Petition UK Government to support traditional marriage

[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-a...ment-has-no-right-introduce-gay-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/world/europe/08iht-letter08.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