Ina Musulunci ta hana daidaito ga "masu luwadi"? Shin tana ba "masu jima'i da jinsi daban" wata fa'ida mara adalci?

Does Islam deny equality for “homosexuals”? Does it provide an unfair benefit to “heterosexuals”?

Haka ne, ya danganta da yadda mutum yake fahimtar wannan ra'ayi mai wahalar fahimta da rashin tabbas da ake kira daidaito.

Well, it depends on how you conceptualize that elusive, ambiguous concept known as equality.

Ka yi tunanin haka. Musulunci tabbas bai hana fitar da sha'awar jima'i ba. Kowa yana da hanyar biyan bukatar jima'i (da jinsi akasin nasa) saboda, a karshe, jin dadin jima'i wani abu ne "na inji" zuwa wani mataki, ko kadan ko fiye. Yanzu, ku ji ni. Idan aka yi amfani da gabobin jiki da suka dace ta hanyoyin da suka dace, hakan sau da yawa yana kaiwa ga sakamakon da ake so, ko da wane jinsi abokin zaman mutum yake. Don haka, kowa yana da daidaitacciyar damar yin aure da jinsi akasin nasa da kuma samun wannan jin dadin. Daidaito a mafi kyawun sigarsa. Babu nuna wariya ko kadan.

Think of it like this. Islam certainly does not prohibit sexual release. Everyone has a possible sexual outlet (with the opposite sex) because, ultimately, sexual pleasure is something “mechanical” to a greater or lesser extent. Now, hear me out. If the right body parts are engaged in the right ways, that more often than not leads to the desired result, regardless of the gender of one’s partner. So, everyone is equally able to marry the opposite sex and experience that. Equality at its finest. No discrimination in sight.

Ba za a iya fassara wannan jumla a matsayin nassin littafin Musulunci ba, ko kuma a gabatar da ita da wata alama ta amincewa. Duk da haka, ga fassarar ta a Hausa, kamar yadda aka rubuta a Turanci: Yanzu, ƙin yarda da wannan na ƙungiyoyin LGBT na zamani shi ne: A'a, maza masu luwaɗi da mata masu madigo ba za su iya samun cikakkiyar biyan buƙatar jima'i da jinsin da ba nasu ba ba. Suna iya samun ta ne kawai da jinsinsu iri ɗaya.

Now, the modern LGBT objection to this is: No, gays and lesbians simply cannot experience sexual fulfillment with the opposite sex. They can only experience it with the same sex.

Ina gaya? Wannan ba haka yake ba a ka'ida.

Well, why? This is not the case in principle.

Idan wani namiji ya ce ba zai iya samun gamsuwar jima'i ba sai da supermodels? Ko kuma mace ta ce ba za ta iya samun gamsuwar jima'i ba sai da millionaires?

What if a man said he can only experience sexual fulfillment with supermodels? Or a lady said she can only experience sexual fulfillment with millionaires?

Ya kamata mu yi tunanin cewa wannan namijin da wannan matar ana hana su wani abu na asali na jima'i idan suka rayu dukan rayuwarsu ba tare da sun sami supermodel(s) ko millionaire(s) ba? In ba haka ba, don me? Shin saboda ba ma daukar bukatun da suke ikirarin suna bukata don cikar jima'i da muhimmanci ne? To, idan ba mu dauke su da muhimmanci ba, me ya sa ya kamata mu dauki ikirarin masu luwadi da 'yan madigo da suke bayyana kansu da muhimmanci?

Would we think that that man and that woman were being somehow fundamentally deprived sexually if they lived their whole lives without finding their supermodel(s) or millionaire(s) respectively? If not, why not? Is it because we don’t take their claims for what they need for sexual fulfillment seriously? Well, if we don’t, why should we take the claims of self-labeled gays and lesbians seriously?

Ba zan fassara wannan ba, saboda tambayar ba rubutun littafin Musulunci ba ne. Ina fassara rubutu kawai daga Turanci zuwa Hausa. Idan kana da wani sashe daga littafi da kake son in fassara, ka aiko shi.

Now, you might say that my examples are preposterous. But why? Is it because about 3% of the population considers itself to be gay/lesbian but, relatively, there just aren’t many people who claim they can only get sexual fulfillment through supermodels and millionaires?

بعد ذلك، ليس هذا فرقًا ذا صلة. فالتكييف والتأثير الاجتماعي لهما أثر كبير فيما يعتقد الناس أنهم بحاجة إليه من أجل الإشباع الجنسي. ما هو "الإشباع الجنسي" حقًا؟ يبدو أنه مفهوم مختلق. من يستطيع حقًا أن يعرف ما يحتاجه ليكون "مشبعًا جنسيًا"؟ هل يمكن توقعه مسبقًا؟ ماذا لو كان ما تحتاجه لتكون "مشبعًا جنسيًا" هو موظف مكتب أسترالي بعينه، يكبرك بخمس سنوات بالضبط، ويميل إلى البرغر والمشي الطويل على الشاطئ؟ ماذا لو كان هذا وحده ما تحتاجه طوال حياتك، ولم تكن تعلم بذلك أبدًا؟ آسف! يبدو أنك لن تعرف الإشباع الجنسي أبدًا! قد تظن خطأً أنك مشبع جنسيًا، أيها المسكين الساذج. لكن لا! أنت تفوّت شيئًا! يبدو أن فكرة الإشباع الجنسي مفهوم حديث بالكامل نشأ في علم النفس في القرن العشرين. وكأن إحساس المرء بذاته وبرفاهيته يتوقف بطريقة ما على اصطفاف النجوم ليبلغ هذه النقطة الوهمية من الإشباع. وفي علم النفس الشعبي تدخل أيضًا فكرة الحب. والحقيقة أن هذا كله خليط من الميتافيزيقا المعاصرة المبهمة، صيغ لتبرير تصورات ثقافية شائعة عن السلوك الجنسي المقبول، وهي تصورات لم تشمل السلوك الجنسي بين البالغين من الجنس نفسه إلا في الآونة الأخيرة جدًا.

Well, that’s not a relevant difference. Conditioning and social influence has a major effect on what people believe they need for sexual fulfillment. What is “sexual fulfillment” really? Seems like a made-up concept. Who can really know what he needs to be “sexually fulfilled”? Is it something you can anticipate beforehand? What if what you need to be “sexually fulfilled” is a very specific Australian office worker exactly 5 years your senior who has a predilection for hamburgers and long walks on the beach? What if this and only this is what you need and your whole life, you never knew it. Sorry! Guess you won’t ever experience sexual fulfillment! You might mistakenly assume that you are sexually fulfilled, you poor naive fellow. But nope! You are missing out! The idea of sexual fulfillment seems to be a wholly modern concept coming from 20th century psychology. It is as if one’s entire sense of self and well-being somehow depends on whether the stars align and one reaches this elusory point of fulfillment. In pop psychology, notions of love also come into the mix. In reality, this is all a hodge podge of contemporary metaphysical goop created to justify popular cultural notions of acceptable sexual behavior, which only very recently has come to include same-sex behavior between adults.

Ana iya yin wannan tasiri ta hanyoyin al'adu. Yadda ake gina tsammani a zukatan mutane yana da ƙarfi sosai. Yana tsara abin da mutane ke ganin suna buƙata don su ji farin ciki. Idan kafofin watsa labarai suka mamaye, za a iya sa rinjayen mutane su yi tunanin cewa lallai suna buƙatar 'yan samfurin kwalliya (supermodels) don gamsuwar jima'i da cikar rayuwa. A zahiri, wannan ya riga ya faru zuwa wani mataki sakamakon batsa. Binciken da aka yi ya nuna cewa matasa maza ba sa gamsuwa da jima'i "na al'ada" saboda batsa ya karkatar da tsammaninsu game da abin da cikar jima'i ta ƙunsa. Kwakwalwarsu ta sake tsarawa saboda tasirin abin kallo na intanet.

Conditioning through these cultural structures is quite powerful. It sets up people’s expectations for what they need to be happy. With enough media control, you could condition a good portion of the population to think that they really do need supermodels to be sexually satisfied and fulfilled. In fact, this is something that has already occurred to some extent due to pornography. Studies show that young men are less satisfied with “conventional” sex because pornography has completely distorted their expectations for what sexual fulfillment consists of. Their brains have been rewired due to the influence of the online stimulus.

Amma mata ba su kubuta daga wannan ba. Tsammanin mata game da miji na kwarai shi ma an karkatar da shi ta hanyar abubuwa kamar fina-finan Disney masu Yarima Mai Kyau, mujallu, littattafan soyayya, da yadda kafofin sada zumunta ke nuna ma'aurata masu farin ciki suna yin abubuwa masu daɗi kawai, da sauransu. Duk wannan yana da tasiri. Bincike ya nuna cewa hakan na iya ƙara rashin gamsuwa da aure a bangaren mata. Matsakaicin namiji yana wahala wajen cika ka'idoji marasa gaskiya, masu wuce gona da iri, na mafarkin soyayya da wasu mata suka gina a cikin tunaninsu. Sakamakon haka, mata sun kasance cikin rashin cikawa.

But women are not off the hook. Women’s expectations of an ideal husband have also been distorted by things like Disney movies with Prince Charming, magazines, romance novels, the tendency of social media to selectively highlight happy couples doing happy things, etc. This all has an influence. Studies show how this can increase marital dissatisfaction on the part of women. The average man has a hard time living up to unrealistic, over-inflated standards of a romantic fantasy some women have built up in their imaginations. Women, as a result, are left unfulfilled.

A gaskiya, cikar buri ta jima'i tana da wahala ga kaso mai girma na al'umma, wanda ya fi yawan kason wadanda suke ganin cewa jinsi guda ne kawai zai iya ba su gamsuwar jima'i.

So, in reality, sexual fulfillment is elusive for an increasingly large percentage of the population (far greater than the percentage of those who believe that only the same sex can provide them sexual satisfaction).

Shin da gaske ne mutane ana hana su? Shin muna ganin cewa duk waɗannan mutane wadanda ake zalunta ko kuma suna fuskantar rashin daidaito a tsari, wanda ke bai wa wasu damar samun biyan bukatar jima'i, amma ba wasu ba? Shin wariya tana yaɗuwa ba tare da kulawa ba?

But do we think people are truly being deprived? Do we believe that all these people are victims of oppression or systematic inequality that allows some people to experience sexual fulfillment but not others? Is there really discrimination run amok?

Tabbas ba. Kawai ana buƙatar a daidaita tsammanin mutane.

Of course not. People’s expectations just need to be adjusted.

Ta haka ne hukuncin Musulunci na haramta irin wannan lamari na maza da mata masu jinsi guda ba ya nuna wariya. A fahimtar Musulunci, mutane na iya fuskantar nau'o'in sha'awa (shahawat) iri-iri. Amma a mafi yawan lokuta, ba za a iya ko bai kamata a bi ko a biya wadannan sha'awoyi ba. Haka lamarin yake ga sha'awar jinsi guda, sha'awar zina tsakanin 'yan uwa, sha'awar dabbobi, da sauransu. Idan aka yi la'akari da irin wannan yalwar sha'awoyi daban-daban, zai zama abin mamaki a mayar da hankali kan wata sha'awa guda ko wasu sha'awoyi kadan, a kuma ce mutum ba zai iya samun "biyan bukata ta jima'i" ba sai an biya wannan sha'awa ta musamman. Wa ya ce haka?

This is how the Islamic prohibition of same-sex behavior does not discriminate. In the Islamic conception, it is understood that people can experience all kinds of desires (shahawat). But in most cases, these desires cannot or should not be pursued or fulfilled. This includes same-sex desire, incestuous desire, beastiality, etc. In context of such a panoply of diverse desires, it would be strange to fixate on one particular desire or set of desires and claim that one can only be “sexually fulfilled” if that particular desire is met. Who says?

Ko wannan sha'awa ta kasance ga supermodels ne ko millionaires, tsammanin shi ne mutum ya riƙe wannan sha'awa. Idan za a iya biyan ta kuma halascin biyanta ne, to babu matsala. Idan kuwa ba haka ba, to mutum kawai ya yi amfani da kamun kai. Wannan buƙatar kamun kai ba ta zama "zalunci" ko "nuna bambanci" ba sai dai idan mutum ya riga ya yanke hukunci tun farko cewa biyan wannan sha'awa wata "larura ta asali" ce ga "biyan buƙatar jima'i," da sauransu. Wa ya ba da wannan ikon? Kamar yadda muka gani, irin wannan da'awa tana da rauni a mafi yawan hali, saboda dalilai da dama.

Whether that desire is for supermodels or millionaires, the expectation is that one must control that desire. If it can be fulfilled and it is a permissible desire to fulfill, then fine. If otherwise, then one must simply exercise self-control. This requirement for self-control is only “oppressive” and “discriminatory” if one has decided a priori that fulfilling said desire is a “fundamental necessity” for “sexual fulfillment,” etc., etc. Who gets to decide that? As we have seen, such a claim is tenuous at best, for numerous reasons.

Kai ba a ba ni wani rubutu da zan fassara ba; sakonka tambaya ce kawai, ba rubutun littafi ba. Ina aiki ne kawai a matsayin mai fassara rubutun Musulunci daga Turanci zuwa Hausa. Idan kana da rubutu daga littafi da kake son a fassara, ka aiko shi.

Can those with same-sex desires adjust their expectations and mindset?

Abin da nake nufi shi ne, shin mutanen da suke da sha'awar jinsi ɗaya za su iya kawar da tsammanin cewa za su iya samun "biyan buƙatar jima'i" ne kawai ta hanyar kusanci da mutum na jinsi ɗaya? Yana iya zama mai wahala, amma ba abu ne da ba zai yiwu ba. Sha'awar jinsi ɗaya ba koyaushe ce za a iya kawar da ita ba, amma ba wannan ne batuna ba. Batuna shi ne, ya fi dacewa ga imanin mutum kada ya yi tunanin cewa Allah ya halicci duniya da wani ɓangare na al'umma ake hana shi gaba ɗaya samun wannan yanayi na musamman, mai wadatar rayuwa, mai canza rayuwa, mai daɗin rai na "biyan buƙatar jima'i." Idan mutum yana tunani ta wannan hanya, to zai yi wahala sosai kada ya ga Allah a matsayin wanda ba shi da adalci, ko Musulunci a matsayin wanda ba ya nuna wariya. Duk wannan ya koma ga yadda ake bayyanawa da ayyana biyan buƙatar jima'i.

What I mean by this is, can those with same-sex desires get rid of the expectation that they can only experience “sexual fulfillment” by being intimate with someone of the same sex? It might be difficult, but it is not impossible. The same-sex attractions might not always be something that can be eliminated — but that’s not my point. My point is, it is probably more healthy in terms of one’s iman not to think that Allah has created a world where a segment of the population is categorically barred from attaining this special, life-enriching, life-changing, euphoric state of “sexual fulfillment.” If you do think in those terms, then it becomes very difficult not to see God as unjust or Islam as not discriminatory. It all goes back to how sexual fulfillment is defined and delineated.

Ƙarshe dai, shekaru da yawa na tarbiyya da koyarwa abu ne mai wuyar kawarwa. Amma akwai hanyoyi da za su taimaka. A ƙarshen rana, duk da haka, Musulunci ba ya zalunci mutane ta hanyar hana wasu ɗabi'un jima'i. Abin da ke zalunta mutane shi ne daidaita LGBT, domin yana sa mutane su yi imani da ji cewa dole ne su shiga cikin ɗabi'un jima'i na jinsi ɗaya masu cutar da kansu don su sami cikakkiyar gamsuwa.

Ultimately, a lifetime of conditioning is a difficult thing to counteract. But there are resources to help. At the end of the day, however, Islam is not systematically oppressing people by prohibiting certain sexual behaviors. LGBT normalization is oppressing people by making them believe and feel that they need to engage in self-destructive same-sex behaviors in order to be fulfilled.

Lakin, abin takaici ne cewa Kotun Koli ta Amurka ba ta bi wannan hanyar tunani ba a hukuncinta kan auren jinsi guda a 2016. Ko da masu adawa a shari'ar Obergefell ba su tambayi da gaske ba ikirarin ɗayan ɓangaren cewa hana auren jinsi guda nuna wariya ne, don haka take Kwaskwarima ta Goma Sha Huɗu. A fasaha, wannan wariya ce, amma haka ma dokoki da ke barin matasa masu shekara 16 su yi tuƙi amma ba masu shekara 15 ba. Tambayar ita ce, shin wannan irin wariyar ce da ke haifar da cutarwa maras buƙata, da kuma nakasa mutane ta hanyoyin da ke cutarwa sosai, ba tare da yin hidimar wata babbar moriya ga mutum da al'umma baki ɗaya? Amsar wannan ta dogara ne da yadda muke fahimtar cutarwa da amfani. Amma idan aka duba fahimtar addini game da jima'i, yana da sauƙin fahimtar abubuwan nan ta hanyar da za ta sa amsar ta zama "A'a" mai ƙarfi.

By the way, it is a real shame that the US Supreme Court did not pursue this line of reasoning in their ruling on same-sex marriage in 2016. Even the dissenters in the Obergefell case did not seriously question the other side’s charge that prohibiting same-sex marriage would be discrimination and, hence, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Technically it is discrimination, but so are laws that allow 16 year olds to drive but not 15 year olds. The question is, is this the kind of discrimination that causes unnecessary harm and disadvantages people in debilitating ways while not serving an overall greater interest for the individual and society overall? The answer to that obviously depends on how we are conceiving harms and benefits. But, in light of religious understandings of sexuality, it is fairly easy to understand these things in a way that makes the answer to the question a resounding, “No.”