If you were living in an ideal Islamic society and you happened to see two young men kissing in front of the student center of your local university, what would be the acceptable response?
A) Ignore their PDA like you would any other couple. Get a room, you two!
B) Accept that while your religion may not approve of homosexuality, others may not share your moral restrictions and live their lives differently.
C) Murder them because Allah thinks gay people are icky.
If you picked “C”, welcome to the ideological paradise of Islam! At least, according to the speaker for Global Aspirations who was invited to present at the University of Manchester Students’ Union on the 13th of February.
1st year Middle Eastern studies student Colin Cortbus attended a public meeting organised by Global Aspirations at the Students’ Union last Wednesday 13th February and asked the chairperson of the meeting whether “in the Islamic society in which you strive for,” they would “feel comfortable, personally and morally, to kill a gay man.”
She responded, “Absolutely,” and added later that homosexuality was an “atrocity, because it goes against what God says.”
Oh, well, that settles it, I guess. Seeing two gay men kissing on the street is sufficient grounds for murdering them where they stand simply because you believe a book that says God says so. I watched the entire video (embedded below), and the women he’s talking to sound like they’ve completely lost touch with reality. To convert to Islam is one thing; to abandon reason and logic for what can only be described as 7th century barbarism attempting to pass itself off as spiritual enlightenment is another matter entirely.
I still can’t wrap my head around the fact the she’s laughing as she’s discussing murder as reasonable punishment, as if to suggest that his questioning the rationality of such disproportionate response to a victimless act represents some shortcoming on his part. In fact, she even told him that if she saw him kissing another man, she would have absolutely no remorse whatsoever for reporting him and his partner to the police knowing that it meant they would be killed shortly after. As for the severity of punishment, she said this:
“But it’s the fact that you can’t just see it as it is. People have this issue that the punishment, penal code, everything is so completely inhumane, but who even says that these things are inhumane?”
Well, the overwhelming majority of the developed world, for one. Most nations that experienced the Enlightenment as well as the incorporation of secular moral philosophy and rational discourse into the development of their codes of law tend to see the murder of consenting adults based on their sexuality as the sign of a society that embraces fear, ignorance, and brutality as its core values.
Besides, the very fact of homosexuality’s existence in places like Africa and the Middle East should provide good supporting evidence that we’re discussing something far more deeply ingrained into the human psyche than a voluntary “lifestyle choice”. I doubt very much these people would willingly choose a way of life that could so easily result in their untimely – and unpleasant – deaths.
When the debate moved onto the subject of the supposed negative effect of homosexuals on society, the chair declared that homosexuality “does not lead to social cohesion,” citing their inability to “pro-create” as evidence.
Well, I guess that weeds out the infertile, every woman past the age of menopause, and those who just decide not to have children. And forget sex for pleasure, because that’s just gross. Look, the only way society will become unhinged because of homosexuals is if you keep adhering to a religion that provides a convenient excuse for hating them. Like I said yesterday about the bus incident: the problem isn’t them … it’s you.
At this point, another attendee joined the debate, asking, “If they can’t have kids, why didn’t they die out ages ago?”
Hmmm … because homosexuality may be a combination of genetic traits that aren’t specifically passed down, but simply pop up from time to time? Or that it may not be specifically genetic at all, but a result of fetal development? Or how about because even gay people can get married to members of the opposite sex and have kids? Especially if you have a policy of murdering self-identifying instigators of this “atrocity”?
Though their page on the Students’ Union website makes no reference to Islamic beliefs, their Facebook page – which has 91 likes – describes them as: “A UoM society set up to discuss the aspirations of women, whether these can be achieved under the current system and showing Islam as an alternative.”
If any of these women identify as lesbians, and one of their aspirations involves “being alive”, then I’m not so sure this is the group for you. That whole “death to gays” thing interferes with that. “No offense”, of course. The head of Global Aspirations attempted to play down the implications of the discussion as simply “hypothetical” and claiming that the Mancunion was eager to perpetuate tired old Western stereotypes about Islam. This argument would make sense if the speaker wasn’t so crystal clear about her position on the murder of homosexuals for atrocities against God. There’s nothing hypothetical about it, and what it says about the basis of the belief system she considers infallible. Sorry. I know there are plenty of Muslims out there – especially in this country – who are just normal people living their lives, paying their taxes, and loving their children. Then there are these people whose views should be prevented from getting any traction in this day and age if we are to continue enjoying the benefits of a modern secular society.