很好的一篇文章,該文從穆斯林歷史、伊斯蘭法學原則、穆斯林宗教學者論點、當前美國穆斯林民意調查多重角度,解讀同性戀議題。
從這篇文章可以得知,所謂教法與國法之爭,又是一套東方主義者的無知論述。
因為只要非穆斯林政府沒有限制穆斯林宗教自由,穆斯林必須有遵守當地法律的義務。這讓我想到對岸的「清真」立法議題。
Jonathan
Brown
In recent days there has
been much debate over Islam’s position on homosexuality. Anyone who has read any Persian poetry, read a forthright travel
guide to the Gulf or heard Pakistanis or
Afghans joking knows that same-sex attraction and activity has not
been unusual in Muslim societies.
A wealth of top quality
scholarship has demonstrated that Islam, Muslim societies and the
Shariah tradition did not conceive of ‘homosexuality’ as an identity. But they
did acknowledge that same-sex attraction occurred, often for ‘natural’ reasons (e.g. it was considered normal for men to be attracted to
beardless youths, who shared feminine beauty).
It is only specific actions, such as sodomy (in Arabic, Liwat)[1],
that show up on the Shariah radar as sins or punishable offenses. It is not same-sex attraction or desires that the Shariah
prohibits. It is acting on them.
In the wake of the Orlando
shooting, however, Islam’s disapproval of same-sex acts has come under renewed
scrutiny. Some critics have argued that any disapproval of homosexuality is
homophobic, and that any indulgence of homophobia lays fertile ground for
violence against the LGBTQ community. Others have made more specific
objections, namely that the death penalty for sodomy (Liwat) in the Shariah
creates a particularly slippery slope towards violence against gays. If the
Shariah prescribes death for homosexuality, they contend, then wasn’t the
Orlando shooter just executing God’s will? Isn’t that a huge problem?