Over the last few months, it seems not a day passes without another conservative criticism of gender fluidity and the complete delinking of gender roles from sex, with arguments that some LGBTQ rights conflict with other groups’ (including feminist) rights. Similarly, Muslim communities in the West have been raising their voice against state-backed school curricula imposing this new organizing principle of society. Prominent among these voices is that of Yasir Qadhi, an Islamic scholar with a Ph.D. from Yale University, and influential member of the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), who wrote and/or co-wrote three documents of relevance: a statement of advocacy mobilizing Muslim community leaders: “Navigating Differences”[1] (hereafter referred to as Statement), a fatwa addressed to Muslim believers: “FCNA Fatwa Regarding Transgenderism”[2] (hereafter Fatwa) and an article speaking to the broader public, published on Aljazeera: “Muslims opposed to LGBTQ curricula for their kids aren’t bigots.”[3] The question I raise here is whether Qadhi’s stances on LGBTQ issues is compatible with liberal democracy.
Qadhi expresses a classical fiqh position that I qualify as conservative, and he could have made more space for ethical justifications to complement his literal reading of the Islamic religious corpus.[4] However, his position is framed in a way that respects the basic tenets of human rights and the rules of political liberalism…
My reply in brief is, yes. Qadhi expresses a classical fiqh position that I qualify as conservative, and he could have made more space for ethical justifications to complement his literal reading of the Islamic religious corpus.[4] However, his position is framed in a way that respects the basic tenets of human rights and the rules of political liberalism and appeals to non-authoritarian practical reasoning. Let me first highlight some quotes from these three documents and comment on them.
Individual Rights
While acknowledging that some people are born with sexual dysphoria, Qadhi holds that it is acceptable to feel outside a male-female binary but does not condone acting on such feelings: “Islam distinguishes between feelings, actions, and identity. God holds individuals accountable for their words and actions, not for their involuntary thoughts and feelings” (Statement). Acting and promotion are thus considered a sin.
Qadhi argues against delinking gender from biological sex: “the contemporary claim that gender is an imaginary or cultural human construct, with no necessary link to biological sex, is untenable in light of Scripture, the Sharīʿah, biology, common sense, and the cumulative history of mankind” (Fatwa), yet he does not provide any input from the social sciences or history regarding the dynamic between gender and sex, a question that has already been the subject of intense study.
Qadhi doesn’t propose any punishment but provides advice for family and friends. He also calls for individual members of the LGBTQ movement to be accepted in society: “We also acknowledge their constitutional right to live in peace and free from abuse” (Statement). In other words, there should be no “preaching hatred against persons. Disapproving of a particular act or lifestyle does not translate into hating or sanctioning acts of violence against an individual who practices those acts” (Fatwa). Also, he does not consider those who express LGBTQ sentiments as outside of the Muslim community: “We welcome anyone intent on living an Islamic lifestyle to our masjids and communities, regardless of their personal temptations and desires, and we encourage all Muslims to provide others any spiritual help and support they need and to accommodate all people of all backgrounds as reasonably as possible … Islam does not ask us to mistreat anyone, and we advise Muslims to demonstrate to all people the kindness, compassion, and good manners emblematic of our faith, regardless of their personal practices” (Fatwa).
Right to Disagree
Qadhi is aware that in a liberal democracy, holding and advocating for any doctrine to the exclusion of other doctrines is a right: “We emphasize our God-given and constitutional rights to hold, live by, and promote our religious beliefs in the best manner” (Statement).
Qadhi is aware that in a liberal democracy, holding and advocating for any doctrine to the exclusion of other doctrines is a right: “We emphasize our God-given and constitutional rights to hold, live by, and promote our religious beliefs in the best manner” (Statement).
The language used to address believers is mainly religious and only a few arguments are accessible to other groups. Accessibility of moral arguments justifying a position is so salient for public reason. However, for his article on Aljazeera, tackling the issue of LGBTQ curricula for kids, Qadhi uses mainly accessible moral reasoning against such curricula. He reminds us that Muslims are part of a large social movement against these curricula and their voice should be heard and not be dismissed as “bigoted and homophobic.” He articulates his respect for difference of opinion and freedom of religion (as part of the conception of justice), but emphasizes that Muslims have the right to hold to their communitarian conception of the good. While he does not rely on the individual conception of the good, he does make use of non-authoritarian practical reasoning as conceptualized by Maeve Cooke (2007). He does not claim Islamic exclusivity for his moral justification but instead addresses them to the general public. He in fact does not immediately consider those who are against fiqhi rulings as outside of the Muslim community: “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” (Statement).
It seems to me that Yasir Qadhi’s position correlates with that of Joseph Massad in considering sexuality as a private act. A disciple of Edward Said and a prominent professor at Colombia University, Massad wrote Desiring Arabs (2008) in part to argue against the institutional recognition and public visibility of the LGBTQ movement within the specific context of the Arab world. He criticized Western-driven activism constructing a dichotomy of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality in societies that traditionally did not see sexual desire as fitting neatly into binary categories on the basis of the gender of the sexual object-choice and did not envision sexual preferences as the basis for social identity. He also argued, gay activists all too often simply dismiss this as false consciousness and “homosexual homophobia.” The effects are pernicious, since this forced implanting of foreign activism creates a vehement backlash against what is seen as the spread of Western prurience and shamelessness. State persecution, often spurred by an aroused public opinion, intensifies, replacing more traditional and benign notions of tolerating private sexual idiosyncrasies as long as they are carried out discreetly.
It seems to me that Yasir Qadhi’s position correlates with that of Joseph Massad in considering sexuality as a private act.
Conclusion
To conclude, I would like to highlight three issues related to universalism, gender and culture. First, we should all agree on the minimum standard of human rights that is set out by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are understood as abstract, universal rights. At the same time, to maintain viable national and communitarian systems of human rights, these concepts need to be contextualized locally according to existing normative systems and norms. For instance, the Universal Declaration notes one should not discriminate against anyone because of one’s sexual orientation and rather should find certain forms of social recognition and institutional arrangement for the LGBTQ members of the society. In light of this broad guidance, some countries reach comprehensive and previously unimagined forms of legal recognition such as same-sex marriage and full visibility of all sexual orientations in the public sphere, while others do not.
Second, gender as a concept has very important meaning related to political economy, social reproduction and male domination, thanks to gender studies and feminist movements. Thus, on should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. What is controversial is how today delinking gender from biological sexuality becomes identity politics.
…both Qadhi and Massad are arguing for a culturally driven model of application of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. One can question whether gender fluidity and the delinking of gender roles from sexuality should be celebrated in all regions and whether pleasure and desire can be de-culturalized.
Third, both Qadhi and Massad are arguing for a culturally driven model of application of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. One can question whether gender fluidity and the delinking of gender roles from sexuality should be celebrated in all regions and whether pleasure and desire can be de-culturalized. Pleasure is indeed part of a wider understanding of the good. Can parents claim the right to educate their kids on what constitutes a good life for them? If a community wants to celebrate heterosexual normativity, is this against the conception of justice (i.e., no discrimination against queer community)? Can one argue that behind gender fluidity lies a conception of the good that has its own metaphysics celebrating ephemeral gender identity based on absolute pleasure? In the name of absolute pleasure, can a society tolerate polygamy and polyandry? Again, I don’t mean to essentialize any culture nor to assume uniformity of each “culture”. What I tried to do is that if one considers that cultures change and are not set in stone, then we should reflect on the power and emotion as a structure of feelings behind recognizing some aspects of gender fluidity. By structure of feelings I mean we cannot reduce feelings to the actor’s subjectivity (e.g. freedom of choice) without connecting it to the broader context of how this conscience is pushed by structural forces (social media, neoliberal actors, religious leaders, etc.)
Let me finally end by noting that we live in a time of intolerant debate between the conservative right and the cultural left. We must recognize that only through the democratic project can the values conflict be overcome: reaching consensus on what justice entails while allowing for the plurality of the conceptions of the good.
Sari Hanafi is currently a Professor of Sociology, Director of the Center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies and Chair of the Islamic Studies program at the American University of Beirut. He was the President of the International Sociological Association (2018-2023). He was also the editor of Idafat: the Arab Journal of Sociology (Arabic) (2017-2022). Among his recent books are: Studying Islam in the Arab World: The Rupture Between Religion and the Social Sciences (Forthcoming in Routledge); Knowledge Production in the Arab World: The Impossible Promise. (with R. Arvanitis) ; The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of the Middle East (co-edited with A. Salvatore and K. Obuse); He is the winner of 2014 Abdelhamid Shouman Award and 2015 Kuwait Award for social science. In 2019, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate (Doctor Honoris Causa) form the National University of San Marco and in 2022 he became lifetime corresponding fellow of the British Academy. (https://sites.aub.edu.lb/sarihanafi/)
References
Cooke, Maeve. 2007. “A Secular State for a Postsecular Society? Postmetaphysical Political Theory and the Place of Religion.” Constellations 14 (2): 224–38.
Massad, Joseph A. 2008. Desiring Arabs. Illustrated edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[1] https://navigatingdifferences.com/clarifying-sexual-and-gender-ethics-in-islam/. This statement was signed by more than 300 scholars and imams in North America.
[2] https://fiqhcouncil.org/fatwa-regarding-transgenderism/.
[3] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/6/19/muslims-opposed-to-lgbtq-curricula-for-their-kids-arent-bigots.
[4] Being conservative is a matter of degrees. For a high degree of conservatism which opposes basic liberal values, see Nasrallah’s recent speech in commemoration of Ashoura and his remarks regarding the LGBTQ movement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeVr71jtglQ.