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

CapeDaisy,
No, she cannot marry multiple husbands, for many reasons. Firstly, in most times and places there will be no available paternity testing, so no-one will know which is the father of the children.
Secondly, it will reduce the number of children born and some of the husbands would never have a child with her due to her getting pregnant from other than them.
Thirdly, there are more women than men, in some countries greatly more due to wars etc. so having a woman with multiple husbands would mean many people unable to get married, whereas a man with multiple wives means that everyone has the chance to get married.

Oh, I should say that is some of the wisdom behind it rather than the reason itself, which is what I suspect you were asking about really.
But of course the reason is that it is not allowed in Islam or the law of the country

Vulpine,
Firstly, I am not speaking on behalf of all Muslim women in the world. What I am saying is that in my experience of living within various different Muslim communities both in the UK and in other non-Muslim and Muslim countries, all the women I have met wanted some level of segregation from men and wanted their own areas in the mosque.

Finally, I am not using anti-gay rhetoric. I am focusing on the issue of how people can exercise their rights as a religious minority within the law. I only got into the issue of talking about beliefs on homosexuality in response to other posters' questions. So perhaps you should question their dogged determination to bring it up.

If you actually read my posts you will see that after things got heated I repeatedly tried to steer the discussion away from direct discussion of homosexuality towards a discussion of the wider context of the protests in light of the law as well as answering others' questions on more general 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.

They're simply being read stories that feature two mums or two dads. That's hardly confusing, especially when some of those children may have same-sex parents, or friend who do.

The UN convention is a result of years of research and investigations from a diverse team of highly qualified people and has been signed by fifty different countries, so it holds quite a bit of water. The purpose of the report was to highlight problems within the community, and they shouldn't pussyfoot around the issue just because some people don't see certain behaviours as potentially harmful.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47769964

This is where these kind of values lead.

The conclusions of the UN in this case don’t hold any water with the community that these remarks are aimed at, that’s the point. The author of the Casey review expresses a hope that we can ‘work together in unity, compassion and kindness to repair the sometimes fraying fabric of our nation’. How is that going to happen if Muslims aren’t involved in the conversation? And how are they going to get involved in the conversation if the language being used excludes them by it’s very nature?
It’s not about pussyfooting around, it’s about being realistic about what you want to achieve and how.
Do you honestly think that Muslims are going to hear someone making negative comments about polygamy and think that what the UN says supersedes what their scripture says? Or that they will go on their summer holidays to visit their uncle who’s In a polygamous marriage and tell him he’s wrong because the UN said so?
As I’ve indicated many times, if the authorities decide to crack down somehow on unregistered marriages there’s nothing we can about it, but it’s ludicrous to imagine that this type of statement would convince people to change their views or that they are a good way to engage Muslims in a process of working together to improve integration.

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.

These parents don't want the right to withdraw, the want the lessons to be stopped entirely. So because some parents don't want their children to be read a book about a child with two mums no child gets that book read to them. Including a classmate who had two mums. Because apparently people don't their children can't understand the oh-so- complicated idea that families come in different shapes and sizes. Unless that's just an excuse to hide their own prejudice.

Tell me, why can your children understand that some people have a mum and a dad, or just a mum or just a dad, or a blended family etc. but not same-sex parents?

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.

If you are taking that tack then all stories and play involving a mum and dad should also be banned.
Because this is bullshit. Kids are not being read stories about sex between two women or two men. They are being read stories about two male penguins who are a couple. Big bloody deal.

The real issue here is homophobia. Some parents do not want their kids to be taught that being gay or lesbian is fine. They want them to be taught that it is wrong.

I still think the polygamy issue is out of date and has no place in a modern society. How can we have equality if men can marry several wives but a women can only have 1 husband.?

I still think the polygamy issue is out of date and has no place in a modern society.

Quite apart from that, in the top 5 countries by Muslim population (Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria), as well as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, there are more males than females in their respective populations.

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

But doesn't that show that the term is not particularly helpful? If Trump is an extremist, so are all those who voted for him. So are all those in the UK and elsewhere who argue for the reinstating of the death penalty, and the 20% of the UK who disapprove of gay relationships etc.

I remember seeing one of those programmes on the BBC where they bring people from different religions to debate issues, and Peter Hitchens was on it and said that extremism has come to mean any idea which is unfashionable or not in line with the mainstream at a particular time (I'm paraphrasing, I can't remember the exact quote).

I think that's true and that's why I'm wondering how useful the term is when talking about integration in society. I used to think that when people talked about extremists within the Muslim community, they meant extreme in comparison to other Muslims. But now it seems that they mean in comparison to mainstream secular ideas, meaning that almost all Muslims could potentially be labelled as extremists.

How long before it becomes seen as extreme to believe in heaven and hell, or to believe in the concept of sin? Attitudes in the UK are changing so quickly, especially in the last few decades, that people who are standing firm on their perspective, especially if that is a religious one, are becoming more and more 'different' from the rest of society.

It reminds me of a city I used to live in. The population was 50% Christian and 50% Muslim. The city was very segregated, with Christian neighbourhoods and Muslim neighbourhoods. I remember being surprised to see a church in one Muslim area, and being told by Christians that their elderly parents had once lived in our area. I wondered how things had changed from being so mixed to being segregated. When I looked at the history, I realised that there had once been a Christian dictator who was very prescriptive with what people could wear, how they could behave. During that time, Christians and Muslims lived together relatively peacefully, although of course there was always some rivalry.

When that dictator was no longer in power, the Christians started to become much more liberal, with public displays of affection, wearing shorts and bikinis, sunbathing and partying on the beach etc. But of course the Muslims stayed doing what they had always done. From that time, it seems that the Christians became very hostile and suspicious of the Muslims, wondering why they hadn't embraced the newfound freedoms. They moved out of mixed neighbourhoods. Although by my time people from both groups got on ok, there was always an underlying hostility that manifested itself from time to time, and it was ALWAYS worse in summer when the differences in dress and lifestyle were more apparent.

I think something similar is happening in the UK now. It's as if people are saying 'We've welcomed moral revolution, we've embraced relationships outside marriage, we've accepted same-sex relationships, we're aiming towards complete equality between men and women, why haven't you Muslims done the same?'

The reality is that the UK as a country has allowed immigration over decades from countries which have a very different culture and religion, has assured them that they have freedom of religion here, yet expects them suddenly to share the same views as a mainstream society where even Christianity has a dwindling influence.

None of this means that there are no dangerous people within the Muslim community. We've just seen the whole issue of Muslims joining ISIS, especially young people; we know that some Muslims commit crimes. The rest of us need to be at the forefront of tackling these issues. Parents especially have an essential role to play in preventing the radicalisation of their children, not just by educating them about the reality of terrorist groups, but also by building a strong bond and providing them with emotional support that means they trust their parents and community and will come to them with worries.

But demonising the rest of us for having different beliefs is not going to help solve those issues.

Nor is demonising a sector of society for wanting to have same sex relationships

Sheogorath and clairemcnam, there is some overlap in the issues discussed in your posts, so I will answer a few quotes and hopefully cover most of the issues you both raised:

These parents don't want the right to withdraw, the want the lessons to be stopped entirely.
Yes, and as I've already said, that's because the pupils in that particular school were over 98% Muslim. If they had been a small minority in the school I don't think they would be protesting. They were not protesting outside parliament for the programme to be withdrawn across the whole country, they were protesting outside that school because they were angry about the way the school had handled the issue.

The whole thing is now complicated by lack of clarity in the law. That particular school is an academy according to BBC so falls outside the remit of the new proposed law on SRE which only applies to LA schools. As such, they're not under an obligation to teach SRE at all as I understand it. I think that in an area such as Birmingham which has had repeated controversies over education, there urgently needs to be some kind of consultation process where the parents can express their concerns and where legal rights can be examined and a solution found.

If you are taking that tack then all stories and play involving a mum and dad should also be banned....They are being read stories about two male penguins who are a couple.

Don't you see the difference? The stories involving a mum and a dad are not focused on the relationship between the parents. The mum and dad feature as characters but it is not about them being a couple.

To most younger children, mum and dad are just the people in your home who love you and take care of you. They have no concept of what being a couple means. This story is focusing specifically on the fact of the characters being a couple, being accepted, and asking children to reflect on that as part of SRE.

When children get older and start to have some sort of idea about different types of relationships, then a storybook with pictures of penguins is far too young for them. By that stage many of them will be reading chapter books without pictures.

Some parents do not want their kids to be taught that being gay or lesbian is fine. They want them to be taught that it is wrong.

At primary school, we don't want them to be taught about it AT ALL. Most of them are too young for talk about relationships and sex. It should be left until they are old enough to understand the issues and to understand the concept that what goes on in wider society is not necessarily the same as what happens in their own community, because there are different cultures living here.

It’s not demonising for different beliefs but demonising homophobia, perfectly just. The rest of society does not want to accommodate your homophobia.

Frankly those demanding the pulling of a school curriculum featuring picture books with same sex penguin parents are extremists. It needs to be dealt with pronto.

Schools are expected by Ofsted to promote British values- not excepting homophobia is a British value. Those wishing to come here must be aware of that, you’d have to be on Mars not to. I’m well aware of the countries so need to steer aaay from due to having children out of marriage and a gay son.

Workers are also trained and expected to identify and report extremism. Young children of all faiths and cultures have a right to the same education as everybody else do they are prepared for adulthood in Btitish society and don’t fall foul of the law further down the line.

With regards to polygamy, as I said before in Islam we are not looking for full equality but fairness, which recognises the biological differences between the sexes and how that impacts on marriage and family life. A woman would not want to have multiple husbands nor would it be in her best interests.

Nowadays, there are some countries which have more males than females but that is against the general trend throughout history and across different countries. In some countries, the discrepancy is due to the fact that there are many male migrant workers who are either single or have a family in their own country. In either case, they are not seeking to marry local women, so they have no influence on overall trends.

Even if a country has more males than females, that only means that opportunity for polygamous marriage is naturally limited. Polygamous marriage is generally less common in many countries than it used to be. If there are not enough women for all the men to get married, some of them can marry women from other countries where there is an excess of women. In any case, that doesn't mean the polygamy laws in those countries should be repealed. Retaining the laws is not only in accordance with Islam, it maintains flexibility for the population to suit everyone's needs and choices.

Again, the situation in the UK is different from the situation in countries with a Muslim majority. (btw although Nigeria and India have high Muslim populations in absolute terms, they don't constitute an overall majority in either country).

Breeze, the more you write, the more words fail me

Vulpine, they're not demonising anyone. They're not going after gay people, it's not their business. They're not saying that non-Muslims have to change their attitude or beliefs. They just want to exercise their right to educate their children in line with their beliefs.

Nordic,

Many Muslims were born here. Some families have been here for generations. Until recently, they were not under pressure of any kind to change their values. They were assured that they had the right to practise their religion.

You keep saying this needs to be dealt with - by who? Police reviewed footage of the protests and concluded no crime had been committed. The new legislation on SRE allows for teachers to state their own beliefs about marriage being between a man and a woman as long as they acknowledge that same-sex marriage exists in the UK. It allows for faith schools to teach about it in accordance with their own beliefs. These are the government's own proposals.

A woman would not want to have multiple husbands nor would it be in her best interests.

Wow, so you also don’t believe women are free to do what is best for them. The reason islam forbids women having more than one partner is that small minded idiotic men can’t cope with the idea that women enjoy sex.

And no, migrant workers aren’t why there are typically more men than women, it is sex selective abortion that has caused the problem as men are valued more than women.

Spotting and reporting extremism means identifying those at risk of radicalisation from terrorist groups.

There are many flaws in the programme, not least the expectation that a few workshops would be sufficient training for such a complex issue.
But let's leave that aside for now.

There is much evidence that having a strong religious identity actually protects against radicalisation. See this Guardian article on MI5 findings:
www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

Relevant section:
'Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.'

Further evidence of this here: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3579103/Think-extremism-s-crime-ll-change-mind-come-YOU.html

Relevant section: 'What’s more, new and startling evidence from France (barely noticed here) suggests strongly that all these ‘anti-extremist’ strategies are wholly useless anyway for their main stated purpose.
It’s not the robed and bearded Islamist zealots we need to fear at all. An undercover French journalist, who infiltrated a jihadi cell in Paris, described those he found there as ‘fast-food Islamists’ who knew nothing of their supposed religion.
‘I never saw any Islam in this affair,’ the reporter told Canal+ TV. The cell members had ‘no will to improve the world’ but were ‘lost, frustrated, suicidal, easily manipulated youths’.
This is what I have been pointing out for many months. Track the backgrounds of the perpetrators of these crimes, here and abroad, and you do not find fanatical Wahhabi hard men, trained in the arts of death.
You find, almost invariably, low-life drifters in a haze of dope, on the borders of mental illness (and sometimes beyond it), capable of murder because they have fried their brains for so long that they no longer know right from wrong, or fantasy from reality. Some of these commit crimes which they then justify with a political purpose; many just commit crimes.'

so you also don’t believe women are free to do what is best for them.

That's literally the opposite of what I said.

I've given some of the actual wisdom behind it upthread.

migrant workers aren’t why there are typically more men than women, it is sex selective abortion that has caused the problem as men are valued more than women.

Evidence please?

Sex-selective abortion is not allowed in Islam, nor is it available in many Muslim countries.

See the section on demographics in this article covering the whole Arabian peninsula:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_workers_in_the_Persian_Gulf_region#Demographics

Countries with industries like oil and gas, such as Algeria and Libya, tend to have plenty of expat workers too although they've probably all left Libya now.
In other countries like Morocco the female population is higher than male overall.

Don't generalise about all Muslim countries. Some of the problems found in Pakistan, for instance, are also found among the Hindus of India.

I forgot to say wrt extremism and terrorism, many of the most conservative and practising Muslims in the UK are also the ones doing the most to counter radicalisation by giving lectures about the dangers of terrorist groups, explaining to parents how to avoid their children being sucked into such groups, generally educating Muslims around the issue.

That's literally the opposite of what I said

Um.... no, it really wasn't. It read like women think a certain way and they don't do that."