I was debating whether to insert this within LGBT+ or Islamic Leftism but I do think ultimately it might fit here better because it covers the specific experience of French indigènes, which makes it more relevant here.
I feel like in these sort of online Islamic “progressive” spaces, there’s no genuine discussions happening. These spaces are often almost defensive in nature - like the existence of this community is just to prove to disapproving whites that Islam isn’t this, or isn’t that. This is a result of being in a Western dominated space in general.
Gender and sexual minorities is a very important phenomenon that must require a response, yet it is almost ignored or never spoken about because this muslim-homophobia dichotomy is so engrained that people are (rightfully) scared to even talk about it, especially across the White left.
I’d of course invite everyone to treat this article critically, and contribute if you have any qualms against their conclusions, although I will admit my opinions have slowly drifted closer to the article as the years went by.
“The goal is therefore to convince non-Whites that they must identify as homosexual. This is the choice offered by hegemonic homosexual activism”
Source: “I pulled it out of my ass.” This is literally the fascist claim that the LGBT are forcing everyone and particularly children to be gay.
“In this respect, it is interesting to see how the defenders of a “universal” homosexual identity impose the frame of analysis at the heart of their campaigns to « save » the homos in working-class neighbourhoods.”
“An association that houses victims of homophobia” – says that there are not “fewer homos” in these neighbourhoods but that they are “more hidden and in denial.”
Why is this said like this is absurd or a bad thing???? That is objectively true, and the author acts like it’s some secretive plot to destroy the immigrant community by turning them all gay. And not that there are, you know, LGBT people already there, but terrified to come out because of the reaction they would garner. Like from this person for example, who would claim that them being gay is a “capitulation to white imperialism”.
“I am part of this “productive regression” since I am resolutely on their side of the racial divide. That’s why I will reject categorically any attempt to place Civitas and the Union of Islamic Organizations of France [UOIF]”
Oh no no no, you don’t get to eat your cake and have it too. There’s a reason those two organizations coincidentally appear on the same side when it comes to traditionalist and anti-LGBT action/rhetoric. You can’t just say offhandedly that it’s not what it looks like and that’s it’s actually ok when we do it because insert post hoc justifications for homophobia.
What a disgusting and reactionary conclusion. The author makes several interesting and good points in the beginning, then they do a heel turn and devolve rapidly into absurd levels of homophobia, which they try to justify as being “anti-imperialist”. They go completely mask off when talking about how they will sacrifice their allies on the left to defend their stance, then make it seem like modern homosexuality is an entirely white phenomenon, completely ignoring other Muslims who are LGBT.
I am extremely alarmed at your addition too, “although I will admit my opinions have slowly drifted closer to the article as the years went by”.
I dunno about the parts regarding French politics but I think the point they're trying to make is that our ideas about sexuality do not apply to every culture. And that foreign attempts to "liberate gay people" are often as misguided as historic attempts to "civilize the natives".
Like, consider what it means to "be gay". First, you need to think about gender such that everyone has it, and has only 1 kind. Then you need to make distinctions between attraction towards different genders. Then you need to draw discrete lines between those categories. And where are those lines? Is it about kissing? Or just having thoughts? Or having sex? Is dating enough? If it is then what qualifies as dating?
Different cultures have wildly different frameworks for all of this and what they're saying is that in order to save "gay people" you need to create "gay people" as a concept. And that we should be very careful with how we approach social issues because we can provoke a negative backlash when we impose ourselves.
I think we should be mindful of how our beliefs about gender and sexuality are informed by our history and that people with different histories think differently.
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, homophobic, and extremely bizarre language and strances in several topics (hence my original post).
Just to add, I view this article as very complimentary to this one titled "LGBTQ Rights" as Unconventional Warfare that was shared in Lemmygrad a few months prior.
They erase the Sunnah!
I agree completely!
What was Mao's famous dictum?
From the masses, to the masses.
Without consent from the people, it will fall apart.
Non-hetero sexual relations and diverse gender expressions is not contradictory to Islamic society either but I don't see how succumbing to the "LGBTQ+" label will do anything.
To quote the article in the OP:
Very numerous forms of social-sexual relations were corrupted by the colonial fact. The indigènes of the world are fighting to reconstruct them and to rebuild the link to the fragments of social history and memories at risk of disappearing, not without certain ambiguities and not without being interlaced with the white heterosexual model.8
And I will especially reject any attempt at those that paint a broad brush at my culture and my family for being reactionary, when Colonialism and Imperialism itself was not negated overnight.
I just mean that colonialism and imperialism still exists. It wasn’t abolished overnight after gaining independence, so the basis for the deprivation of a majority of muslims still exists. We can’t even industrialise let alone “progress” (in the least liberal sense of the term).
In other words the contradiction still exists, and can only be negated/resolved by anti-imperialist class struggle.
Only a few countries have achieved complete decolonisation (of both society and economy) and has the “cultural capacity” to get rid of colonial ideas, like the orientalism you mention.
