This is a cross-post of an article by habibi from Harry’s Place
****
You have seen Abdul Karim “Spot The Fag” Hattin in action in this post. Alas he is not unusual. Let’s take a look at what some of the other preachers who have been welcomed in recent years at the East London Mosque and its London Muslim Centre have to say about gays.
As reported in this documentary, Khalid Yasin is an extremist, a 9/11 troofer and a fraudster. This is what he makes of homosexuality:
There’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend. If you prefer the clothing of the kafirs over the clothing of the Muslims, most of those names that’s on most of those clothings is faggots, homosexuals and lesbians. [opening of the documentary]
…
The Koran gives a very clear position regarding homosexuality, lesbianism and bestiality – that these are aberrations, they are immoralities and if they are tried, convicted, they are punishable by death. [15:30]
We have covered Abdullah Hakim Quick’s recent visit to City University, King’s College London and the University of East London. He wants people to have no doubts whatsoever about his view on gays:
They said “what is the Islamic position [on homosexuality]?” And I told them. Put my name in the paper. The punishment is death. And I’m not going to change this religion.
Listen to Quick’s speech (MP3)
Abdur Raheem Green runs “iERA”, a group that tours Islamists around the country. He has this to say about gays on his own blog – they should be stoned, like adulterers:
All this applies also to the matter of stoning the adulterer and adulteress to death.
…
There is another direction from which the wisdom of such a punishment can be understood, and that is the death of two criminals can prevent the death and agony of many innocents. There is no doubt that adultery has caused many a jilted partner to kill not only the partner but in some instances the children as well. This is the harm that we can measure and see. It is more than likely that the psychological effects on the jilted partner, the children and their families is extensive, and can lead to behavioural problems that ultimately effect the well being of the whole society! The “harm” of the punishment for adultery is offset by the need of the “benefit” and protects the wider society. All of this also goes some way to help understand way acts of homosexuality are simlarily treated so harshly.
Bilal Philips is a Saudi-trained Islamist who supports the marriage of girls at the age of nine and Islamic corporal punishments. He is an apologist for suicide bombers and linked to the 1993 New York bombing plots. He is banned in Australia. This is from a pamphlet (pdf, pp. 21-22) he wrote called “Contemporary Issues”:
The consequence of AIDS is enough to prove that homosexuality is evil and dangerous to society.
In fact, homosexuality is so bad, Philips wrote, that it merits corporal punishment in the name of Islam, just like robbery (see page 18 of the pdf).
In this video version of “Contemporary Issues”, he says:
As a consequence of this practice [homosexuality], AIDS spread through society and it spread beginning with the homosexual element. People wanted to say, well hey, this is, you know, divine retribution. This was thrown aside. “No, how can it be, no no no, we cannot say this. This is something which happened, we don’t blame it on, you know, God punishing people.” But from the Islamic perspective, yes. [9:00]
…
In Islamic law the punishment for homosexuality is no different from the punishment for adultery and fornication. It could be death. It’s looked at as a deviation, just as if somebody is involved in bestiality, sexual relations with animals. Death! This is a deviation. Adultery is death. So it’s not any special punishment, it is a punishment for deviant behaviour which threatens the family structure of a society. [12:00]
Abu Usamah at Thahabi is an imam at Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham. He is of course known for these quotes from Undercover Mosque:
Do you practice homosexuality with men? Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain.
…
They have given them [homosexuals] unprecedented rights, so that your child can be exposed and introduced to lesbians. Now they say “if you discriminate against that, you’re going to jail”. We’ll discriminate, but we’ll discriminate in a way where we don’t get in trouble. The Muslim is a dentist, one of those people come, you want to take a big, big needle and stick it in his gums. [13:30]
Uthman Lateef is an Islamist preacher from the Hittin Institute in London. It supports the annihilation of the state of Israel. Lateef said this to Queen Mary students in 2007:
“We don’t accept homosexuality … we hate it because Allah hates it”
Yasir Qadhi is a founder and leader of the Al Maghrib Institute, the Islamist training group that brought Abdullah Hakim Quick to London universities. He offers an exquisitely stupid and cruel “solution” to gay Muslim men: marry a woman.
And remember that marriage is a solution, so you should seriously consider it. The Prophet Lut ‘alayhis salam told his people, “These are my daughters, they are more pure for you.” Some scholars say that when he said “daughters”, he is also implying the women of the town and not just his own daughters. So he’s telling the men of his community who were guilty of this crime to go and marry women, for they are better and purer for them. Marriage is a solution, because sensuality and sexuality is something that can be satisfied – rather it should be satisfied – by the opposite gender within the confines of marriage.
Mohammed Alshareef is the director of the Al Maghrib Institute. He says Muslims should be proud to be homophobic. They should also follow the lead of Christians who harass gay pride rallies.
If people hear about a lecture like this at the masjid [mosque], they would say “homophobic”. Correct? They’re like “oh my God, they’re a bunch of homophobic people”. And I thought to myself, that’s an amazing word to be called. Alhamdulillah [praise to God] that you’re homophobic. Now notice the propaganda and the indoctrination that you’ve been – when I just said, alhamdulillah I’m homophobic, you’re thinking to yourself “How do you say alhamdulillah? That’s something bad.” These are words that they flipped in our minds. Homophobia means a fear of homosexuality. Alhamdulillah we have a fear of homosexuality. And then they will say it as if it is a derogatory term, but in fact it is a praiseworthy term.
…
Whenever there is a gay rally – isn’t it interesting that they call them gay, they’re happy people, right? – there are a type of people who go to these rallies and stand up for the truth. They have signs that tell them to stop what they’re doing or they will go to hellfire. Do you think they are Muslims? No, they are not Muslims, they are Christians. They are Christians who stand up for this. … I pray to Allah that you will join the ranks and start to stand up and speak against things like this. [from 25:00]
Murtaza Khan too is keen on “proper” Christians – he thinks they have a charter for killing gays, just like Muslims:
Now what is the punishment? According to the Bible, excuse me, this is a Christian country. Read the history of this country. Christian country. According to the Bible, the Bible says the person should be thrown down from a mountain and then stoned on top of that. That’s what Isa [Jesus] told you people. But they teach “no, you’re homophobic”. And those Christians who stand up against this abominable action, which goes against humanity, then they’re fundamentalists like us as well then.
…
I’m not homophobic. I believe in a natural way of life. I’m repeating you what your Bible tells you. In the hadith you find: “You find the people doing the action of Lot, kill the one who does the action and the one the action is being done to.” [4:40]
This is from the East London Mosque’s reaction to the Dispatches broadcast:
We try to ensure that those who use our facilities, including for speaking engagements, reflect the values of moderation and tolerance we hold and adhere to.
Ha ha. It continues:
On rare occasion it may be that someone, speaking at an event for which a room or hall has been hired for example, says something we neither agree with nor approve of.
I love the “may be”. Here’s the get-out clause:
It is not possible for any organisation in a position such as ours to vet and approve in advance every statement to be made by every speaker addressing audiences at the Mosque and Centre.
Well, a few speakers have been vetted right here. They preach vicious hatred against homosexuals. Why take the risk of hosting them? Why lend them any support at all? Will they be barred from the East London Mosque and the London Muslim Centre?
After all, the mosque does say that it holds to “values of moderation and tolerance”.
32 Comments
Murtaza Khan is an intellectual pygmy of the lowest order. The sooner he is deported out of this country to Saudi Arabia, the better it will be for everyone.
You don’t like gays, you don’t like this society, then kindly fuck off to a country which has made homosexuality a crime, where you will surely be happier.
what a fool thou art o abdullah abraham…since when was it a condition to love gays in order to be british? Since when was finding homosexuality despicable a grounds for deportation ?
You in love with gays then? If not, you might as well take your own advice show your backside out of here too .
You two-faced scumbags, you dance along to the ‘heresy is another word for freedom of thought’ lullaby by night and call for the deportation of all those you consider ‘heretics’ by day…
It’s very simple. You don’t like homosexuals, fuck off to a country that has proscribed homosexuality, where you will fit in and be happy.
Oh no – here we go again…
I suppose the only virtue of the presence of homophobic bigots like mace is that everyone who visits this site can get a grip on what exactly is so bloody wrong and evil about Islamism.
Abdullah Ibrahim you homo freak, we are in a free country, and a person is entitled to his own belief.
i’m not saying that we should stone gays… i just object to it. yet is this also homophobia. To disagree with it and to object to it?
if this is homophobic then you guys are homophobes too. other wise, u would be gay.
This is outrageous. I swear I saw comments by trojan and others up here not long ago, and they’ve clearly been taken down. And yes, some valid points were being made. How is the comment ‘Fuck off, you pig-ignorant scum sucker’ by Abu Fairs (on ‘Has Tower Hamlets Council been infiltrated?’) left uncensored while the critical ones selectively deleted?
Trojan made some good points in his now-censored post; his first post deleted and his second related post left up, resulting in deliberate misrepresentation and manipulation of what users are saying.
‘heresy is another word for freedom of thought’. You might need to change that one.
Really, you thought they were worthwhile? All I saw was a shitstorm of homophobic comments which were all the sockpuppets of one illiterate repeat offender. I’ve kept some of “trojan’s” comments up, you like so much. One which I deleted was this:
“if you dont disagree with homosexuality, i ask you a genuine question. if you don’t have a problem with homosexuality, why aren’t you guys/gays in a homosexual relationship? why have you not married into a gay partnership?”
If you’re into gutter homophobia and queer-bashing, Respectabilia, go do it on the IFE blog. There’s plenty of room for it there, I’m sure. Don’t come here and soil our carpets.
No Faisal, the question was genuine. Don’t stifle ‘freedom of thought’ under the guise of ‘heresy’, that’s not what it says on the top of this page.
If you attack those who find homosexuality despicable, then one can only conclude that you do not find it despicable and are fine with it. If that is the case, the question then arises why have you not opted for a gay partnership?
You cannot claim to be insulted by this, since you do not find homosexuality offensive nor despicable. But the question remains, what is it that stops you from entering a gay partnership – if you are not in one already? Why have you insisted on a heterosexual partnership (if you are indeed in one?)?
The only remaining option is that the said person is bisexual.
Everyone makes a choice; he/she either finds homosexuality despicable or acceptable. And their choices in life reflect that…
You cannot claim to be insulted by this, since you do not find homosexuality offensive nor despicable. But the question remains, what is it that stops you from entering a gay partnership – if you are not in one already? Why have you insisted on a heterosexual partnership (if you are indeed in one?)?
I don’t find homosexuality offensive nor despicable. I’m not gay. Is the mutual inclusivity of these two simple facts so difficult for you to grasp?
I do think homophobia, like racism, is despicable and morally beyond the pale, however.
I cannot believe that anyone is so obtuse or otherwise challenged as to come up with the utter garbage just spouted by Respectabilia. This is a wind-up, surely?
you seem to be dodging a genuine inquiry. why would you not be gay otherwise? why would you object to your son’s homosexuality? clearly it is a different level of distaste or disapproval. just not harsh like the homophobes of nazy germany.
anyway, stop namecalling me when i’ve simply put a frank question to you guys. i wrote confidently, but it appears that you guys don’t approve this level of openness and free speech.
basic logic 101, isn’t it? i don’t have a problem with gingers, but not being prejudiced against them does not in fact turn my hair ginger. how is that so difficult?
b’shalom
bananabrain
This has already been more than adequately answered. If you do not agree with the answer it for you to show how you think it is wrong; not repeat the same question.
I would not.
So, being a Nazi is a matter of degree of “harshness” of opinions – not of holding to certain ideological convictions such as the inferiority or undesirability of certain social groups – for example, homosexuals?
However, to cut it short: Godwin’s Law asserts itself here. You automatically lose the argument.
I would suggest that you stop holding abhorrent views about other people if you want to stop being called – in all accuracy – a homophobe for holding such views.
However, you do not believe in openness and free speech for gay people, it would seem. An odd understanding of openness and freedom you hold – one which only seems to work your way.
And yet Abu FOGA evades the million dollar ($) question
“ARE YOU A MUSLIM?”
Here we go again.
So what is stopping you from engaging in homosexual activities if you find it acceptable? Is it something you ‘wouldn’t mind’ doing?
And is the one who finds homosexuality despicable not entitled to his ‘freedom of thought and free speech’?
This has already been adequately dealt with on a number of occasions, up thread. What is the point of repeating the same fallacious argument over and again?
Within the bounds that they do not actively promote the persecution of homosexuals as Islamists are doing.
Oh, and we have the right to declare such homophobic views as despicable without being accused of closing down homophobes’ rights and freedoms.
It’s not a one-way street.
Likewise, we have the right to declare your pro-homosexuality views as despicable without being shouted down and told to ‘fuck off’. Obviously, there was loads of ‘fuck off’ commands coming from your direction.
And why the caveat that ‘freedom of thought’ is OK so long as a, b, c, d, e…? This is not freedom but restriction. It goes without mentioning that the people above have not called for the persecution of homosexuals, but have merely stated their religious beliefs that homosexuality is a crime that is punishable by death if tried. That’s different to calling for people to kill or persecute homosexuals. If you dispute this, take these people to court for incitement to murder…
As for the ‘repeat’ question, then it’s being repeated simply because it’s being dodged. You’ve merely stated 2 statements; you are not gay, and you do not find homosexuality despicable. My question was to reject your second claim and to ask for your reasoning behind your statements. If you do indeed find it acceptable and palpable, what is stopping you from engaging in homosexual activities? Is it something you ‘don’t mind’ doing?
Much like if you were a vegetarian, but you see nothing wrong with eating meat and to you eating meat is acceptable. Is there anything stopping you from eating meat then, and why do you insist on always eating vegetables ? Would you happily eat meat if you were requested to do so? Likewise, would you happily engage in homosexuality if you were requested to do so, and if not, why not?
You are simply repeating you fallacious argument again, Respectabilia – this time dressing it up with simulated outrage at bad language.
I have no intention of addressing this false argument – as it has already been repeatedly dealt with, above.
I commend to you bananabrain’s comment, here:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/5420/comment-page-1#comment-16999
Strangely you seem not to want to address this point; but simply want to regurgitate over and again your there within already demolished argument.
Unless you are willing to move on and defend yourself against such counter-claims, there is little point in further engagement with you on this issue.
No Faris, all you have to do is answer the question nice and clear instead of posting a hundred times and yet not answering.
You are of course ‘wilfully misreading’ my post.
Repeatedly asking the same already demonstrably defeated point does not improve your case. It is signal of either you having not a leg to stand on, not being very bright, or of being a troll. Plausibly all three.
Good night.
Incidentally, my name is not Faris.
Yet again, you bother to post a 5 lined answer without actually answering.
Since you so desperately hold on to banabrain’s response, it wen’t like this: “i don’t have a problem with gingers [homosexuals], but not being prejudiced [I don't find anything wrong with homosexuality/I'm Ok with homosexuality] against them does not in fact turn my hair ginger [does not in fact turn me into a homosexual]. how is that so difficult?”
No one was saying you automatically turn into a homosexual/ginger because you don’t find it despicable. But one could ask, as has been the case (though ignored under 101 guises), if you find nothing wrong with ginger, is there anything stopping you from colouring your hair ginger? Have you considered colouring you hair ginger? If not, for whatever reason (e.g. for a ginger-hair party), would you happily colour your hair ginger)? If you find ginger hair totally acceptable and find nothing wrong with it, why don’t you colour your hair ginger for the party?
There is nothing stopping me from so doing. However, homosexuality is not a choice, but is a disposition as natural and as innate as heterosexuality.
The underlying assumption you are making is that being gay is a choice, like choosing to dye your hair.
Again, this is an illegitimate line of argument, as you are comparing a choice or preference with a natural disposition.
Ditto.
The problem with your counter-argument is that you are trying to use the example of a matter of preference or choice (hair dying) to illustrate your objections to a natural disposition of being (homosexuality).
The underlying assumptions you are making include the notion that homosexuality is only a preference rather than a natural disposition. In short, that homosexuality is unnatural. You now owe us some sort of evidence that this is the case (please do not waste my time with the counter by arguing that I owe it to you to show the natural dispositional character of homosexuality, as it is you that raise the claim that it is non-dispositional, so it is you that owe us some defence of this position). I realise that this is a common argument in the Islamist community, so there should be plenty of material you can find to defend your argument from preference or choice.
I await your argument with interest – especially, to give you fair notice, as there are considerable questions that might be raised about the moral worth and coherence of your attitude of despite towards homosexuality even if you can show it to be preferential rather than dispositional.
Whew! I guess, a [half] answer is better than nothing…
From those 101 questions posted above, it was always about choice. Unless you chose to ‘wilfully misread’ what was said earlier, you would know for example the comment ‘and our choices in life reflect that’. You have a choice to engage in or not to engage in homosexual behaviour. Something will either prevent you or push you to execute that choice. If you had nothing wrong at all with homosexuality, then you should be quite easily ready to engage in it for whatever reason. If you CHOOSE NOT to engage in it, why not? what is stopping you?
And don’t say a lack of desire, since a lack of desire doesn’t mean approval and acceptance (which is what you are claiming to be your stance on homosexuality), in fact with the human nature it means quite the opposite.
Or does your lack of desire for bestiality mean you are totally finewith/have nothing against bestiality?
Or does your lack of desire for eating human faeces mean you are totally fine with/have nothing against eating human faeces?
Or does your lack of desire for eating human meat mean you are totally fine with/have nothing against eating human meat?
Or does your lack of desire for incest mean you are totally fine with/have nothing against incest?
(btw, quite related to this, do you or do you not respect the rights of those who wish to engage in bestiality and incest, or are they heretics in your eyes?)
I think you may have missed out paedophilia and slavery for other anathemas for you to liken to homosexuality.
and, while we’re on the subject of what is “natural” or “unnatural”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
and, no, i have never considered becoming a penguin, or letting a dolphin near my nostrils, either. but no, this sort of thing doesn’t bother me, because it really isn’t any of my business.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Again, Respectabilia, you confuse preference with disposition.
I think Respectabilia may have missed my point entirely – homosexuality is not a preference it is a disposition. IF he is unwilling to address this claim, which answers his earlier questions, then there is little point in continuing.
Is this just all going over your head, R?
I don’t quite understand why some are dodging around the point being made.
It’s quite simple what is being said here actually; it is quite normal for those who are heterosexual to find homosexuality repugnant. This is initially, at the top of the thread, the notion which was being so abusively rejected with the comments like ‘if you don’t like it then F off’. But in reality, it is quite normal for heterosexual people to find it repulsive, just as we find incest repulsive as mentioned by R.
I don’t recall anything in this thread being about disposition per se (appears to be more like a diversion tactic), but if we do agree that heterosexuality is a disposition, then it is perfectly normal for heterosexuals to find homosexuality repulsive (and despite what you claim, you also find it repulsive), and hence they should not be told to F off from this country like heretics (I love the fact you used that word in your theme, it will always come back to haunt you!).
I note that several examples have been used above already (the vegetables and ginger!), but to me it is much like marmite; you don’t ‘prefer’ marmite (say you prefer jam instead), yet you claim to be fine with it. The result is that you would therefore not mind eating marmite if you had to, even though it is not your preference. The only reason why you would prefer to abstain from marmite at all costs would be if you found it distasteful, not merely because you didn’t prefer it.
So the bottom line is, it is quite acceptable and widespread for homosexuals to find homosexuality repulsive, and despite what those who wish to be PC about it say, they also find distaste in it. If they express this perfectly normal view of theirs, then they should not be told to F out of here. Otherwise one would indeed wonder if that freedom of thought/ heresy motto was placed there for show or decoration…
decoration indeed mate…
I think you’ve made a fairly straightforward argument without tryin to get all philosophical about it. It’s simple, if it is a choice to be hetro then clearly you dislike/despise/object to homosexuality.
If being a hetro is your ‘natural disposition’ then it is also in your nature that you will find homosexuality distasteful! Otherwise, it would also be in your nature to be bi. Simple! Now, if that is homophobia, then to hell with this BS about ‘freedom of thought’.
For the british gulams, heretic jews and shady ayrabs here, freedom of thought is a ‘privelege’ for gays and apostates only.
Tellin people to F off for airing their views of distaste towards homosexuality looks like the ‘one way street’ that Abu Fart this was so intelligently referring to. I call it ’2 can play that game’, hypocrites!
hasta lavista
oh by the way, it is banabrain’s natural disposition to be a heretic jew the way that the paedophiles believe it is in their nature to molest minors.