Does legality mean validation?

[Badran]

I was having a discussion some time ago with my family and some relatives, about other religious followers having their religion listed on ID cards here in Egypt. Some held the opinion that doing this would mean that we validate those other religions (aside from Judaism, christianity and Islam), and that we shouldn't do that. I thought that was nonsense and i kept arguing about that.

I realized later on that i use this same poor logic in other instances. Such as the case with homosexuals having the right to be married in an Islamic country. I believed that to do that, means we're validating something we view as wrong, and that an Islamic government naturally shouldn't do that. Anyway i'm realizing now that this logic isn't exactly accurate, as allowing others the legal right to activities that i personally don't agree with has nothing to do with wether or not i view it as right or wrong, or doesn't necessarily mean that i view it as right. I would like to know the opinions of Muslim members here about this, and others as well if you're interested in saying anything about this.

(Of course, in case any muslim is wondering, it goes without saying that in order for me to say this, i obviously don't agree with the opinion that homosexuals should be punished for having a relationship with their same sex).

 

[Breathe]

Good question, Badran.

In my opinion, it can be difficult for people who are religious to be able to separate their religion from their own personal opinions. In some cases the religion can formulate their opinions, but more often than not people use religion as a way to attempt to validate their own personal biases: someone who is accepting of homosexuality may be accepting of it in a religion that does not condone it, and someone who is not accepting of it would not be accepting of it if they were in a religion that did not condone it or if they were not.

Legality does not always equal validation--not from people anyway. It is legal for homosexuals to marry in many places, but there are still some people who do not see the marriage of two people of the same gender to marry: some people will absolutely refuse to call people who are married as spouses, for example.

To be honest, I don't think religion and politics should really mix, because if a country's politics is based on religion there is always the minority of people who are not of that religion who are having a foreign religion pushed onto them.

The way I see it is: put yourselves in their shoes. If you were X, would you want to be allowed to live as you like, so long as you did not harm another?

For example:

If you were homosexual, would you want to be refused to marry someone you loved? Would you want to be refused to marry someone you loved as a heterosexual? Would you want to be forced to marry a man as a heterosexual?

If you were of a minority religion, would you want your religion to be rejected? Would you want your religion to be rejected as a Muslim if you lived in a non-Muslim country?



If I've misunderstood something, let me know.

 

[Sahar]

I am curious, does this mean you have no problem with legalizing homosexual marriage in an Islamic country?! Also does this mean you don't agree with punishing "heterosexuals" for having illegal sex when witnessed, since you don't agree with punishing the illegal relation when performed by homosexuals?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

From a Christian Point of view the question can not arise, as Religion has no place to play in the Law.

A Christian might have a religious or moral view about these things as might his church. However The Law is held equally by all citizens and takes a superior position when established by government in law.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Legality does not necessasrily imply validity.

If a law is unjust, what that law allows will be valid only insofar as it is legal.

 

[Badran]

Good question, Badran.

In my opinion, it can be difficult for people who are religious to be able to separate their religion from their own personal opinions. In some cases the religion can formulate their opinions, but more often than not people use religion as a way to attempt to validate their own personal biases: someone who is accepting of homosexuality may be accepting of it in a religion that does not condone it, and someone who is not accepting of it would not be accepting of it if they were in a religion that did not condone it or if they were not.

Legality does not always equal validation--not from people anyway. It is legal for homosexuals to marry in many places, but there are still some people who do not see the marriage of two people of the same gender to marry: some people will absolutely refuse to call people who are married as spouses, for example.

This is the case the way i see it. And i'm saying that it should be that way too. That its understandable that many things would be legal while the majority of people view it as wrong. It being wrong (or viewed as wrong) is not grounds to make it illegal, or to stop people from getting their rights.

To be honest, I don't think religion and politics should really mix, because if a country's politics is based on religion there is always the minority of people who are not of that religion who are having a foreign religion pushed onto them.

Basing the law on certain religious teachings as a general idea, disregarding the fact that there are other people in that country who do not adhere to that religion is certainly wrong. I do believe though that in the case of a country which has a majority of a certain religion, it should be evident in their government those values that they hold, without restricting others. I understand how complicated such idea is, and i don't have it all figured out, but i believe in such concept.

The way I see it is: put yourselves in their shoes. If you were X, would you want to be allowed to live as you like, so long as you did not harm another?

For example:

If you were homosexual, would you want to be refused to marry someone you loved? Would you want to be refused to marry someone you loved as a heterosexual? Would you want to be forced to marry a man as a heterosexual?

If you were of a minority religion, would you want your religion to be rejected? Would you want your religion to be rejected as a Muslim if you lived in a non-Muslim country?

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

If I've misunderstood something, let me know.

No, you haven't

 

[Sahar]

Indeed, in essence what Badran is thinking of is a secular system under which what you believe as moral or immoral/wrong or right is a personal thing. And what is haram and halal or in other words the religious view is irrelevant to the law.

 

[Badran]

Indeed, in essence what Badran is thinking of is a secular system under which what you believe as moral or immoral/wrong or right is a personal thing. And what is haram and halal or in other words the religious view is irrelevant to the law.

No, thats not even close to what i'm saying.

I am curious, does this mean you have no problem with legalizing homosexual marriage in an Islamic country?!

Yes. Based on what i said on the Op. For example we view adhering to a different religion and/or not believing in god as wrong. Yet, the law in an Islamic country will guarantee that right for people.

Also does this mean you don't agree with punishing "heterosexuals" for having illegal sex when witnessed,

It is not illegal to have sex without marriage, its a sin. But to be witnessed is whats illegal, and punishable.

since you don't agree with punishing the illegal relation when performed by homosexuals?

Again, its not an illegal relationship. It being a sin is not equal to it being illegal. Illegal means that we are supposed to stop people from doing it, and punish them if they do.

 

[Breathe]

Basing the law on certain religious teachings as a general idea, disregarding the fact that there are other people in that country who do not adhere to that religion is certainly wrong. I do believe though that in the case of a country which has a majority of a certain religion, it should be evident in their government those values that they hold, without restricting others. I understand how complicated such idea is, and i don't have it all figured out, but i believe in such concept.

It is possible as long as they don't infringe on others' rights.

I know it can be difficult to keep everyone happy, but as long as people are free to believe or disbelieve, for example, it's fine by me. I'm wary of religion influencing governments because one often ends up with super-religious, ultra-conservative nutcases having more power than they should.

For example, having a law that prohibits child sacrifice--because child sacrifice is forbidden in the Quran, I am fine with that, no problem, also laws against harming people (except in self defence), murder, rape, the selling of women and stuff, I think are great. Shops closing early on Fridays doesn't bother me too much.

Having a law that all people must be Muslims or leave the country/be denied a right to vote, live in the country, live, men must grow beards or else be fined/punished in some way and all women must cover all their bodies and are not permitted to work, all people must follow the same religion--and even the same school of religion for example, are things I'm not fine with.

This is the main thing I think people are concerned about with regards to religiously influenced laws: who decides the laws? What if it turns out they are super hard-line, or they are enforcing their own personal biases, or they are doing it for purposes of control?


Just my $0.02.

 

[Sahar]

No, thats not even close to what i'm saying.

How so?

Yes. Based on what i said on the Op. For example we view adhering to a different religion and/or not believing in god as wrong. Yet, the law in an Islamic country will guarantee that right for people.

There is a huge difference between personal beliefs and legalizing immoral acts and practices or even calling for them whether you were a Muslim or not. The law establishes Islamic Shari'a and the Deen and it defines what is a right according to Shari'a. Corruption and harm are not a right.

It is not illegal to have sex without marriage, its a sin. But to be witnessed is whats illegal, and punishable.

Is there any other context when we talk about punishing adultery? (Of course unless the people involved confess.) Are we going to jump into people's bedrooms' to see if they having adulterous sex or not? :sarcastic

Again, its not an illegal relationship. It being a sin is not equal to it being illegal. Illegal means that we are supposed to stop people from doing it, and punish them if they do

.
When witnessed, it becomes illegal and thus punishable?

 

[Badran]

It is possible as long as they don't infringe on others' rights.

I know it can be difficult to keep everyone happy, but as long as people are free to believe or disbelieve, for example, it's fine by me. I'm wary of religion influencing governments because one often ends up with super-religious, ultra-conservative nutcases having more power than they should.

For example, having a law that prohibits child sacrifice--because child sacrifice is forbidden in the Quran, I am fine with that, no problem, also laws against harming people (except in self defence), murder, rape, the selling of women and stuff, I think are great. Shops closing early on Fridays doesn't bother me too much.

Having a law that all people must be Muslims or leave the country/be denied a right to vote, live in the country, live, men must grow beards or else be fined/punished in some way and all women must cover all their bodies and are not permitted to work, all people must follow the same religion--and even the same school of religion for example, are things I'm not fine with.

This is the main thing I think people are concerned about with regards to religiously influenced laws: who decides the laws? What if it turns out they are super hard-line, or they are enforcing their own personal biases, or they are doing it for purposes of control?


Just my $0.02.

Thats basically what i have in mind, and your concerns are completely justifiable. They are concerns for me as well. I have a huge problem for example with people being forced to follow any religion, wether that religion is mine or any other is completely irrelevant.

 

[Badran]

How so?

I have shared with you before, and right in this thread with odion how i believe in an Islamic government. I'm just talking about a certain aspect, or concept in general and in the case of an Islamic government.

There is a huge difference between personal beliefs and legalizing immoral acts and practices or even calling for them whether you were a Muslim or not. The law establishes Islamic Shari'a and the Deen and it defines what is a right according to Shari'a. Corruption and harm are not a right.

Sure, i agree. Harming others is most certainly not a right. If such argument can be made against homosexual marriage, i would agree that it shouldn't be allowed.

Is there any other context when we talk about punishing adultery? (Of course unless the people involved confess.) Are we going to jump into people's bedrooms' to see if they having adulterous sex or not? :sarcastic

As far as i know, the if they confessed thing is questionable, as there are contradicting Hadiths. So, the only case to be punished is if witnessed (in my opinion). Meaning that the act itself is a sin, not a crime, but if public it is.

Also put in mind the huge factor about my stance from the homosexual sex punishment thing. Remember what i shared with you a couple of months ago in an older discussion so that we don't repeat the same discussion.

When witnessed, it becomes illegal and thus punishable?

Well its based on a conclusion, but yeah i conclude that since public heterosexual sex (not in the proper frame) is punishable, then this would be too. That however doesn't mean that it is illegal in itself.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Legality does not necessasrily imply validity.

If a law is unjust, what that law allows will be valid only insofar as it is legal.

In a democracy the law is established by the peoples representatives.
It is self validated over time. By either the representatives being voted out and new ones elected, who are more in tune with the wishes of the electors. Or by being endorsed By the representatives, the majority of whom have been elected by the people. No Laws are unchangeable.

I think this is what some Muslims find difficult to accept in democratic countries. It is that there are no certainties. There is no certainty that religious constraints and civil laws will ever coincide. Law is not required to be validated by religion, nor can it be.

 

[waitasec]

I am curious, does this mean you have no problem with legalizing homosexual marriage in an Islamic country?! Also does this mean you don't agree with punishing "heterosexuals" for having illegal sex when witnessed, since you don't agree with punishing the illegal relation when performed by homosexuals?

curious, do people have sex in public in islamic countries?
seems this a huge problem...
don't they know they are risking their very lives doing it in the parking lot...

 

[tomato1236]

I was having a discussion some time ago with my family and some relatives, about other religious followers having their religion listed on ID cards here in Egypt. Some held the opinion that doing this would mean that we validate those other religions (aside from Judaism, christianity and Islam), and that we shouldn't do that. I thought that was nonsense and i kept arguing about that.

I realized later on that i use this same poor logic in other instances. Such as the case with homosexuals having the right to be married in an Islamic country. I believed that to do that, means we're validating something we view as wrong, and that an Islamic government naturally shouldn't do that. Anyway i'm realizing now that this logic isn't exactly accurate, as allowing others the legal right to activities that i personally don't agree with has nothing to do with wether or not i view it as right or wrong, or doesn't necessarily mean that i view it as right. I would like to know the opinions of Muslim members here about this, and others as well if you're interested in saying anything about this.

(Of course, in case any muslim is wondering, it goes without saying that in order for me to say this, i obviously don't agree with the opinion that homosexuals should be punished for having a relationship with their same sex).

I think there is terrific and tragic irony in this.

Making same-sex marriage legal doesn't necessarily mean we validate it,
But at the heart of the movement to legalize it, seems to be the desire for validation. There seems to me to be a disconnect. Isn't there some better way for gay people to receive validation?

 

[waitasec]

I think there is terrific and tragic irony in this.

Making same-sex marriage legal doesn't necessarily mean we validate it,
But at the heart of the movement to legalize it, seems to be the desire for validation. There seems to me to be a disconnect. Isn't there some better way for gay people to receive validation?

would you consider segregation as a better way?

 

[tomato1236]

would you consider segregation as a better way?

I don't see how that's not the opposite of validation.

 

[waitasec]

I don't see how that's not the opposite of validation.

so segregation is a better option?
the civil rights movement... was that a desire for validation?

 

[tomato1236]

so segregation is a better option?

I think you counted one to many or one too few negatives in my sentence.

Either that or you're asking if segregation is a better option than segregation.

 

[waitasec]

I think you counted one to many or one too few negatives in my sentence.

Either that or you're asking if segregation is a better option than segregation.

you said
Isn't there some better way for gay people to receive validation?

i threw out segregation because that was the status quo during the civil rights movement...