To think this absolutely is homophobic

[HuntIdeas]

Muslim families have successfully argued for Birmingham primary schools to stop the No Outsiders programme

"Morally we do not accept homosexuality as a valid sexual relationship to have. It's not about being homophobic... that's like saying, if you don't believe in Islam, you're Islamophobic."

AIBU to think:

1. This absolutely is a homophobic thing to say
2. There are plenty of places in the world where you would get stoned for stating you didn’t believe in Islam!

Hopefully this link works: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47613578

One of the issues is that having different beliefs is now being seen in and of itself as a barrier to integration and it doesn't have to be. I know that the non-Muslim people in my community have different beliefs but it doesn't stop me from having positive interactions with them. So I strongly disagree with the report's conclusions that encouraging people to unite around shared values will help integration and reduce division; if anything it is likely to have the opposite effect with people feeling that they are under pressure to change. Like I said before, I think one of the reasons that people get on relatively well in my area is that we don't feel that pressure to the same extent and so are more comfortable to interact with other communities on things that we already have in common.

Another problem though is that all the language in the report shifts the blame for lack of integration onto the Muslim community and there seems to be very little recognition that building trust is a two-way process. For example, I can't find it again now as the report is very long but there was an incident mentioned where the researchers visited some mosques and felt that Muslims were defensive about the authorities wanting to visit mosques as they assumed it was due to suspicion of radicalisation. The conclusion was that Muslims need to be more open and transparent, with no mention that it would also be a good idea for those who interact with them in such contexts to reassure them that they are not under any suspicion and to be approachable and relaxed in a way that puts people at ease, as well as to be clear about their purpose in wanting to initiate a working relationship.

Thanks Breeze for your insights

No problem woodhill; it has been quite a tense discussion at times what with the issues being quite sensitive and controversial, but hopefully we can learn some positive things too.

Just a quick response to Hoover, if s/he is still following the thread, asking about whether Western scholars should be dismissed altogether when it comes to Islamic studies. I've thought about this a lot and struggled with how to answer it and I think my issue is with the word 'should'. It's easy to say what they should do in principle, and if they were working in a Muslim country then obviously certain guidelines could be put in place, but what about when they are working in Western universities? In that context they are not going to regard themselves as being bound by any conditions that Muslims would specify as we don't have any authority over them in their own countries, so I prefer to avoid the wording of 'should' altogether.
Given that it's a fact that non-Muslim scholars are writing about Islam, what should our attitude be to their writings? How should we use their books and articles?
Obviously, any statements or inferences implying disbelief in Islam, should be rejected in principle by Muslims. However, there are still valuable insights and methods within such texts which we can benefit from. For example, there was an article written by Gene W. Heck in which he critiqued Patricia Crone's doubts about Makka by using archaeological evidence as well as comparing modern economic models of trade to those which were in place at the time of the rise of Islam. This is interesting because in the Islamic methodology these types of methods would not usually be used, yet they have been shown to be an effective way of countering the argument here. Similarly, Estelle Whelan wrote an article in which she compared various inscriptions and texts from different periods to show that the Qur’anic text was fixed at an early date. I already mentioned Adrian Brockett’s work on the transmission of the Qur’an. So these scholarly articles and books and others like them can contain useful insights which we can make use of especially when discussing and debating with historians and other religions.
Furthermore, we can also learn from the type of methodology they use, so that we can make use of such methods ourselves when developing arguments for debate. I remember a few years ago watching a documentary which cast doubt on Islamic history and the first time I saw it I just dismissed it and ignored it because I believe in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. But after I had learned about that type of methodology, I started looking at ways to counter the arguments used in the programme in a way that would convince people who are not already believers in Islam and so I started looking at things like archaeology and the works of the Greek historians in the ancient world.
When it comes to those scholars who criticise and attack Islam, then probably the best way for us to respond is to make use of counter-arguments and put together our own refutations or critiques of their work. A note of caution though: all of this type of study and use of the materials should only be done by those who have enough Islamic knowledge. And for Muslims, the Western methodologies can never replace the Islamic methodology in terms of importance.

But the things described in the report as regressive are regressive. Women not being able to travel without their husband, anti-Semitism, wanting gay people to be punished. All these things are regressive.

And as for polygamy, do you mean this part?

^The practice of ‘unregistered polygamy’ appears to be more commonplace than might be expected. The existence of matchmaking sites like “secondwife.com” and a number of accusations, anecdotes and assertions encountered throughout our engagement imply a common acceptance of polygamy – which impact negatively on women (and their children) who have not had a legal marriage, through denial of inheritance and maintenance rights – even if most people would not wish the situation upon themselves. In situations of polygamy, the power imbalance of an unregistered marriage is compounded by the power imbalance of being one of many spouses – something the United Nations has condemned as particularly “contraven[ing] a woman’s right to equality with men, and [having]… serious emotional and financial consequences for her and her dependents”.

I don't see what's innacurate or irrelevant about that.

In a letter dated 18 February, seen by the Observer, the society warned the council that the Stop RSE campaign had “promoted material which says the punishment for homosexuality is death. Our research has found that downloadable resources which were available on Stop RSE’s website as recently as last week [since withdrawn] included a book which endorses lashing and killing gay people.”

But they claim not to be homophobic.

Yet more wise words there, Breeze - not for the first time it occurs to me it would be a privilege to know you in real life

I believe you've focused on an important point about the countless mainstream, decent people, and clearly we're at one in believing that answers won't be found among deliberate troublemakers of any stripe. So I wonder if it would be worth making a much bigger public thing about it only being the extremists who are being targeted in the hope that, as well as making an example by rooting these out, we can reassure moderates that their beliefs are under no threat at all providing they exercise them within common law?

Of course this would need goodwill from all parties, since extremists would certainly try to buttress their cause by insisting it's actually the broader population who are being targeted, but do you think this could be a way forward ... ?

I don't agree with the polygamy and it is not beneficial to the taxpayer in the UK. I think that definitely has no place in the modern world especially when it is the man who has many wives.

How does that line up with monogamy in Islam, and no sex outside of marriage or is it only the woman😗

Hang on a minute, Sheogorath. I'm not saying that every single behaviour identified as a concern in the report is actually fine. As I said, I just skim read it partly as it was late at night and also because on my phone the pdf kept jumping when I tried to scroll down. So I didn't see the parts about anti-Semitism, for example, or about gay people. I mainly saw the sections about schooling and women's inequality and terrorism/Prevent etc. as well as the general intro.

Like I said upthread, the Islamic laws on same sex relationships can't be applied in a non-Muslim country nor is there any vigilantism so you can just educate people about that within their community.

As for travelling with one's husband, first of all it can be any male close relative not necessarily the husband but this is a part of our religion and I don't really see why that's an issue as there is no law requiring women to travel at all so it seems quite a minor thing to focus on.

The reality is that the Muslim community does have different ideas from the mainstream about the respective roles of men and women and the way they interact. Very often the keenness for segregation actually comes from women. For example, I saw a thread on here ages ago where posters were concerned about the fact that they had seen mosques with separate entrances for men and women as they felt this was a kind of discrimination towards the women. However, in many cases it is the women who are asking for these separate entrances so that they feel more comfortable to go to the mosque. So it's seen as better to provide that as otherwise they will just stay away.

I think it's important to point out that every community is different. In some areas, people might be more influenced by their culture than by Islam. I'm not saying there are no problems needing addressed.

What I am saying is that using language like 'regressive' is not helpful in improving integration. Using that kind of language suggests a belief in the concept that society is continually progressing for the better, not only in terms of technology but in terms of morals. However, Muslims don't share that concept. Islam is the same, it doesn't go backwards or forwards, whether it's the 7th century or the 18th or the 21st.

So using that kind of language, as well as bringing quotes from the UN is not going to be relevant to Muslims because it doesn't have any influence on the way they think.

The whole issue of polygamy doesn't even necessarily need to be brought up as they can just focus on the benefits of having one's marriage legally registered in the UK and the drawbacks of not doing that. But as I say, more would need to be known as to why in some areas people are not legally registering their marriages whether polygamous or monogamous.

It's complicated as in some areas of women's rights there are cultural practices which actually go against Islam e.g. forced marriage. There are some Muslims actually campaigning against forced marriage.
You have to look at issues on a case-by-case basis, you can't generalise about the whole situation.

Puzzled, first of all I think one of the issues is about how you define the term 'extremist'. Everyone seems have different definitions of the word. In the review some different definitions were put forward including one which said that it would be anything that goes against the idea of universal human rights and norms. The official government definition also frames it in terms of values. This is what is so worrying for Muslims as it is so vague, there is a feeling that just having different beliefs on certain issues is enough to make you seen as an extremist, even where you're not trying to force those beliefs on others or change the laws of the country.

Even on this thread I was referred to as an extremist at one point just for having different views on homosexuality, and in the media certain opinions expressed by Muslims are frequently referred to as extremism.

So you personally might be happy to see staying within the laws as enough to be considered as a moderate, but not everyone will agree with that. And as I said, one of the issues is that the actual laws are not clear. People aren't sure what they can and can't say or do. e.g. if someone says that Muslim women should dress in a certain way, meaning it as a piece of advice for women who want to know what their religion says about Islamic dress, could that be misconstrued as 'active opposition to individual liberty' even though that's not being forced on her?

So I think before I can answer your question about possible ways forward, it would be good to know what you have in mind when you talk about extremists; are you talking about people who get involved in terrorism or other acts of violence against innocent people, or do you mean people who are either breaking the law (by doing things like running illegal schools) or circumventing it (by having unregistered marriages etc)?

Woodhill, in Islam a man can marry up to four wives so there is no requirement for monogamy unless the man feels that he can't achieve fairness between the wives in which case he is restricted to marrying one.

In Muslim countries there is usually legal provision for this type of marriage and so each of the wives and any children will have their full legal rights.

However, since polygamy is not legal in the UK, such marriages will not be officially registered or recognised and that can lead to some negative consequences which is why I don't recommend anyone living here to get married without officially registering it, whether that's taking on a second wife or just getting married to a first wife but without registering it.

Thinking being gay is a sin and wrong is extremist. It is homophobic.The fact you can't see that speaks volumes. It is something my son and other gay kids like him should never come across.

Surely we cannot tell other people what to believe. We can ask them to say "well our religion says being gay is a sin, but other people believe differently, and gay marriage exists in the UK". I think that's how tolerance works. But maybe that's too difficult a message for 4 years old. I don't know.

Nordic, I'm not interested in getting into the debate about what constitutes homophobia as that's not really for me to define. The law as it stands at the moment allows for people to express their opinion on issues related to homosexuality, as long as it's not in a context where they are targeting individuals or accompanying it by other acts which are disallowed.
Usually these opinions are not going to be expressed in public for your son to hear. It's only because of current situations like the school lesson controversy that it's coming to the forefront now. The reality is that society has to take account of rights of religious minorities including their right to have a say about their children's education.
Other posters have suggested a solution which is to focus at primary school level on being kind and not using derogatory language or insults about anyone, without being specific about it.
If you disagree, then what is your solution about how different minority groups can get along together in society, given the fact that there are religious groups here - not just Muslims - who have different beliefs about homosexuality than you?

In the review some different definitions were put forward including one which said that it would be anything that goes against the idea of universal human rights and norms

On the whole I can go with that definition of extremism Breeze, but remembering that everyone's entitled to their own opinions I'd restrict it to acting upon beliefs which are against the law. I fully accept that not everyone will agree with aspects of the law, but to my mind the thing to do is campaign for change rather than ignore it

I'm out this afternoon so apologies for not being able to give a wider reply, but I at least wanted to answer your main question

I’m sure you’re not interested Breeze as you know full well you are homophobic. Homophobia is prejudice towards gay people. Saying being gay is sinful and wrong is just that- homophobic.

The law does not allow others to discriminate against gay people. Saying you don’t want your child reading stories with gay people in whilst you except hetro stories is discriminating against gay people. That is not ok and needs to be stopped. Damaging the mental health and welfare of gay children andvtjise with gay parents is not ok and needs to be stopped. Hearing such hideous views does just that so again they need to be stopped.

It is not enough to say be kind in primary. Children 4-11need to be taught that same sex relationships are fine and normal, to know what is homophobic and to be taught to act on it. Call it out and report.

We are a multi cultural society and most people with differing religions( including Islam)get on just fine so no need for any work on this. We can never turn a blind eye to homophobia. It needs to be recognised, taught and acted on. It needs to be made clear that the UK never excepts homophobia and will always act tough to get rid of it. It’s up to the individual to decide if they can live with that. Couldn’t give a shiney shut if that upsets some.

As for travelling with one's husband, first of all it can be any male close relative not necessarily the husband but this is a part of our religion and I don't really see why that's an issue as there is no law requiring women to travel at all so it seems quite a minor thing to focus on.

Oh, well that makes it okay then.

If you think think that people being taught that women aren't allowed to go more than 48 miles from their home without a male chaperone isn't a problem you're deluded.

And the UN quote is definitely relevant, as is calling regressive things what they are. The purpose of the report is to prevent facts and findings, not only say what makes certain Muslims comfortable. Whether they accept the UN findings is irrelevant to whether polygamy is actually harmful or not.

I'd restrict it to acting upon beliefs which are against the law

Apologies, I put that badly ..;. to clarify, I meant that some of the actions could be against the law rather than the beliefs themselves

Fortunately, we don't legislate around peoples' thoughts (yet!! )

Nordic,

That's not how discrimination laws work. Discrimination means, for example, refusing to serve someone in your restaurant due to them being gay, or refusing to work alongside a gay colleague.
We're not looking for 'hetero stories' as you put it rather we want to be able to opt our children out of SRE altogether until they are of an age to understand such issues. Children towards the lower end of the age range you mentioned have no idea of what an adult relationship - whether heterosexual or homosexual - actually involves, and it is wrong to confuse them by introducing these issues while they are too young.

The only way we knew about romantic relationships as children was through Disney films and I am not in favour of those either.

As for people getting on well, yes they get on well where their beliefs and their right to bring their children up in accordance with their religion is respected. In cases like this one in the school, disagreement arises because that respect which was there previously is now being taken away.

Sheogorath,

Your opinions are not facts.
Your value judgements are not facts.

I already explained what the issue is to you at length and you are still just repeating the same opinions without actually engaging with the argument. So there is no point in me taking the time to get into a discussion with you.

Puzzled, how would the adoption of that definition work in practice though? A lot of people think that the death penalty goes against human rights, does that mean Donald Trump is an extremist or anyone who works in the criminal justice system in states which have the death penalty?

In any case, the difficulties around the theoretical definition of an extremist are one thing.
I also think that the two different groups I mentioned (terrorist groups and people breaking the law in a non-terrorist way) are unconnected. I think there are different issues going on with both of them.

I think that’s tTrump IS an extremist for many many reasons.

Can a female Muslim in an Islamic country marry multiple husbands? If not, why not?

Apparently all muslim women are happy for the segregation and the need to be accompanied by another male . If nothing else breeze, you are dogged in your determination to preach your anti- gay rhetoric to the mumsnet masses.