Wed 22nd Oct 2014 | Last updated: Tue 21st Oct 2014 at 16:13pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Muslims and Sikhs back Church on same-sex marriage

By on Tuesday, 20 March 2012

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, former Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (PA WIre)

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, former Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (PA WIre)

The leader of the Muslim Council for Britain (MCB) has backed the Catholic Church’s response to the legalisation of same-sex marriage

Farooq Murad, Secretary General of the MCB, said: “Whilst we remain opposed to all forms of discrimination, including homophobia, redefining the meaning of marriage is in our opinion unnecessary and unhelpful.

“With the advent of civil partnerships, both homosexual and heterosexual couples now have equal rights in the eyes of the law.

“Therefore, in our view the case to change the definition of marriage, as accepted throughout time and across cultures, is strikingly weak. In common with other Abrahamic faiths, marriage in Islam is defined as “a union between a man and a woman”, he said. “So while the state has accommodated for gay couples, such unions will not be blessed as marriage by the Islamic institutions.”

Murad’s comments follow criticism of the Government’s proposals from Cardinal Keith O’Brien and Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster.

The leader of Britain’s Sikh’s community, Lord Singh, head of the Network of Sikh Organisations, also said that the Government’s proposals were “a sideways assault on religion.”

“It is an attempt by a vocal, secular minority to attack religion,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.”

He continued: “We have total respect for gays and lesbians and we are delighted that there is a Civil Partnership Act. We believe that this gives gays and lesbians everything they need.”

The Government are now in the process of consulting on how a change to the definition of marriage would be brought about.

  • Oconnord

    Why do the objections fall away when we quote the bible?

    I admit I need to search to find a quote that backs me up, but then I’m being “anti-catholic”. 

    Surely we can’t use the word of god so easily to disprove of them.

  • Oconnord

    If you need the MCB to back your ideal of marriage, well you are ^%$£ed. 

  • TC

    Thany you and well done for bringing the very obvious to everyone’s attention. I think it is very unwise and very unhealthy for the RCC to link up with islam just because they happen to agree with one another on one issue. There is a whole plethora of issues most Christian people would find horrific within islamic teaching.

  • James H

    Ignorance and apathy in action…

  • James H

    Y’see, that’s the good thing about being Catholic – we don’t need proof texts for everything.

    Buggery has been condemned by church teaching for 2 millennia. It’s not going to change. Get over it.

  • James H

    On the other hand, you lot have managed to unite Catholics and Moslems against you – that’s quite a feat!


    I agree that as soon as the gay marriage legislation is passed – and it will be passed – gay activists will push for marriage in churches. What you do not seem to understand, however, is the Catholic Church cannot carry out marriage services involving gays. Not will not, but cannot. Theologically, and as a matter of faith, it cannot. Moreover, when gays push to be married in churches – and presumably synogogues, mosques, temples as well – quite literally all hell is going to break loose. This will no longer be a parlour game, a subject for discussion and intellectual and moral debate. It will very quickly degenerate into something quite different, and I don’t think any of us, gays or heterosexuals, are going to like it.As the old saying has it – be careful for what you wish for, you might just get it.


    Think you’re wrong on this one – what matters most to politicians and judges, of all persuasions, is staying alive. If ever the gay community tries to impose gay marriage on the muslims, sikhs, orthodox jews etc. there will be a serious price to pay. Unlike Christians, they do not believe in turning the other cheek or forgiving one’s enemies. As Muhammad said: ‘Retaliation is a guarantee of life’. 

  • Teutonic Knight


    Like Ben Summerkill (of Stonewall) and Mike Weatherly MP, you betray the real intent behind this and confirm what Mr Murad of the MCB has said.

    You say:

    “There WILL soon be homosexual marriage.  Not, at first, in the various Churches – since the new law will make a
    special case for them. But, very soon afterwards, Civil Rights lawyers
    will easily drive a coach & horses through such discrimination, and
    the Churches will be obliged to open the doors to homosexual marriages”

    You confirm that this is being pushed for only as a stepping stone towards undermining Christian marriage.  You also show yourself up as a liar in previous posts, where you have claimed this is about equality.

    The object is NOT equality, which gay couples already have.

    The object is to destroy / undermine Christians understanding of marriage, (I presume so gay people can feel better about their sexuality.)

    The object is to force views your views about homosexuality onto everyone.

    It is the gay lobby – and people like you – who are the sinister totalitarians, not the churches.

    It is amazing that you do not even realise how ridiculous you are.

    I mean, what themed readings might a gay couple choose for their Christian Church wedding?

    - male and female he created them?
    - go forth and multiply?
    - a man leaves his parents to join with his wife?

    And what about the inevitable embarrassed silence, when the priest refers to any children which might result from the relationship?

    Your lack of self-awareness is matched only by your vindictiveness towards the churches.

  • paulsays

     Its in the Bible that sits on the Alter at Church ever Sunday, whats so wrong about reading the words of a book – that takes pride of place in ever Catholic Church?


    There is also a whole plethora of issues which most Christians would totally agree with Islam – like belief in One God, Justice, Family, Hard Work, Reverance, Humility, Modesty etc. etc. Does that mean all Muslims, or Christians, are saints? No, of course not. But out of 1.4 billion Muslims and 1.8 billion Christians the nut cases, in numerical terms, don’t amount to a drop in the proverbial ocean. Probably about the same as the percentage of wackos in the atheist population – though taking a gander around any city centre on a Friday night might lead one to conclude that the number of wackos amongst the Godless is considerably greater.

  • John Byrne

    The Teutonic Knight (no less) states: “You also show yourself up as a liar in previous posts, where you have claimed this is about equality.”

    Of course its about equality – equality in respect of civil rights, in this case the right of gay people to be a married couple.

    Straight couples have this right — so should gay couples.

    That is the whole argument.

    Christian marriages will, of course, take place as usual.

  • Charles Martel

     So, let’s see, I’m being sent to Hell by the PC alternative magisterium because I put ‘gay’ in quotation marks?

  • Charles Martel

    Archbishop Nichols has departed from Catholic teaching on this point and must be resisted.

  • Charles Martel

     So you’re saying that Jesus Christ had no power to alter one tittle of the Law? Wow!

  • paulsays

    There books like ours are interpretted. If we did not interpret our books – Catholics would do much evil and so would all Muslims. Interpretation allows us to be more moderate.

    For example in the Old Testament (a book shared by Catholics and Muslims), it says that if a woman is raped she must marry her rapist. However moderate Muslims, and Catholics totally reject ideas like this.

  • Parasum

    “The leader of the Muslim Council for Britain (MCB) has backed the Catholic Church’s response to the legalisation of same-sex marriage”

    ## From the people who hang gays in such countries as Saudi Arabia & Iran – not that this seems to bother the Pope that much -  it is not clear that the support of the MCB (of all people !) is that desirable. If the bishops want to gang up with Islamic extremists (& the MCB is an extremist organisation), then they even less wise than I thought they were. 

    And it’s not the “Church’s response”, but the hierarchy’s – big, big diff. 

    In defence of the bishops, it can be said that the hierarchy has a long and illustrous record of rejecting liberalising movements and of defending unpleasant but traditional behaviours: defending slavery, denouncing dancing,  objecting to trousers for women, etc. So they should probably not be blamed too much.

  • Parasum

    ISTM that, if rights are to be founded in justice – specifically, in commutative justice – gay people have to recognise the rights of others, if their own rights are to be honoured. And thios would mean that those Churches which object on principle to gay marriage, should not have to solemnise gay marriages, but should have the right to behave and believe & act toward as their religion dictates.

    There are already exemptions – dispensations ? – from the law, to allow Catholic priests on the witness-stand not to divulge what they have heard in confession, in accord with the doctrine and discipline of the SAcrament of Reconciliation. If that can be privileged, why can the celebration of other sacraments not be privileged in civil law, as well as in that of the CC ? To some extent they already are – there is no legal right for a non-Catholic to be ordained to the Catholic priesthood. So what principle would permit the civil law to confer a legal right that would interfere with Catholic discipline & doctrine by requiring Catholic churches to solemnise gay marriages ?

    I’m all for allowing gay marriages – but not at the cost of allowing gay people to have rights, without respecting the rights of others. That would rule by licentiousness, not by law. I would very much like to know what the principles that guide the Government’s action – because without principles, there can be no consistency; and without consistency,ther can be no equity, & therefore justice, in what goes in the statute book.  If “we” (who could be any group at all) do not recognise the rights of others, there is no reason why our own should be recognised. There is no such thing as a justice in society thgat is one-sided. To recognise the just claims of others is (a) civilised (b) just (c) a means of stengthening the bonds of society; without them, society collapses, to the loss of all. And recognising the just claims of others, does not presuppose approval of them or their ideas.

  • Parasum

    Discrimination is just a form of discernment – to discriminate can be good, as well as not good: it depends what the subject-matter is.

    It would be unjust, and doubly so – for it would be inconsistent with the present practice of the State – to require, by law, that the Churches should hold “religious ceremonies for gay couples”, if the Churches found doing so impossible. It would be as wrong as forcing Muslims or Jews or Protestants to become Catholics. What is the point in a faith that has to destroy itself, in order to accommodate others ? But that is what a legal requirement for Churches that cannot hold “religious ceremonies for gay couples” would do to such Churches.

    It is possible to pay too high a price for gay rights – depriving the Churches of their rights to believe and practice according to their convictions, is such a price.

  • Parasum

    That rather important point seems not to bother any Catholics except Traditionalists (notably, a certain much-mentioned priestly fraternity) – the rest are too busy being euphoric and kow-towing to the current Party Line. Theological principle seems to have gone walkies.

  • Oconnord

    No. I’m saying that Jesus said more than once that the law should, or would, not be changed. 

  • Guest

    Muslims don’t share the Old Testament with us. Jews do. Muslims have the Quran, which bears similarities with but is definitely not the same thing as the OT.

  • dipconsult

    The government are claimiing this is about equality – but changing the law to admit homosexual couples is not an equality issue: altogether independently of religion, marriage is an institution to provide for the future of the state through procreation – something that homosexuals cannot do: in this sense they are not the equals of heterosexual couples.  

  • Eve Veronai Erastus

    Marriage IS Christian.Anything else is NOT marriage.What is it really that homosexuals want to change?

  • Eve Veronai Erastus

    ANY human being should receive help when in dire straits,but NOT because the stressful situation is caused by the fact that they are “gay”! So many potential events will be initiated and become complex,just because and due to the implementation of their choice of “lifestyle”.The impact on an already stressed society will be exponential.We need to continue to differentiate civil unions and marriage.Our children suffer enough now without adding to the “marital maze” difficulties and the health insurance chaos.Goodbye.

  • paulsays

    If it is so stressful and hard, and if the fact they are gay means that life becomes much more complex and hard – (not to mention the bullying and abuse) – then why would anyone ‘choose’ to be gay – given the ‘choice’ of living an easy and simple heterosexual life?
    When asked (and I have) most gay men, have had very little, or no sexual attraction to women – are you questioning how genuinely they are answering this question??

    I fail to see how you can see homosexuality as a ‘choice’ – I’m sure most would much prefer being attracted to women – for all the pain being gay has likely caused a great deal of them.

    Now if being gay is not a choice, (as I think it is clear it is likely to be), they ‘our children’ need not worry – as either they are gay or not – and there marital life is not suddely trashed by ‘choosing to be gay’.

    Also I suggest in the elections this year you vote for a party that is going to help you with health insurance – as it clearly sucks in the US – I know American friends in the UK that tell me the same. Don’t beleive all this ‘socialized medicine’ scaremongering – we have ‘socialized medicine’ in the UK and it is very popular and sucessful – plus Obama’s plan is in fact nothing like socialized medicine whatsoever, but its a small step forward from the mess you have now.

  • filthykafur

    Similarly, let EVERY Heterosexual couple show that each time they have sex it is with the intention to recreate! This argument is flawed because there are MANY Hetero couples who marry that cannot procreate also. Some have medical, emotional and physical issues that prevent them having kiddies. In these instances ADOPTION would be in order, just as GAY parents would.
    There are also MANY GAY couples who have proved their worthiness to bring up kids. My Civil partner and I have brought up five children as foster parents, and these kids are very well ajusted, one girl is getting married soon (yes to a Hetero Boy).

    Marriage isnt just for “Procreation” Ms Stonewill, marriage is for love, sharing your life with another person whether kids come along or not. If we hadnt got together 34 years ago there would be five kids parentless…OUR five kids.

    Your post is bigotted, misinformed and ignorant.

  • filthykafur

    So, any other religious marriage (Jew, Muslim, Hindu etc etc) is not marriage because its not CHRISTIAN!!!  Registry office (Civil marriages) are not really married because they are not CHRISTIAN?
    Hahahaha you fool!

    Homosexuals want YOU and your ignorant ilks attitude that doesnt allow others the rights other people enjoy.

    People like you should step into a gay mans shoes for a few years and see the prejudice..but it WILL stop one day, and people like you will see what youve done.