Pro-LGBT Rights Muslim Wins Primary
by: Jason van Boom on June 10th, 2010 | 7 Comments »
Ako Abdul-Samad, Iowa state representative
June 8 witnessed perhaps the most unusual political campaign battle connected to the same-sex marriage debate: a Muslim state legislator vs an ordained Christian minister. The Muslim, Ako Abdul-Samad, had the backing of a pro-LGBT rights organization, while his opponent Clair Rudison, Jr. got his biggest donation from a social conservative political fund.
My report on the story is at ILLUME Magazine, a Muslim American news magazine that’s doing ground breaking work in bringing a Muslim American perspective to professional journalism. You can read the story here.
Here at my nest at Tikkun Daily, a comment on the significance of this story:
Islamophobes try to pit gays against Muslims. In their effort to present the religion of Islam as a demonic monolith out to destroy Western civilization, they claim that Muslims who take their religion seriously are necessarily a danger to LGBT people, and must oppose equal rights for gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
This story is an example of how simple, categorical statements about Muslims–or Jews, Christians, Buddhists, vegetarians, libertarians, chiropracters, conservatives, socialists and soccer players– are not accurate guides to political realities.
The basic fact of life is that every religion has different interpretations–even if most of them are theologically “wrong,” many of them will be political “facts.”
Many people make the mistake of saying, “This is what religion X really says on politics. Therefore, sincere and educated members of religion X will hold political position Y.” That’s a fallacy. Even if you can prove that the principles of religion X imply Y, there are tons and tons of adherents of religion X who won’t support Y, won’t touch it with the proverbial ten-foot pole, and they’re sincere and educated believers.
Take Catholicism, for example. Even among Catholics who do not dissent from the papacy or the magisterium, there is a huge spectrum of political differences. Neoconservatives such as Robert Novack, distributists such as G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc, Catholic Workers such as Dorothy Day, monarchists, integralists, etc. And that’s not even counting dissenters on the Left (some liberation theologians) or on the Right (Catholic libertarians and anarcho-capitalists).
While I was a Catholic, I could never predict someone’s political position just because he or she identified as “Catholic.” They could be in favor of Che Guevara, Ronald Reagan, Otto von Habsburg or Spanish anarcho-syndicalist communes.
Same thing with Muslims. On theological matters alone– including on sharia– there is a huge spectrum of opinion. In relating these views to politics, there’s an even larger spectrum.
So, just as most individual Catholics surprised me when I was a Catholic, individual Muslims surprise me now. My conclusion is that labels are not politically helpful.
In the Democratic primary for House District 66 in Des Moines Iowa, there was a choice between a Muslim and a Christian. If we listened to the Islamophobic propaganda, we would have expected the Muslim to be the anti-gay rights candidate. Life, once again, contradicted preconceived notions.
As a Muslim, I am glad that another Muslim might be standing up for Gay rights, I am not a homosexual myself and cannot say I approve of the lifestyle, yet, all human beings are equal in God’s eyes and no one should be oppressed. The Quran says oppression is worse than slaughter.
Rejoicing and jumping up and down!
Really? the Quran says oppression is worse than slaughter? WOW!
Thank you for sharing! Just one tiny, but powerful, tidbit of light, about the Quran.
I have been arguing for years that any attempt to find a essence of major religion, something that must necessarily be true, of all those who identify with that religion, is mistaken. By “major religion,” I mean one that has been around for awhile and grown in numbers, who are likely to be subject to diverse cultural, economic, and political influences. Linguists have been telling us for some time that no word, even one that is precisely defined at the point of introduction, will retain a single definition once the word passes into more general usage. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein made a similar point when he spoke of family resemblances (but not identity) between the various meanings of words. George Lakoff, wearing his cognitive linguist hat, speaks of radial categories, pointing out that most words in a “natural” language designate categories that do not have necessary and sufficient conditions. The same is true of “Muslim” and “Christian” and “Jew” and . . .
Thanks for supplying another nail in the coffin of cultural essentialism.
There is a part of this commentary that really needed to be said. That is: it is inaccurate and foolish to stereotype the views of any religious group on any particular issue. In this case, it’s Muslims vis-a-vis gay rights and gays in general, and it’s certainly refreshing to hear of a case like this taht turns such stereotypes on their ear. There is another part, though, that is quite annoying. I begins like this: “Islamophobes try to pit gays against Muslims. In their effort to present the religion of Islam as a demonic monolith out to destroy Western civilization, they claim that Muslims who take their religion seriously are necessarily a danger to LGBT people, and must oppose equal rights for gays, lesbians and bisexuals.” While Islamophobes certainly have their role in sterotying Muslims, you would have us believe that the poor image of Muslims vis-a-vis gays is entirely the result of a conspiracy. muslims have a great deal of blame themselves. Most of the statements that reach the press from Muslims concerning gays are extremely homophobic. If Muslims don’t like that image of themselves, they need to speak up much more and much more often.
rap beat download
Eli, I agree with you that the Islamophobic lobby is not the primary shaper of Muslims’ image in the West. News stories shapes that image, and it’s the words and actions of Muslims that ultimately matter.
Islamophobes, however, do exploit relations between Muslims and the LGBT community for their own agenda. They aren’t passive news collectors. They sift, choose, free, and publicize.
If they were really interested in civil rights for LGBT people, then they would welcome news stories such as this. Instead, they ignore or defame progressive Muslims. Their message is that the had-core fundamentalists are the real Islam, and anyone who’s to the left of Osama bin Laden is inauthentic.
>>you would have us believe that the poor image of Muslims vis-a-vis gays is entirely the result of a conspiracy.<<
Nope, I did not say that. I simply pointed out how Islamophobes act on this issue– how many of them exploit it.
I'm particularly sensitive to their actions because, unlike most converts to Islam, I come from a conservative background. Islamophobes have only a marginal influence on progressives and moderates, but they have a substantial impact on conservatives. Conservative media give institutional support to the Islambashers. Conservative blogs, magazines, book publishers political conventions, etc all give them a platform.
Point well taken.