I'm so glad you posted this! The film maker came and screened it at my campus last spring. I found it though-provoking, moving and very, very well done. He has a facebook network for it and will post updates about how it's doing; it seems like it's been really well received, which is wonderful.

"How open people in the US can be about their sexuality (which of course varies widely) isn't necessarily the standard that can be used to judge other countries and communities. Religious and cultural context is really important and shapes how gay and lesbian people see their own identities and desires for their lives."

Being openly accepted as the social and legal equals of heterosexuals is _the standard_ of LGBTQI rights. As a lesbian I find your attitude to be dehumanizing. Only repression lowers peoples expectations about realizing their basic human dignity.

No "cultural context" can justify the overt and clandestine violence, discrimination and oppression that drives sexual and gender minorities to be less "out". That applies as much in the 'exotic ' Muslim world (talk about 'othering') as in the U.S. or Europe.

The director of Jihad for Love had for example the gall in an interview with 365gay.com to suggest that the situation where married couples have homosexual affairs in the Arab/Muslim world is acceptable. I found that terribly sad and unjust in fact.

It frightens me to see people accept so blindly apologetics like Jihad for Love which are ultimately a futile exercise in squaring a circle. The bottom line is the Qur'an has the same violent attitude towards homosexuals as displayed in the Torah and Bible.

LGBTQI acceptance ultimately lies in secular, universal notions of rights.

I wrote...

"The director of Jihad for Love had for example the gall in an interview with 365gay.com to suggest that the situation where married couples have homosexual affairs in the Arab/Muslim world is acceptable. I found that terribly sad and unjust in fact."

To clarify he was not discussing voluntary polyamory, but rather explicit extramarital affairs. I found it disturbing and immoral to so disparage the interests and rights of the heterosexual/faithful partner. Infidelity and violating marital vows is no way to spread rights for sexual minorities.

The interview is at:
http://www.365gay.com/features/for-gay-muslims-a-jihad-for-love/

Victorianox,

i just read that interview and it just seems to be that the filmmaker was trying to explain that the struggles and problems facing queer folks in islam are different than those faced, say, in the US. it doesn't seem he's condoning these barriers, as you took it.

further, i know plenty of very spiritual queer people (like, well, me) who would take issue with what i'm taking to be your blanket condemnation of spirituality. i mean, i grew up knowing some really keen out gay ministers (albeit, they were UUs)...

i mean, it seems like you're mad at the filmmaker when he says:

They’re in a completely patriarchal Arab society where coming outwould involve tremendous risks not just to themselves but also their families, so they chose to stay invisible. The conflict is profound.

i think you need to go back and read it. just because folks are facing struggles doesn't meant their realities don't matter.

like, wow. the filmmaker wasn't disparaging a damned thing, he was just stating how things are... and what he documented... he clearly isn't happy with the reality, but recognizes that (a) what it is is what it is and (b) the dynamics is islamic culture are different than in judeo-christian culture. shoot, the dynamics are different in jewish culture than in christian culture.

what exactly are you taking issue with again?

It doesn't seem as though Parvez is condoning affairs, but saying it exists.

I think Miriam's comment is insightful because we DO view our expectations as a litmus. I don't think she is suggesting gay Muslims should never desire being out or that they don't; but living in a society that threatens death for being out deserves a deeper look into the situation. A pride parade isn't what will fix the situation. Especially at this time when Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan are politically threatened by our military presense, repression will be even more acceptable.

"further, i know plenty of very spiritual queer people (like, well, me) who would take issue with what i'm taking to be your blanket condemnation of spirituality. i mean, i grew up knowing some really keen out gay ministers (albeit, they were UUs)..." --puckalish

First note the (likely unconscious) prejudice the Abrahamic religions instill in your comments where "spirituality" is equated with their theistic, supremacist views. 'Faith', 'family' and 'values' are other words narrowly appropriated by Abrahamic groups and abetted by our media institutions. I in fact consider myself a very spiritual person.

Yes I do have a fundamental problem with LGBTQI people being involved in the Abrahamic religions, the collective ideological force chiefly (but not solely of course) responsible for our violent repression.

Any Bible has for example a clear call to murder gay men simply for being gay. How any gay can rationalize revering such a text is beyond me.

It takes all manner of equivocation, apologetics and flat out ignoring uncomfortable points of doctrine to square being queer with being Abrahamic. Just because this approach has become normalized in certain denominations does not make it intellectually defensable.

"what exactly are you taking issue with again?" -puckalish

To be clear I'm not against Parvez cataloging the dynamics of the situation. I actually like the film from that perspective and found it educational.

What I am against is what I deem a politically-motivated attempt to pretend that Islamic doctrine is anything but homophobic at its core. Real social and political progress in the Muslim world will only come in my analysis when Muslim move outside the comfort zone of Islam itself.

All the "keen" showmanship cannot erase the ugly foundations of an ideology. And an ideology with unjust fundamentals is not going to magically become just at a higher order, even if it would make us all more comfortable to believe that.

alright, this is cool, it's like have two conversations at once...

first, i don't think the Abrahamic religions are really, at their core, violent toward people who love. i think that's the overwhelming message that's been pushed in them by certain individuals, from all the way back to Emperor Constantine, but i think there's a lot of validity and beauty to those religions. bibles also have a clear call to murder people who wear blended fabrics, but that doesn't invalidate the teachings of moses, mohammed and christ, not to mention all the other disciples and apostles and prophets... including those who've been excluded from the popular (and, i would argue, perverted) doctrines, such as the apostle mary magdalene.

the impulse to oppress queer people doesn't come form abrahamic religions, it comes from thousands of years of patriarchal domination that preceded the abrahamic religions, but has found a convenient vessel in them. as i mentioned, many gospels were omitted from the bibles we've come to know, and that's because the actual faith, the actual religion, didn't fit with the political needs of the oppressors. that they perverted the popular practice of these religions does not invalidate the religions themselves which, in many instances, were expressions of resistance to these forces.

further, to do away with the expressions of religion will not do away with the violent enforcement of patriarchal power structures.

shoot, i was just kicking it last weekend with a bunch of guys who are christian and fairly certain jesus christ had a male lover.

now, number two...
and again, i haven't seen the film, but it doesn't seem from the clip presented here and the interview that the filmmaker is in any way arguing that islam is not homophobic. i mean, just check out the introductory comments in the film... like that the only argument among islamic jurists is how gays should be killed... it seems pretty clear that he's not glossing over homophobia in islam.

and the foundations of the religion are not ugly... the foundations of the religion are that we were all created by god and that makes us beautiful.

the foundations of all these religions have nothing to do with what these "jurists" and "clerics" and "scholars" are doing with all of their editing and wicked interpretations... those are the perversions of these religions. popes and bishops and imams and rabbis... these are political people with vested interests in maintaining a certain order and hierarchical structure (with notable exceptions, of course, such as the archbishop desmond tutu) and their days are spent driving people away from the core teachings of these faiths (god is love) and toward a divided and hateful experience which helps them consolidate their power.

i mean, i think that our disagreement may be one of definitions - do we see the churches with the most members as the definitions of the religion (ie, assembly of god) or do we see the adherents with the most faith as the definitions of the religion (ie, rumi)...

every religion on this earth has its adherents who would pervert the faith to justify or encourage violence and to seize power. we cannot let this define the religion... what i think you are calling the faith. the real religion.

and, as a point of fact, i hold no "prejudice [that] "spirituality" is equated with [...] theistic, supremacist views," conscious or not.

i've had a lot of spiritual experience and am well aware that the expressions (religions, for example) of spirit with which we're familiar just touch the surface of a reality that our small minds and perception can never fully grasp.

i think it's very closed-minded to throw away thousands upon thousands of years of spiritual traditions and expressions because the most popular adherents have distorted those practices in order to gain earthly power. and every spiritual tradition has some within it who do just that... from buddhism to islam to wicca to hinduism to christianity to candomblé... some more than others, of course.

there are truths scattered through all of them and to think that we can liberate ourselves from people by throwing away spirit seems both saddening and ineffective.

... "all the way back to before Emperor Constantine" ...

At times like this I really hate living in a small town. I have been fascinated by this movie from the minute I heard about it, and I know my dinky one horse cinema is not going to show this. I sadly will be waiting for video.

Thank you Miriam. I also felt that Victorianox's comments were, as you said, patronizing and insensitive of the highly complex world people in non-Western cultures have to live in, trying to juggle their identity with cultural forces (particularly in places where community triumphs over individuality).

Some clerics in Indonesia argued that homosexuality is acceptable under Islam since it was created by God.

In the article they mention itjihad - the Muslim principle of knowledge-seeking and questioning instead of accepting blindly. This unfortunately has been lost in recent years due to power struggles. A book that examines this well is Desperately Seeking Paradise, which chronicles a Muslim intellectual's journey into the different subcultures of Islam and how their view of the theology came to be.

I saw this film when it was playing at my campus this past spring, and I really liked it. My problem with it lied in the fact that I had wanted more information, and more discussion of the politicization of Islam as it related to LGBT rights.

I have huge problems with the comment that said Islamic doctrine is "homophobic at its core" and that sexism and homophobia are foundations and fundamentals of the religion. It's been a while since I saw the film, but I'm thinking of the imam (was he South African? or living in South Africa maybe?) who was trying to adjust attitudes and speak out about homosexuality in Islam. Are you denying the legitimacy of his faith, something that his given him strength and something he has centered his life on? Is his path in life completely misguided and wrong because he believes in something you don't?

If you don't want to adhere to a religion because one aspect of it is something you can't get past, that's perfectly fine and understandable. But don't miss the point that religions evolve over time because of the people who shape it by their faith. Religion is not a completely static object that transcends history; it's much more complex than that because it's part of history. Western secularism might not be the end of history; there are and always will be more truths to discover.

I'm not religious at all, but I respect those who do have a faith so long as they don't enforce it on others. And I know many Muslims, Jews and Christians would argue that their faith based on more than homophobia. To me personally, secularism is also about being open-minded.

Thanks, Miriam. I've been trying to find a way to see this film for a while --

"Are you denying the legitimacy of his faith, something that his given him strength and something he has centered his life on? Is his path in life completely misguided and wrong because he believes in something you don't?"

People can believe whatever they want but that does not mean what they believe has any intellectual consistency, empirical basis or logic to it. One can in fact base their life on complete and utter falsehood.

Imagine trying to explain to person who had never had any contact with the Abrahamic religions in practice that when the Bible/Qur'an orders the murder of a homosexual man that it doesn't really mean it (despite being the word-of-god) and that people now believe entirely something else. It would be laughable.

In any other context except "faith" we would call inconsistent, evidence-less claims for what they are.

"I'm not religious at all, but I respect those who do have a faith so long as they don't enforce it on others."

And when has that happened exactly?

"To me personally, secularism is also about being open-minded."

Unfortunately by "open-minded" I think you and many others mean to eschew critical analysis of people's beliefs merely because they assert them as being of a religious rather than political nature. Giving religion a pass is hardly a sign of secularism.

Tried to do a trackback for this, but I failed :(

Regarding Islam... dogma is dogma until someone like Parvez takes a baseball bat to it. Suggesting that part of their identity is 'evil' or 'wrong' is no less disgusting than the people who throw rocks at them for being gay or lesbian or transgendered.

Believing in your faith and your god when you're told he hates you is a test of faith most of us would fail. Pretty sure that's the definition of 'jihad' and these folks wear it well.

Yes, Victorianox, I understand that you're trying to analyze a religion "empirically," etc. But you have to recognize the difference between criticizing the idea of faith and saying that a religion cannot and should not be the grounding for a person's life. Criticizing faith, or criticizing the idea that one should accept certain facts simply because there is no empirical truth, is one thing, and is a very interesting discussion in itself. It's for that reason that "giving religion a pass" does happen: we're told criticism of religion is unacceptable because it's a matter of faith and we're supposed to leave it at that. A similar example could be saying genital mutilation in a small village is acceptable because it's "culture" and that's that. So I do get what you mean--we should of course always approach things critically.

But it is another thing to call into question something that means so much to people and has so much rich history. What you object to in Islam (and perhaps other religions) is its homophobia, and that makes sense. But someone can be embracing the other aspects of that religion sans the homophobia, and deriving a unique experience from it (which is arguably what makes a religion real to some people--how it is applied). And when I say secularism is about being open-minded, I mean that being open-minded is about recognizing that there are many ways to find fulfillment.

I hope what I said made sense to anyone besides myself--it's been a long day. It's an interesting topic for sure. I really like what puckalish said, that "every religion on this earth has its adherents who would pervert the faith to justify or encourage violence and to seize power." I'm just really bothered by the condemning of a religion as being ugly in its foundations because that's saying that there's no room for change, and I don't like the suggestion that those who choose to live their lives with faith and find ways to reconcile their political beliefs with something that is very important to them are living a falsehood. What is truth, anyway?

i would now readjust that statement, though, to be:
"Every ideology, religious or secular, has its adherents who would pervert it to justify or encourage violence and to seize power."

Nixon was a Quaker (a beautifully peaceful expression of christianity) and Stalin was an athiest (and oh, so empirical).

The Islamic Reality Distortion Field strikes again. _All_ the countries currently in which homosexuality is punishable by death are Islamic ones. And they practice it cheerfully by hanging them from all sorts of structures, and crushing them by toppling walls. There are _no_ serious scholars of Islam who claim that it is not punishable by death. The teachings of Islam haven't been twisted to make them worse, they've actually been twisted to make them better. The closer to Islamic lands you go, the worse things get for anyone deviating from the norm. And yes, I am a former Muslim.

Farhat,
what i'm suggesting, though, is not that Islamic lands are more tolerant (or even _as_ tolerant) as, say, the US, but that such things are not intrinsic to the faith.
the "serious" scholars of whom you speak are those folks in power... not those folks with the most firm grip on what the core of the teachings are. they use the teachings to push a power-hording agenda, not to give praise for all we have.
i know too many gay muslims and christians who really do embrace their faiths to think this is something at the heart of the faith.

don't get it twisted, though, this is not a pass for the hatred that imams and politicians make their entire careers off of. this is not an "Islamic Reality Distortion Field," it's simply a recognition that true faith is about love... and that all the world's religions' core teachings are about love...

yet all have "scholars" or "teachers" or "leaders" who've risen to power by teaching out-and-out hatred...

and then you have a situation where there are people who've had real and true experiences in their respective faiths, but cannot be themselves around others of their faiths (gays cannot be anglican, for instance) or around others within their communities (islamophobia within lgbt circles)...

so, it's time we accepted that there _are_ gay muslims... i'm having one over my house for a late night dinner on friday before a day of fasting... and there _are_ gay baptists and there _are_ gay buddhists and there _are_ gay catholics and to claim that such things are not possible is to deny either the truth of their faiths or the truth of their identities.

neither of those options are fair to the people who so love their faiths and so love their lovers... which is all love... which is what, imho, lies at the core, the foundation, of all religions, world-over.

the wicked actions of middlemen-for-god should not deny the love that we, the beautiful creation we are, can share with god and with one another.

this is not a distortion. this is also not a pass for all of the hateful and violent actions of governments and institutions. this is a recognition of the truth of faith and the truth of love.

puckalish, I think what you're saying is important and true. I've always had to remind myself to separate out the religion from the people using the religion for their own advancement.