Eye on ‘Gay Muslims’

In the London Times article of 7th January 2006, which I have already mentioned for its promotion of the typical line on “gay Muslims”, and its web-links to the Safra and Imaan “havens”, the following little statement appeared:

A handful of Muslims are believed to be among the hundreds of gay men and women who have taken out civil partnerships in the past month. The country’s other top Muslim, Dr Zaki Badawi of the Muslim College, has urged gay Muslims to take advantage of their financial benefits so long as they are not sexually active.

The writer, Ben Hoyle, didn’t see fit to quote Dr Badawi directly, which is quite strange considering the sensitivity of the issue. We wrote to Dr Badawi to ask for a clarification. He told us that the reporter had, in summarising his views, misrepresented them. He then offered the following statement:

Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, rejects sex outside marriage. As regards the civil contract, I see no barrier to Muslims taking advantage of its financial benefits if it applies to them. So if old colleagues or friends choose to live together to support each other it would, in my view, be sensible for them to enter into such a contract so that if one dies the other would not suffer. The civil contract does not demand a sexual relationship, which would not be allowed in Islam as stated earlier. But safe-guarding property rights under this contract is permitted.  If the civil contract allows for two sisters or brothers to be covered by its rules I would advise Muslims to enter into such a contract.

For two men (or two women) to live together is uncontroversial in itself. However, where the intention is to replace the Islamic ideal of spousehood (whether or not physical contact is involved) with a notion of same-sex partnership, this is an act demonstrating contempt for the nature God Almighty has created for mankind.

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 comes into force on 5 December 2005. This will enable same-sex couples to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. Couples who form a civil partnership will have a new legal status, that of ‘civil partner’. Civil partners will have equal treatment in a wide range of legal matters with married couples, including:

• Tax, including inheritance tax
• Employment Benefits
• Most state and occupational pension benefits
• Income related benefits, tax credits and child support
• Duty to provide reasonable maintenance for your civil partners and any children of the family
• Ability to apply for parental responsibility for your civil partner’s child
• Inheritance of a tenancy agreement
• Recognition under intestacy rules
• Access to fatal accidents compensation
• Protection from domestic violence
• Recognition from immigration and nationality purposes

Quite why any Islamic scholar should “urge” (a la Hoyle) or “advise” (Badawi himself) Muslims to “take advantage” of this system is beyond me. Why should any partnership be recognised by law as being equal to marriage? If the system were allowing some things to happen that the Shari’ah prescribed, such as certain inheritance rights, then perhaps I could understand Dr Badawi’s position. Indeed, he has specifically mentioned the case of “two sisters or [two] brothers”. But if we go to the FAQs page linked to at that government site, we find that the couples must

…not be within the prohibited degrees of relationship (i.e related).

In that case, although there is no demand on the couples to be sexually active, it is abundantly clear that this legislation is supposed to grant rights to homosexual couples, and not “old colleagues or friends”, and certainly not siblings! I don’t see that these civil partnerships preserve anything that our religion calls for.