shouldn't be outlawed?? Do you have any idea how dangerous that kind of thinking is??

It is dangerous to keep it legal. Here you say:

I have no problem with smoking being banned from certain public places and there's a good reason for sexual activity to be banned from them too (libraries spring to mind...)

These activities are not the same as smoking they are toxic to the eyes and soul especially if they are publicly professed. If I have a voice that is counted (since we're speaking politics and it is a democracy afterall) then I should use that voice in what I believe is best for the safety and wellbeing of my self and children(generally I don't have any). I wouldn't feel safe nor happy when people do these activities in the street. The 'right' to get married is an official go ahead by locals and public in general for people to engage in homosexual activities. Will I not be accounted for everysingle thing I do before my Lord even if it is the weight of a mustard seed?.

[Darth Ultor]

You can ban PDA, India does that but the state can't regulate what two consenting adults do in their bedroooms. That's between the couple and God.

[Berries'forest]

You can ban PDA, India does that but the state can't regulate what two consenting adults do in their bedroooms. That's between the couple and God.

It is exactly because of that why these kind of things are getting popular. Because everyone can do something they know is wrong but still say 'hey don't judge me it's between me and God'. And we weren't talking about bedrooms anyway when did it come to that?.

[tearose]

All I'm trying to do is get people to remember that those commandments are not the same thing as the law.

That seems like semantics. What is the difference between commandment and law?
Remember that it is forbidden to rule by other than what Allah subhanahu wa taala has commanded.

[White Rose]

However "society in general" is a very, very big place to ban anything from, and so one must never be hasty about making that kind of decision, especially when there are a lot of groups of people living there who do not share your religious views.

Umm, this is a petition, an opinion/voice. Where do you see us taking to streets and asking to ban things? If you don't agree with the petition, then I think it is not wise to be where you don't belong.

[IAmZamzam]

Berries, since we are judged for our intentions I guess that the only thing either one of us can really do wrong is not try our best. If in the very deepest recesses of your heart you believe that you are already doing what you should to please your Lord then you will indeed not be doing a mustard seed's worth of wrong. You will even be rewarded. But you in turn must acknowledge that the same goes for me, even if my views are themselves wrong. I'm only trying to do the right thing too.

[Tyrion]

But it's not about where we live or our environment. It is about obeying the word of Allah. We cannot particpate in making it legal within our societies. If pre-maritial relationships are prohibited the same applies for same gender relationships. We cannot compare it to smoking; the latter affects your personal and other people's health and the former is a threat to moral codes of scoiety. If we do this then arguements for drinking can be used in this example, if it is forbidden we should stay away from it as much as we can and pray for those whom have fallen for it but we can't change the commandments of Allah we would be defying Him.

Obeying the word of God is something you do, you can't force others to do it. Also, I'm glad you mentioned premarital relationships. I've never seen anyone on this board sign a petition or advocate a law that bans premarital relationships, and it's never stressed the way gay marriage is. Both are similar within the religion, right? The fact that you guys obsess over gay marriage indicates to me that something is wrong.

[White Rose]

Both are similar within the religion, right? The fact that you guys obsess over gay marriage indicates to me that something is wrong.

I don't know why but this just doesn't add up in my mind. ^o)

[tearose]

I'm glad you mentioned premarital relationships. I've never seen anyone on this board sign a petition or advocate a law that bans premarital relationships, and it's never stressed the way gay marriage is.

The difference is very simple - there has probably always been premarital sex in societies like the UK, but gay marriage is something new. Homosexual acts were only decriminalised in 1967. Civil partnerships were not legalised until 2005. And the new bill to introduce same sex marriage was only introduced in the House of Commons last month. There is a lot of opposition to this new development in the UK, not only from Muslims, but from other groups and individuals, religious and non-religious. As such, there is a movement to oppose it which has a lot of momentum. So the timing is right for us to oppose it too.

On the other hand, premarital sex is something relatively normal for many in the society, even if it has become much more common over the past few decades. Some people are unhappy that it has become the norm, but there is no real movement to do anything about it, much less make it illegal (which I don't think it ever has been in the UK, but I may be wrong). So if we were to start a campaign calling for a ban on pre-marital sex, I imagine it would be very difficult to gain much support or momentum.

So surely you can see the difference between trying to introduce a law which no-one else seems to be calling for, and opposing a new law which is highly controversial.

[Berries'forest]

The fact that you guys obsess over gay marriage indicates to me that something is wrong.

We are not obsessing over it. That's not the way it is. We are concerned that if it is made publicly legal then it would turn into the norm of society like it already is with pre-maritial relationships.

[~Zaria~]

:salamext:

Pardon me, then. The correct term would be "fallacy of appeal to the majority".

Not part of Islam??? Caring for your fellow man is somehow not sunnah now???

Look at it this way: people are going to be getting together and living together whether you allow them to or not. We may as well accept the fact. Barring cruelly and ludicrously Orwellian measures it's hardly feasible to stop it. You may as well not give them a hard time about it. You may as well give them their financial break, especially in a hard economy like this, and leave the judging for Judgment Day.

Obeying the word of God is something you do, you can't force others to do it. Also, I'm glad you mentioned premarital relationships. I've never seen anyone on this board sign a petition or advocate a law that bans premarital relationships, and it's never stressed the way gay marriage is. Both are similar within the religion, right? The fact that you guys obsess over gay marriage indicates to me that something is wrong.

Brothers, your posts defy how we should be feeling about these types of issues - bearing in mind that we are MUSLIMS before anything else.

If we were to look at all aspects of life through the 'frames' of the law of Allah (subhanawatáala) and His messenger (sallalhu alaihi wasalam), then these sorts of debates would in shaa Allah, not be as frequent amongst ourselves - our ummah.


Brothers, whenever it is possible for us, it is our DUTY as a muslim to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil.

The Noble Qur'an 3:104

Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islâm), enjoining Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden). And it is they who are the successful.

The Noble Qur'an Al-Maa'idah 5:78-80

78. Those among the Children of Israel[] who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of Dawûd (David) and 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). That was because they disobeyed (Allâh and the Messengers) and were ever transgressing beyond bounds.

79. They used not to forbid one another from the Munkar (wrong, evil*doing, sins, polytheism, disbelief, etc.) which they committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do.

80. You see many of them taking the disbelievers as their Auliyâ' (protectors and helpers). Evil indeed is that which their ownselves have sent forward before them, for that (reason) Allâh's Wrath fell upon them and in torment they will abide.

Hadith - Muslim

On the authority of Abu Sa`id (radhiallahu `anhu) that the Prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam said,

"Whoever sees something evil should change it with his hand. If he cannot, then with his tongue; and if he cannot do even that, then in his heart. That is the weakest degree of faith."

Hadith - Ahmed, graded authentic by Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami' (1/398)

The Prophet (saaws) said: If the people see an evil and they do not change it, soon Allah will inflict them all with His Punishment.


This petition is a means of us, as muslims, enjoining what is good (marriages between men and women), and forbidding what is evil and haraam (homosexuality) - not by force (by our hands), but by our speech.

In cases where we are living in a non-muslim country, then it is necessary for us to join with people of all different faiths to achieve these means.
And it takes one step at a time.....so while this petition is not directly in support of polygamy, it is not clearly against it either (from my understanding of it).

If I was in the UK, I would definitely support such an endeavour.....for if we do not at least try to get our voices heard, then we should not sit back and complain about the condition of our society.

This ummah is becoming a nation of complainers, not doers.

And even when we see a good initiative taking place - we still try our best to shoot it down!

Does Allah Taa'la help those who do not even make an effort to help themselves - both on a personal, and a larger scale?


:wasalamex

[IbnAbdulHakim]

signed Eric.

thanks for your efforts

[tearose]

:wasalamex

In cases where we are living in a non-muslim country, then it is necessary for us to join with people of all different faiths to achieve these means.
And it takes one step at a time.....so while this petition is not directly in support of polygamy, it is not clearly against it either (from my understanding of it).

I'm not sure about this, sister. I have nothing against taking things a step at a time, or working with people of other religions to achieve it. However, here is the text of the petition:

'I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.'

I don't see how that can be understood as not also being against polygamy - a polygamous marriage would be redefining that defintion!(whether they thought of that or not) I feel like I would be lying by signing it. But since this is such a crucial issue and I would like to do something about it in sha Allah, I think the best thing would be to ask a scholar for an opinion on this in sha Allah.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ in a nation where they have subdued themselves to allowing homosexual relations then it is certainly the lesser of two evils. Yes it would be lovely to implement the full shari' position but at the moment that is not possible.

support what good there is

[~Zaria~]

^ You have made an excellent point sister.

I had not continued to the 'Sign Petition' page to have read the above statement.

The cover page reads as follows:

The Coalition for Marriage is an umbrella group of individuals and organisations in the UK that support traditional marriage and oppose any plans to redefine it.


The Coalition is backed by politicians, lawyers, academics and religious leaders. It reaches out to people of all faiths and none, who believe that marriage is the most successful partnership in history and should not be redefined.


The Coalition draws upon a substantial body of evidence showing that marriage – as it has been understood for thousands of years – is beneficial to society, and that changing its definition would undermine that benefit.


The Coalition’s petition demonstrates that there is broad public opposition to redefining marriage. The Coalition is committed to a reasoned and courteous debate on this issue, and will highlight any intimidation or intolerance shown to supporters of traditional marriage.

It may be a worthy cause to write to this group, explaining why as muslims, the actual petition does not reflect our islamic beliefs.

They say that: "It reaches out to people of all faiths"

and: "The Coalition draws upon a substantial body of evidence showing that marriage – as it has been understood for thousands of years – is beneficial to society...."

If they wish to be true to their word, then they would want to unite with other faiths......and it can be explained to them that polygamy was not introduced by Islam, but was a practise that preceded it for generations.

By agreeing to the actual clause that appears on signing the petition - this would be in contradiction to the law of Allah (subhanawataála).


JazakAllahu khayrun for highlighting this for us.

:wasalamex

[tearose]

:sl:

Yes it would be lovely to implement the full shari' position but at the moment that is not possible.

I realise that we cannot implement it but I also don't see how we can sign up to a definition that opposes it.
I would rather get a scholar's opinion before taking any action.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

:sl:


I realise that we cannot implement it but I also don't see how we can sign up to a definition that opposes it.
I would rather get a scholar's opinion before taking any action.

of course and I commend you for wanting a scholars opinion may Allah enlighten your status.

but as for going against our position, one man and one woman marrying is not against our position lol. if anything our position is more then that but that also defines the majority of the way muslims marry right?

[tearose]

It may be a worthy cause to write to this group, explaining why as muslims, the actual petition does not reflect our islamic beliefs.

They say that: "It reaches out to people of all faiths"

and: "The Coalition draws upon a substantial body of evidence showing that marriage – as it has been understood for thousands of years – is beneficial to society...."

If they wish to be true to their word, then they would want to unite with other faiths......and it can be explained to them that polygamy was not introduced by Islam, but was a practise that preceded it for generations.

By agreeing to the actual clause that appears on signing the petition - this would be in contradiction to the law of Allah (subhanawataála).


JazakAllahu khayrun for highlighting this for us.

wa iyyaki. That's a good idea sister - I'm not sure if it is too late to change it but we can definitely try in sha Allah. Thank you for the suggestion.

[tearose]

as for going against our position, one man and one woman marrying is not against our position lol. if anything our position is more then that but that also defines the majority of the way muslims marry right?

No that part is not against it, it's the part that says 'to the exclusion of all others' and the part that says 'we oppose any attempt to redefine it'. I don't see how we can say we oppose what Allah subhanahu wa taala has made permissible even if the majority of Muslims' marriages are only one man and one woman. If the wording was different I don't think it would be a problem.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

No that part is not against it, it's the part that says 'to the exclusion of all others' and the part that says 'we oppose any attempt to redefine it'. I don't see how we can say we oppose what Allah subhanahu wa taala has made permissible even if the majority of Muslims' marriages are only one man and one woman. If the wording was different I don't think it would be a problem.

i see your point

[IAmZamzam]

I am growing a little weary of everyone talking like all they're doing is "enjoining people to do something" and "making their voices heard". Petition or no petition what you're talking about here is supporting a position which forces people to be unable to legally do something which you can't stop them from illegally doing anyway, and compelling them to stop something because of your own religious beliefs (instead of properly changing things for the better--assuming that they need to be changed), and all the euphemisms in the world are never going to change that.

[White Rose]

because of your own religious beliefs

Well isn't that a definition of a community?

As for properly changing things, not sure what exactly is the definition of that. Some would say invading a country and oppressing them is proper.:?

[IAmZamzam]

The definition of a community is a society. The definition of properly changing things is persuading people to change on their own, and leave it up to heaven to do the judging and enforcing over morals. You know, the way a prophet like Lot would.

[White Rose]

The definition of a community is a society. The definition of properly changing things is persuading people to change on their own, and leave it up to heaven to do the judging and enforcing over morals. You know, the way a prophet like Lot would.

Okay.

So leave everything to the heaven and not make any effort. Can you do the same when it comes to earning?

[tearose]

:sl:

Just to let everyone know that I sent a message to the coalition as suggested by sister Zaria, jazaki Allahu khair ukhti, I hope you don't mind that I borrowed some of your ideas when I wrote to them.

In sha Allah, I will post their reply on this thread as soon as I hear from them.

[~Zaria~]

:sl:

Just to let everyone know that I sent a message to the coalition as suggested by sister Zaria, jazaki Allahu khair ukhti, I hope you don't mind that I borrowed some of your ideas when I wrote to them.

In sha Allah, I will post their reply on this thread as soon as I hear from them.

MashaAllah sister, Im very happy to hear this : )

None of these ideas belong to me - whatever good has been said, is solely due to the Allah (subhanawataála), and His mercy upon us.
Alhamdulillah.

Im eager to know of their response!

And dont forget to make duaá that Allah Taa'la places an understanding and a softness in the hearts of those who read your letter. He is able to do anything!

Great stuff ukthi!!

:wasalamex

[IAmZamzam]

Okay.

So leave everything to the heaven and not make any effort. Can you do the same when it comes to earning?

What you earn in this life is the effects of to what extent your efforts have gone in the right direction. "Not making an effort to change things by way of force = not making an effort, period" is a false dilemma.

[White Rose]

What you earn in this life is the effects of to what extent your efforts have gone in the right direction. "Not making an effort to change things by way of force = not making an effort, period" is a false dilemma.

I think I will end the discussion here since its purely based on opinions.

[YusufNoor]

there are 2 aspects to this issue: the first is that the "issue" is being used as an attack on religion by those who care not for anyone's feelings. they just want to stop religion and religious people from procreating, which results in fewer religious people. i DO NOT support that, it is a good reason to sign the petition, ie, to impeded attacks on religion.

HOWEVER, there is the issue of gay people themselves. not very many of them are "gay on purpose in order to defy God", instead a lot of them feel that they were "born that way". they are NOT trying to offend God and are merely seeking the same benefits as other married couples, for them, i support the issue. one of the reasons is that in a secular society, everyone one has rights...for the most part. it is those SAME rights that allow us to exist as religious people in a secular society. if people can be banned from marriage for being gay, then Muslims could be banned from being married for being Muslims one day. (don't think they won't try it.)

if people want to ban something that they feel is evil, let's petition to ban shirk or polytheism. THAT is the only unforgivable sin.

actually, i could see "gay marriage" banned in a Muslim country, it isn't illogical. but i find it very odd for a "Christian" to think it should be banned, what with the "Jesus died for all my sins, so i basically have carte blanche to do anything that i want." if you feel that is so, then any sin you think they are committing is automatically forgiven. (i'm not saying that it makes sense, but it isn't my religion.) in Islam, your shahadah only clears you of past sins, you ARE ACCOUNTABLE for ALL of them after that.

how about if we just ban people from talking about who, or what, they are having sex with? i DO NOT need to know, no one does.

for all i know, some gay people may get to Jannah eons before i do, IF i do, Allahu Alam.

let's make sex PRIVATE! but a ban on shirk or polytheism...i could probably go for that! (but the Christians wouldn't be in support of it now, would they? ;D)

[tearose]

As-salamu 3laikum, Here is the response I received from the coalition for marriage: 'Thank you for your email to the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) dated 31 March 2013, which has been
passed on to me for reply. We greatly welcome your taking the trouble to contact us, and I am glad
of the opportunity to explain why the wording of C4M's petition is as it is.

We are aware that a number of otherwise sympathetic supporters might have wished, for a variety of
reasons, the wording of the petition to be different.

However, the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) was set up in February 2012 with just one clear and
uncomplicated aim - to campaign for the retention of the existing definition of marriage under English
law.

That definition is derived from a legal case in the English High Court in the year 1866, and the wording
of our petition follows the wording of this legal definition precisely.

Consequently, in defending the present legal definition of marriage, we had no alternative but to base
the wording of our petition on the current legal wording, which is what we have done.

Our petition has now been signed by more than 653,000 people, including many Muslims, for whose
support we are very grateful. I expect that they all prefer the present monogamous definition of marriage
to the alternative definition proposed by the government in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill 2013.

With all good wishes, ......'

[Karl]

If you feel that marriage between one man and one woman is sacred, then consider signing this petition please, UK residents only.
Hmmmm what about polygamy and child marriage? This only one man one woman marriage stance does not support Islam. I suppose the UK is secularist so homosexuals could marry under the Greco Roman pagan gods or the Syrian god Elagabal or homosexual Hindu gods, in India some women marry dogs or snakes.

[tearose]

As-salamu 3laikum,

Did anyone ever find any alternative ways that would be suitable for Muslims to oppose the bill? Did the bill get passed?

[Insaanah]

Did anyone ever find any alternative ways that would be suitable for Muslims to oppose the bill? Did the bill get passed?

15 July 2013 Last updated at 17:57

Gay marriage: Peers approve legislation

Same-sex marriage in England and Wales is a step closer to becoming law after the House of Lords approved the change.

Peers backed a government bill paving the way for gay couples to marry. It is set to become law by the end of the week, with the first weddings in 2014.

Continues here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23320624