Last week, Awadh Binhazim, a Vanderbilt University Muslim chaplain, publicly acknowledged that Islamic law requires the death penalty for homosexuals.
Binhazim is caught in a tough situation. As he says, “I don’t have a choice as a Muslim to accept or reject teachings.” But then he tries to distinguish between sharia law, which is practiced in a number of countries, and “Islamic law.” He claims there is a difference between “Muslim law and Islamic law” and that while some countries practice the former, there are none that adhere to the latter. His explanation is something of a diversion since he later admits that that under Islamic law, the death penalty is required for homosexual behavior.
I’m hesitant to make too much of the comment without further explication by the chaplain. In this instance, Islamic Law is similar to the Law of Moses, which also requires the same punishment for certain behaviors such as homosexuality, apostasy, and adultery. Aside from some nutty Christian Reconstructionists, though, I don’t know of any Jewish or Christian groups that believe the Mosaic law should be reinstituted as a form of civil law.
The question that Binhazim should have been asked was whether he believes Islamic law should be the the law of the land in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries. His answer to that question would have been much more revealing.
Donald Sensing, a alumnus of Vanderbilt Divinity School, notes that a Christian or Jew who claimed that homosexual behavior was an “abomination” would be censured by the school. That is unquestionable, though the double standard exemption for Islam is nothing new in academia. But Sensing also raises a more intriguing point:
The whole forum lasted about 80 minutes. The co-speaker, Army Reserve Capt. Cox, is a Muslim convert. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, testified to Congress this week that the Defense Dept.’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy should be revoked and that gays should be allowed to serve openly. A good question for Capt. Cox would be, “As a Muslim officer, do you accept Islam’s doctrine that homosexuality is an abomination?” There is no possible answer for him but yes, since textual literalism is a basic tenet of Islam. Then, “If you were directed by your superior commanders to participate in and publicly support a gay rights event, similar to such events already held by the military for ethnic minorities, would you comply?”
How should Muslim chaplains (and Jewish and Christian ones for that matter) react in such a circumstance?
(Via: Instapundit)
February 4th, 2010 | 2:26 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Londiniensis: RT @rofters: Chaplain at Vanderbilt University Defends Death Penalty for Homosexuals http://bit.ly/9jr1Nu...
February 4th, 2010 | 5:10 pm
Why are Reconstructionists “nutty?” Is anyone who embraces such a position automatically a “nut?”
February 5th, 2010 | 1:41 am
Embracing Mosaic law as civil law would logically lead to such things as the lopping off of hands as a punishment for theft, etc. It depends on how you feel about this sort of thing, I guess. Is nuttiness in the eye of the beholder?
February 5th, 2010 | 7:26 am
Correct Jeff, so are we Marcionites who hold that the God of the Old Testament was nuts?
February 5th, 2010 | 8:07 am
Is lopping off the hand the Mosaic penalty for theft?
I believe it is actually restitution plus, isn’t it?
February 6th, 2010 | 10:07 pm
The Mosaic penalty for theft was to pay back four times the value of the stolen items. For grand theft, that might force the thief to sell himself into slavery to resolve a resulting bankruptcy. Mosaic law limited this to a period of indenture of seven years. So, the effective maximum penalty was seven years in slavery. This sounds very humane when compared to the potential to spend twelve years in the state pen in my state. Mosaic law did not allow chopping off a hand unless it was as “an eye for an eye” retribution for injuries suffered from an assault.
February 7th, 2010 | 4:00 am
I think cutting of the hand for theft is an element of Sharia law.
March 30th, 2010 | 5:38 pm
Whether Mosaic, Islamic, Christian, or what-have-you, most moral codes, somewhere along the line, admit that there are circumstances under which the prescribed and normally lawful penalty cannot lawfully and justly be imposed, since it would do much more harm than good. For example, among the 50 people in the bank, the guard spies an adult male he considers suspicious. As he approaches the male, the male throws open his coat to reveal what appears to be a formidable bomb. Holding what appears to be a dead man’s switch in one hand, the bomber growls: “Shoot me, and everyone dies. I’m totally in control. If you doubt it, watch this.” He then walks over to a 5 year old child, pulls out a knife with his free hand, and cuts the child’s throat. No matter what any law says about the justice of inflicting the death penalty upon such a criminal, it cannot be right or sane for the guard to do so under the circumstances. Would anyone deny it? It’s somewhat the same line of thinking to say this: In inflicting the death penalty, every society must be extremely careful not to appear so cruel as to incite third parties into reacting in a way bound to destabliize the government. It is never enough to ask only: “Is this a punishment which does not exceed the crime?” Always, one must also ask: “Is this a punishment cruel enough so to disgust enough law-abiding citizens as to drive them into actions lethal to political stability?” Put people to death (or cut off their body parts) for theft, adultery, homosexuality, and many other crimes too numerous to list, and you are guilty of a level of disregard for history so reckless as to make yourself guilty of a crime far worse than theft, etc.. In the Catholic Church, it’s a lesson many popes and saints had to learn the hard way. To paraphrase what history’s perhaps most famous individual said about it: “Leave those particular weeds alone, lest, in pulling them up, you pull up the wheat too.” No, one must never imitate or cultivate the weeds; but, one must be very careful what herbicides one uses against them, or else.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact