Alex Blaze

Islam Is Behind Some Protestantism on Gay Acceptance

Filed By Alex Blaze | February 01, 2011 7:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Quote of the Day
Tags: islam, LGBT, Muslims

"I'd say Islam is, in a best-case scenario, maybe 40 to 50 years behind where some of the Protestant denominations are today. In most Muslim communities, it's just not even on the radar screen."

--Faisal Alam, founder of Al-Fatiha, an org for gay Muslims

Recent Entries Filed under Quote of the Day:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

antonio caetano | February 1, 2011 10:18 AM

Ummmmmmmmmm? Didn't I just last year see two teen agers in Iran, HUNG because they were homosexuals?

I think Mr Faisal Alam. left a couple of zeros off his "40 to 50"

It wasn't last year, and there's never been proof conclusive proof that they were gay. Bill Andriette has an excellent article on this:

As for queers in the U.S, there's a new book titled, Queer (In)Justice: The Criminalization of LGBT People in the United States, which details the stark and direct ways in which we are targeted and yes, killed, by the criminal legal system. Right here and now.

It doesn't matter if they were gay, they were hung for having homosexual sex, because that in itself is punishable by death.

Again, you're so quick to jump to defend Islam, taking no consideration for the lives lost because of it's teachings. Between this and your "the gays are riding/exploiting this gay suicide issue" quote, it's clear you're not about protecting homosexuality, but all about trying to "protect" Islam.

Um, no, they were also not hung "for having homosexual sex." Please read the Andriette piece. Making up facts is not going to prove any case here. And nothing justified their hanging, to be clear - of course, teh gayz, like HRC, made it clear that their only interest lay in the presumed fact of their homosexuality, not in the brutality of the death penalty.

No one doubts that such things do happen, but by simply and simplistically focusing on (and sometimes creating) stories about "Islamic" homophobia (there's technically no such thing, just as there's technically no homophobic Christians - just a lot of homophobic ones) doesn't help.

And, as this fascinating new book (which has nothing to do with Islam, by the way) indicates, we in the U.S have established a criminal legal system that specifically targets queer people and marks them for brutality, incarceration, and death.

I have no interest in protecting either homosexuality or Islam, neither one of which requires my protection - they're doing quite well, thanks. I do have an interest in truth and nuance and a definite interest against bigotry.

I'll be blogging about Queer (In)Justice in the next day or so, but here's my review in the meantime, just out today:

Ack, and that should read: "no *Christian homophobia." And I mean that in a broad sense, to refute the simple idea that religion x is homophobic. There are larger, more in-depth conversations to be had about what it means for any religion to be construed as phobic on any count, and the relationship between texts and society, and the interpretation of both, but that's not a conversation that's going to happen here in the comments section.

Making up facts? It states quite clearly in the article that "the youths were executed for sodomy". The reason they were officially given the death penalty was for admitting (probably under torture) to sodomy. There were allegations that it was a case of rape after the fact, not before. Had that rape been of a woman, their treatment and punishment would have been much different under Sharia law. (There would have been a fine and possibly a required marriage, but probably NOT a death sentence.)

As for "truth, nuance, and an interest against bigotry", your constant use of "teh gayz" shows what a bigot you are. You clearly use it to lump together a group you consider sub-standard while implying a reference that most gay people fall into that grop. Isn't that a form of bigotry? Where's your interest in that? Hypocrite.

antonio caetano | February 6, 2011 8:42 PM

Hanging teenagers???. Only some 12th Century Mentality would quibble that it was justified, no matter what they did.
The ability to appreciate the consequences of one's action is something that comes with age and experience. Children don't qualify.
You only separate yourself from God further by subscribing to practices that no holy man or woman has ever approved.