Just a minute ago I stumbled upon an article in Jakarta Post website that provoked me to write this post. It was titled "Islam 'recognizes homosexuality'". The article was located in "most popular" section of JP's homepage and I, with certain curiousity, immediately opened it. The article could be found here.
Who wrote the article does not really matter, what matter is the content. The article tried to advocate the position of homosexuals (gay and lesbians) in Islam. Despite much held belief that Islam and other Abrahamic religions condemn homosexuality, the article claimed that Islam need not to be opposing homosexuals. The writer suggested this by citing Qur'an verse-many of the comments found faulty-that supposedly tell Muslims to see homosexuals as equally-blessed people. The writer also said that Qur'an interpretation must not be stuck to old paradigm and needed to develop open minded interpretations.
This article provoked me mainly because of all the time I spent being a Muslim, I have never heard such preposterous claim that my religion apparently condones homosexuality. I may not really be a devout Muslim so far, but I know enough of my faith. This is not to say that I am against homosexuals. I am completely fine with them, even I have some as my friends. But to say that my religion is condoning homosexuals is a far deviations from it.
The problem, I think, lies on what counts as 'being homosexuals'. In Islam, or some other religions for that matter, homosexuality is considered as abnormality or a disease that needs to be cured. As like other kinds of diseases, people cannot be held accountable for what they suffer. Therefore I think, simply being homosexual is not a sin as long as the person is aware of this disease and seek treatment to cure it. This, of course, excluding the case where the person ACTS on his/her homosexuality by having sexual intercourse. In this case, it does not matter a person is homosexual or heterosexual for sexual intercourse outside marriage is always a great sin.
Some homosexuals today, however, are not considering their condition as disease. Some embrace their condition and some others are proud of being homosexuals. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this. Good for them. But once they have identified themselves as proud homosexuals, at the same time they should accept the fact that they have to relinquish their affiliations to religious institutions.
The demarcation line between being homosexuals and being religious, however, is not as rigid as one might think. Homosexuals have the right to practice prayers or other religious activities as much as other sinners do. No one could say that alcoholics or drug-addicts must not be allowed to perform shalat, because sins cannot prevent people to do good. Let God does the maths and determines whether their sins overweigh their good deeds.
It is also interesting to observe what JP's article implies. It was somehow trying to say that religions must not be stuck with old paradigms and should be adjustable with current societal progress. I think it is absurd to expect religions to be flexible and define them as we see fit. The goal of religions, after all, are to guide our lives from harmful social 'progress'. If eventually religions could always be changed, then there is no point in believing it. They are meant to be rigid, and for a good reason.
Baca konten-konten menarik Kompasiana langsung dari smartphone kamu. Follow channel WhatsApp Kompasiana sekarang di sini: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaYjYaL4Spk7WflFYJ2H