Yasmin Ratansi, Ismaili MP, voted for the same sex marriage legislation in the Canadian Parliament. Why she voted against her faith? Being a Muslim, she should defend her faith. She was not bound to vote with her party because in this particular Bill it was a free vote.
Note to the Webmaster: I had to open a new topic and repeat the discussion because it is going on the side tract.
Yasmin Ratansi
I would think a politician's vote should not reflect on his or her religious views. There should be a separation of church and power. Imagine if the evengelical movement took over power in a country and carried on their agenda and tried to impose their beliefs on the non evangelicals....
Being born as an Ismaili who is gay, I am not sure why people are so
pre-occupied on this issue. Being gay is not about sex..it is love and emotional feeling towards a person of same sex. A person who is in a loving and caring relationship should be afforded the same rights as any other person .
I would like to pose a question...has anyone met a gay person? I am sure you have unknowingly...as many are so fearful to express their identity...
I can assure you there are many amongst us..doctors, politicians, lawyers, clergymen and women, Ismailis, non ismailis..
If you are still not convinced....drop me a message..
Being born as an Ismaili who is gay, I am not sure why people are so
pre-occupied on this issue. Being gay is not about sex..it is love and emotional feeling towards a person of same sex. A person who is in a loving and caring relationship should be afforded the same rights as any other person .
I would like to pose a question...has anyone met a gay person? I am sure you have unknowingly...as many are so fearful to express their identity...
I can assure you there are many amongst us..doctors, politicians, lawyers, clergymen and women, Ismailis, non ismailis..
If you are still not convinced....drop me a message..
The arguement should be CIVIL UNIONS VERSUS MARRAIGE...finni wrote:I would think a politician's vote should not reflect on his or her religious views. There should be a separation of church and power. Imagine if the evengelical movement took over power in a country and carried on their agenda and tried to impose their beliefs on the non evangelicals....
Being born as an Ismaili who is gay, I am not sure why people are so
pre-occupied on this issue. Being gay is not about sex..it is love and emotional feeling towards a person of same sex. A person who is in a loving and caring relationship should be afforded the same rights as any other person .
I would like to pose a question...has anyone met a gay person? I am sure you have unknowingly...as many are so fearful to express their identity...
I can assure you there are many amongst us..doctors, politicians, lawyers, clergymen and women, Ismailis, non ismailis..
If you are still not convinced....drop me a message..
the separation of church and state is very important..
marraige is a religious act...we can't force a religion to change it's laws...
i think Civil Unions which accord to all the gays and lesbians all the rights of heterosexual couples should be legalized...however i don't think that a faith should be forced to marry anyone especially for us Ismailies..unless we have an edict from MHI allowing it.
Shams
I would beg to differ here. Simply because Islam is not like Christianity where church and state are separated. We are to live within the ethics of Islam and with our faith day in, day out. An equal balance of Din and Duniya. Hazar Imam made it clear himself (not just in all of his farmans, but:) when he was asked about the difference between him being the Imam VS. the Pope.finni wrote:I would think a politician's vote should not reflect on his or her religious views. There should be a separation of church and power.
It is just that in the Christian world there is a large separation between the two. However, when you move towards the Muslim world and Muslim countries, you can see the collaboration of "church and state" and how they are always mixed together.
In his interview with The Globe and Mail. January 30, 2002, MHI stated:
"But I think the more over-riding issue is the issue of theocracy versus secular state, and I think that at this point in time, the vast majority of countries within the Muslim world have recognized the difficulty of a theocratic state, and these difficulties are due to many different forces in these countries. But also, the pluralism within Islam. Because if you create a theocratic state, automatically you are saying there must be an interpretation which is the state interpretation of the faith.....What we are talking about are states that want to have modern forms of government but where the ethics of Islam remain the premises on which civil society is built. And I think that's where we see this -- to me very exciting -- effort to maintain the ethics of Islam, but in a modern state. And I think when we're talking about the ethics of Islam, it's easier to have civil society institutions built on the ethics of the faith, than a theocratic state in the full form."
From the above, it is clear that MHI favours the separation of the 'church' and the 'state' as opposed to a fully fledged theocracy. However he would like to see the ethics of Islam guiding the civil society, that is public life.
"But I think the more over-riding issue is the issue of theocracy versus secular state, and I think that at this point in time, the vast majority of countries within the Muslim world have recognized the difficulty of a theocratic state, and these difficulties are due to many different forces in these countries. But also, the pluralism within Islam. Because if you create a theocratic state, automatically you are saying there must be an interpretation which is the state interpretation of the faith.....What we are talking about are states that want to have modern forms of government but where the ethics of Islam remain the premises on which civil society is built. And I think that's where we see this -- to me very exciting -- effort to maintain the ethics of Islam, but in a modern state. And I think when we're talking about the ethics of Islam, it's easier to have civil society institutions built on the ethics of the faith, than a theocratic state in the full form."
From the above, it is clear that MHI favours the separation of the 'church' and the 'state' as opposed to a fully fledged theocracy. However he would like to see the ethics of Islam guiding the civil society, that is public life.
kmaherali
If that is the case, then it is a direct contradiction to his farmans. If we are to live with the ethics of Islam and separate church and state, then what happens when a decision made by the state is against the church? How do you manage to keep a balance of your din and duniya? It's impossible.
If that is the case, then it is a direct contradiction to his farmans. If we are to live with the ethics of Islam and separate church and state, then what happens when a decision made by the state is against the church? How do you manage to keep a balance of your din and duniya? It's impossible.
The reason behind the separation of 'church' and 'state' is the plurality of faiths. Which faith would represent the 'church'?. Hence MHI is saying that there are shared values and principles which can be applied to public life within the separation.s786 wrote:kmaherali
If that is the case, then it is a direct contradiction to his farmans. If we are to live with the ethics of Islam and separate church and state, then what happens when a decision made by the state is against the church? How do you manage to keep a balance of your din and duniya? It's impossible.
As long as the state doesn't force the Church/Faith to change it's rules...finni wrote:I agree with Mr Maherali as to the separation of the two.
We have to remember also that Hazar Imam has always stated that his murids should remain loyal to the country that they live in and follow the laws governed by the country hence different customs and yet we all follow the same tariqah.
Gay Marraige isn't sanctioned by Islam or Ismailism...until it is...Gay Marraiges can not be performed in Jamat khana..
we aren't a democratic faith..
Civil Unions..guaranteeing equal rights to all beings is what should be pursued....
Shams