UNHRC Resolution on SOGI

It may (or may not) be true that a free and fair election is vital to the proper control of human leadership. However, the recent United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) vote on sexual deviation cannot be accepted on that basis.

A little-recognized fact of historical precedence was in 423 CE, when the Emperor Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea and ordered them to come up with a unified theology that he could impose fully on his subjects. At that Council, the so-called “divinity of Jesus” was established by a vote of 60%, while 40% of the collected religious leaders (priests, etc.) did not agree to propagate the doctrine that Jesus was the Son of God.

And that is why Christians today rarely ever question the illogical view of the orthodox (both Catholic and Protestant) position, that they should worship Jesus as well as the “Holy Spirit” as two parts of “God”.

And now, the theological as well as political leaders of the collected nations of the world have voted once again to legislate by a majority vote — that homosexuals, cross-dressers, bisexuals, etc., must be given the same respect and liberties under the law as the heterosexuals who were created as Adam” and “Eve” by Allah SWT.

More than half the members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council on 26th September 2014 supported a resolution that affirms the dignity of all people irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI) and condemns acts of violence and discrimination against people based on these grounds.

Let us be clear on the only possible Muslim position in this matter.

Al Qur’an warns repeatedly that people who resort to unnatural gender behavior will be punished or destroyed. This is human history as revealed by the Almighty directly to the Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Muslims cannot go against this. Muslims cannot possibly be implicated in the destiny of people who may find this “liberal orientation” is ultimately completely mistaken. On the contrary, Muslims are responsible to witness for the entire human race before the Almighty on the Day of Judgement, which is inevitable and can take place at any time, without further warning.

We ask the new HRC President, HRH Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein to give a comprehensive research-based report to the Council on best practices to overcome discrimination and violence against people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

The only helpful report would be on practices to correct gender deviation, not tolerate their continued imposition on normal human society, particularly their children and teenage young people, for whom deviant gender identity has been proven addictive in the extreme and impossible to overcome later in life.

The Organization of Islāmic Cooperation (OIC) – in an explanation of the vote before the vote, Pakistan clarified on OIC’s behalf that the organization was firmly against all acts of violence or discrimination committed against any individual and was seriously committed to the promotion and protection of human rights. However, it did not recognize and support certain notions promoted through this forum, as they were not universal. When it was said that they should not be discriminating against anyone, then that should cover everyone. The wider connotations of sexual orientation could be detrimental. Muslims strongly believed that their religious and cultural values should be respected.  There was concern at attempts to shift the focus of the Council from glaring instances of human rights violations which merited urgent attention. The draft resolution would further divide the work of the Council, promoting an atmosphere of hostility and confrontation. However, the Organization of Islāmic Cooperation did appreciate the consultations held by the co-sponsors in an open and transparent manner. The Organization of Islāmic Cooperation called for a vote, and its countries would vote against. (Refer Action on L.27/Rev.1) (emphasis mine)

Indonesia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, believed that the Council should take a productive approach to the consideration of issues, and should respect and be sensitive to different traditions and beliefs. Indonesia was concerned that the draft resolution and the discussion were on concepts that were unclear and divisive and that was why Indonesia would vote against the draft resolution.

Indonesia’s stand is a more tenable position that should be considered by the majority of the UN member states.

Azril Mohd Amin

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s