An unauthorized, queer tafsir of the "Navigating Differences" statement
Content warning: This piece is a paragraph-by-paragraph exegesis of a religious, homophobic statement signed by some nigh couple hundred Muslim religious figures across various Muslim faith communities throughout the United States and Canada.
Bismillah-hir rahman-ir rahim. Allah, please protect me from all of the reprehensible alignments to conservative forces I continue to have the misfortune of experiencing in Islam.
Let’s jump right into this mess.
Public discourse on sexuality over the past few decades has presented challenges to faith communities. Today, Islamic sexual and gender ethics are at odds with certain recently popular societal views, causing tension for Muslims between their religious beliefs and societal expectations. At the same time, public disapproval of LGBTQ practices, beliefs, and advocacy is increasingly met with charges of intolerance and unwarranted accusations of bigotry. More troubling still, there is an increasing push to promote LGBTQ-centric values among children through legislation and regulations, disregarding parental consent and denying both parents and children the opportunity to express conscientious objection. Such policies subvert the agency of Muslim parents to teach their children their religiously grounded sexual ethics, violate their constitutional right to freely practice their religion, and contribute to an atmosphere of intolerance toward faith communities.
Notice the style of thought as it unfolds here, since this style will be present throughout the statement and many others like it that serve similar conservative purposes. To kick off the passage, one element after another is presented with assumed connections, conflicts, and contrasts that run between them. The elements themselves are self-same and simple: public discourse on sexuality, faith communities, Islamic sexual and gender ethics, Muslim religious beliefs. Their internal combinations amount to nothing more than affirming, quite loudly at that, that circles are not the same thing as squares, and triangles have recently been in conflict with rhombuses. Any philosophical response to these that would pass muster for me would have to point out that none of these elements are self-same elements; that is, none of these are simple, as each of them carry different perspectives, or contradictions, within them. Even squares are formed out of incompatible circles. To denote a reality as public discourse on sexuality is to immediately forgo the questions: which public? and for that matter, which discourse of which sexuality? from whose perspective? for the purpose of which politics? Our beloved leaders are certainly not seeking out a critical relationship with Judith Butler’s discourses on the metaphysical performativity of gender, or Michel Foucault’s discourses on the historical specificity of sexuality. This is not a moment of conceptual foolishness or linguistic carelessness on the part of the boorish brethren who had the malicious sense to sign this statement. As soon as the signatories abandon any questions of specificity on the part of their own discourse, they can leave it up to each reader to parse what ultimately is the meaning closest to the status quo at any given point: “everybody knows which public discourse we’re referring to, everybody knows which ethics we’re referring to, and you are being needlessly difficult if you ask us which one we mean, and you likely are the enemy we’re going after if you have to ask us which one we mean.” This creates double effects: one of hostility, for readers who know what is meant throughout the statement and fear the intentions of the signatories and the consequences of their words among LGBT folks in Muslim communities; and one of camaraderie, for readers who also feel threatened that their status quo is rapidly being dissolved, and who grab for whatever is at hand to prevent themselves from crashing into the void all at once without any cushioning, even if all that is at hand is the lives and well-being of queer and trans Muslims.
Notice how the figure of the Muslim is represented here (and indeed, this Muslim is first and foremost a representation of a figure that acts as a rhetorical device in a discourse, rather than a multifaceted expression of the variegated and often conflicting beliefs, habits, and desires that Muslims have in relation to one another): the Muslim that this statement is dedicated to protecting is a Muslim who feels threatened by all queer and trans communities, who is helpless against this assault—yes, assault!—on their religious and moral conscience, and who needs the appropriate scholars and authorities to swoop in and decide for them whether their bigotries—sorry, “public disapprovals”—are still halal. This figure of the Muslim has received from Allah no reason, intellect, or capacity to think, feel, or interpret for themselves. Yes, this may technically be a moment of heresy on the part of the statement, but by choosing not to unfold their chain of reasoning within the discourse, making it so that only a genealogy, an exegesis, can draw out the assumptions and strategies that ground their discourse, they avoid the charge of heresy altogether, since they can accuse me of reading a meaning into the text that (they will claim) is not there. It seems that the signatories of this statement have not killed the cops in their heads, and have instead opted to become spiritual cops themselves, ones who profusely deny that they are perpetuating any harm, ones who do all they can to suppress the truth that they work to protect the security of only those who believe in the established order of the political world—which, conveniently, includes themselves.
Notice how children and parents alike are positioned in this discourse. Framing any queer and trans realities as viruses infecting our children that we must protect them from—this is not a new strategy, and it seems like our signatories are happy to revive and rejuvenate an old-as-time gay panic on the Muslim scene. When this discourse invokes parents’ rights in its attempt to critique what it claims to be harmful tendencies in queer and trans realities, it aligns itself with a history of conservative political agitating against childrens’ capacities to live free of control and management from those deemed legal adults and guardians. Furthermore, who are the parents and children who are being kept from expressing conscientious objection in this statement? From the outset, any Muslim parents and children who are supportive of queer and trans realities are excluded from this statement: they are constituted as others, as unreals, as outsiders who must be corralled back into the correct faith.
We are Muslim scholars and preachers representing a diverse range of theological schools. Below is our collective, non-partisan articulation of Islam’s position on sexual and gender ethics. As a religious minority that frequently experiences bigotry and exclusion, we reject the notion that moral disagreement amounts to intolerance or incitement of violence. We affirm our right to express our beliefs while simultaneously recognizing our constitutional obligation to exist peacefully with those whose beliefs differ from ours.
Notice the contrast between two elements: the affirming of the collective speaker as one that is made up of heterogeneous elements (“a diverse range of theological schools, a collective, non-partisan articulation”), coupled with a simultaneous affirming of the discursive statement as one that is made up of a homogenous element (“Islam’s position on sexual and gender ethics”, the one and only), an element founded on an intersubjective agreement. This is a point at which the writers of this statement begin to build their authority on the matters they will soon discuss. They try to preempt any accusations of them being like-minded hordes by mentioning their diverse theological practices, though which theological practices they would be referring to are left altogether out of the statement. Moreover, they found themselves as representatives of Islam, ones who have the capacity to decide for other Muslims what Islam has to say about this or that. Rather than leave this deliberative capacity to each Muslim as they struggle with their own faith, they attempt to co-opt this capacity for themselves, “for the good of the community.”
Notice the constitutional appeals in this paragraph—said appeal already appeared once in the previous paragraph, and it will receive its own dedicated section in the statement starting from paragraph 7. In these specific uses of constitutional right and obligation, the legal right-holder is a machine of beliefs and actions alike: they can believe in certain ideas, and they can act in certain ways, but their beliefs are not their actions, their actions are not their beliefs, and, most importantly, their beliefs are incapable of bringing about any effects of their own in the world of actions. All of a sudden, Muslim beliefs are treated as if they are completely lacking in any real-world efficacy, being constrained to the realm of wispy, immaterial spirituality, having no bearing whatsoever on the “peaceful coexistence” the statement authors wish to institute. This amounts to uttering the following kind of statement: “we would like the right to a peaceful coexistence with queer and trans people, even though Muslims are not allowed to be queer or trans.”
Or, alternatively: “Please, let’s share a meal together—wait, why are you running from my ‘All queer and trans people are haraam’ sticker? Those are just my personal, moral, religious beliefs! I wouldn’t want to inflict any harm onto queer and trans people, astaghfirullah! I still want to coexist peacefully with you! …Oh, you’re Muslim, and you’re queer? Well, it’s not too late, you can still repent to Allah, Allah turns no one away, even the worst sinners! …Hey, I’m not homophobic! This is is an unwarranted accusation of bigotry! I won’t be forced into your un-Islamic beliefs!”
The Source of Morality for Muslims
The most essential requirement for accepting Islam is to submit to God completely, voluntarily, and lovingly. God says, “It is not for a believing man or woman—when God and His Messenger decree a matter—to have any other choice in that matter” (Quran, al-Aḥzāb:36). By submitting to God, we declare that only He possesses absolute knowledge and wisdom. Therefore, it follows from this submission that the ultimate source and basis of morality is Divine guidance, not just reason or societal trends.
Notice here the ways in which Divine guidance is valued in relation to reason in particular. There is a setting-up of Divine guidance as more valuable than human reason—for any Muslims in the room, this may not be particularly problematic from most theological perspectives. Rather, it is the way in which this value judgment contrasts with their building of interpretative authority that is at issue: “Yes, Divine guidance is the ultimate source and basis of morality; and yes, we are the ones who can correctly interpret this Divine guidance.” (We’ll soon see this move explicitly be named in the next paragraph). Are any of the authors prepared to identify themselves as either God, or as His Messenger? Putting aside that they didn’t quote the entire verse (who are they to decide to choose what counts as a full interpretive unit in the Qur’an?), who is required to submit to the authors’ interpretations of Islam, given that the only One that folks will give answer to during judgment day is God alone? Would that any of these authors were theologians willing to heed the very same signs of God that they so freely inflict over others, they would notice how they were replacing any Divine morality with their own.
Islam enjoys a rich tradition of jurisprudence that allows for diverse perspectives and accommodates various cultural norms. However, particular principles that are explicitly stated in revelation, known to be necessary elements of Islam, and unanimously agreed upon by qualified scholars are deemed immutable and not open to revision by any person or entity, including the highest religious authorities. As God asserts, “And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice. None can alter His words, and He is the All-Hearing, the All- Knowing” (Quran, al-An‘ām: 115).
Notice the earlier conflict between Divine guidance and human authority start to unfold and take root in this passage. At once, the authors quote al-An‘ām to reaffirm the immutability of God’s word, its Divine and unchangeable existence, while (otherwise rightfully!) referencing the history of Islamic jurisprudence, the legal practices of deciding how to interpret the Divine guidance the authors so cherish, of how to transform them into codes, laws, recommendations for how to live in a given state. God in Islam is not some human alongside each of us, and so God certainly isn’t sitting in some courthouse deciding how Muslims will have to follow the Divine guidance. Any necessity generated by a teaching or a law is a necessary that is precisely that—generated, through this-worldly processes of reasoning and intersubjective agreement that are notably not the dictates of an all-powerful God1. Indeed, the authors themselves reference this very fact when they note that these “particular principles” that are “necessary elements of Islam” are also “unanimously agreed upon by qualified scholars”—sure, unanimous within the context of that deciding group of scholars, but certainly not unanimous with respect to the reason and deliberative capacity that each Muslim brings into their relationship to the Qur’an and their faith. If these seasoned scholars, scholars who are certainly much smarter than I could ever be with respect to matters of theological importance in Islam, if these scholars are so insistent on God’s words being unchangeable, and God being the supreme authority that we submit to, then why do they believe themselves to be appropriate substitutes for the same incontestable, supreme-authority God they ask us to heed?
Islam’s Position on Sexuality and Gender
By a decree from God, sexual relations are permitted within the bounds of marriage, and marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. In the Quran, God explicitly condemns sexual relations with the same sex (see, e.g., Quran, al-Nisā’: 16, al-A‘rāf: 80–83, and al-Naml: 55–58). Moreover, premarital and extramarital sexual acts are prohibited in Islam. As God explains, “Do not go near fornication. It is truly an immoral deed and a terrible way [to behave]” (Quran, al-Isrā’: 32). These aspects of Islam are unambiguously established in the Quran, the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and a chain of scholarly tradition spanning fourteen centuries. As a result, they have gained the status of religious consensus (ijmā‘) and are recognized as integral components of the faith known to the general body of Muslims.
Notice the specific examples being mentioned in this passage as the authors continue constructing their authority in the text. The examples from al-A‘rāf and an-Naml reference the story of the Prophet Lut, which is often used as a justification for the prohibition of non-straight relationships in Islam; the passage from an-Nisā’ is sometimes interpreted as condemning lesbian relationships specifically, but the term used in the passages (fahisha, الفاحشة) does not obviously translate to include lesbian relationships2. These are paired with a passage that speaks of sexual infidelity within relationships being discouraged, (the verse from al-Isrā’), which is a significantly less controversial position to take in most pockets of Muslim communities. I’m not focusing too closely on whether I deem the interpretations of the verses that they cite as correct. Though I diverge from their opinion on most of the Qur’anic interpretations they follow, scholars much more knowledgeable about the Qur’an than I have already done ample work in opening up Qur’anic interpretive scenes to new perspectives, and noting when past interpretations work as a function of social practices (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.)3. In this moment, I’m more interested in making note for you how processes of authority-construction occur in this text, and how they are always contextual to 1) the specific text being written, and 2) the specific audience(s) among whom this text is intended to circulate.4 Within the context of the statement, this constructed authority creates different effects for different readers: for more homophobic Muslims, this authority serves to secure any preexisting bigotries Muslims already harbor towards LGBT communities; for progressive Muslims or queer and trans Muslims, this authority serves to insult, condemn, prohibit, to try and force others to desist and give in to the interpretations on offer in the statement. This is to say: through its claims to non-partisanship, the authors of the statement divert attention away from the fact that they are participating in politics by other means in the discourse they set up—that there is no reference to Democratic or Republican parties doesn’t change that they are choosing specific sides in a political arrangement.
God defined humanity as consisting of males and females and declared that He “… created [humans] from a male and a female and made [them] into peoples and tribes so that you may come to know one another” (Quran, al-Ḥujurāt: 13; see also al-Najm: 45). Islam affirms that men and women are spiritually equal before God, even though each has different characteristics and roles. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) referred to women as equivalent counterparts of men. Yet, he (peace be upon him) explicitly condemned imitating the appearance of the opposite gender. Further, God calls on humanity to respect His wisdom in creation (see, e.g., Quran, al-Nisā’: 119). As such, as a general rule, Islam strictly prohibits medical procedures intended to change the sex of healthy individuals, regardless of whether such procedures are termed gender “affirming” or “confirming.” For individuals born with biological ambiguities, such as disorders of sexual development, Islam permits them to seek medical care for corrective reasons.
Notice the way in which the authors tip their argument over to the sphere of biology, in order to rely on the constructed authority of a conservative “biology is destiny” perspective in order to buttress their own authority. This is where the authors’ appeal to us to not rely only on “reason and societal trends” falls on its head and cracks its skull, as the authors begin to rely on (now-contentious!) conclusions and results from the fields of biology and sociology in order to determine their interpretations of the Qur’an.
When they mention that “God calls on humanity to respect His wisdom in creation,” they reference the following verse from an-Nisā’: “[God said,] ‘I will certainly mislead [those who associate others with God in worship] and delude them with empty hopes. Also, I will order them and they will slit the ears of cattle and alter God’s creation.’ And whoever takes Satan as a guardian instead of God has certainly sufferred a tremendous loss.” Put aside that the initial context of this verse is with regard to the Qur’anic theme of condemning idolatry, or more specifically, the theme of condemning taking others other than the one God to be partners in the divine creation (this explains the reference to slitting the ears of cattle, which within that verse is an idolatrous practice being both condemned and set as unavoidable for idolaters).
However, given the context of the statement and its use of this verse, the interpretation intended is 1) limited to only a portion of the verse, and 2) amounts to something like: “Once you have determined what the limits of creation (i.e., nature and natural law) are, be sure to enforce them uniformly, and be sure to destroy any anomalies that surface, or modify them until they are in conformity with the natural law.”
This is a flimsy citation on multiple counts, but it retains its authority by perhaps trusting that the readers of the statement will not do their own Qur’anic research and evaluate verses for themselves (and even if they did, that they would defer to the authority of scholars above them in station). Which authority gets to decide what counts as “the correct sex,” and what counts as an ambiguous sex that needs “correction”? (This is one of many distinctions on which the oppression of intersex lives is based). What is the image of sex being used here: the enforced difference between two genital types? the diversity of hormonal proportions in any given human body? Given that in nature and in biology, one may encounter a functional infinity of arrangements of bodies, with combinations of sexes one may not even have thought of on their own, what does it mean to say that certain sex effects in nature can be determined as right or wrong from the perspective of some outside authority? The authors confuse “God's creation” with “all biological norms that humans have decided to enforce for humans in God’s creation.” This confusion isn’t a hapless mistake; it is a necessary and intentional obfuscation, one that helps ally the authors of the statements to already-existing conservative causes in the United States that already rely on the same conceptions of correctness in nature.
Islam distinguishes between feelings, actions, and identity. God holds individuals accountable for their words and actions, not for their involuntary thoughts and feelings. As our Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “God has pardoned Muslims for what they think, as long as they do not speak of or act on it” (Bukhari, 2528). In Islam, the sinful actions of an individual do not and should not dictate his or her identity. As such, it is impermissible for Muslims to take pride in identifying with labels that categorize them by their sins. It is important to note that the stance of Islam on illicit sexual relations goes hand in hand with its protection and promotion of the individual’s right to privacy. Islam prohibits prying into others’ private lives and discourages public disclosure of sexual behavior (see, e.g., Quran, al-Ḥujurāt: 12 and al-Nūr: 19).
Notice the founding distinction of this passage: feelings, actions, and identity. This distinction grounds a move, common in religious homophobic discourses (and unsurprisingly not specific to Islam), of distinguishing between an individual’s homosexual feelings and their homosexual actions. To rely on this distinction as a separation of three distinct elements that do not speak to each other, rather than three analytic objects that show three different sides of what it can mean to be human—to rely on this distinction as clean, separative cuts between self-constituted elements is to mangle human desire from the outset. An artist who likes visual sensations always seeks out tools and materials to create those sensations according to their liking; an artist who likes visual sensations and forbids themselves from “acting on them,” that is, forbids themselves from connecting their desires to material consequences, or is kept from their tools and materials due to political or economic repression, becomes more and more trapped in an isolative depression from which they try, more and more desperately, more and more deceptively, to escape. What, exactly, is it to be an artist, where that is altogether distinct from feeling a desire to draw and paint, which is altogether distinct from taking actions to actually draw and paint? The feelings an individual faces are no less real, no less acting-on-the-world, than the actions an individual takes; some philosophers have even theorized that actions and feelings, or passions, are two sides of the same phenomenon of bodies acting on and being acted upon by other bodies.5
Notice the ironic reference to Islam’s discouragement on the public disclosure of sexual behavior. Given that part of the political field within which we move is pervaded by the forces of compulsory heterosexuality, there is a perpetual public disclosure of sexual behavior happening by virtue of individuals being publicly coded as straight or queer, cis or trans. Talia Bettcher notices this process occurring with trans bodies in particular: by assuming the gender of individuals around us, we also make assumptions about what kind of genitals they have, something that amounts to an ongoing process of sexual abuse in public spaces— “…public gender presentation can be seen to euphemistically communicate or symbolically represent genital status… refusal to engage in this practice can lead to extreme violence.”6 Given the utterances and general strategy throughout the statement, it’s a safe enough assumption that the authors do not intend to condemn the symbolic disclosure practices of compulsory heterosexuality, the context within which taking pride in that which is socially punished, despite the risks in doing so, gains meaning and import. In the context of this passage, the appeal to Islam’s promotion of individual privacy amounts moreso to: “don’t show me your sinful, homosexual practices, especially in public; let me assume that you are straight and cis, just like me, and that you participate in straight sex with cis partners.”
We recognize that some religious groups have reinterpreted or revised religious doctrine to be inclusive of LGBTQ ideology. The Muslim community is not immune to such pressures. Indeed, some have attempted to reinterpret Islamic texts in favor of LGBTQ affirmation. We categorically reject such efforts as theologically indefensible because these aspects of sexual ethics fit within the category of immutable tenets and are therefore not subject to revision.
Please revisit points 2 and 8 for further elaboration on this passage.
Our Constitutional Right to Hold Our Views
We recognize that our moral code conflicts with the goals of LGBTQ proponents. We also acknowledge their constitutional right to live in peace and free from abuse. Nevertheless, we emphasize our God-given and constitutional rights to hold, live by, and promote our religious beliefs in the best manner (Quran, al-Naḥl: 125) without fear of legal reprisal or systematic marginalization. Peaceful coexistence does not necessitate agreement, acceptance, affirmation, promotion, or celebration. We refuse the false choice between succumbing to social pressures to adopt views contrary to our beliefs or facing unfounded charges of bigotry. Such coercive ultimatums undermine prospects for harmonious coexistence.
Notice how the theological and the political are being combined in this passage, and remember that the statement authors have already claimed non-partisanship, though only non-partisanship relative to a specific, established system of political parties, rather than a true apoliticism. Why is it that the affirmations of a 1400+ year old faith have to be legitimated by a political document created a little over 230 years ago for social classes specific to the creation of the United States? Dimitris Vardoulakis has pointed out a common strategy for the founding of authority between theological and political domains7. He identifies theological authority and political authority as two sides of the same coin, albeit the former appealing to a transcendent power beyond this world in order to construct this-worldly authority, and the latter appealing to immanent conditions within this world to construct this-worldly authority. In light of this, it is not surprising, though it is perhaps mildly heretical from their own point of view, for the statement authors to attempt to build their authority in this statement based on such non-Divine processes as constitutional rights.
Notice the ones being implicated in this passage, and notice who retains the luxury and privilege of leading a peaceful, harmonious coexistence. By setting up a categorical difference between Muslims and queer/trans people, the authors are able to advance a view of peaceful coexistence that amounts to: “I leave you alone, and you leave me alone.”
At its best, this is a reusing of the attitudes from Al-Kāfirūn, a chapter of the Qur’an intended to describe how to live with those deemed unbelievers of the faith: attitudes of “live and let live.”8 The authors do not include queer and trans Muslims as a legible political subject with whom they could enact relationships of peaceful coexistence; since Muslims categorically are not permitted to be queer or trans, queer and trans Muslims are also categorically forced out of peaceful coexistence with homophobic Muslims.
At its worst, this is an affirming of a very specific legal subject created under many systems of law: a subject that has negative rights, or rights to not be subjected to certain actions and effects of another subject. Rather than engaging in a legal discursive practice, however, the statement would be coopting this practice to paint an image of human coexistence as one where we are all incommunicative monads, all moving according to our own internal rules and laws, where no one owes anything to each other, where no one is allowed to desire that anyone else changes their behavior. This is not a human community of peaceful coexistence; this is a human community of isolative atomism, a human community of maintaining the status quo.
We call on policymakers to protect our constitutional right to practice our religious beliefs freely, without fear of harassment, and to oppose any legislation seeking to stifle the religious freedoms of faith communities. Consistent with our claim of non-partisanship, we are committed to working with individuals of all religious and political affiliations to protect the constitutional right of faith communities to live according to their religious convictions and to uphold justice for all.
Notice, again, who in this passage retains the privilege of living a religious life free from harassment. Any queer or trans Muslim who believes that the tenets of their faith prescribe a world free of homophobia and transphobia receives the ire of learned Muslim scholars who have the capacity to determine what counts as the correct Muslim faith. The statement authors are more accurately committed to working to protect the constitutional right of faith communities to live holding on to any bigotries they may already feel about groups of people being oppressed in various ways. The writing on the walls is quite clear: they are not interested in protecting queer and trans Muslims in their Islamic practices—queer and trans Muslims are instead chided and chastised, being asked to submit to an image of the world that leaves no positive space for queer, trans life in Islam. The “all” in the appeal to upholding “justice for all” only refers to those who are in agreement with the authors’ image of the world, and of Islam.
To Our Muslim Community
We urge Muslim public figures to uphold the sanctity of our faith and refrain from making erroneous pronouncements on behalf of Islam. We reject any attempt to attribute positions to Islam concerning sexual and gender ethics that contravene well-established Islamic teachings. To be clear, we cannot overstate the detrimental spiritual consequences for those who intentionally reject, advocate the rejection of, or misrepresent the will of God, as in doing so they endanger their status as believers (Quran, al-An‘ām: 21).
To my Muslim communities: I urge Muslim public figures to desist from using Islamic faiths as a weapon and a threat against the persecuted, the harassed, and the oppressed. Please, do not make of yourselves partners with God, making erroneous pronouncements on behalf of Islam! I reject any attempt to attribute positions to Islam concerning sexual and gender ethics that neglect the unequal ways they affect different groups of people based on their positions in systems of political oppression. To be clear, I cannot overstate the detrimental spiritual and political consequences for those being treated as sinful outsiders in this statement, which acts as an insult and reaffirming of the belief that queer and trans Muslims do not belong in Islam.
To those among us who struggle with desires that fall outside the boundaries set by God: know that even the most righteous can commit sins and that every Muslim, no matter how sinful, has the potential to be forgiven. Practicing self-restraint in devotion to God is considered heroic. Its spiritual reward increases proportionally with the level of struggle involved. Our ultimate purpose is to prioritize devotion to God over our desires and not sacrifice our faith. We pray to God to grant us the necessary strength and unwavering commitment to live up to our ideals. May we find inner peace and satisfaction through loving submission, and may God deem us worthy of being counted among the believers, the most honorable of titles.
To those among us who struggle with others determining our desires to be outside the so-called boundaries supposedly set by God: know that even the most righteous readily set themselves up as partners with God when it becomes useful for their spiritual and political goals. If you are able, forgive them for their transgressions, though know that only God remains Most Merciful, Most Forgiving. Practicing resistant escape and joy in reverence of God is considered a meeting-point between the human and the divine. Your relationship to God is your own, and it is your responsibility to determine what a devotion to God in your desires will look like. God, please grant us the necessary strength and unwavering commitment to live our ideals. God, please let us build peace, inside-spiritually and outside-politically, lovingly submitting to peaceful values and to making sure we do not unevenly privilege some and punish others in those values. God, please let us all live a life free of oppressions.
Preview image is a still from Alexander Alexeieff and Claire Parker’s animation of Franz Kafka’s “Before the Law,” a short parable that appears towards the end of The Trial.
Of course, this is assuming that these scholars imagine God as a purely otherworldly spiritual being who simply happens to have power over this world. If they believed in God as both a transcendent power and as the immanent capacities created throughout the world, then they would become capable of interpreting “the word of your Lord” as the dictates of physical causality, which would then cause certain groups of humans to believe in the faith in certain ways, in contrast to others; which would then cause the disagreements of scholars to be the immutable unfolding of God’s being and reason. And in fact, there are many verses that could be used to support this, such as the following verse from ar-Raʻd: “…God alters not what is in a people unless they alter what is in themselves.” Here, God’s efficacy in this world is tied to the efficacy of the people in this world—which makes sense, given that this world is only a Divine creation of God, and as such should be a full expression of that Divine power, not an inadequate expression. Who would dare point to this passage to say that God is incapable of changing whatever God wishes to change, without risking charges of heresy? But no matter.
Not a comprehensive review, but even the Wikipedia page on fahisha is a decent start on looking into the different meanings fahisha may carry.
Certainly not comprehensive (again!), but Muslims for Progressive Values USA (MPVUSA) also have quite a collection of progressive resources on Islam and Islamic interpretation that serves as another decent start for further reading and research.
The Association for College and Research Libraries (ACRL) has a useful Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, which talks more about these processes of authority-construction. From page 12, emphasis mine: “Information resources reflect their creators’ expertise and credibility, and are evaluated based on the information need and the context in which the information will be used. Authority is constructed in that various communities may recognize different types of authority. It is contextual in that the information need may help to determine the level of authority required.”
This is one of Spinoza’s opinions in the Ethics.
Page 58, in “Trans women and ‘interpretive intimacy’: Some initial reflections.” The full passage: “…public gender presentation can be seen to euphemistically communicate or symbolically represent genital status… This means that everybody is literally communicating their private genital status on a regular basis in public. To see that this is an abusive practice, consider the following: It is typically inappropriate to ask somebody explicitly about their genitals (imagine asking your coworker, “Do you have a penis or a vagina?”). To do so would be a boundary transgression (and a form of sexual harassment). The reason for this is that genitals (and information about genitals) are generally deemed personal (i.e., private). This means that even the euphemistic or coded transference of such information can be boundary violating (since the information is still private). Yet, in my view, gender presentation systematically communicates genital status and refusal to engage in this practice can lead to extreme violence… So, we have a system that mandates boundary violation under threat of violence. That’s an abusive system…”
See Vardoulakis’s Spinoza, the Epicurean: Authority and utility in materialism, especially the Preamble, and Chapter 1, “Freedom as overcoming the fear of death: The dialectic of authority and utility in the preface.”
More accurately and comprehensively, Al-Kāfirūn states: “Say, ‘Oh you disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I will never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your Way, and I have my Way.” The statement authors could stand to learn more from the authority of these verses, given how insistent they have been throughout this statement on being respectful of God’s word.