Tag Archives: islam

Anti-Queer Sentiment is Still Anti-Queer Sentiment

Uncategorized, , , , ,

You know why most of us American LGBT people are not sold on cultural Christians spouting anti-Islamic rhetoric in regards to Muslim homophobia? Because we meet, know, are parented by, governed by, ostracized by, domestically-oppressed by, attacked by, and seek strategic allyship with more Christians than we are with Muslims.

To tell us American LGBT people that Muslims in other countries are the greater, more existential problem to our lives but not our fellow American citizens’ conduct and laws towards us here and now is pretty dishonest.

You never notice our organizational advocacy work with LGBT organizations abroad unless its regarding a historical “enemy state” like Russia during the 2010 Olympics.

You never notice that many of us advocate for the safety and safe refugee status of LGBT people in Iran and Iraq.

You never notice that we are angered and saddened by Saudi or Malaysian or Indonesian or Ugandan homophobia. “But ISIS throws you off buildings!” And?! What do you want us to do? If you were us, what would you do about defenestrations and beheadings and tortures? There is literally nothing more to do at this point except to dodge U.S. laws and join the Peshmerga or YPG at the front lines.

It’s a useless exercise to remind us about what ISIS does to gay men and boys. We know this. We can’t do anything about it except pressure for safe passage for LGBT refugees from the Levant to safer spaces abroad, as we have been doing since before you took notice of Muslim homophobia.

It’s a pointless critique of liberal U.S. LGBT people to distract us from the pressures we face at home. This mass shooting took place at home. We are fighting for equality, dignity and life at home. Hateful ideas attack us here at home.

Let’s take care of home first. Let us grieve. Let us build bridges. Let’s continue making this country better for LGBT people, and not settle for where we are now. #Orlando

Ishtiaq Hussain gives an interview on his paper “The Tanzimat: Secular Reforms in the Ottoman Empire”, and takes on the fundamentalist idea that sharia is supposed to be a penal law:

Also, read Hussain’s book here: http://faith-matters.org/images/stories/fm-publications/the-tanzimat-final-web.pdf

Shouldn’t this be a call for a new sect of Islam?

Religion, To Export, , , , ,

That is part of the problem. We have a lot of politicians who are simply unable to understand what exactly is going on here. But in future we will hopefully have other politicians, and a generation of Muslims who are sick of constantly being the victims of radicalism. This sort of process starts in the schools, then extends to politics, and then it becomes part of the inner-Muslim debate. That’s the only way we can achieve our goals. Admittedly, I don’t see any great chance for this right now, but we can’t give up! We have to carry on and continue to give young people alternatives.

Mr. Mansour, there are Muslims who are carrying out liberal Islam in their lives, not just in the US but also in France. You should look at their work, perhaps for your country. Someone will benefit.

via ′There is no alternative to a reform of Islam′ | Germany | DW.DE | 16.10.2014.

Anti-Judaism and racism in Egypt’s chaos

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

 On one side, there are the caricatures of Mubarak with a Star of David on his forehead….and red fangs protruding from his mouth. One such picture was held by a man in a Getty Images photo that was uncontextually-placed in an article by english.aljazeera.net (by mistake, I assume).

On the other side, there are the verbal and physical assaults on foreign and domestic journalists (including Al Jazeera) by pro-Mubarak counter-protesters, many of whom shout "yehudi!" ("Jew!") at them after being told by Egyptian state television rumors about "Israeli spies" infiltrating the foreign media and taking advantage of the chaos.

If anything, the above incidents within the last few days are exemplary of the casual, provincial anti-Jewish bigotry being exhibited by many of the everyday Egyptians who protest both for and against the current, long-ruling government. It runs deep, and has been punctuated by decades, if not centuries, of both official and non-official solicitations to the scapegoating of the specter of evil, baby-killing, bloodthirsty Zionist monsters.

Furthermore, such public manifestations of bigotry lend credibility to those outside of Egypt who fear the influence of the proscribed Muslim Brotherhood party in the anti-Mubarak movement, but also hold the Mubarak government in a muted ill-regard for decades of authoritarian misrule. 

The last two weeks in Egypt, if not the last month in much of North Africa and Western Asia, have offered remote viewers outside of the regions a game-changing view into the desires and lives of the residents who have lived under similar regimes. However, in the midst of the chants for greater democracy, better governance and brighter economic prospects, it would be a grave mistake to ignore the existing religious and ethnic bigotries which run deep and hard in Egyptian society, bigotries which may or may not manifest in a post-Mubarak Egypt, or a post-kleptocratic North Africa and Western Asia.

Comments such as those offered by one anti-Mubarak protester to Agence France Presse – "The Israeli people are like the Egyptian people, we want peace and freedom" – or another who shouted into a camera in Tahrir Square for YouTube – "We will not be silenced! whether you are a Muslim, whether you’re a Christian, whether you’re an atheist, you will demand your goddamn rights!" – might yet offer the hope of cooler heads prevailing in the aftermath of these protests in regards to Egyptian-Israeli relations and the future of interfaith and intermoral relations in Egypt proper.
 
But these statements, these sentiments, can only go so far in showing the Egyptian people’s long-term collective capability in restraining or suppressing the casual bigotries which have been used in multiple generations in order to repress and suppress the quality of life and mind of themselves and their neighbors.

Nationalist negation of the diaspora and theodicy: where they intersect

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , ,

When the audio transcript of John Hagee’s theodical justification of the Holocaust (and, by extension, Christian anti-Semitism) as a means of accomplishing Christian eschatological ends through mass Jewish aliyah surfaced online in 2008, various political sectors observing the then-ongoing presidential election leveled intense scrutiny against Hagee and the Republican presidential aspirant who had courted Hagee’s support in the election; not least among those reacting sectors were the demographically-dwindling Jewish members of the Holocaust survivor community, who took particular exception to Hagee’s open and explicit co-opting of both an ideologically-driven tragedy that wreaked so much havoc upon them and the repatriative ideology of Israeli Jewish nationalism – both of which emphatically exclaim that the adherents to the Jewish religion, including the dead victims and living survivors of the Holocaust, do not belong anywhere else in the world but Israel – as a positive step toward the eventual end and destruction of the world (according to the Christian worldview).

Within Judaism, theodical explanations for the Holocaust have been offered – and just as fiercely rejected and demeaned among Jewish survivors of the Holocaust – by Haredi (Orthodox) rabbis and rabbinical authorities, including former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel Ovadia Yosef (repeatedly) and the late Rebbe of the Chabad Lubavitch sect, Menachem Schneerson. 

But an interesting aspect of John Hagee’s intersection of Jewish aliyah with the Holocaust (as a forceful push), Israel (as a destination to be pushed toward), anti-Semitism (as an ideological justification), Negation of the diaspora (as a process) and Christian eschatological timing (as the end and answer to all of the above) is that he only added a further layer to the belief that the Jews are only a collective object to be pushed around at the whim of their neighbors, most of whom want to push them entirely away from themselves and reject the view that these people are citizens of their own countries (or, in the case of Iran and the USSR, keep them within their own states in order to eventually drive the Jewish religion or sense of ancestral/cultural homeland out of their adherent citizens and turn them into compliant, assimilated citizens). Another, more crazed dimension to this meme is the long list of ethnic enclaves to which various powers sought to pull or push the Jews as a people, the majority of which placed the Jews in the most-isolated (or least-populable) outposts of various continents.

This meme of constricting an entire people into one place in the world was also visited at one point by both U.S. philanthropists and (repeatedly) Afro-American ethnonationalists upon the Afro-American minority of the U.S. in the view that Afro-Americans cannot ever belong in this society, and that the colorism, racism, ethnic segregation and slavery foisted upon them was the end result of existing in a majority-European-populated country, and that the only country in which they could feel safe and defend themselves and their interests would be in a country that was ruled and majority-populated by their "kind", reasonably removed from the land of their should-be-former oppressors, and build alliances with foreign powers which work to their own best interests. Of course, Liberia didn’t attract the majority of the African-American population, and neither did Sierra Leone attract the majority of former British Empire slaves and maroons, but both countries became templates for the sometimes-mutual ideological movement for repatriation, which presented the two agents – the repatriater and the receiver – view the same people within endemic views which complimented each other: the repatriating country saw the ethnicity as trash, and the receiving country saw the ethnicity as treasure. 

This trash-treasure view is embraced in some countries in Europe by far-right nationalists, who often participated in discussions which demonized the Jews as "parasitic" "trash" which could only gain respect if they were as far away from their own white, European Christian selves as possible (hence the oft-used expression by far-rightists in Europe "go back to Israel", which is probably less used than "to the ovens" or "Hitler should’ve finished the job"). The BNP in the UK (and, perhaps, the NASOFI group in Germany) is one of the more notable "converts" to this ideology, particularly as it pragmatically-partners with the pro-Israel right (seeing that Israel plays a useful role in decimating the presence of Jews in Europe and earns its macho stripes in "kicking barbarian ass") against Muslim fundamentalists in an about face from their previous stance against the presence of Jews in the UK. 

To the theodical and eschatological views typical of Hagee, however, perhaps the Jews are seen less within the "trash-to-treasure" spectrum and more along a "wandering, rebellious ram to docile, sacrificial lamb" spectrum. For Hagee, it matters less that the Jews get out of his country and stop being "parasitic" "pests" and more that they stop being so gosh-darn rebellious and proceed to fully populate Israel and the West Bank in order to set the stage for Christian eschatology already (even if it means that there are few rebellious Jews left in North America in his view, or the less, the merrier!).

What do Israelis get out of repatriation (whether it is justified by anti-Semitic or "philo-"Semitic reasons)? They regain their homeland in full, get back the Temple Mount, smooth out the wrinkles caused by the initial Roman kickout of their ancestors nearly 2000 years prior (or get those other tribes’s lost descendants back as genetic citizens, if possible), let the Arab-Israeli dispute settle down somewhat, hope that the European Union can nip the pervasive anti-Judaism meme that caused incidents like the Holocaust in the root, hope that both Christianity and Islam both deservedly grind themselves and each other into dusty minority stubs over their very structures of propagation and expansion, and so on. (Sorry, no Holocaust Part 2: Christian Apocalypse – ed.).

But perhaps there will be an end to the usage of the Jewish people as an object to be carried around. Maybe the Jewish nationalism in Israel will be less propelled (or resisted) in its persistence and will morph into something else (like most nationalisms do after the threat of eminent danger has passed), even as the religion continues among its practitioners and leaders without as much molestation, or becomes subject to another cataclysmic schism within the group. 

EDIT 1/1/2011: Let me also emphasize that one component of this belief – that the Jews are a monolithic people who are destined to be placed in some part of the world at the end of time – also intersects with the study of any nation-state’s own intersection with its own diaspora. Diasporas can be used as couriers and beneficiaries of the homeland state’s own relationship with another state, or they can be rejected by their homeland state’s government due to an antagonistic foreign policy against political exiles. 

 
Thus, if diasporas are seen as "useable" or "disposable" by the home country’s ruling government when they are not resident inside the home country, then such a perception should be judged by observers of human rights as a barometer in terms of that home country’s civil and human rights record, holing just as much validity in terms of observation as the treatment of that same country’s current residents and citizens, immigrants, expatriates, etc. 

Religion, descent and the one-drop rule

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

This morning, I thought about how religion uses patrilineal or matrilineal descent as a means of indicating whether one has been born into the religion of his or her most immediate ancestor(s), and how, in the case of Judaism and Islam, such stipulations have been contorted by both adherents, non-adherents and detractors from a simple Abrahamic membership inheritance issue into an ethnoracial issue in those societies which observe an Abrahamic religion on a majority basis.

Continue reading Religion, descent and the one-drop rule →

Multiculturalism, cultural integrity/sovereignty, and social progression

Uncategorized, , , ,

In light of both

  • the Swiss referendum-based ban on further building of minarets on mosque edifices in Switzerland
  • the European Human Rights Court’s ban on displays of the crucifix in Italian public schools

I think that it is time to highlight the growth of an strong pan-European movement of anti-triumphalism and laicite, one that doesn’t ignore any religious or spiritual belief system in its wake. Furthermore, I would also recommend to the Europeans (and even the Turkish people, if Kemal’s legacy is to be continued in that country) a further logical expansion of a further pervasive regulation of religious triumphalist displays in public:

  • church bells and bell towers
  • stripping explicit references to unique churches or religions from constitutions and other public documentations

But ultimately, the argument in the Global North over the clash between the religions of Christianity and Islam (and Islam vs. Judaism) and secular Humanism is cultural, as the ideas of law and custom which are embedded within the cultures whose members also subscribe to the religions tend to widely differ on their views (or their capability to modernize their views) regarding concepts of rights and liberties.

I’ve come to the conclusion that multiculturalism – a well-intentioned idea – is very much pinned, in its current implementations, between the rock of social progression and the hard place of cultural integrity/sovereignty. Multiculturalism, as it stands, has not been engaged in a significant attempt at demonolithization that let’s at least one school of multiculturalist ideology try to remove itself from attempting to actively embrace claims to cultural integrity or sovereignty.

I think it would be better to say that multiculturalism respects the rights of multiple cultures to exist, but does not respect the right of a culture to make claims or moves for "integrity" or "sovereignty" against those – within or outside the culture’s main grouping – who syncretize with other cultures or interpretations. Instead, those who do syncretize should also receive the same support and standards of judgement as any other culture if they so apply for such treatment.

Hence, I agree more with Anne Phillips’ book Multiculturalism without Culture, particularly in its feminist angle (since feminist and LGBT organizations have had the hardest time with current multiculturalist models).