Part V Projection the Enemy of Peace

Thanks for those thoughtful messages, traffic to the site has been increasing dramatically so your thoughts should be getting out there.  I want to give Sean a chance to respond on the issue of whether there is any text that is supporting violence and mistreatment of women, frankly I’d be surprised if there isn’t, because such things can be found in most religions.  My expectation is of an inconsistent mix—-some egalitarian passages, other misogynist ones.  We might as well sort this out first and I want Sean to supply any egregious passages you have not explained, but would also ask you to be evaluative rather than defensive about the text—–are you telling me there is nothing in Islamic scripture that demeans women or promotes violence toward the infidel?  In the Hebrew Bible there are lots of objectionable things, and in the reform Judiasm I was  brought up in these were acknowledged and openly rejected, and all references to God as having a male gender removed from prayers and hymns, etc. customs changed to allow for female Rabbis and Bat Mitvah of girls, etc.  Does Islam allow for their to be female prophets, female imams, etc. ?

Hey Jonathan
I’m glad Dawoud finally made it to my website…there is still some confusion in his mind about which site is which. The womens assistance fund website is WAF. The critique he stands by is of the prophet of doom website. I’m sure he will find some things he disagrees with on my site too but I’m glad he can see there isn’t a hateful tone to the site. I’m convinced that the violence toward women in the Islamic world comes, at least in part,  from the use of the words in Quran 4:34 “…as for those whom you fear desertion… beat them.” Every interpretation I’ve seen includes those words somewhere in the verse even if some of the translations include “not too severely”. Any fear, suspicion, hearsay or rumor of misbehavior in many cases is a legally and culturally acceptable reason for a man to kill a woman. The burnings are also happening because Sharia law as it’s written and interpreted today in many countries doesn’t veiw violence toward women as a particularly important issue.

• Article 97 and 98 of the Jordanian Penal Code ensures that a husband who is provoked will receive reduced sentences or exemption of penalties for murder of female members of his family. – Christian Science Monitor March 2, 2005/ Feminist.com

• Article 548 of the Syrian Penal Code ensures exemption from penalty for a husband who murders a wife suspected of illegitimate sex.  -About.com

• Article 375  - Mere beating and light injury shall not be penalized. – Libyan Penal Code

• Article 420 Lesser penalties shall apply to crimes of wounding and beating without intent to kill even if death does result if committed by the head of the family. Moroccan Penal Code

• Article 257 Whosoever commits a crime in an outburst of extreme anger resulting from a grave action shall be liable for lesser penalty. – Lebanese Penal Code

• Article 17 – In crimes requiring the sympathy of the court (honor crimes)  the Judge can reduce penalties. Algerian Penal Code

• Article 409 A man who kills his wife for adultery will receive a sentence not to exceed three years. Iraqi Penal Code

• Article 153 A man who kills his wife, daughter, mother or sister for adultery will receive a sentence not exceeding three years or a fine not to exceed 3000 dinars. Kuwaiti Penal Code

• Article 188 A man who sees his wife in a state of disgraceful adultery will be exempt from liability of murder. Ottoman Penal Code. The last seven entries of bulleted info comes from the Center for Islamic and Middle Eastern Laws and Inter-rights Honor Crimes Project

Thanks for the notes
Sean

Response from Jonathan:

Just spoke to Sean on the phone.  I want us to be able to move toward areas where there is greater agreement amongst the three of us, the very lamentable present laws and practices being done in the name of Islam, but I think we need a bit more of a resolution about the past and sacred documents.  I can believe there are some mistranslations here and there, but if I were to believe your statements, Islam would be the only major religion not to contain misogynist elements.  Your evaluations seem skewed by an understandable desire to put everything in these texts in the best possible light.  For example the terrible statements about Jews are dismissed as related only to a particular historical context, but this doesn’t seem to hold up because if this man is a prophet, and the Qur’an is written for all time, wouldn’t there be an expansive awareness of other contexts in which these statements would prove dangerous, as they, in fact, have?  Jesus lived in stressful times, but never promoted war or fighting particular groups (except of course for his apparent support of the U .S . going into Iraq for nonexistent WMD ).  I would like you to be more objectively evaluative of your own tradition rather than defensively explaining away every troubling passage. As a non fundamentalist you have the right and the duty to scour your own traditional texts for parts that need to be reformed, and it strains credibility if you tell me you can’t find such things which are easy to locate in the Bible.

The following exchange between Jonathan and Dawoud began around April 1st when Jonathan sent everyone on his email list a link to a spoof website.  Dawoud sent back a comment that the site was run by a bunch of homosexuals lampooning Christian Fundamentalists.
Jonathan replied,
I can’t imagine anything more appropriate than homosexuals lampooning fundamentalists. Is there anything wrong with homosexuals?

Dawoud responds:
Peace;
That’s a loaded question. The only answer I can give would, no matter its actual value within the realm of Socratic Debate, be labeled as “politically incorrect” (an Orwellian term if there ever was one). My reasoning would almost inevitably be misinterpreted.
I wonder if there are any human beings left in the world who could comprehend the difference between the rational and reasonably thought out disapproval of the practice and propagation of homosexuality, and irrational knee-jerk homophobia? I believe they exist: but are rare.
Most people are – by choice and consent – incapable of understanding the difference.
(Present company excepted)
Ma’a Salaam,
Dawoud

jonathan writes:
Give me the only answers you can give, because political correctness as you probably realize by now, has no value in my mental universe except to influence me in the other direction. I am also really curious to hear what could be the “rational and reasonably thought out disapproval of homosexuality” since I’m not aware of any outside of those under the malignant spell of fundamentalist taboos. For one thing, a certain amount of homosexuality is the norm in every human culture and society and that is not only the case for human but also for thousands of species including most mammals and many bird species. In fact, there are bird species where there are lifelong monogamous homosexual relationships. I’m hoping that rational and reasonable means something other than written in the Koran, but am curious to hear where you have come by such notions.

Peace;
Well, you know that being a Muslim I’m going to take the Islamic side. The Qur’an (correct transliteration: the “Q” is closer to the real sound of the Arabic letter “Qaf”) si clear about it, and the Hadiths on the subject paint an unambiguous picture that nonetheless is a bit different from the Judeo-Christian doctrine More on that later. However, you ask a valid question: and your “political incorrectness” is positively delightful.
I read “Homosexuality: A Freedom too Far” by Dr. Charles Socardies. He is a psychoanalyst who specializes in the treatment of homosexuality. He went into considerable detail about how homosexual organizations methodically changed the AMA’s and APA’s definition of homosexuality from being a psychological condition to being a “lifestyle”. He also described some other interesting facts. One that comes to mind is the work of Simon La Vey. In the 1970′s, La Vey published a paper claiming that he isolated a gene that predisposes homosexuality in humans. Dr. Socardies pointed out that:
1. La Vey found this gene in only 48% of the test cases.
2. His research methods did not conform to accepted scientific standards of experimentation to develop a theory.
3. Neither he nor anyone else was able to repeat the results of the experiment.
Assuming that this is true; then the theory of genetic predisposition of homosexuality that La Vey proposed has no basis in fact.
Dr. Socardies also went into considerable detail about how homosexuality as a psychological condition / phenomenon is almost always triggered early in life by some experience that alters the development of gender identity. He also went into the fact of homosexuals having a subconscious death with; and this manifesting in the form of refusal to propagate the species.
As far as Islam is concerned, there is a Hadith where (in modern colloquial terms) the Prophet and some of his companions were in a town where the people had accepted Islam. There was a man in the town who was “al Mukkhanaath” (a homosexual / effeminate / transvestite). He asked about the man, and the people there told him something to the effect that “he’s always been like that”. The Prophet told them to tell him to pack his things and leave town. His companions asked him “You want us to do him? You want him dead?” He said no. Leave him alone, but tell him to leave.
This leaves us with the conclusion that while it is forbidden in Islam to practice homosexuality, technically it is not forbidden to be one. This may seem paradoxical and has given rise to some legal ambiguity; but allows for the faults and weaknesses of human beings; and offers an avenue for the redemption of the person in question – if he / she desires it. It is simply the difference between blindly hating a person, and disapproving of something they do – a difference that is of supreme importance.
This is not far from Dr. Socardies’ conclusions; although his perspective is confined to the realm of psychiatric medicine.
I was speaking to some Rabbis once, and the subject of homosexuality came up. One of them told me something interesting. In Rabbinical Law, same gender sexual acts are forbidden to men, but not to women. He used the metaphor of “two empty vessels”. Which has a certain logic to it worthy of debate.
You said “a certain amount of homosexuality is the norm in every human culture”: and of course this is a perfectly admissible argument. Its there: as are a great number of other anomalies that would require discussion outside the scope of this email. But the epidemic proportions of homosexuality have, historically, preceded the downfall of society. Greece and Rome are good examples. The sex drive turning in upon itself has repercussions that echo throughout the society in which it manifests.
Your mentioning of birds, etc. was interesting: but we are of a different species. These same criterion do not apply. I’m more interested in being human.
I try not to see religion and science as being separate things. In fact, I don’t believe that at their core essences they are different. Emphasize science and you become cut off from the spiritual essence of yourself, and from Allah. Emphasize religion, and the danger of fanaticism is lurking around every corner. In fact, Imam Hanifah (the founder of one of the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence) once said “Embrace Sufism and ignore Shari’ah (Islamic Law), and you will become a heretic. Embrace Shari’ah and ignore Sufism, and you will become a fanatic”.
Ma’a Salaam,
Dawoud

Jonathan Responds:

Hey Dawoud,
Sorry for the long delay, I had a hard time summoning enthusiasm to respond because rather than breaking new ground, I seem to have to debunk notions that are so archaic and thoroughly debunked that it seems like a tedious exercise for me.  You live in New York City with a substantial gay population, don’t you notice the same range of high to low qualities that you find in heterosexuals?   Do you really find homosexuals like Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci to be spiritually or psychologically inferior and lacking in life drive?   A hundred years ago even Freud debunked the notion that homosexuality precedes the fall of a civilization.   Homosexuality was the norm in ancient Greece and Rome when they were at their very height. Socrates and Plato were gay as I’m sure you know.
You criticize some genetic research into homosexuality in the Seventies, but there have been all kinds of much more recent findings that point toward genetic correlations. Then you wheel out a wing nut like this Dr. Socardies’  who explains homosexuality as a “subconscious death wish.”  Please, if you can’t recognize that as pseudo scientific clap trap I don’t know what to tell you.  I’ll post an article about Dr. Socardies at the end of this.
Really absurd was your final remarks where you quote some rabbi (Islam certainly has no monopoly on archaic inanities) who said that homosexuality was wrong between men, but not women.   You wrote: He used the metaphor of “two empty vessels”. Which has a certain logic to it worthy of debate. Logic worthy of debate?  The idea of women as empty vessels has a long and notorious history.  Well into the 19^th century Western medicine thought that a man’s seed was what made a baby and a woman was merely a vessel that contained it.  The fact that a woman’s genitals are more in the interior of her body hardly makes her “an empty vessel.”  If I remember my biology right aren’t women the gender out of which entire human beings emerge?  Doesn’t that make males seem rather empty considering their bodies only contribute an often ill considered squirt of semen that only has half the chromosomes?   I feel silly even debating this type of “logic.”

I have also found myself feeling burned out on writing about things Middle Eastern in general.   No matter what your intentions you end up in quagmire and the more you struggle the deeper into you sink.  I’ve got so many other projects competing for my attention that seem more likely to bear fruit that enthusiasm for debating archaic and absurd propositions seems to be running down.  I think I may need to retire from this field at least until some other projects are completed.

So please forgive me if I become less of a dialogue partner.   I have confidence in your spiritual intensity and think that you’ll find your way out of  some of these obsolescent  and illusory notions.  Whatever you do, I wish you all the best.

The following was written by Mitchell Gore
Charles Socarides, with Benjamin Kaufman, and Joseph Nicolosi founded the North American Reparative Therapy (NARTH) organization in 1992 to combat what they claim to be the erosion of the scientific study of homosexuality. NARTH states that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by conscious and unconscious conflicts, is a “sign that deep emotional wounding has occurred,” and is the cause of intense suffering because it “distorts the natural bond of friendship” between members of the same sex and “works against . . . the all-important family unit.”
Socarides’ son, Richard Socarides, is one of the best-known gay activists in the country. He was a special assistant to President Clinton and senior adviser for public liaison; one of his principle jobs is White House liaison to the lesbian and gay community. Charles Socarides explains his theory that same-sex desire is a “neurotic adaptation” that can be traced to “smothering mothers and abdicating fathers.” Asked once by a reporter whether his “lousy parenting” caused his son to be gay, “Socarides neatly places the blame on ‘a combination of uncontrollable events,’ like the fact that he and Richard’s mother divorced when Richard was about 3 years old, the age at which the ‘neurotic mechanism’ of homosexuality can be implanted in a child. Socarides also says that Richard’s now-dead mother was ‘quite harsh towards my son’ after the divorce.”
It should be noted that Socrades has been married 4 times so the views put forward by a man was unable to maintain a steady relationship with a woman, should give one pause.
NARTH begins its work with the presumption that homosexuality is a developmental disorder or a mental illness, which it frequently compares to alcoholism. It claims that “powerful political pressures have done much to erode scientific exploration and study of this disorder.” It attempts to position its adherents as heroes swimming against the mighty tide of the brainwashed psychological community and the mainstream media.
Charles Socarides has also run into trouble with the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), of which he is a member. According to a letter from Dr. Ralph Roughton of the APsaA, Socarides misrepresented the position of the APsaA in a published paper and a court affidavit. Socarides attempted to make it appear that the APsaA agrees with his positions on homosexuality. He did this by quoting an APsaA document written in 1968, which supported his views and which he called the “official position” of the APsaA, while ignoring a 1990 revised statement that drastically contradicted his views. The Executive Committee of the APsaA instructed the organization’s attorney to write a letter to Socarides asking him to cease this misrepresentation and threatening legal action if he continued.
Additionally, the APsaA newsletter decided to stop printing advertisements for NARTH meetings because the organization does not adhere to APsaA’s policy of non-discrimination “and because their activities are demeaning to our members who are gay and lesbian,” according to Roughton…
Socarides, NARTH’s president, wrote in JAMA in 1970 that “homosexuality is a dread dysfunction, malignant in character, that has risen to epidemic proportions.” More recently, in 1995, he wrote that the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder from DSM was a “Trojan Horse which, once admitted into the gates of the heterosexual world, has led to a sexual and social dementia.” He asserted that homosexuality “is a freedom that cannot be given.”
NARTH’s presence in the psychotherapy profession is small but significant. NARTH members are licensed psychotherapists, psychiatrists, and medical professionals who, by virtue of their credentials, have some influence within certain psychotherapy and medical institutions. In addition, these credentials give their ideas the appearance of legitimacy when marketed to the public. Last year, Charles Socarides, Benjamin Kaufman, Joseph Nicolosi, Jeffrey Satinover, and Richard Fitzgibbons co-authored an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal advocating reparative therapy for gay men.
In response to the aggressive marketing of reparative and conversion therapy to both the public and the psychotherapy profession, the American Psychological Association, in August 1997, reiterated its long-standing official position that homosexuality and bisexuality are not mental disorders and therefore do not require treatment.
NARTH’s positions on homosexuality and reparative therapy, that it is a choice and should be “reversed” are universally rejected by every major medical and psychiatric organization. NARTH’s founding members appear on the boards of many far-right Christian hate groups. Socarides for instance is listed as a major contributor to “The Pink Swastika” and other hate-fear propaganda. In fact if you read the acknowledgments of that book you will find the same cadre of far-right religious lug nuts that ooze out of the wood-work over and over again such as Peter LaBarbera, Lon Mabon, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.
“The Pink Swastika” is a piece of ideological [junk] which tries to equate the foundation of Nazism with homosexuality. Never mind that homosexuals were herded into the concentration camps bearing the infamous pink triangles sewn to their clothing, in the same fashion that (and at times used in conjunction with) the yellow star of david used to identify and “sort” jews.
The above is only a scratching of the surface of the “connection” of Socarides, NARTH and other anti-gay activists and “doctors”. It should hopefully shed a sliver of light onto the cockroach like lurid agenda being out forth by such “doctors”.