Islamic Leftism
Welcome to Islamic Leftism, a space for muslims leftists.
Lemmygrad rules apply:
- No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome, this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.
- No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW).
- No right-deviationists (patsocs, nazbols, strasserists, duginists, etc).
- No class reductionism
Rules for Islamic leftism:
-
No discrimination against other faiths or to those who lack it
-
No uncritical judging, always look for the cause of things before doing judgement
-
No compulsion in acceptance of the religion, if someone decides to leave or enter Islam let them for Allah is all-Knowing all-Wise and all-Forgiving
-
No takfir ( excommunication ) against the innocent believers or other persons who don't share the same beliefs or ideas
-
No treachery, show kindness to others even if they are mean to you
-
Be always open to different jurisprudence or schools in Islam
-
No discrimination against different schools or sects in the religion and outside of it. Is better to be united and in harmony
-
Be respectful to eachother be it religious or non-religious, believer or non-believer
All of you are welcomed to join
view the rest of the comments
Being LGBT is not a medical condition with rigorous diagnostics, symptoms, and tests. It is a fully defined concept and the only prerequisite is that you identify with the orientation of the label you take on.
No one is doing verification about where you draw the line. The definition for gay for example is simply attraction to the same gender. That’s it. But it’s not “ having thoughts” or “kissing”, or anything like that. You are LGBT when you say you’re LGBT, that's it. No one gets to decide that for you, and only you get to decide what line is enough for you. There is no need to create a bizarre and Byzantine “verification” system. There is no ultra-rigid definition for orientation.
Also what do you mean by “gay people as a concept”. That’s extremely obvious, also looking into this organization, they do outreach and assist those that come to them first for safety due to homophobia. They aren’t white knighting and “saving gay people”, they are protecting lgbt individuals whose lives are in danger, have been kicked out and made homeless, and have nowhere to go due to the response to their orientation.
That said response is coming from people much like the author of the article, who view those lgbt individuals as artificial constructs of imperialism that are gay because they’re appealing to the white western masses and “indoctrination”, and not because they are… you know… LGBT.
The author even has the quote “They are creatures of God so we must respect them and not do violence to them (even if religion disapproves of homosexuality)”
And with that last line they expose the entire issue behind their argument. Yes, they might believe the first line of that quote, but other people will not, and because of that religious disapproval they resort to reactionary and homophobic action and thought. Which only works to play into the Rights hands. Which is why the author is forced to desperately make the distinction that their homophobia is in fact different and justified unlike that from the fascist catholic traditionalist Civitas movement, even though they share the exact same opinion and beliefs regarding the LGBT, in that they are against their religion.
I know being queer isn't a disease lol. I am queer. The point I was trying to make is that our beliefs about gender and sexuality are informed by our particular culture and they do not necessarily carry over to other cultures.
You say it's obvious what gay people are, but is it really? The word "homosexual" is only about 100 years old yet you speak about it as if it were an innate characteristic of humanity. And I don't mean that in a "people only started experiencing same-sex attraction recently" kind of way. I mean that the way we understand human sexuality is invented. And that the words westerners came up with don't translate well to other cultures.
Also, the paragraph following that quote clarifies the author's position. Which is that we should allow for and encourage colonized peoples to develop their own societies and create their own norms regarding sexuality in their own time. And let them define and redefine their own language because the heterosexual/homosexual binary was imposed on them by westerners, which is why they often reject movements by them even when they're arguably good.
Btw when I mentioned saving gay people, I was thinking about libs who want to go to war against this or that country because their people are deemed homophobic. I wasn't referring to this org in specific.
Oh, I didn’t mean that as in “queer is a disease”, but moreso it doesn’t have some detailed diagnostic criteria, like a condition or disease would. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
But yes, it is very obvious what gay people are this is a thing that people have identified and defined clearly, it is not some abstract philosophical concept, and it is absolutely an innate characteristic of humanity. As even the author states how homosexuality has been present in human society for all of recorded history, and even further with archeological evidence.
Also if they still doesn’t answer to why the author believes that the west is forcing migrants to be gay, or why that’s phrased as a bad thing (no matter how absurd it is).
Lastly, religion and societal development is not an excuse for homophobia and oppression. Especially if even for reasons outside of their control, migrants travel to the west, and then take up arms against societal standards such lgbt acceptance. Especially when members of that migrant community come out as lgbt. The community cannot just say “Oopsie, we’re not ready yet, back in the closet”. That’s basically what they’re saying, they’re acting like the concept that there are lgbt members in “working class migrant communities” is laughable and some absurd notion, they straight say that marriage equality for gay infidividuals is something they are against and would cut their leftist allies off over, and that their communities are near devioud of LGBT influence except for dastardly western imperialist influence.They are living in some bizarre wonderland that they’ve constructed specifically to tailor to their worldview. Even though it is devious of reality.
Also there is not a homosexual/heterosexual binary in the modern day lgbt community, escept for deranged conservatives. That’s the entire point of the pansexual and bisexual orientations just to name a few.
Overall, I agree with most of your points and concepts, but you’re still playing a post hoc defense for an author who is most obviously not as charitable as you, and I doubt believe the things you are trying say. Hence their reactionary and extremely bizarre language and strances in several topics (hence my original post).
Hmm I'm not sure you're picking up what I'm putting down. I'm saying that "homosexuality" is a relatively new concept (so is "heterosexuality" btw). It's a word that people of the distant past definitely did not use and definitely did not identify with. It's a word that many people of the present don't identify with either, even if you can make the argument that they fit the criteria. But really, what does it matter? The goal of queer liberation should be to free people from discrimination, not to force all cultures to subscribe to the same notion of gender and sexuality.
I don't know why you think the author is making excuses for homophobia. And I don't think they meant to imply that straight and gay are the only sexual orientations (they say LGBT a lot and bisexual is right there in the acronym). I'm not trying to play defense for this person, I don't know who they even are, but it feels like we've read completely different articles ngl :s
Anyway, I interpreted the author as saying that white people need to meet indigenous people where they're at & allow their communities to deal with their social issues in their own way, at their own pace. And that it's unacceptable for white people to demand them to change according to white standards. Especially when those same white people are apathetic to all their other economic and political concerns.
Like, if you've had to live with police brutality, unemployment, and homelessness all your life, would you believe that an outside movement to protect the gay rights of your community is sincere? When that movement is led by the very same people who subjugate you in the first place?