London mosque faces criticism over 'men and young girls only' charity fun run

Posted by Cuddlyaxe@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 260 comments

[-]

CosmicCitizen0@reddit

UK Muslims are basically the same as evangelical Christians. The only reason they vote for liberal or progressive candidates is because of how Hitlerite the conservatives are. There has to be genuine initiative from the Muslim community to fight against the conservative Muslims in these countries. Because, when stuff like this happens, the conservative right of the West uses these incidents to conclude "Islam is antithetical to LGBTQ/human rights/ or other things. Which is obviously false. There are a lot of progressive Muslims both in the UK and the US, like Mamdani and Zara Sultana, who are fighting for the progressive cause.

[-]

Achmedino@reddit

Islam is antithetical to LGBTQ/human rights/ or other things. Which is obviously false.

If you believe in what is written in the Quran (i.e. if you are a Muslim) then LGBTQ and human rights are obviously antithetical to Islam. Muhammed himself called for the death of unbelievers, and he sure didn't have a lot of positive things to say about LGBTQ people.

[-]

BendicantMias@reddit

The same could be said of Christians. And several other religions.

[-]

novataurus@reddit

Not a Christian, but got any New Testament citations calling Christians to violence against those of other faiths or nonbelievers? That would be a new one for me.

[-]

imunfair@reddit

I think he's just saying LGBTQ would be antithetical to Christianity and other religions too, not necessarily that they call for violence. Some denominations of Christianity try to ignore that stuff but the bible definitely doesn't look kindly on homosexuality.

[-]

Tangata_Tunguska@reddit

I think he's just saying LGBTQ would be antithetical to Christianity

Based on what?

[-]

imunfair@reddit

and all are contested

I can't imagine who's contesting 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, I think most literal denominations would acknowledge that as a list of things not to be, and homosexuality is one of them. As I said, some denominations try to take a kinder and more inclusive approach, but if you're not picking and choosing your own interpretations the bible seems pretty clear in its stance on the issue.

Just to be clear I say this as someone who thinks the bible is a funny concept since it's a bunch of old scrolls picked and chosen by a council of men in relatively recent history. But I think if you're going to pick a bunch of scrolls and call the resulting text infallible word of god, then you should acknowledge what it says even if the rule is unpleasant.

[-]

Tangata_Tunguska@reddit

Corinthians 6:9-10,

It's even contested that it is talking about homosexuality at all. It's impossible to know because the word seems to be made up (Arsenokoitai).

Just because some bigoted translator writes down "homosexuality", doesn't mean that was the intended word. And Paul was a bit of a dick in general.

the resulting text infallible word of god

Not even the pope says this.

[-]

imunfair@reddit

Not even the pope says this.

Many Christians do, Catholics are just one quirky denomination that put a living human dude on a pedestal.

[-]

Tangata_Tunguska@reddit

Many Christians do

that doesn't make their bigoted beliefs intrinsic to Christianity

[-]

imunfair@reddit

that doesn't make their bigoted beliefs intrinsic to Christianity

Many denominations would have a problem with you not thinking the bible was infallible, so yeah it is intrinsic to the faith of many Christians even if you somehow believe in the bible but also think it's flawed.

Thinking the bible is flawed while being a Christian is a bit like believing god needed a big bang to help him create the universe though, you're just picking and choosing parts of the religion to make your own because you don't like the strict interpretation.

[-]

Tangata_Tunguska@reddit

Many denominations would have a problem with you not thinking the bible was infallible, so yeah it is intrinsic to the faith of many Christians even if you somehow believe in the bible but also think it's flawed.

How is it intrinsic to the faith if only a minority of the faith hold that belief? That makes no sense.

Thinking the bible is flawed while being a Christian is a bit like believing god needed a big bang to help him create the universe though

I don't understand what you're saying here. That's the modern Christian interpretation as well, that god used whatever science says i.e the big bang in this case

[-]

imunfair@reddit

How is it intrinsic to the faith if only a minority of the faith hold that belief? That makes no sense.

That's the modern Christian interpretation as well, that god used whatever science says i.e the big bang in this case

I don't know what particular denomination you belong to, but you don't seem to understand there are a lot of people who would highly disagree with you within Christianity, the positions you're espousing are very much the far liberal end of the faith, where you just plug in whatever views you're comfortable with and discard the bits of the religion that make you uncomfortable. I would imagine your denomination is very much pro-homosexuality, regardless of what the bible might say.

[-]

Tangata_Tunguska@reddit

the positions you're espousing are very much the far liberal end of the faith

Non-literal interpretation of the bible is standard for the Catholic church, the largest denomination of Christianity by far. I literally even said this earlier up the comment chain

[-]

imunfair@reddit

The usual logic I've seen is that if god really is all powerful his word would find a way through the ages unpolluted, otherwise as I said before the bible is just a bunch of old scrolls assembled by a council of guys relatively recently. It's basically an all-or-nothing on whether you believe the bible actually has religious value or is just a historical artifact.

Catholicism is one of the most relativistic versions of Christianity because you guys believe in a lot of random stuff that isn't in the bible and get told how to interpret it by whatever current-day man happens to lead the church at any given moment. There's no objective standards in Catholicism it's just a subjective and fluid set of guidelines - if it gets too unpopular they change the standards to meet current accepted social beliefs to avoid becoming out of sync with secular humanity and tossed aside.

[-]

novataurus@reddit

You aren't wrong about the idea of that list, but there are two pieces to it.

Translations there vary, especially of the words "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi". Those are sometimes translated as "homosexual" and "effeminate," respectively.

But research into use of those terms shows some interesting things. First, other liturgical authors who do explicitly discuss homosexuality don't use that terminology. Secondly, there were lots of other words for homosexuality at the time, which were not used here. And thirdly, it seems to be a word that is used relatively rarely, and when it is used, is used in a way to connote "sexually abusive dominance" or "extortional sex".

If Paul meant "homosexuality", it is a bit odd that Paul used a relatively esoteric term here, instead of any of the other more commonly used terms that directly referred to homosexuality.

Similarly, malakoi sees use in a lot of ways that have nothing to do with being effiminate - ironically, it is used for men who "indulge too much in please" or who "shy away from fear". Someone who is too lustful? Malakoi. Someone who shirks responsibility for luxury? Malakoi.

Again, if this was intended to express the notion that "effeminate" men wouldn't make it to heaven... well, his word choice was interesting.

Which is true? No idea, and for me it doesn't really matter as I don't follow that faith.

But the idea of words being translated, interpreted, etc. over time is fascinating to me, especially when it is for something as historically powerful as religious text.

And of course, ironically, the very next line is:

> And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

These are not, in an of themselves, Eternal Sins.

[-]

imunfair@reddit

Yeah it's clear from the list that none of them are unrepentable sins, but still sins that it would be incompatible with the faith to continue doing once a believer. That's the rift between biblical literature and kinder interpretations that lean the "born that way" direction.

It's something I can't reconcile either since there's a pretty important part early in the bible about it not being good for man to be alone, and if we assume that current knowledge is correct then you're basically mandating that gay people live a life of romantic solitude to avoid acting on their impulses and sinning. And since close romantic relationships are a core element of human existence I'd say "not good" is a bit of an understatement - requiring a life of solitude would be torturous for many people.

The nuance of the greek is interesting though, thanks for that.

[-]

travistravis@reddit

Sins that it would be incompatible with the faith to continue doing once a believer

Really though, isn't that all sins? Jesus never really said "okay, so go and come on back next time you're doing a big sin". It was always "go and sin no more". Though I guess at the time he was alive, most sins would have been easily solved with a few doves or something.

[-]

imunfair@reddit

Really though, isn't that all sins? Jesus never really said "okay, so go and come on back next time you're doing a big sin". It was always "go and sin no more".

Well there are some versions of Christianity where you sort of just sin and then ask for forgiveness, at least that's how people live it.

But my point was more about the list, for example "don't be a thief" is pretty straightforward, you aren't born a thief, but if the idea that you're born gay is true then "don't be homosexual" is a bit harder to pull off.

[-]

TraditionalGap1@reddit

And the other three quarters of the bible?

[-]

marcusaurelius_phd@reddit

Does the pope eat pork?

[-]

TraditionalGap1@reddit

You're looking for consistency from religion?

[-]

marcusaurelius_phd@reddit

I'm pointing out that the Old Testament is considered non-binding by the vast majority of Christians.

The Quran is considered eternal and non reformable by the vast majority of muslims.

[-]

TraditionalGap1@reddit

That's a pretty gross simplification, is it not? My understanding is that Christians consider the non-moral parts of the old covenant (ceremonial and civil stuff) non-binding but that the moral laws and teachings are still valid.

And, frankly, given the number of sermons I've heard as a non-christian taken from the Old Testament, I'm not sure I buy the implication that the Old Testamwnt has no relevance or sway with Christian theology and thought.

[-]

Tangata_Tunguska@reddit

They don't hold any real weight or directive. That's why Christians can eat shellfish etc

[-]

BendicantMias@reddit

☝️👌

[-]

Thin-Limit7697@reddit

Christ telling Peter to put his sword away when he cut that roman's ear. Seriously. The context it that it was cited to say that Peter still having that sword meant that christians should be ready to fight other faiths to death.

Assholes will always find a way to be assholes in the name of their faith.

[-]

Achmedino@reddit

Well, what's the ratio of Christian fundamentalist terror attacks to Islamist ones? I wouldn't be surprised if it's one Christian terrorist for every 10 Muslim terrorists.

I won't deny that the bible is also very anti-LGBT, but the prophet of Christianity didn't call for the death of infidels, and surely wasn't personally involved in waging wars. Not to mention that many Christians today, particularly in Europe don't take the bible that literally and live very secular lives.

Either way, I'm don't believe in any religion myself, so whataboutism is useless to me.

[-]

m0ngoos3@reddit

Fun fact, For the US, the ratio is roughly 7 Christian linked terror attacks to every three Muslim based.

That's only because there are a lot more Christian fundamentalists in the US.

All Abrahamic religions are violent as hell when you let the fundamentalists run free.

But wait, there's more. Hinduism and Buddhism also have violent extremists. Which is fucking weird for Buddhism.

[-]

sleeper_must_awaken@reddit

This statement: "...For the US, the ratio is roughly seven Christian linked terror attacks to every three Muslim based." is not based on any kind of fact. Can you give me a credible source?

[-]

m0ngoos3@reddit

This is a good start

https://web.archive.org/web/20250911165140if_/https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/306123.pdf

then this,

https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

and finally this.

https://pt.icct.nl/resources/online-resources?category=36&page=0

One of the main problems here is outlined in the paper below. It makes it harder to classify, so I mostly used anti-abortion vs known jihadist attacks. I might have been far too generous with the Jihadist attacks, the actual ratio is more heavily Christian than Islamic.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5437&context=flr

[-]

sleeper_must_awaken@reddit

First link doesn't even mention Christian-based terrorism at all. It does mention far-right though. You seem to mistakenly think far-right terrorism is religious terrorism?

From the second link: "Third, religious terrorism includes violence in support of a faith-based belief system, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism, among many others. As highlighted in the next section, the primary threat from religious terrorists comes from Salafi-jihadists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. "

Mate, the links you yourself provide disprove your statement. Why are you wasting my and everybody else's time? Was this dreamed up by an LLM?

The third link doesn't even show me any content, just links to crime statistics.

[-]

m0ngoos3@reddit

Ah, I see the issue here, you're European, right?

Here in the US, the extreme right wing is almost entirely made up of Christian Nationalists.

I separated out the overt white nationalist attacks, because while most US racists are religious, it's not the primary justification for the attack.

Anti-abortion terrorism, however, is religiously motivated. I can say with 100% certainty that those are Christian fueled terror attacks.

Then you have the religiously fueled attacks on LGBT+ groups. Almost every single one carried out by some form of Christian Nationalist.

The people counting just don't think that those sorts of attacks are religiously motivated, because American Christianity is repugnantly invasive. It's latched onto society like some sort of leech, and like a leech, it numbs the victim to its presence.

[-]

scorpionbb@reddit

Cool still waiting to see 7 videos of Christian’s beheading people for blaspheming Jesus for every 3 videos of Muslims beheading people for insulting their prophet. Any day now. Maybe videos of Christian’s in Africa being slaughtered by Muslims can be countered with all the Muslims being slaughtered by Christian videos.

[-]

UInferno-@reddit

So it only counts if you see videos of it. Ignore the fact that the largest muslim nation isn't the big scary ones in the Middle East or Africa but Indonesia.

[-]

sleeper_must_awaken@reddit

And it's going jolly well with the Muslims in Indonesia. No problems whatsoever. Oh well, there is this report that shows Christians still face significant persecution and violence from Muslims in Indonesia: https://www.opendoors.org/research-reports/country-dossiers/WWL-2025-Indonesia-Persecution-Dynamics

Let's have some survivors talk a bit, see how it really is going:

"At the time, we believed that an electric substation nearby had exploded, but soon after, we began to feel the heat and pain in our bodies … we had no idea that a bomb had just gone off in front of our church.”"

Ari (Open Doors local partner) on murders in Central Sulawesi (On 11 May, 4 Christian men were murdered in Kalimago village, Central Sulawesi.)

[-]

grandBBQninja@reddit

Hi.

Here are some images of the torture of Muslims being tortured by presumably christian Americans. Granted, it's not exactly beheading, but close enough. And these aren't the worst images from Abu Ghraib...

[-]

2dudesinapod@reddit

Why behead with a sword when you can behead with a bomb that has swords?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

One of those is western, righteous and pure according to Americans, the other is dirty and barbaric.

[-]

phaedrus910@reddit

The CIA hasn't started paying Christians to make beheading videos.

[-]

pants_mcgee@reddit

What Christian linked terrorist attacks? Bombing/shooting up abortion clinics?

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

Terrorist groups in Northern Ireland in the recent past

[-]

grandBBQninja@reddit

For example, yeah. And many mass shootings AFAIK.

[-]

pants_mcgee@reddit

Which mass shootings were Christian inspired?

There’s the Jewish synagogues that have been attacked, hell the Mormons were just targeted. There’s just not much of an analogue for Islamic inspired terrorism from Christians in the U.S., or anywhere really. The Troubles is about it for what comes to mind.

Right wing and white suprematist terrorists may be ideologically driven, but it’s not from Christianity per se. They just happen to be Christian because the majority of America and The West is.

[-]

grandBBQninja@reddit

Of course it's not 'christianity per se'. Christianity advocates for kindness and empathy. Something that most churches have abandoned.

[-]

azriel777@reddit

Cool, now do Europe.

[-]

Perfect_Cost_8847@reddit

Media summaries also report that MI5 (UK) splits its counterterror work roughly 75 % Islamist extremist / 25 % extreme right-wing.

Which is insane because Muslims only comprise 6% of the nation.

[-]

odious_as_fuck@reddit

I always hear that the bible is anti-LGBT but is it actually specifically anti-LGBT? I know it has a bunch about the ‘sin of sodomy’ but thats all I have heard that is related to LGBT

[-]

hurrrrrmione@reddit

The Bible verse I most commonly see cited (as a queer atheist) as anti-LGBT rhetoric is Leviticus 18:22, which is usually translated in a way that clearly forbids men having sex with each other.

There are other passages that get cited, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

Thanks for showing that first specfic verse I can see why many see that as anti lgbtq

[-]

odious_as_fuck@reddit

Thanks for the info!

[-]

apophis-pegasus@reddit

Well, what's the ratio of Christian fundamentalist terror attacks to Islamist ones?

In places like the US far right Christian associated terror is the largest percentage. And other Christian majority nations are often stable.

There were and are several militias though

[-]

sleeper_must_awaken@reddit

This is absolutely incorrect. Please provide a credible source.

[-]

apophis-pegasus@reddit

Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists

[-]

ExArdEllyOh@reddit

You can boil it don to Christ's message being "Love thy neighbour" and Mohamed's being "Make thy neighbour submit".

[-]

Metum_Chaos@reddit

From his Last Sermon: “"O People! Lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore, listen carefully to what I am saying and take these words to those who could not be present here today."

"O People! just as you regard this month, this day ,this city as sacred ,so regard the life and property of every Muslim a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that he will indeed reckon your deeds."

"Allah has forbidden you to take usury, therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital is yours to keep .You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequality. Allah has judged that there shall be no interest and that all interest due to Abbas Ibn 'Aal-Muttalib be waived."

"Every right arising out of homicide in pre-Islamic days is henceforth waived and the first such right that I waive is that arising from the murder of Rabiah ibni al-Harithiah."

"O men! the unbelievers indulge in tampering with the calendar in order to make permissible that which Allah forbade, and to prohibit what Allah has made permissible. With Allah the months are twelve in number. Four of them are holy, there are sucessive and one occurs singly between the months of Jumada and Shaban."

"Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will be able to lead you astray in big things so beware of following him in small things."

"O People it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well never to be unchaste."

"O People! listen to me in earnest, worship Allah, say your five daily prayers, fast during month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat .Perform Haj if you can afford it."

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a White has no superiority over a Black nor a Black has any superiority over a White except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly."

"Do not therefore do injustice to yourselves. Remember one day you will meet Allah and answer your deeds. So beware, do not astray from the path of righteousness after I am gone."

"O People! No Prophet or apostle will come after me and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore O People! and understand words that I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and the Sunnah and if you follow these you will never go astray."

"All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly."

"O Allah, be my witness, that I have conveyed your message to Your people."

As part of this sermon, the prophet recited to them a revelation from Allah, which he had just received, and which completed the Quran, for it was the last passage to be revealed:

This day the disbeliever's despair of prevailing against your religion, so fear them not, but fear Me (Allah)! This day have I perfected for you, your religion and fulfilled My favor unto you, and it hath been My good pleasure to choose Islam for you as your religion. (Surah 5, Ayah 3)

The sermon was repeated sentence by sentence by Safwan's brother Rabiah (RA), who had powerful voice, at the request of the Prophet and he faithfully, proclaimed to over ten thousand gathered on the occasion. Towards the end of his sermon, the Prophet asked "O people, have I faithfully delivered unto you my message?" A powerful murmur of assents "O Allah! yes!"arose from thousands of pilgrims and the vibrant words "Allahumma Na'm," rolled like thunder throughout the valley. The Prophet raised his forefinger and said: "O Allah bear witness that I have conveyed your message to your people."

“

So yeah, you’re wrong.

[-]

Medical-Ad1686@reddit

I ain't reading all that

[-]

Metum_Chaos@reddit

TLDR: the notion that Islam is about making your neighbor submit is wrong, just look at its prophets last message before he died.

Or if that’s too long for you: research before you post

Or if you need something even shorter: wrong

[-]

Medical-Ad1686@reddit

He also said anyone that leaves his religion should be killed. Also raped a 9 year old.

[-]

Metum_Chaos@reddit

See, this is why you should research before you post. You just keep spouting wrong things. These are factually incorrect.

[-]

Medical-Ad1686@reddit

The fuck you know about the religion I grew up in?

[-]

Metum_Chaos@reddit

Let me guess, you’re an ex Muslim?

[-]

Medical-Ad1686@reddit

Nope. Still am

[-]

psy135@reddit

The prophet's last words before he died: "Turn out all the disbelievers from the Arabian Peninsula" sahih bukhari 3168

[-]

TheJewPear@reddit

Yes, but how many Christians living in Europe seek to turn their countries to theocracies and enact the death penalty for homosexuality and sexual promiscuity? Not that many,

[-]

TraditionalGap1@reddit

Funny you should ask...

[-]

sleeper_must_awaken@reddit

Yes, there are certainly some fringe Christian groups and individuals who advocate for theocratic ideals or Old Testament punishments, including the death penalty for homosexuality. But they represent an extreme minority, far outside mainstream Christian theology or practice, especially in democratic societies.

The key difference is that their stance isn’t supported by the New Testament or by any major church doctrine. In modern Christianity, coercion and violence are seen as incompatible with the teachings of Christ.

[-]

TraditionalGap1@reddit

In modern Christianity, coercion and violence are seen as incompatible with the teachings of Christ.

Belied by basically all of history

[-]

sleeper_must_awaken@reddit

There have indeed been Christians who harmed in the name of religion, and I don’t deny it. But if history means anything, it shows that Christianity also gave rise to hospitals, universities, the abolition of slavery, a moral foundation for human rights, and many reform movements when no one else would.

In the last century alone, secular regimes, explicitly denying religious authority, committed genocides, mass purges, famines, persecutions of believers, intellectuals, entire social classes. The Khmer Rouge alone wiped out nearly a fourth of Cambodia’s population.

Christianity has stains, but it has brought a lot of light. Your take, that Christianity equals violence, is simply a form of very selective memory. The better test is: do an ideology’s principles, when lived well, tend to protect the weak, dissenters, minorities? Christianity at its best does. The fringe groups who weaponize scripture betray it, not define it.

[-]

Lawd_Fawkwad@reddit

Not many?

Christian-Democracy is a European political movement that's historically fairly progressive even if a tad conservative, in Canada you have a significant Christian population and they're not going theocratic.

What you describe is mainly a US phenomenon that's also been replicated in places with strong US protestant influence and a lot of poverty (Uganda, Phillipines, Brazil).

Even then, Christianity is not a monolith.

Catholics are 22% of all American Christians and mostly lean center-left, even within the US plenty of denominations are moderate.

The crazies you're thinking of are souther pentecostal Christians, but those same people were trying to set up a slave state 200 years, enforce apartheid 80 years ago and have always been authoritarian to an extent.

[-]

TheJewPear@reddit

Yeah, I’m aware, hence why I made this comment. People behaving like Christianity is just as bad as Islam seem to ignore the fact that the world is plagued with Muslim theocracies while there aren’t really any Christian theocracies around.

[-]

Thin-Limit7697@reddit

Do you really believe this is a small group?

[-]

TheJewPear@reddit

Yes, I believe it’s a far smaller group than thd one among Muslims, at least in Europe.

[-]

KalaiProvenheim@reddit

Certainly the biggest Christian-majority country

The laws in Africa with death penalties for those who have gay sex too much were pushed for by American organizations like ADF

[-]

Inthe5@reddit

Uhh…

[-]

UInferno-@reddit

Well given Florida has attempted to pass the death penalty as a viable punishment for pedophilia in the same breath as passing a law that declares being trans in front of a child as pedophilia.

[-]

marcusaurelius_phd@reddit

Not a single majority or formerly majority catholic+protestant country punishes homosexuality with death or prison.

Most Muslim countries do.

Islam is incompatible with human rights.

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

As mentioned below Uganda has the death penalty for lgbtq people

[-]

marcusaurelius_phd@reddit

Congratulation, you've found the one (1) exception in 100+ countries. Do you really think that proves anything?

[-]

bearkin1@reddit

Only Iran and Saudi Arabia punish homosexuality with death. You are being disingenuous by trying to make it sound like the entire middle east does.

[-]

marcusaurelius_phd@reddit

You're the one who mentions the Middle-East; I didn't.

[-]

bearkin1@reddit

As per my conversation with the other user, add Brunei and that's it, no other Muslim countries, including all of those outside of the middle east.

[-]

marcusaurelius_phd@reddit

I said "death or prison."

See map: https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/

You're disingenuous, and for what? To advocate for an abbhorent ideology?

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

Countries doing something does not make a religion awful. Christianity is not abhorrent because of Ugandas actions and nor Islam when some Muslim countries punish lgbtq with death or prison

[-]

marcusaurelius_phd@reddit

Ouganda is an outlier and is clearly not representative, 1 in 100+ countries with current or former Christian majority.

Go ahead and google maps of the following:

inbreeding
child marriage
repression of homosexuality
genital mutilation
criminalisation/persecution of atheism / apostasy
general religious intolerance

... and it's all 90% correlated with islam or more.

And it's not done IN SPITE of islam, it's done in accordance with its teachings. The Catholic church for instance, which covers the majority of christians, does not condone killing people for their sexuality or religion, even if it disapproves of them. On the other hand, you'll be hard-pressed to find any significant muslim organisation that clearly and unequivocally condemns doing so. They may, at best, mumble some vague call to tolerance under pressure, just like when the Ottomans were forced to outlaw slavery.

[-]

Defective_Falafel@reddit

https://www.statista.com/chart/17587/countries-where-homosexuality-can-result-in-the-death-penalty/

YOU are being disingenuous by not only forgetting Yemen and Afghanistan, but also:

conflating "muslims" with "Middle-East" which the OP didn't even say, allowing you to conveniently skip past Africa
omitting the "or prison" from his quote, the inclusion of which DOES make his statement about the Middle-East generally true (exceptions like Israel and Jordan aside).

[-]

bearkin1@reddit

You are utterly clueless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_homosexuality#In_current_state_laws

The exact 2 countries I listed are the only 2 countries that punish homosexuality by execution, even among the all the other Muslim countries.

Yemen does not execute solely for execution (they will execute for married people for homosexuality since it combines adultery, but unmarried homosexuality is punished by lashes and prison, not execution.)

Afghanistan does not punish homosexuality with death either, so you're making things up. No known execution for homosexuality has occurred since 2001, 24 years ago.

omitting the "or prison" from his quote

This is called being disingenuous. If I say "All soccer players either play athletic or are pedophiles", do you see anything wrong with the statement? It implies to the reader that a large majority of soccer players are pedophiles when in reality it's just that the majority are athletic and tiny minority are pedophiles. There are 53 Muslim-majority countries, and 2 execute for homosexuality. Bundling in execution with prison to describe the majority is called being disingenuous. It's propaganda. It's fear-mongering.

[-]

BehemothDeTerre@reddit

Not a single majority or formerly majority catholic+protestant country punishes homosexuality with death or prison.

Unless that's changed recently: Uganda punishes it with death, Russia with prison.

[-]

sleeper_must_awaken@reddit

I had to look that up. As a Christian, I am surprised and disgusted by this law enacted in Uganda. Myself, and billions of Christians worldwide would not agree with this interpretation of the Bible.

[-]

ImpossibleToe2719@reddit

There's no law against homosexuality in Russia. There is a law against LGBT propaganda.

[-]

-Hi-Reddit@reddit

Islam never had a new testament moment, or as agreeable a prophet as Jesus is.

I dislike organised religion but that Jesus guy was a pretty cool dude. He didn't fuck a child either so that's a point on his side.

Islam will likely never have a new testamant.

[-]

Psudopod@reddit

They have a prophet as agreeable as Jesus. His name was Jesus. He's still in there, just as a prophet, not as a Son-Of-god trinity whatever all that is.

[-]

Dexinerito@reddit

No they don't. Muslims don't believe in anything that Jesus said, the extent to which Jesus is present in Islam is limited exclusively to what Mohammad said that Jesus said 600 years after Jesus.

Here's a PhD of Islamic studies, Gabriel Said Reynolds talking about it

[-]

Psudopod@reddit

He's still there. I'm not saying any of this stuff is, like, historically accurate documentation. It's all made up after the fact.

[-]

Dexinerito@reddit

I understand what you're saying, and what I'm saying is that this made up version is not as agreeable as the historical version

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

I do have to disagree with you. From what I can tell only two things are unanimously agreed by scholars about what historical Jesus did:Jesus was baptised and Jesus was crucified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus I do not think those two things would be enough to say the Islam version is less agreeable. I would also not describe it as made up even though I am not a Muslim becauseas at the end of the day Islam may be right and the version they have might have been Jesus and might have said the things they said thats the thing about religion it can't be proved one way or the other it is about faith and what people beleive

[-]

Dexinerito@reddit

The consensus is somewhat narrow, yes, but identification of sayings that can be plausibly traced to Jesus isn't beyond critical scholarship and the article that you linked even says that

Islam may not be right. Islam is one of those few religions (the only other one that I could identify would be Mormonism) that is verifiably false and it is so because of the claims that it makes

Islam claims things about other religions that are provably false (alleged Christian identification of Mary as God, alleged Jewish of Ezra as Son of God) and those are central to Islam as they're within the Quran belief in which is an essential prerequisite to islam. Islam's version of Jesus is even saying things from apocrypha that are proven forgeries from later ages like the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

I will just point out Jesus is a prophet in Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

[-]

MobileSuitBooty@reddit

don’t worry there’s still a lot of weird shit going on in the bible, haha

[-]

sleeper_must_awaken@reddit

The Bible is a weird book for those not in the Christian faith: Talking snakes, miracles, resurrection. Man, it all sounds like myth.

But for those who do believe, the real paradox is that the world itself becomes the weird one. A world that worships self over self-sacrifice, calls moral restraint “oppression,” and sees love as mere chemistry. A world that mocks faith yet hungers for meaning, that preaches tolerance but cancels disagreement, that celebrates freedom yet feels more enslaved than ever.

From a Christian perspective, the Bible isn’t what’s strange, no, it’s the only thing that makes sense in a world that seems to have lost the plot.

[-]

ExArdEllyOh@reddit

Not really true though of the major denominations in the UK, the Anglicans in particular. The new Archbishop of Wales is an open lesbian.

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

The COE still consider it a sin iirc and still doesnt allow weddings of lgbtq people in churches just blessings or something like that(and even that change was highly controversial with huge debate at the churches decison making body.)

[-]

sleeper_must_awaken@reddit

True, but there’s a very important distinction.

In the Quran and Hadith, unbelievers and homosexual acts are explicitly condemned, often with calls for punishment including death in some interpretations. That’s why, in several Islamic countries, those laws are still enforced literally and why those in the LGBTQ+ community fear for their lives.

In contrast, Christianity also considers sex outside a man-woman marriage sinful, but the New Testament rejects any form of violence or coercion. The focus is on moral conviction, repentance, and compassion, not on punishment.

So while both traditions have moral codes around sexuality, only one still contains doctrinal and legal elements that can directly justify violence today.

[-]

grandBBQninja@reddit

Yes? Christianity is also anti-LGBTQ. Doesn't make it any better.

[-]

BehemothDeTerre@reddit

The same could be said of Christians.

Yes. That's not a defense, however.
If anything, it points towards the necessity of secularism.

[-]

Thin-Limit7697@reddit

"We are a laic state, not laicist"

This is the answer you would get from pushing for secularism in my country.

[-]

Tangata_Tunguska@reddit

The main denominations of Christianity hold that the bible isn't the literal word of God, and is influenced by its mortal authors and the era in which it was written. This includes Catholicism.

Does Islam say the same about the Quran?

[-]

bearkin1@reddit

Can you please share some quotes from the Quran how it says "human rights are antithetical to Islam"? Or are you just making that up?

[-]

Achmedino@reddit

Quran 2:191: "Slay the infidels wherever you find them" is only one of the many fun quotes from the Quran and hadiths.

[-]

nomadWithoutAnimals@reddit

You’re cherry-picking that verse completely out of context. The verse does not command Muslims to “slay infidels wherever you find them” in general. It’s part of a specific historical passage about self-defence during warfare when Muslims were being persecuted and expelled from their homes in Mecca.

If you actually read the surrounding verses (2:190–193), the meaning becomes clear:

So the instruction was about defending against those who attacked Muslims first, not attacking peaceful people or “infidels.”
The verse explicitly forbids aggression and limits fighting to those who are actively fighting against Muslims.

Pulling one sentence out of a wartime context and ignoring the verses before and after is the textbook definition of cherry-picking. It’s like quoting “there is no peace” from a speech that actually says “there is no peace without justice.” It reverses the meaning completely.

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

Wow it is incredible how different your version is and how it shows the opposite message to what they said.... Great job calling that out

[-]

bearkin1@reddit

The quran is pretty clear that murder is only ever condoned if it's in self-defense against aggressive attackers or persecutors, but as always, people will quote half the verse to try to change its meaning.

[-]

celloh234@reddit

Redditor googles "bad quran hadiths out of context" instantly becomes expert in all things islam and muslim people

[-]

bearkin1@reddit

Congrats, you literally picked the exact same cherry-picked quotes that every single Islamophobe cherry picks when they are trying to push an agenda by leaving out the context that makes it clear the verse is not about killing random non-believers on the street.

[-]

-Hi-Reddit@reddit

Can you show me the Christian groups like Islamic State that rape slaves in the name of their God? No? Didn't think so.

[-]

CosmicCitizen0@reddit

I didn't say that. I said Western right-wingers say that. Which I disagree with.

[-]

Metum_Chaos@reddit

I am specifically calling out this disinformation, so that others can be more aware of how this is incorrect.

Islam’s emphasis on human rights are based on the principles of human dignity and equality. This article has a good rundown, with sources from the Quran: https://www.whyislam.org/human-rights-in-islam/

[-]

Own-Angle1009@reddit

uses these incidents to conclude “Islam is antithetical to LGBTQ/human rights/ or other things. Which is obviously false

How is that obvious at all? The Qur’an itself is pretty clear on women, LGBT, and many others, and Muslims in the UK don’t attempt to sanitize their religion at all, as you said yourself. Are you really talking about what Muslims believe, or about what you feel they should believe?

[-]

Zellgun@reddit

I don’t know about yall western countries. In my Muslim majority country, the fight between ultraconservative Muslims (mostly rural, lower income Muslims) and the moderate Muslims (urban, educated, higher income) is a very real thing. It’s not too dissimilar with the rise of right wing evangelicals in politics although here we call it the green wave

And I see this in neighboring Muslim countries and in the Middle East. There is a growing movement of more progressive Muslims among the youth that is slowly manifesting in grass movements and social activism. Young Muslims who get the opportunity to travel abroad usually will import progressive values back home with them. And when I spent some time in the west, it’s the young muslims who grow up around progressive values, that will bridge the gap and build a stronger relationship between Muslims and non Muslims.

Point is, keep treating Muslims like they’re one of you, especially the young ones, and they’ll be the ones who will help everyone get along.

[-]

Mstinos@reddit

In my western country it is especially the young muslims that are getting more conservative. Stricter in beliefs, and also go to the mosque more. That could be a disenfranchising issue as you say.

[-]

Zellgun@reddit

Going to mosque more isn't inherently a bad thing lol, moderate Muslims go to mosque just as often, and I'd argue radical Islamists spend less time in the mosque (because they spend less time doing actual worship in general, instead they wave guns around and police unaccompanied women).

I'd argue that you're only aware of what people consider the "bad apples" usually rejected in their environment, poor parenting, and turn towards what they're more familiar with, which usually is the echo chamber of their own conservative circles. I guess I don't really spend time with this group either when I lived in North America.

The young Muslims I'm talking about are the ones you don't hear about. Cause they're just busy with life lol, studying, making ends meet, doing what we're all doing. They're basically invisible. I'd argue that majority of young Muslims are like this and most value the stability and their life they built in their new country rather than bringing the old country here lol.

[-]

abnegatethesloths@reddit

Would you really say the moderate Muslims are winning when Islamic influence and conservatism is spreading in Malaysia? Even on the sub there was discussion on how Malay culture has adapted to favour religious interpretations and culture, and that adaptation is good. When you look at this in conjunction with the dwindling minority population wouldn’t you say it’s hard to justify such a conclusion? We’ve already seen increasingly conservative rules and common place social manners overriding the cultural practices of the nons or even tourism with what’s happening in Langkawi.

[-]

Metum_Chaos@reddit

Mosques and libraries are one of the only third place spaces left that offer events and socializing that I can easily access

[-]

FMLwtfDoID@reddit

I would think more a ‘younger, and disenfranchised community’, but only because there is a similar push for those types of young folks to convert to Catholicism in the US, of all things. And 99% of the time they were already Christians, just that they were in the Protestant-Evangelical camp.

It’s like they think there is some hidden ‘power of religious hierarchy’ or ‘borrowed authority’ that comes from being Roman Catholic. They love the grand churches, and the trappings of Catholicism, but they just cannot let go of their Prosperity Gospel early education. Especially the young men. Adult converts are always viewed with a heavy dose of skepticism by their born and raised Catholic peers because it is not a religion that embraces proselytizing or converting people.

[-]

Rovcore001@reddit

They love the grand churches, and the trappings of Catholicism, but they just cannot let go of their Prosperity Gospel early education.

Funnily enough in my country there is a growing offshoot Catholic movement that caters specifically to that audience. They operate like Charismatic Catholics but lean heavily towards evangelical practices - lots of proselytising and borderline cult-like behaviour.

[-]

FMLwtfDoID@reddit

Is it Deus Vult? I hate those fuckers. I don’t understand how they can still call themselves Catholic when they don’t believe in the legitimacy of the pope. That, by definition, makes them Protestant, right?

[-]

XKryptix0@reddit

You mean Opus Dei? Deus Vult was a battle cry during the crusades.

[-]

FMLwtfDoID@reddit

Yes, you’re correct. I always wanna call them the wrong thing

[-]

Thin-Limit7697@reddit

Don't know how it works at your countries.

But mine is mostly Catholic, so it's the "default" religion everybody is expected to be part of, so not all catholics are really into the whole thing and just stay in their religion from the inertia of their parents also being catholics.

[-]

wq1119@reddit

An irony is that Salafism is slowly becoming an European phenomenon, because the majority of Muslim countries are now clamping down on it (even Saudi Arabia who was responsible for financing and empowering them in the first place), so Salafis now rely on Europe's freedom of speech laws and the Western liberal noble savage view of Muslims to continue preaching their extremism.

The West's freedom of speech laws that Salafis despise so much and want to be overthrown is what tolerates their lunacy that even Saudi Arabia is clamping down on, this is some of the biggest ironies in human history that few people are aware of.

[-]

Uneeda_Biscuit@reddit

Amazing comment

[-]

Uneeda_Biscuit@reddit

I’ve met more chill Muslims from Muslim countries than some 2nd or 3rd gen Muslims in the west. Basically those rural conservative Muslims immigrated and the prosperous ones stayed home.

[-]

CosmicCitizen0@reddit

Point is, keep treating Muslims like they’re one of you, especially the young ones, and they’ll be the ones who will help everyone get along.

Definitely agree with you. The government should introduce initiatives and programs that "welcome" people in their country, so people don't become ghettoized. Most of the problems in the UK about Muslims could be solved had the Muslims not been ghettoized; once again, it's largely the fault of the UK government, not "barbaric" Muslims.

Though I am not thoroughly aware of the socio-economic condition of American Muslims, I know that they are much more progressive culturally and integrated into American society than British Muslims. And it's good for social cohesion if people are integrated into society.

[-]

BendicantMias@reddit

Singapore does this, but the West won't like how they do it. Because it basically undermines the liberal ethos of multiculturalism, and also involves a very big market intervention.

The Singapore govt. basically dominates its housing market, and under its Ethnic Integration Policy (otherwise known as the CMIO policy - Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others), it assign housing quotas designed to FORCE intercultural mixing. Singapore simply does not allow people to live wherever they want - the govt. decides how the major ethnicities will be distributed.

This basically contradicts the laissez-faire idea in the west of letting people be free to live where they want. Cos when given that choice, people naturally assort themselves with more of their own, creating concentrations that eventually gain significant political power.

You can see this phenomenon even outside religion or ethnicity. For instance, gated communities are an example of this based on wealth - rich people clustering with other rich people. Or even here online, echo chambers are an example of people with similar worldviews choosing to cluster together

Opposites DO NOT Atrract - quite the opposite, in fact. If you want people to mix, you're gonna have to force them to do so. Cos being with people who are actually, meaningfully different from you is very uncomfortable.

[-]

ugly_dog_@reddit

liberal multiculturalism is just monoculturalism with a thin coat of paint. this is closer to true multiculturalism

[-]

kugelamarant@reddit

The majority is still Chinese and this basically dilutes minorities voting power.Malays in PAP are token only.

[-]

illEagle96@reddit

They aren't token, I do believe they got in through merit and the occasional ball sucking

[-]

onespiker@reddit

Will say a mix of those three.

[-]

MobileSuitBooty@reddit

I live in a city that has a big, and growing, arab diaspora.

I’m not muslim myself but I organize with local organizations in the area and a lot of the times it’s not the rural or uneducated. It’s the business owners.

Small business owners love to vote against policies that would benefit working class peoples.

[-]

wq1119@reddit

Wow a recent Arab diaspora in Nicaragua?, are they mostly Christians or Muslims? (like how the majority of Arabs in LatAm are Christians), and overall what is encouraging immigration to Nicaragua of all places?

[-]

MobileSuitBooty@reddit

I’m in southern california but my family is from nicaragua, i should ask because i know there’s a growing chinese population in nicaragua

[-]

wq1119@reddit

I was asking you this because I am still unacquainted with Nicaragua, fascinating country though!, and yeah the growing Chinese population is related to the increasing ties between the PRC and the country, and the ill-fated attempt to build the infamous Nicaragua Canal to compete with the Panama Canal.

[-]

monkwrenv2@reddit

Small business owners love to vote against policies that would benefit working class peoples.

It's amazing how true this is across basically all ethnic/religious groups.

[-]

onepareil@reddit

In the U.S., Muslim households do have a slightly higher average household income than that of the overall population, but lower than Jewish and Hindu households. There’s also quite a bit of variation, with more Muslim households living on <30k USD a year than there are making >100k USD a year.

[-]

BendicantMias@reddit

Young people in general tend to lean progressive in most countries - and grow ever more conservative as they get older.

Economically frustrated people also tend to become more conservative, even hardline.

Basically progressivism is a very difficult attitude to sustain. It basically demands, well, progress - not just in terms of the societal attitude you want to encourage, but also for the very people who you want to hold those attitudes. They need to be constantly encouraged with reasons to be happy and optimistic about their own lives so they care about that of the Other.

In a sense, conservatives may have a point when they decry progressives as decadent - that's not merely a reflection of what they think of liberalism, but also that it might require decadence for more people to be liberal.

There's an extreme example of this in scifi - the Culture series of books by Iain M. Banks. That's about a society that's pretty much the ultimate liberal utopia. But perhaps it's no accident that the Culture has to be a utopia in order to be as liberal as it is. Progressivism ironically might be very privileged...

[-]

DracoLunaris@reddit

Flailing around looking for a scapegoat when faced with a crisis is something that's that has nothing to do with ideological lines. It's what's caused the Terror just as much as being what caused the Holocaust. When things get bad, heads will roll (metaphorically or not) and it can just as easily be progressives doing the chopping as it can the reactionaries.

[-]

DracoLunaris@reddit

A resurgence, really. Things where trending that way before the Islamic revival of the late 20th century

[-]

IndependentStop3453@reddit

I did a tour in Turkey 2023 and our guide and bus driver were telling us how a lot of Turkish people are concerned about the rise of ultra conservative muslims especially from the refugees coming through. I learnt a lot on that trip about the religion (on my own request) and realised we had been fed a lot of nonsense about them in the west

[-]

sayleanenlarge@reddit

It's the same divide in the UK and France too. Take away any identity politics, and the struggle is basically between the educated and the uneducated, which also tends to split small town/city.

[-]

wq1119@reddit

UK Muslims are basically the same as evangelical Christians.

Evangelicals are terrible and are a threat both towards my Christian faith and to society as a whole (hell, being raised in Evangelical/Pentecostal cults is what made me discover reddit back in 2012 to post on /r/Atheism, but redditors insisting in comparing Islamic extremists to Evangelical fundies just makes me roll my eyes.

I got permabanned from /r/news for saying that obnoxious preachers screaming at people on campus are not the moral equivalent to those who crash passenger airlines on the World Trade Center.

Both Islamic and Christian extremists can be bad and should be opposed, but trying to portray American Evangelical fundies as being identical to ISIS is not helping in sending your message to the public at large, the world is very aware of the different results of blaspheming Jesus vs. blaspheming Muhammad.

[-]

hannabarberaisawhore@reddit

Salman Rushdie. The fact that even South Park couldn’t do it. It’s very clear who the extremists are.

[-]

Supercollider9001@reddit

They do. Islam and Islamic countries and culture are very diverse and there are constant political and cultural battles going on.

Evangelicals is a good comparison because this kind of right wing Islam is also an astroturfed ideology spread for political purposes. In this case it’s more geopolitical and imperialist.

[-]

-Hi-Reddit@reddit

Somewhere between 30 to 40% of British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal.

Where are the "progressives" you speak of?

[-]

beyondmash@reddit

Where you getting this from?

[-]

-Hi-Reddit@reddit

https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HJS-Deck-200324-Final.pdf

[-]

beyondmash@reddit

Right wing nonsense jargon. This company is full of shit it puts McDonald’s toilet to shame.

[-]

UInferno-@reddit

So the other 60-70% don't. A majority.

[-]

-Hi-Reddit@reddit

https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HJS-Deck-200324-Final.pdf

[-]

BroaxXx@reddit

Islam is antithetical to LGBTQ/human rights/ or other things

But it is. The same as Christianity and most religions. It's the people that have progressed a lot and now are tolerant and accepting (progressive muslims included). But at the core all these religiosn are explicitely antithetical to LGBTQ/human rights.

[-]

Roxylius@reddit

The problem is the government is not working hard enough to crack down on extremism from both sides

[-]

alien_farmer1@reddit

when stuff like this happens, the conservative right of the West uses these incidents to conclude "Islam is antithetical to LGBTQ/human rights/ or other things. Which is obviously false.

No, it is not false. It is indeed the truth. The "progressive muslims" that you talk about are generally Muslims from the secular countries or to be secular.

Islam strictly bans LGBT and against it %100. It is in Quran. Also child marriages and slavery is allowed and it is in Quran. Killing infidels is allowed and it is in Quran.

At the age of information, with just a quick search you can find those in Quran. The "progressive muslims" are the ones that aware these rules cannot be applied in modern world. Even the conservative muslims today around the world are aware of it.

But there is a second group and they are the problem, they are the ones which defend sharia laws(means laws in Quran). You can still find conservatives against LGBT or etc. but they won't do harm on them. But sharia lovers will indeed do any kind of harm because that's their truth according to the holy book.

[-]

Funkliford@reddit

"Islam is antithetical to LGBTQ/human rights/ or other things. Which is obviously false

Friend, Islam IS fundamentally antithetical to LBTQ/Human rights. The Quran and Hadith both proscribe the death penalty for gays and apostates, being gay is still a death sentence in the vast majority of Muslim nations. It supports slavery -- including sexual slavery i.e rape, as well as child marriage -- It's prophet "married" and raped a 9 year old girl.

Which is obviously false. There are a lot of progressive Muslims both in the UK and the US

1,) This is false dichotomy, there's a difference between Islam and any one Muslim, who may or may not be observant. Same with Christianity and Christians, Buddhism and Buddhists, and so on. 2.) If you looked at any of the publicly available polling done you'd be shocked just how conservative there are. Progressive Muslims are the extreme minority.

*I can source every one of these. If you want to get into it.

[-]

grandBBQninja@reddit

I'm sorry but you really can't use the word "obviously" when you say Islam isn't anti-LGBTQ or anti-human rights. While obviously not all muslims are the same, there literally exist sharia courts that sentence women to prison or corporal punishment for indecency.

One could argue these courts don't represent true Islam, but even so they're at the least very connected with the religion.

[-]

Imperator707@reddit

Obviously false? You don’t know anything about Islam. Even the most moderate of Muslims are majorly opposed to anything to do with LGBTQ. It’s not a fringe ultra-conservative position. The Quran explicitly states homosexuality is a sin, and all Muslims are required to follow the Quran to the letter.

[-]

hurrrrrmione@reddit

The Quran explicitly states homosexuality is a sin, and all Muslims are required to follow the Quran to the letter.

This is also true of the Bible, and Christians are supposed to follow the Bible. But there are both Muslims and Christians who support LGBT rights, including Muslims and Christians who are LGBT themselves.

[-]

Imperator707@reddit

Can we go 5 minutes without bringing up Christianity when Islam’s doctrine is rightfully criticised? End of the day, all religions are a cancer to modern civilisation. At the very least, most Christian countries have managed to adopt liberal and secular values, the same cannot be said for Muslim countries.

And even though you are right, the percentages of lgbt acceptance in Islamic communities are FAR lower than Christian ones.

[-]

BehemothDeTerre@reddit

End of the day, all religions are a cancer to modern civilisation.

Agreed.

At the very least, most Christian countries have managed to adopt liberal and secular values

Less so. Most of those countries are more atheistic than christian. The christian-majority countries are still very oppressive.

[-]

Imperator707@reddit

I was more focused on European countries which are mostly built upon Christian culture. But you are right that many Christian majority countries in Africa and South America don’t treat the LGBT folk so kindly. Then again, they are also less economically and institutionally developed than European ones.

[-]

Days_End@reddit

This is also true of the Bible, and Christians are supposed to follow the Bible.

Every time people bring this up I think they just don't vaguely understand one of the largest differences between the Bible and the Quran. The Quran is the word of god, not figuratively god wrote it. The bible is "divinely inspired" and as such was written through flawed humans as such as a degree of mutability that Islam doesn't have.

[-]

marcusaurelius_phd@reddit

It's only the old testament, and the Pope does eat pork.

[-]

BehemothDeTerre@reddit

Plenty of homophobia in the NT, too. More than in the OT, in fact, IIRC.

[-]

hurrrrrmione@reddit

It's not only the Old Testament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

[-]

beyondmash@reddit

Tbh most people I know early 20s Muslim and non Muslim are anti LGBT. So it’s not limited to the religion but obviously that factors in. Just my perspective.

[-]

SilverDiscount6751@reddit

my guess is that progressives give them what they want and will call islamophobia on anyone that gets in their way.

[-]

ExArdEllyOh@reddit

how Hitlerite the conservatives are.

FFS the last Prime Minister was a Hindu and a third of the Front Bench was black or Asian.

[-]

psy135@reddit

But islam is antithetical to LGBTQ/human rights. This is a case where the conservative muslims are the ones holding the view that truly aligns with the religion. The fact that there are some progressive muslims claiming otherwise does not change the fact that the quran "the supposed literal word of god" and "the sahih hadith" (the collection of Mohammed's sayings) contain very explicit verses and sayings against LGBTQ and human rights.

Source1 and source 2

[-]

Few-Past6073@reddit

Muslims are not liberal.... look at 90% of Muslim countries, especially the countries that throw gays off roofs lmao. There are exceptions but it's not the rule. In fact majority are more conservative than the local conservatives especially in the UK and Canada.

[-]

TheJewPear@reddit

Obviously false? Tell me you know nothing of Islam without telling me you know nothing of Islam.

[-]

Bartellomio@reddit

A major part of Islam is the belief that Mohammed is the closest thing to perfection that a man can be, and all men should follow his example.

Mohammed married a six year old girl.

[-]

EarlobeGreyTea@reddit

Why isn't this framed as a fun run with "mens" and "children" groups? Are boys 12 and under not allowed to run? Or "London Mosque faces criticism for excluding women from fun run"? Where does the "men and young girls" quote come from? I get that it is incredibly sexist - but "men and young girls" suggests something that this is not.

[-]

-Hi-Reddit@reddit

You dont even know if boys are allowed to run, yet you ASSERT that you know this is being framed incorrectly...

[-]

EarlobeGreyTea@reddit

I did look at a better article that states that all children below 12 are allowed to run.

[-]

HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit

The fact that they choose to do it this way may raise eyebrows, but the guy in the article is right; there's no difference between this and hundreds of gender-exclusive events and organisations existing in the UK. This seems like a clear case of hypocrisy by the critiques.

[-]

Totoques22@reddit

Sadly I think your right

[-]

Emissairearien@reddit

"No difference" ? Lol

Two of the events they list as examples are restricted because of their message and goal ; to encourage women to do sports.

The other one is a gender exclusive swimming lesson, either because women want to have a safe space, OR, because religious people are not allowed to have interactions with the other gender

Religious rules are a mess so it's no suprise we end up with things like this, personally it bothers me

[-]

HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit

I don't like religion or religious rules either, but yes, no difference. What you think about the rules they self-imposed isn't relevant to the letter of the law, and you wanting to suppress them just because you think it is weird would be religious persecution.

Which I am all for, but let's persecute ALL religion into non-existence, it's all batshit bronze age insanity.

[-]

Emissairearien@reddit

What you think about the rules they self-imposed isn't relevant to the letter of the law

Except that of them may contradict the law, that's the problem

you wanting to suppress them just because you think it is weird would be religious persecution.

Never said anything of the sort, only that i dislike it.

but let's persecute ALL religion into non-existence and not just when it is practiced by brown people

I'm not saying we should persecute anyone, only that there are limits that religious people should respect and that they should adapt to some aspects of the life in laic countries, just like people would do in muslim countries. All religions are already pretty much following that rule but Islam is way more vocal and provocative about it than the others in Europe

[-]

HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit

So your limit is male adults and girls doing any activity together?

[-]

Emissairearien@reddit

Again, you misunderstood.

There are some religious rules that are not compatible, but nothing forbids adult men being with childrens.

What bothers me is the clear distinction they do between men and women, and how they should interact as little as possible, if at all.

[-]

HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit

I don't think I misunderstood. I agree, religion is fucked up and have many fucked up rules. But there's nothing illegal about self-segragating according to sex, and anyone who don't want to do that can just simply chose to not follow a religion that have those rules.

[-]

Key_Poem9935@reddit

“for men and their daughters to encourage familial bonding“ that’s not the reason bud.

[-]

HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit

It's a charity fun run for fathers and daughters. What do you think they're doing?

[-]

Key_Poem9935@reddit

No, it’s allowing the mixing of men and young female children because they’re not considered women. Women aren’t allowed not because it’s an event for “fathers and daughters”. They’re not allowed because the mixing is frowned upon.

[-]

HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit

There's nothing in the article supporting that, but ok, assuming that is true; again, how is this different from e.g. "gender-segregated swimming sessions at Orthodox Jewish facilities like Manchester Jewish Community Centre.", or any gender-segregated activity? They're segregated because they don't want to mix men and women - the exact same thing, and completely up to the people themselves if they want to participate. It's only an issue when it is muslims however.

[-]

Emissairearien@reddit

On one hand, women are free to do whatever they want BUT CHOSE to do these classes to be with other women, feel more safe, etc whatever their reason may be. Key word is "CHOSE"

On the other hand, muslim women are FORCED to do "women only" things because they are FORBIDDEN to interact with men, and are the ones that must go out of their way to respect that rule. Meaning that to go to the pool and be fully respectful of her religion, she musn't go where men may be, she HAS TO do it with other women, otherwise she just can't

See the difference ?

It's funny how you immediately assume it's discrimination though, i suppose you have some religious background but you should see beyond that, because your comparison is essentially like : "when the country locks criminals in prison nobody reacts, yet when lock a criminal in my basement everybody loses their minds"

[-]

HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit

Except they have the freedom of choice to follow the religion in the first place. If they don't like the rules of the religion, they have the choice to ignore them. Forcing them would literally be illegal. They choose to follow the rules. And it's not Muslim women complaining, it's unrelated people from the outside looking in.

I'm as unreligious a person as you can find. And it's objectively legal discrimination to interpret and apply laws differently on different people.

[-]

Emissairearien@reddit

Except they have the freedom of choice to follow the religion in the first place. If they don't like the rules of the religion, they have the choice to ignore them. Forcing them would literally be illegal. They choose to follow the rules of the religion they believe in.

This is false. The huge majority of religious people are born in a religious family and just follow the trail left by their elders, especially since they hence grew up in a religious environment. In short, here, a muslim woman would have to go both against every religious lesson she's been taught until then, and against her own family and likely friends because they would rather choose their faith rather than their own family...

Even on paper it is very complicated for muslim women, so obviously in practice it is also difficult though not as bad as they could be, as our developped laic societies still allows them some room for thoughts and growth, something most muslim women in the world do not have access to.

it's not Muslim women complaining

If we ignore those that do complain ; they're not allowed to. Same reasoning as my previous paragraph.

But it's objectively legal discrimination to interpret and apply laws differently on different people

The exact same laws are being applied. The thing is that islam wants more than it can be given, and some people interpret that as discrimination, but these are just part of our societies and they must be respected by everyone.

If they want to """freely""" follow their religion to the letter though, there are more than enough places on earth that will let them do just that

[-]

HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit

The fact that Muslim women don't make the choice due to how they've been raised or because of social pressure from family and community is different from not having the choice. They could make the choice and be legally protected doing so. The fact that they struggle making the choice doesn't mean that you should inject your own point of view and make the choice for them.

Except the exact same law isn't being applied the same way if some religions get to have gender and age exclusive events - religious or not - while Muslims does not.

[-]

Key_Poem9935@reddit

Religious institutions are not and should not be allowed to practice gender segregation.

[-]

HamunaHamunaHamuna@reddit

That's every religion ever though. Take that up with the laws of religious freedom rather than hypocritically try to interpret and apply laws differently for different people.

[-]

Key_Poem9935@reddit

Christians in the UK or Jews are not allowed to host events that exclusively disallow a certain gender to participate.

[-]

UBC145@reddit

These guys are doing 0 favours for the way the Muslim community in the UK is perceived. I’d like to assume that there is an innocent explanation for this, but man the optics are terrible.

[-]

8styx8@reddit

Yeah, older males and girls under 12 is such a 'family values' look that the organiser embraces.

[-]

travistravis@reddit

It's a charity fun run. Weirdly, adult men can have girl children too.

[-]

Totoques22@reddit

That’s not the issue

The problem is they outright show adult women aren’t welcome because they are supposed to be at home or something

[-]

Uneeda_Biscuit@reddit

The Muslim community isn’t hiding anything, they’re being themselves. It’s the locals in the UK who are trying to do this “they’re just noble savages who haven’t yet learned our ways” apologetic behavior. We’re cooked because we clearly fear conflict.

[-]

YourBestDream4752@reddit

We’re cooked because we clearly fear conflict.

“We”? Mate, you’re American, who tf is “we”?

[-]

kugelamarant@reddit

I assume there shouldn't be free mixing between adult males and females.

[-]

UBC145@reddit

Yeah that’s what I realised after I made the comment - which is obviously not an “innocent explanation”. I’m ex-Muslim and stuff like this reminds me why I left. It’s a backwards religion that spits at the idea of social progress and gender equality and there’s no way I can get behind that.

[-]

Uneeda_Biscuit@reddit

Good for you friend, happy for you.

[-]

robin772@reddit

Liberals like yourself will defend them no matter what so why would they ever change. Your kind (liberals and lefties) will cave to them every time without fail.

[-]

tisallfair@reddit

You've responded to the wrong person.

[-]

robin772@reddit

No I didn't he basically equated the entire thing as a miscommunication and a pr issue instead of purposeful violent sexism.

[-]

UBC145@reddit

Wtf are you talking about? You know nothing about me.

[-]

BendicantMias@reddit

A spokesman said: “The suggestion that our event breaches the Equality Act is entirely incorrect.

“Single-gender sporting events are lawful under Section 195 and Schedule 23 of the Act, and are common across the UK, including the Women's Run Series, Nike Women's 10K, and gender-segregated swimming sessions at Orthodox Jewish facilities like Manchester Jewish Community Centre.

“The Muslim Charity Run operates under the same legal framework as these established events.”

🤔🧐

[-]

sweatyminge@reddit

It's not a single gender event, they allow girls under 13 to run.

[-]

beyondmash@reddit

Nah that’s weird man. What business has a 7 year old got running alongside a 40 year old.

[-]

travistravis@reddit

It's a charity fun run. a 40 year old man can easily have a 7 year old daughter.

[-]

Dogulol@reddit

they are running with their dad and brother? girls under 12 are not considered woman, they are kids and dont have to follow religious law under islam. Which is why kids and men are allowed just not woman. The pedo thing is retarded but the sexism is real regardless

[-]

beyondmash@reddit

Ohh fair enough man

[-]

8styx8@reddit

Are girls under 12, and men not two different genders to you and that muslim charity run organiser?

[-]

Dogulol@reddit

children are a seperate category, they arent considered "woman" in the religious sense they are children and dont have to follow religious law

[-]

faceless_masses@reddit

"The 5km run being held in London’s Victoria Park, billed as “inclusive” and “family-friendly”, is only open to men and girls under the age of 12."

What the actual fuck? Please tell me this is some sort of poorly marketed daddy daughter fun run.

[-]

Dogulol@reddit

its misleading. The idea isnt that its some sort of sexual thing where men seek girls under 12. More so that its men only but girls under 12 arent "woman", the are kids who dont have to cover etc. so they can also participate. Its backwards but in a sexist way not in a pedo way.

[-]

Dark_Knight2000@reddit

You are right, it’s a sexist thing. This is actually a thing for a lot of other religious events. Women are treated as second class citizens and not allowed to participate in a lot of stuff but little girls are exempted when they’re young.

It’s still absolutely fucked though. No place for this stuff in a western country.

[-]

travistravis@reddit

You say this but it sounds extremely similar to a lot of the anti-trans discourse now.

[-]

sleeper_must_awaken@reddit

... for other *islamic* religious events.

(fixed that for you)

[-]

Dogulol@reddit

no place for this stuff anywhere, just bc its a "western country" doesnt really mean anything. Western countries are responsible for the most heinous shit in history, the idea that they have some moral supremacy over the third world is ridicilous considering the colonial and postcolonial world orders they set up (through violence and exploitation) is the main thing responsible for the difference in social liberalism found between the west and the rest. But otherwise you are right. Also important to mention this isnt exclusively a muslim thing, its just as prominent in orthdox judaism and other certain sects of christianity.

[-]

Emissairearien@reddit

They said "western countries" because those are the countries we live in, it's a "clean your own house before telling others to do it" kind of thing. Plus, most western countries managed to distance themselves from religious obsession so of course it's frustrating when it comes back, even if it's with a different shape, in comparison the less developped countries are usually much more religious

Also, just saying, but don't forget that conquest is a normal part of human civilizations, the west was simply the one to win the race. Of course that doesn't mean what was done should be ignored, but it's important to keep in mind that every empire, country, tribe, etc did the same at their own scale and probably would have done more if they could.

And >this isnt exclusively a muslim thing

Yes that's true, but muslims are still by far the ones separating genders the most and they are more visible as they are more numerous, so when we talk about things like this they'll often be the ones to be criticized

[-]

shameless_steel@reddit

Western countries have the world industrialisation, common law and the internet.

They absolutely were a net positive on the world.

[-]

whoisthisman69@reddit

I think "men" includes boys as well, but we know why that headline is the way it is.

[-]

hannes3120@reddit

Could've written "men and kids" - still sexist (as it's supposed to sound since that's what it is) but without the whole pedophile angle

[-]

isthmius@reddit

They could have, but the article includes a quote from Kellie Jay Keen, a woman best known for organising anti-trans rallies that for some reason Nazis keep showing up to, so I'm not trusting their intentions here.

[-]

Neomataza@reddit

Well, less of it, tbf.

[-]

faceless_masses@reddit

Does "men" also include men?

[-]

Archarchery@reddit

Basically, they see adult woman as existing only for sex, so women past the age of puberty are barred from the “fun run.”

[-]

WhatWouldTheonDo@reddit

That would be my guess, but it’s weird that more than one person was involved in the planing and nobody stopped to think about it.

Ahmed: Hey Ali! It’s all work and prayer nowadays we should organize something, do something fun for once.

Ali: I hear you, but If the mosque is going to sponsor this it needs to be open for all our members. And it needs to be fun, like a competition. What about a 5K for everyone?

Ahmed: great idea! And yes, for everyone. Except women though, can’t have scantily clad women around. Naturally.

Ali: Naturally. No fraternizing either, can’t have boys and girls intermingling. I mean, you remember how it was being young right? Wink Wink

Ahmed: Then it’s settled then. No boys and no women. Print the flyers!

5 days later: London mosque faces criticism over men…

[-]

beyondmash@reddit

Nah this is weird man. Just make it men only then. You’re just setting up the pedo jokes at this point.

[-]

imunfair@reddit

I for one am not surprised that sweaty bouncing women in sports bras are not included in a muslim "fun run". I think given the past pedo issues in the UK some people are reading that intention into the headline when it's just a strict religious/morality thing.

[-]

ugly_dog_@reddit

the immediate assumption of pedophilia is a bit telling

[-]

berryer@reddit

it is a religious group, after all

[-]

Taniwha_NZ@reddit

Not really, we've been bombarded with actual pedo case for the last 20 years, and there's been specific mulsim grooming rings in England that have had a lot of publicity.

You'd be pretty weirdly innocent if you didn't look at this run's description askance.

[-]

ugly_dog_@reddit

literally no evidence that muslims are disproportionately involved in csa and pedophilia. you literally only believe this because of sensationalist reporting and your own personal biases.

[-]

CaptainOktoberfest@reddit

Can I ask you when Muhammad married Aisha?

[-]

ugly_dog_@reddit

cool, now do the catholic church

[-]

ExArdEllyOh@reddit

Several years older than Aisha and recently married.

[-]

ugly_dog_@reddit

so you think its ok to impregnate teens? by your logic wouldnt that makes you a pedo? 😬

[-]

ExArdEllyOh@reddit

I don't think that at all but I do think that there are differing degrees of ickiness. And old Mo is really quite icky indeed.

[-]

ugly_dog_@reddit

so you admit that christianity is a religion of slightly more socially acceptable pedophilia? or are your standards just arbitrary? why is one just dismissible as "just how it was" but the other is emblematic of the character of a whole group of people?

can you point out where exactly mohammad bragged about her young age? how do you know joseph wasn't "icky?" are there detailed accounts of joseph and mary's domestic life? please illuminate this for me, i'm very curious as to where you're drawing these conclusions from.

just admit you dont give a shit about pedophilia and just need an excuse to hate brown people. if they're all pedophiles you don't need to feel bad when their babies starve to death, right?

[-]

CaptainOktoberfest@reddit

Ya I'm down to criticize the Catholics, you're definitely doing whatboutism though so back to the actual conversation. How old was Aisha when she was married as the third wife of Muhammad?

[-]

ugly_dog_@reddit

its not whataboutism to point out that you can cherry pick nasty shit from any culture or religion. your argument is that pedophilia is endemic to muslim culture, yet you can only provide anecdotal evidence instead of actual statistics proving your claim.

yes, aisha was 9 years old. but pointing that out while ignoring the broader context is dishonest and specious. young marriage was not only common during that period, it was considered a necessity, and it certainly wasn't only muslims doing it.

if i'm an ancient roman farmer, and infant mortality is 50% and life expectancy is low, and i need 3 children minimum to take care of my property and myself into my old age, that means my wife has to endure 5-7 full term pregnancies. factoring in miscarriages, infertility, low life expectancy, and infant mortality rates, it is only logical to start conceiving as early as possible.

trying to judge ancient history by present moral standards doesn't make sense. people did lots of horrific shit back in the day. child labor, genocide, slavery, mass murder, and feudalism were all widespread characteristics of major societies (including european ones) up until relatively recently. yet you wouldn't call barbarism endemic to european culture, would you?

meanwhile, in the modern day, a royal figure in your own country has been very credibly accused of pedophilia, and yet no steps have been taken against him. would it be fair to say then, that british culture condones pedophilia? (hint: the answer is no)

[-]

Metum_Chaos@reddit

Weird how his most ardent enemies didn’t mention anything about his marriage either. The same enemies who tried to pick apart the most tiniest of flaws

[-]

Curious_Claim_2285@reddit

Lol they always cite other religions dirty laundry as if it detracts from their own.

[-]

CaptainOktoberfest@reddit

Some groups have way worse dirty laundry, and Muhammad was a terrible man. May shame be upon him.

[-]

Taniwha_NZ@reddit

I never said anything about *actual numbers*, I said there's been a huge amount of news about specific incidents. Anyone living in the UK will have been exposed to a ton of media coverage.

There's nothing in what I wrote to tell you what MY actual opinion is. You seem overly sensitive.

[-]

Dogulol@reddit

the runs description is retarded and meant to paint it as some sort of pedo incident where men seek 12 year olds. The reality is 13 is the age where you have religious obligations in islam. I know this bc im an exmuslim who grew up in a muslim country. This is more so the case that this event is open to children and men but not woman bc they deem it haram for woman, which girls under 12 are exempt from. Its still sexist but the pedo thing is simply racism and bigotry.

[-]

ExArdEllyOh@reddit

I think most people would assume it's really just the Allan-botherers being their usual misogynistic selves but are making paedophile jokes partly because of how it's phrased.

Of course with the grooming gang problem kiddie fiddling can't be ruled out.

[-]

PrinterInkConsumer@reddit

Ironic.

[-]

sequeezer@reddit

I swear I saw a dailymail article earlier today critiquing the left of not being able to condone this event. Now it’s the opposite to enrage you. I swear this constant need to try to divide and anger for engagement will be our downfall. You cannot win by engaging either way.

[-]

ExArdEllyOh@reddit

To be fair it's difficult to run if you're wearing a black tent and if any of the men see so much as a woman's ankle the sudden rush of blood from brain to nether regions may kill them.

[-]

DimensionOk_BSS@reddit

🤣