[minivanburen]

Wow this thread reeks of serious concern trolling. I wonder if the OP supports marriage equality, anti-discrimination laws, hate crimes laws, and other measures required for LGBTQ people to finally take our place as full and equal citizens in the United States. It seems doubtful given the language that he uses to talk about gay men and women is right out of the 1980s (and the playbook of social conservatives).

As to the substance of the question, absolutely not. Suggesting that "Muslims" can be addressed as an entire category without differentiation ignores the vast differences between the different strands of Islam, not to mention the wide diversity in individual belief among Muslims.

This is not to say that we should embrace all Muslims without regard for what they believe; to the contrary we strive to understand the broad spectrum of belief within Islam, just as there is within Judaism and Christianity. Would it make sense to talk about whether "Jews" or "Christians" are the greatest enemies of Jews? No, because we all recognize that there are many different denominations within each, and each denomination has vastly different beliefs than the others.

Even if we were to ignore the lack of nuance inherent in the question, American Muslims are, though not progressive, not particularly conservative when it comes to LGBTQ equality. According to the Pew Forum, in the United States, 44% of Muslims say that homosexuality should be accepted, while 47% say it should not. There is room for improvement there, but "Islam," considered as a whole, is more open than many Christian denominations--only 38% of Evangelical Protestants say homosexuality should be accepted, while 55% of the same who say it should not; among Jehovah's Witnesses the percentage who favor acceptance drops to only 16%, with 78% opposing acceptance.

It is true that many Muslim-majority countries are intolerant of queer people, and even actively persecute us. But to say that all Muslims are the enemy of LGBTQ people is nonsensical because it fails to recognize the vast cultural, political, educational, and religious differences between the Muslims who live in poverty-stricken third world nations and the Muslims who reside in the United States or the West more generally.

[Rugoz]

You do realize that during the Italian Renaissance, Florence was ruled by a church right?

The reason many people in the Middle East (not just Muslims) want to return to the Abbasid Golden Age is not through the government.

- Most Italian city states during the Renaissance were Republics, so was Florence at first. I think it is fair to say that Catholicism was an enemy of the enlightenment.

- That may be, but it is still a (comparatively) problematic historical precedent. The politics of Iran, ISIS and Erdogan are not unrelated to it.

Even if we were to ignore the lack of nuance inherent in the question, American Muslims are, though not progressive, not particularly conservative when it comes to LGBTQ equality. According to the Pew Forum, in the United States, 44% of Muslims say that homosexuality should be accepted, while 47% say it should not. There is room for improvement there, but "Islam," considered as a whole, is more open than many Christian denominations--only 38% of Evangelical Protestants say homosexuality should be accepted, while 55% of the same who say it should not; among Jehovah's Witnesses the percentage who favor acceptance drops to only 16%, with 78% opposing acceptance.

American Muslims are progressive compared to European ones and American Christians are more conservative. The gap is definitely smaller in America.

[noir]

American Muslims are progressive compared to European ones and American Christians are more conservative. The gap is definitely smaller in America.

Eurocrats have some responsibility in radicalizing the Muslim immigrants mainly through the policy of multiculturalism.

[minivanburen]

Eurocrats have some responsibility in radicalizing the Muslim immigrants mainly through the policy of multiculturalism.

What? There are plenty of arguments against multiculturalism, but this is not one of them. Multiculturalism does not actively radicalize Muslims who immigrate to Europe.

[noir]

Multiculturalism in Canada and Australia (where it was born) is not like Multiculturalism in Europe.

[Frollein]

Muslims who were born in Western countries or have had families there for generations are less likely to hate homosexuals and even support gay rights.

Do you have a source to back up that claim?

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

I never said that the Italian city states weren't republics, I only pointed to Florence because I thought that Florence was run by a church. Of course you provided evidence that it wasn't a church until later on so I stand corrected.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Erdogan is a Turkish nationalist as seen by his Ottomanism and may not even be Muslim. He has never spoken at all about trying to turn Turkey back into the Golden Age. Iran's government also has no association. It was never created specifically to go back to the Abbasid Golden Age but as a form of government that opposes the secular dictatorship that Iran was at the time. If the West put Iran under a religious dictatorship the opposite would've happened. It has nothing to do with the Abbasid Golden Age.

And finally, ISIS. Although ISIS does talk about the Abbasid Golden Age alot it's main goal isn't to reach the Abbasid Golden Age at all. The Abbasid Golden Age is just used as a marketing tool, a way to get the people who want to return to the Abbasid Golden Age into ISIS. The "main goal" (they could abandon it at a certain point) is to get Rome (i.e. America) to fight them on their sacred ground in Iraq and Syria and then defeat them. Afterward God will come out of nowhere and destroy all the non-believers and shit. Then everyone will be given free Mcdonalds except the non-believers which will be given just a side order of fries (I added the last sentence but the one before is truly what they believe).

@Frollein

Minivanbern already provided the source I was going to give. There hasn't been a poll that separates native born Muslims and refugee Muslims in Europe and see their political opinions.

@noir

But America is more multicultural than Europe and Muslims there are more progressive than Christians there. I think it's just because Europe sucks at multiculturalism. Multiculturalism hasn't been a part of European culture, in fact the opposite is true. European culture requires absolute assimilation no exceptions while in America, at least in cities, multiculturalism is encouraged.

[minivanburen]

Multiculturalism in Canada and Australia (where it was born) is not like Multiculturalism in Europe.

I have several questions. First, can you expand on that? Different in what ways? Second, on what basis do you say that multiculturalism was "born" in Australia? Third, why are you bringing up Canada and Australia--I thought we were talking about Europe versus the United States.

[Rugoz]

I don't understand what you're talking about. Erdogan is a Turkish nationalist as seen by his Ottomanism and may not even be Muslim. He has never spoken at all about trying to turn Turkey back into the Golden Age. Iran's government also has no association. It was never created specifically to go back to the Abbasid Golden Age but as a form of government that opposes the secular dictatorship that Iran was at the time. If the West put Iran under a religious dictatorship the opposite would've happened. It has nothing to do with the Abbasid Golden Age.

And finally, ISIS. Although ISIS does talk about the Abbasid Golden Age alot it's main goal isn't to reach the Abbasid Golden Age at all. The Abbasid Golden Age is just used as a marketing tool, a way to get the people who want to return to the Abbasid Golden Age into ISIS. The "main goal" (they could abandon it at a certain point) is to get Rome (i.e. America) to fight them on their sacred ground in Iraq and Syria and then defeat them. Afterward God will come out of nowhere and destroy all the non-believers and shit. Then everyone will be given free Mcdonalds except the non-believers which will be given just a side order of fries (I added the last sentence but the one before is truly what they believe).

But America is more multicultural than Europe and Muslims there are more progressive than Christians there.

- Ever heard of the Ottoman Caliphate? The title of the Sultan derives from the Caliph. I suppose for Turks that is the "golden age".

- Iran, while a theocracy, is different in the sense that the Supreme Leader does not represent the Caliph nor does Iran claim to be the caliphate, to my knowledge. A mistake from my part I guess.

- Obviously the Abbasid Golden Age is just as a marketing tool, what else should it be at this day and age.

- America gets to handpick its Muslims, mostly the educated elites, while Europe gets the "rabble".

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

1. Only for Turkish nationalists (i.e. Ottomanism) everyone else looks to the Ataturk era. But how does that have to do with the Abbasid Golden Age? We aren't talking about golden ages in general here but specifically the Abbasid Golden Age. You yourself made that distinction.

Just because a country was previously a caliph doesn't mean that it wants to become a caliph again and wants to return to the Abbasid Golden Age. The reason for the Abbasid Golden Age's appeal is not it's government but it's culture and intellectualism.

2. It can, be something to work towards just like how in Europe the days of Rome and Greece were things to go back to which lead to the secularization of Europe to begin with. Not in terms of looking to the government style but looking to the secular intellectual movements and cultural flourishing of that time. Seeing the culture and ideas of the Abbasid Golden Age is what should be done, copying the Abbasid Golden Age's government cannot be done in the current situation of the Middle East since you can't get an enlightened monarchy in an strict, totalitarian dictatorship.

3. I would like your sources for this. Prove to me that the European immigration system is not similar at all to the American immigration system. Just because it looks like tons of loonies are entering Europe and because migration is a hot topic in Europe, doesn't mean that everyone who migrates to Europe is a loonie.

[Rugoz]

The reason for the Abbasid Golden Age's appeal is not it's government but it's culture and intellectualism.

I would like your sources for this. Prove to me that the European immigration system is not similar at all to the American immigration system. Just because it looks like tons of loonies are entering Europe and because migration is a hot topic in Europe, doesn't mean that everyone who migrates to Europe is a loonie.

- People are going to ask: What government led to this supposed age of culture and intellectualism? You cannot seperate the two easily.

- It's plain obvious. America gets a lot of poor Latin Americans, Europe gets a lot of poor Muslims. You don't get to America from a conflict zone in the ME.

[Oxymandias]

1. However people do not ask this question and many people attribute the reason for the Abbasid Golden Age with other reasons such as free speech, government funded science, liberalism, human rights, etc. People have already separated the government because, if you didn't know, people are tired of Caliphs in the Middle East.

2. I hope you're joking. There's no proof that America gets richer Muslims than Europe and there's is proof that refugees do go to America from conflict zones. If they didn't, talks about refugees in America wouldn't even be a thing.

[Rugoz]

- It's subjective so it won't lead us anywhere.

- If you want to get to America you must qualify for a Green card. You cannot just walk over there and apply for asylum, neither can you apply for asylum at American embassies. America takes very few refugees from the ME. Besides, only 1% of the US population are Muslims. It's easier to integrate immigrants if they arrive in small numbers.

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

1. Tag me next time. I told you this before. The only reason why you wouldn't do this is because you don't want me to see your post.

2. This isn't a matter of subjectivity but of data. There are more people in the Middle East who believe that the Abbasid Golden Age is due to other reasons other than government. No one in the Middle East attributes the Islamic Golden Age to the government. The government isn't even brought up at all other than to show that it supported art, science, and education.

3. You do realize that America takes over 46% percent of all refugees in Syria? There are over 2.1 million Syrian refugees. That's almost half of all Syrian refugees in the world. Also that's because a majority of immigrants in the US aren't Muslims.

Also what are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in ... ted_States

And you can't just walk in and apply for asylum in Europe as well.

4. I never said it isn't easier to integrate a smaller population.

[anasawad]

@Oxymandias
Wait what ? dude, the US only took around 16 thousand Syrian refugees.

[Oxymandias]

@anasawad

Wait what? Oh nevermind. I saw a study that showed that America took about half of the Syrian population when in actuality it was just 46 thousand refugees.

[minivanburen]

What does this have to do with the original question of the thread, though? The specifics of how few refugees the U.S. takes in from Syria, or the ease of integrating a population into a larger one, are irrelevant.

[Atlantis]

Homosexuality has always been widely practiced in the Muslim world. And MENA countries like Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Lebanon have been the Mecca of European homosexuals since the 19th century, because they were able to practice their sexual preferences more easily in Muslim countries than in Europe.

Even though it is not officially sanctioned, everybody in Muslim countries knows that it takes place. Without the means of pre-marital sex and with marriage requiring sufficient economic means, many young males in the MENA have no other way of experiencing sexuality. Thus, to many it is more a means of convenience than an innate sexual orientation.

[Oxymandias]

@minivanburen

I was simply lead through a rabbit hole by the original OP who started that mess.

[Pants-of-dog]

The answer to the question in the thread title is: it depends.

It depends on location, for example. In the southern US, conservative bigots would be the biggest threat. In Latin America, it would be conservative Catholics. In places where homosexuality is punishable by death, it would be the government.

Demographics would also be a factor. In areas where there are little or no Muslims, the greatest threat to homosexuals would be something else.

The amount of power and money that each threatening group has would also be a factor. For example, of the number of Muslims in a city was 10% but they were relatively poor and powerless, while the 5% of conservative Christians were disproportionately present in government, the conservative Christian contingent would be more likely to pass homophobic laws.