Boston Sixth Graders Need a New Textbook on Ancient World History

Due to social pressure, great strides have been made within the past 50 years to include women and non-whites in the picture of the past. However, American students still have an extremely warped view of world history and how it relates to current events because of the way Jews and Israel are discussed at school, and the way Arabs and Islam are excluded from mention, even when the topic is ancient Canaan.

I am deeply concerned about my daughter's 6th grade social studies textbook, which I believe violates the law by teaching Bible history (Zionist mythology) instead of sticking to the facts when discussing ancient Canaan and Jewish history. I truly feel like David facing Goliath when bringing up these issues with the school administration.

The textbook I am concerned about is “History Alive! The Ancient World” by the Teachers' Curriculum Institute. There are six units: Early Humans and the Rise of Civilization, which discusses Mesopotamia; Ancient Egypt and the Middle East, which includes two chapters on Judaism; Ancient India, which introduces Hinduism and Buddhism; Ancient China, which discusses Confusionism, Daoism and Legalism; Ancient Greece, which discusses Democracy and Greek contribution to the modern world; and Rome, which discusses Christianity and Rome’s legacy in the modern world.

The chapters present artifacts, archaeological evidence, cultural traditions and photos of these regions in modern day. They piece together a scientific understanding of history based on what we know - all except those relating to Canaan! There is no excuse for this omission of facts and evidence from the Middle East Section, because Canaan is full of artifacts, ancient ruins, and traditional culture.

“The narrative doesn't recognize the importance of the actual geo-political history of the region as part of the indigenous timeline from Syrian Phoenician Nabatean Arabian 'Judaism' to 'Christianity' and then to 'Islam' all as part of one continuous history,” notes Oxford scholar Lilia Patterson.

Instead of a rich discussion on history, the chapters on Canaan contain only Bible stories told from a radically Judeo-centric perspective. For example, Abraham is mentioned as the father of Judaism but the textbook neglects to mention he had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. That is why Muslims refer to Jews as their “cousins.” It would have been so easy to add a statement saying that Arabian historical legends also date back to Abraham, but this topic is carefully avoided to the point of absurdity.

Many different people lived in ancient Canaan besides Israelites. Over time, these many tribes intermarried with each other. Canaanite scholar Mazin Qumsiyeh explains, “The Palestinians of today, Muslims and Christians, trace their descent to all the peoples who have lived on this land from the time of the Canaanites.”

The exclusion of Arabic history from the section on the Middle East creates a textbook that is not only biased but wildly inaccurate. The history of Canaan needs to be told in a secular, scientific way based on archaeological, cultural and linguistic evidence, just like all other histories are taught. Bible stories are not supposed to be taught as historical fact. Many paragraphs start with "The Hebrew Bible says..." (then proceed to misrepresent what the Bible says), while several actually present legend as fact.

The Jewish connection to the Middle East is presented as a continuum dating back to the ancient times, ending with their expulsion by the Romans in the first century after Christ, even though historical evidence finds no proof of any major migrations. Instead, what has been found is that most of the descendants of the ancient Israelites accepted Christianity and eventually embraced Islam.

“Archeologists at Tel Aviv University showed that city states and kingdoms were routinely made and obliterated in the ancient land of Canaan while the natives survived and continued to live.” The various Canaanite groups “lived, fought, interacted and collaborated, but no group was obliterated in history,” writes Qumsiyeh.

Established by the Jebusites (not by King David) in 3000 BC, Jerusalem has always been an international city with a multi-ethnic and multi-religious community. After King Solomon’s death, the majority of the Israelites no longer considered Jerusalem their capital. Yet, the textbook refers only to Jerusalem as the Jewish capital of Israel.

The textbook’s discussion of the Temple of Solomon and its importance to Jews is also completely inadequate because again, it relies exclusively on Biblical mythology and omits extremely important facts about the Arab history of the region.

After the Romans expelled the Jews in the 1st century CE, they also destroyed the Temple of Solomon. All that was left was a small remnant of a wall. It could barely be seen as the area was used as a garbage dump.

The first goal of the first Muslim generation after the death of the Prophet Mohammed in the 7th century CE was to liberate Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. Islamic Caliph Umar lifted the ban on Jews living in Jerusalem for the first time since 70 CE. The new Muslim government and the Jewish community worked together to clean up the garbage and build a new house of worship on the Temple Mount, incorporating the Wailing Wall, which Jews hold sacred. Karen Armstrong writes:

"As soon as the platform had been cleared, Umar summoned Ka'b ibn Ahbar, a Jewish convert to Islam and an expert on the isra'iliyat or as we would say, "Jewish studies." It came naturally to the Muslims to consult the Jews about the disposition of the site that had been sacred to their ancestors. Both the Jewish and Muslim sources make it clear that Jews took part in the reclamation of the Mount."

When European Crusaders took over Jerusalem, both Muslims and Jews were persecuted and banished from the city. When Saladin reconquered the city in the late 12th century, Jews and Muslims were invited back into the holy city. Jerusalem became known as the “City of Peace” where Muslims, Christians and Jews could worship freely.

These are important details to omit. Instead of facts, the textbook dishonestly presents the history of modern-day Israel as the “return” of exiled Jews to their “homeland.” It is simply wrong to teach two chapters on Judaism, one chapter on every other religion, but not one sentence mentioning the Abrahamic origins of Islam. When I complained, I was told that this is because Islam is not an ancient religion.

However, all of the other chapters attempt to create a picture of the modern day that relates to the past. Even the chapter on Mesopotamia includes a photo of modern day Iraq. The textbook includes photos of a synagogue in Czechoslovakia, and many other scenes of European Jewish life which, while interesting, have no historical connection to ancient Canaan whatsoever. Since this Ancient World textbook devotes an entire chapter to Jews in modern times, it makes no sense not to mention once that in modern day Mesopotamia, Syria, Canaan, and Egypt, most people are Muslim or Christian and they speak Arabic.

Our exposure to information at a young age sets the tone for all future understanding. This textbook reflects an outdated, Bible mythology-based world view that is racist, historically inaccurate and absolutely inappropriate for use in a public school.

The Importance of Pleasing Wives in Islam

“And among His signs is that He has created for you spouses from among yourselves so that you may live in tranquility with them; and He has created love and mercy between you. Verily in that are signs for those who reflect.” (Quran 30:21)



There have been several recent anthropological studies done on how feminism has influenced the goals of traditional Muslim women, and also a lot of discussion both private and public about the effects of Western influence on marriage and family within the Muslim community. When women marry young, with increasing frequency we find that around middle age, they start to feel like they have lost out on life because of their innocent devotion to husband, home and family. They start to regret that they never got their PhD, for example. The husband becomes in their mind like an obstacle to overcome in order to realize their true potential in life. One Arab woman commented to her husband that when she comes home, she doesn’t feel the same respect from him that she gets from her professors and the other students. An Iranian man whose wife left him after over 20 years of marriage was completely baffled by her decision. “I gave her everything. I bought her a car and let her drive all over the country. Maybe I gave her too much freedom?” An American woman abandoned her husband of ten years, leaving two young children behind for no reason other than to become a historical tour guide downtown.

These explanations for divorce focus on the lack of intellectual stimulation experienced by the majority of housewives and are no doubt partially true, but they overlook a key reason why some women might choose to focus excessively on personal or intellectual interests outside the home. Women around age 35 reach their biological sexual peak, while men begin to decline starting at 40. When a husband is older than his wife, this can become a serious problem, especially if he never studied the arts of love.

Imam Ali taught that “Almighty God has created the sexual desire in ten parts; He gave nine parts to women and one to men,” but that “God gave the women equal parts of shyness.”

“Many times this shyness makes the man ignore the desires of his wife,” writes Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi in Marriage and Morals in Islam. Fatima Mernissi has also written about the cultural tendency among many Muslim men to avoid emotional investment in women.

The Prophet (sa) said, “When one of you sees a woman and he feels attracted to her, he should hurry to his wife. With her, it would be the same as with the other one.” Yet a dawah pamphlet published in Pakistan summarizes this minimally offensive hadith in an astonishingly cheap way by stating that the man should hurry to his wife in order to “put his sperm in the proper receptacle.”

At a certain point, women who have been thought about or treated in such a way, if they have any intelligence, will become tired of it and want something more – whether or not they have been exposed to feminist theory. They will desire the passionate love that true Islam promises. A man should make love to his wife like he is worshipping Allah, with the same spiritual intensity.

The Prophet (sa) said, “When a man approaches his wife, he is guarded by two angels and he is like a warrior fighting for the cause of Allah. When he has intercourse with her, his sins fall like the leaves of the tree [in fall season]. When he performs the major ablution, he is cleansed from sins.”

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said, “I do not think that a person’s faith can increase positively unless his love for women has increased… Whenever a person’s love for women increases, his faith increases in quality.”

There is no room in the prophetic tradition to regard wives as halal containers, like sacred toilets, for the collection of distasteful male emissions. Women in Islam are rather revered as spiritual pleasure mates whose physical enjoyment is regarded as a right.

The Prophet (sa) said, “Three people are cruel, [including] a person who has sex with his wife before foreplay.” The Prophet (sa) also said that the mutual foreplay of a man with his wife is haqq, in other words it is a means to the realization of Truth. Therefore, women who have learned how to actively pleasure themselves with their husbands are rewarded with high status:

“The best woman among you is the one who discards the armor of shyness when she undresses for her husband, and puts on the armor of shyness when she dresses up again,” stated Imam Muhammad al-Baqir.

Married people are described in the Quran as being “garments” for each other, because when people are satisfied at home, they can go out in the world with a clean heart and don’t attract sexual attention from others. They are spiritually “covered” because their chastity is protected by the love of their spouse. Yet many men are not aware of their Islamic duty to protect their wives spiritually by fulfilling their desires.

Imam Ghazali wrote, “The woman’s ejaculation is sometimes a much slower process and during that process her sexual desire grows stronger and to withdraw from her before she reaches her pleasure is harmful to her” (at-Tabrasi, al-Ihtijaj).

Imam Ali said, “When you intend to have sex with your wife, do not rush because the woman also has needs.” When Imam Jafar as-Sadiq was asked about this, he answered, “It means kissing and talking.”

According to a hadith related by Ubaydullah bin Zurarah, an old man owned a young slave-girl. Because of his old age, he could not fully satisfy her during sexual intercourse. She would therefore ask him to do some things to please her as she liked it.

It is remarkable to note that many Muslim wives today can only dream about the respect that even a slave-girl was given in the early days of Islam.

What is Love?

One of the most controversial issues about Islam is the topic of Marriage and Divorce. Even though Christianity demands the same thing, most Westerners recoil at the idea of a wife being obligated to “obey” her husband. In real life, what does this look like? Maybe a man might say to his wife, “Honey, could you bake some of your awesome lasagna for my parents when they visit?” and the woman might say, “Sure, sweetie, no problem. Just give me the money to buy the ingredients and I’ll be on it today.”

In most cases, especially when she is sure that she is loved, a woman will not hesitate to do whatever her husband asked her to do. Hopefully, if she asked her husband to pick up some postage stamps on the way home from work he would do it too.

Legally the issue regarding “obedience” is most likely to arise when it comes to physical relations. Legal systems vary widely when it comes to whether a woman has the right to insist on engaging in or refusing intercourse of her own free will and the extent to which her husband has the right to demand this of her. In Islam, a man has the right to expect to be loved, however, it is usually unclear how far he can go to force love to happen. Women of course also have the right to expect to be loved, however, it is nearly impossible to force her husband to please her if he cannot, for biological reasons.

The other biological issue is of course, children. When a woman has young children or is pregnant, it is very difficult to achieve financial independence without the assistance of the children’s father. Under normal circumstances, children cling to their mother. She cannot come and go as she pleases, unless someone else would help her with the children. She cannot study in college or work a job unless someone, normally her spouse, would help her. She cannot even run to the grocery store alone unless her husband decides that he is willing to allow her to get some air. Most women who succeed in their careers either have no children, or else have extremely helpful husbands.

Sadly, in today’s world, there are few men who possess the emotional maturity to be worthy to tell another human soul to obey him. Islam of course commands kindness to women, but in reality this means a man must care about someone else as much as he cares about himself. Girls are usually trained from birth to try to be pleasing and avoid displeasing others. They try to predict the needs of others in order to be helpful. This puts them at a disadvantage in a relationship where this level of attentiveness is not reciprocated. When girls and women are deprived of affection, their normal response is to try harder to be pleasing. Men however tend to withhold affection when they feel that they are being deprived of affection. This often creates a vicious cycle that could result in divorce. When it comes to divorce, the Quran states:
“…And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable, but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is exalted in Power, Wise.” (2:28)

Aminah Wadud-Muhsin writes that this “degree of advantage” is in the man’s power to pronounce divorce by themselves, whereas women who seek divorce generally need some outside assistance. Yusuf Ali suggests that economic differences are what largely disadvantages adult females. Islam allows women to divorce a man without contest in the cases of mental illness, impotence, or not supporting the family, but as always, it’s his word against hers and in most cases, she is the primary caretaker of the children.

In many countries, including the US, women are often threatened with loss of custody of their children if they try to divorce their husbands. Islamic law also grants custody of the children to their father as a general rule. Originally, this law was perhaps intended to help divorced women remarry more quickly but nowadays, most men are not equipped to assume full time ownership of any youngsters by themselves. We don’t live in a time where people are surrounded by extended family, with someone guaranteed to be home at all times. Divorce is so complicated that it is often wise to consider reconciliation.

“…live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them it may be that you dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.” (4:19)

In my middle age, I have discovered that the qualities that others find most controversial are my best qualities. If I obey those who dislike me, I am doomed to defeat. It is only when you embrace your true self that you can succeed in life, married or not.

This brings us back to the Golden Rule. Jesus (sa) said, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” while Prophet (s) said, “Do not do to someone else what you would not like done to you.” Empathy is key. When a man and woman marry, they have no idea what they are getting into. The person you are today is not the same person you will be in ten or twenty years. Sometimes people put out a lot of mixed messages about what they want from the other. To make things work, you have to care about the other person as much as you care about yourself. If he cannot sleep, she cannot sleep. If she has a splinter in her thumb, he will remove it for her. If your spouse displeases you, ask him or her, “Why did you do that?” That is love.

Islamic Progress in America

Increasing reports of hate crimes against Muslims in recent years have created the impression that Muslim organizational efforts to raise awareness about Islam have been in vain, and that hostility against Muslims has been increasing in the US rather than declining. I am however reminded of the old saying that whenever you are preaching some obvious truth, the people will first laugh at you, then they will attack you, but in the end they will accept your insight as self-evident. It is only a matter of time before people connect the dots and hear Islam’s message of spiritual universalism.


This week I intended to review an obnoxious pseudo-documentary I saw at the library, which explored the question of how Islam inspires Lebanese militants to kill for the sake of God. I was so sickened by the DVD cover that I left, speechless, yet arguments rattled in my head about the extreme racism of how the question was phrased and marketed to a naïve American public, who would be almost guaranteed to have no concept of the context of political violence in Lebanon. I went to the library again today, my stomach in knots as I rehearsed how I was going to ask the librarian why they carry such vile racist stuff on their shelves. However, the DVD had already been checked out and I walked out with nothing more interesting than Blues Clues.

So now, some poor suckers are watching that slick propaganda financed by a seedy Zionist coalition of interest groups, and it will not likely occur to them to be as outraged as if they were watching a documentary questioning what psychopathology caused George Washington to decide to kill for the sake of God.

There is nothing particularly sinister about calling on God as you protect your humble village from being massacred by a foreign army. Popular freedom movements are generally based on the idea that God has given mankind certain inalienable rights. When some rag-tag militia stands up to a heavily armed, mighty empire, we usually regard such people as heroic – not as insane.

Yet, that evil racist mindset has been steadily promoted in the US throughout the past couple decades through seemingly benign but psychologically twisted docu-dramas and books, which are carefully calculated for psychological and political affect, framing religious Muslims as perpetrators of evil motivated by a bizarre alternate reality. Unfortunately, most people don’t see through it.

Today I attended a social event at a Unitarian Universalist Church in Boston, a denomination known for theological openness and social justice activism. So I was disturbed to read a recent sermon discussing forgiveness, citing Washington Post reporter Laura Blumenfeld, author of “Revenge, a Story of Hope,” whose American father, a rabbi, made “aliyah” to Israel and was shot (not seriously) in East Jerusalem by a Palestinian, Omar Khatib, who went to jail for that crime.

The pastor stated: “He says that what he did was not personal; that it was a necessary outcome of what he calls ‘the occupation’ of Palestinian lands by Israel.”

What he calls…? Why would the pastor of a respected church use newspaper-ese to downplay Israel’s siege upon the native population when people of conscience are boycotting Israel? Omar’s shortcomings aside, this level of insolence towards the oldest community of Christ’s followers on Earth, especially coming from a Christian minister, is seriously pathetic.

As the story goes, Laura writes to Omar in prison, and forgives him. Eventually, Omar goes free after promising never to hurt anyone ever again. This is all good, but the way the pastor frames it sounds blaringly racist:

“She wants her father to have a human face, to be real to them as well, and not be just some Jew that got in the way of the Palestinian quest for liberation.”

Some Jew who got in the way of the Palestinian quest for liberation? These Jews made the conscious decision to participate in a population war to squeeze out Palestinians from their own country. Her father accepted US taxpayers’ money to study Hebrew for free and receive government subsidies so that he would not have to work.

Laura didn’t participate in racist genocide because she was forced to by gunpoint, nor because she was a starving refugee. Laura was wealthy American Jew who simply decided to help ethnically cleanse people she had never met. You don’t move onto stolen property in the middle of a war zone and expect to live in peace, unless you are insane.

In this sermon, we never hear anything about how Laura realized that Zionism, a violent ethnic supremacist movement, was wrong. We never hear about how she apologized to Omar for self-worship that went so far beyond hate that she didn’t even visualize Palestinians as persons possessing legal rights. Laura never did repent for her blind arrogance, but she made a lot of money writing and promoting that book.

There are stories of Palestinians who forgave Jewish terrorists, including a Muslim father who donated his murdered son’s organs to needy Jews without getting any thanks. These Islamic examples of radical acts of charity are not mentioned in many American churches, though, because they are not part of a slick propaganda machine churning out feel-good stories that glorify Jews and vilify Muslims.

How could those Jewish parents snub the Palestinian who gave their beloved child a beating heart? It’s all part of the colonial mindset, Manifest Destiny, in which Jews feel entitled to take all of Palestine, including the body parts of murdered Palestinian children.

Yet, no American is ever asked to psychoanalyze the personality defects that would cause a person to disregard the human rights of Muslims and Christians in the Holy Land.

It would actually be very easy to copy the format of these propaganda flicks but turn the argument around to accuse the actual perpetrators of political violence. Why has it not been done? The truth stands out clear from error. My eleven-year-old recently noted that Jews treat Christians like children who can’t be expected to understand. I think it’s time for Muslims to give Christians the respect they deserve as adults, and to engage with them in all honesty.

Congress Hears Testimony on Islamism

On June 16, the US House of Representatives held another panel on Radicalism in the Muslim-American community, sparking outrage that the probe is a witch hunt akin to the 1950s anti-Communist campaign. It is unfortunate that any Muslims at all participated in such a demeaning event. No Muslim representative should or could ever explain to some authority what Islam means to me, or to anyone else. Especially when the judges in this particular tribunal are guilty of mass murdering Muslims in various countries via unprovoked war and war funding.

The Congressional discussions were premised on the obnoxious assumption that al Qaeda committed 9/11, and that al Qaeda is stepping up its efforts to recruit Americans for jihad using prison chaplains and the internet. My guess is that the 5% of Muslims said to hold positive views of al Qaeda are referring to their role in helping the US defeat the USSR, and do not believe that al Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11, like many Americans. During the Reagan era, the Afghans were referred to–by non-Muslims–as “freedom fighters,” not “terrorists.”

What American officials don’t understand, is that when Muslim-Americans talk about extremists in our mosques, we are talking about people who have narrow-minded viewpoints on things. For example, when I tried to publish an article questioning the farming background of Islamically slaughtered livestock in my local mosque’s newsletter, several local business owners intervened to prevent the publication of my article. So yes, every community organization has people who behave in a controlling way. They don’t like people who criticize or disagree with them. They don’t even like people who agree with them too loudly.

This is not the same thing as being guilty of terrorism.

“The greatest threat (to America) … is actually a theopolitical ideology that is hijacking my faith: … Islamism,” Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy told the House Homeland Security Committee hearing chaired by Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican. Mainstream American Muslim groups are “in denial” about extremism, “claiming victimization,” Jasser said.

I am in total agreement that Islamism is the worship of Islam, while true Islam is the worship of God. What Muslim-Americans don’t seem to understand, though, is that when the US Congress asks you whether or not you are an “extremist,” they mean: Do you accept Israel as a Jewish State?

Zuhdi Jasser, who served as the primary expert witness for this panel, and has connections with famous Islamophobes such as Robert Spencer, has made a career of trying to force pro-Israel and pro-war viewpoints on the Muslim-American public. According to Wikipedia, “Jasser is an outspoken supporter of Israel, and believes that Muslim organizations and leaders need to be held to a litmus test to see whether they recognize Israel as a state, specifically condemn groups such as Hamas and al Qaeda, and governments such as the Saudi and Syrian dictatorships. ‘If they don’t … then you have to wonder where their allegiances are,’ said Jasser.”

Jasser is a Syrian-American. So basically, it sounds like he is saying, if you are from an Arab country, and you are not working with the US to overthrow your former government, then you don’t belong here. Given the intimidation of Muslim intellectuals regarding the pro-Israel litmus test, a Muslim-American activist or politician can’t be considered “moderate” unless they accept Israel as a Jewish State.

Jasser and the US government are actually creating a boundary between Muslim-Americans and their fellow Americans, preventing meaningful political interaction. They talk about “democracy,” but what they really fear is that Muslim-Americans will join their neighbors in political activism. Because no American wants to pay taxes to Israel.

It doesn’t matter if they are left wing or right wing. We all have bills to pay, we hate to see dead children, and giving money to Israel simply makes no sense.

As usual, the Muslims avoided the elephant in the room and debated between accusations of militancy and pleading innocence. Not a single person raised the issue of why Jewish-Americans are regularly sent to Israeli Army summer camp to help enforce a murderous racial apartheid no American would tolerate at home.

Opposing Israel makes perfect sense, if you’re an American. It has nothing to do with being Muslim. A future two-state solution is unlikely to happen, and even if so, it would involve the ethnic cleansing of the entire region and would probably be worse than anything we have ever seen before in Palestine. Remember, when India and Pakistan separated on religious grounds at the same time when Israel was created, 6 million people died as they were forced out of their homes to relocate in the religiously appropriate location.

Still, India has almost the largest Muslim population in the world, so the ethnic cleansing was entirely useless. It really makes no financial or moral sense to separate Jews and Muslims into separate governments.

The most American option, which would probably go over well with the majority of Americans, is an equal rights solution like eventually happened in the US and South Africa. This argument is so persuasive that there is really no rational counter-argument. This is why pro-Israel lobbyists are working very hard to tell Muslim-Americans that they should join the pro-Israel camp against the American people, by giving them the false story that they need to accept Zionism in order to be a socially acceptable member of society. Yes, friends.

It’s all about Israel. We Americans already know you are innocent of 9/11.

Understanding and Dealing With Homosexuality

Across America, gay marriage is becoming a legalized practice, leading to general societal acceptance of the practice. In many Muslim countries, homosexual relationships are practiced secretly, often by men with wife and children. In Kuwait, a judge reportedly ruled that two co-wives were obliged to sleep with their husband as a group if that is what their husband wanted. Apparently the women felt strongly enough about their desire not to see each other naked that they took this issue to court and lost! The issue is so complex that there are even western homosexual men who migrate to Muslim countries because they prefer the privacy to the politics, and because they do not actually wish to disturb the tranquility of the heterosexual family unit and the society that is built upon such stability. They recognize that their behavior is an aberration to the norm and thus threatening to the majority.

Most Muslims feel extremely squeamish about the topic of homosexuality and many have in the past voted Republican in order to support “family values.” However, Republican politicking against Muslims has led to the vast majority of Muslims supporting President Obama and becoming active in liberal circles where Muslims and homosexuals are lumped together as “oppressed people.” Yet Islam is one of the last American religions to uphold the law against homosexual practices.

In the context of “live and let live,” politically active Muslims could choose to push for an even wider acceptance of the concept of marriage to include polygamous marriages. Gay marriage laws could even be used to help co-wives migrate to the United States, perhaps. But ultimately, the debate over gay marriage could probably be ended immediately with universal or perhaps preferably, state-wide health insurance. There is no real practical reason that a person who wishes to engage in a monogamous sexual relationship with someone else would need to get a government-certified piece of paper requiring it, except in order to provide someone else with health insurance coverage.

While genetic theories abound regarding inborn homosexual urges, Islam views homosexuality as something you choose to do, not something you are. A human being is able to find release in various ways, but I've never heard of anyone called a “vegesexual” (for example). One can choose to lead a hedonistic lifestyle, or one can choose the route of procreation and lifelong responsibility. In cases where a person insists on living a homosexual lifestyle, the question is legitimate whether a person should be free to openly confess it – since it might prevent the sorrow of a wife whose husband is not interested in her but is just using her as a smokescreen against society while exposing her to diseases.

Hadith seem to require excluding homosexuals from Muslim society. However, basic politeness also forces us to wonder how to deal with homosexual co-workers, neighbors, and even beloved friends who have chosen to take that path. Many of these people have many positive qualities.

One way to approach the situation is empathy. Most male homosexuals I have been acquainted with have in their early years been molested by an older man. Most female homosexuals that I know have had some bad experience with men or marriage. From an economic standpoint, it makes sense not to procreate, at least in the short-term. This is why the Gay Lobby has become so powerful, because people have money to donate to political causes. There is also some evidence of the Jewish Lobby and mass media producers promoting homosexuality as a way to undermine Christianity.

Another approach is avoidance. Many Muslims will simply avoid dealing with homosexuals the same way as they avoid dealing with alcoholics, and that is a perfectly sane choice to make as well.

The main question remaining is what we are going to tell our children. In my experience when my children observe same sex couples holding hands, the best thing to do is to say nothing. The kids may not even notice. If the question of gay marriage comes up, I explain that this is something other people might do, but Muslims don't do that. So far they seem satisfied with that. Ultimately, it boils down to the concept of premarital chastity. Those young people who give themselves permission to experiment can be drawn down all kinds of paths, while those who choose to wait until the time is right will have time to think about the pros and cons of any given relationship.

Those of us who feel motivated to actively promote heterosexuality should probably focus on the predatory nature of many heterosexual relationships and why some might choose to avoid them.

In Western society, there is an intense need for an increase in same sex bonding. Since the 1970's, it is very difficult for someone to find themselves in a group composed entirely of their own gender. Other than converting to Islam, becoming a lesbian is one of the only ways for women to find themselves in an emotionally supportive group of other women. My friend's husband, who is non-Muslim, attended an evening prayer during Ramadan and exclaimed that he had never been so physically close to other men before.

There is probably a true human need to socialize and be close to people who share our gender. People deprived of such human contact may develop intense emotional needs that could easily be misinterpreted as sexual in some contexts.