Islamists punish gay guy for being gay, by raping him

[squanto]

Yet another obvious sign of homophobia being a sign of latent homosexuality, and religious nonsense being religious nonsense.

"They told me to take off my clothes to rape me or they would kill me immediately. This moment was the worst moment in my life..."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/24/gay.iraqis/

[SB_Stong]

But if he is gay, is it really horrifying for him?

[NotStandingBy]

But if he is gay, is it really horrifying for him?

Yes because it's humiliating and it's being forced on you and your privacy is gone.

Just like, just because a woman is straight doesn't mean she likes to be raped by men.

[SB_Stong]

Yes because it's humiliating and it's being forced on you and your privacy is gone.

Just like, just because a woman is straight doesn't mean she likes to be raped by men.

But what if it was 4 women with guns raping you? I'd be scared for my life but the sexual actions wouldn't be so bad.

[squanto]

But if he is gay, is it really horrifying for him?

Well do you think your mother or your girlfriend would like being raped by a gang of thugs?

[mehdi84]

So, these asshats essentially were attacking someone who identified themselves as a homosexual, by resorting to the very thing that is forbidden in Islam: sodomy. Brilliant logic these folks had.

[nail3r]

But if he is gay, is it really horrifying for him?

Are you stupid?

I can't believe you just asked that question.

[Arbex]

Yet another obvious sign of homophobia being a sign of latent homosexuality, and religious nonsense being religious nonsense.

"They told me to take off my clothes to rape me or they would kill me immediately. This moment was the worst moment in my life..."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/24/gay.iraqis/

I really cannot believe how much fail some people possess.

[photomasterx]

Is the OP getting confused.

The guy was kidnapped by a kidnapping gang not islamic militants.

Islamic militants are mentioned later on in this same article related to other events not linked to that rape.

The guy that got raped appears to be kidnapped by a "kidnap for ransom" street gang.


.

[Arbex]

Why are moslems so sexually perverse? I think it's due to the extensive inbreeding they do.

That's what happens when primitive and social human norms and "rules" are made up which go against nature.

[squanto]

Is the OP getting confused.

The guy was kidnapped by a kidnapping gang not islamic militants.

Islamic militants are mentioned later on in this same article related to other events not linked to that rape.

The guy that got raped appears to be kidnapped by a "kidnap for ransom" street gang.


.

So let me get this straight, you're saying there was a secular motivation behind the "kidnapping gang" that wanted to persecute queers.... in Iraq?

[Dig]

Is the OP getting confused.

The guy was kidnapped by a kidnapping gang not islamic militants.

Islamic militants are mentioned later on in this same article related to other events not linked to that rape.

The guy that got raped appears to be kidnapped by a "kidnap for ransom" street gang.


.

He doesn't care.

[photomasterx]

So let me get this straight, you're saying there was a secular motivation behind the "kidnapping gang" that wanted to persecute queers.... in Iraq?

I think you don;t understand since the American news channels are a bit ****.

In Iraq you have multiple groups operating.

You have militants and criminal gangs.

The gangs operate on kidnapping people and then selling them back in exchange for ransom. Thats why the gays were not killed. If the islamic groups had kidnapped them then they would have been shot dead.

It appears that the gang kidnapped the guy to sell him back and then realised he was gay so they raped him until the family payed up the money.

This was shown on BBC(i think) about criminal gangs kidnapping people in Iraq a while back.

Now don't get me wrong. I wouldn't put it past some dumbass sunni militants groups to do something this stupid. But in this case it appears to just be a random criminal mafia operation.

.

[mehdi84]

So let me get this straight, you're saying there was a secular motivation behind the "kidnapping gang" that wanted to persecute queers.... in Iraq?

How could it be Islamic, when the very nature of the 'punishment' these men incurred on the man are grossly against Islamic creed? It's not logical in the slightest. By example, these men were secular. The article itself even alludes to this, but only in so few words because they want some readers, to come away with what you have. Which is unfortunately understandable.

Do you need to be religious to hate gays? Homosexuals are ridiculed in the vast majority of the world's population, all with varying religious identities and levels of faith.

[squanto]

I think you don;t understand since the American news channels are a bit ****.

In Iraq you have multiple groups operating.

You have militants and criminal gangs.

The gangs operate on kidnapping people and then selling them back in exchange for ransom. Thats why the gays were not killed. If the islamic groups had kidnapped them then they would have been shot dead.

It appears that the gang kidnapped the guy to sell him back and then realised he was gay so they raped him until the family payed up the money.

This was shown on BBC(i think) about criminal gangs kidnapping people in Iraq a while back.

Now don't get me wrong. I wouldn't put it past some dumbass sunni militants groups to do something this stupid. But in this case it appears to just be a random criminal mafia operation.

.

Ok I see what you're saying. Thanks for your perspective.

Obviously some of the Islamic groups are a lot worse. But the culture persecution is still a result of the religion. And who's to say they weren't Islamists anyway? Consider the Brotherhood or the Taliban or any other hate group associated with their own version of what is acceptable and what is not under their own versions of the religion.

[dabbmw2002]

But if he is gay, is it really horrifying for him?

might be one of the dumbest comments I ever heard, no offense brah

[_AdaM_]

fail on OP for trying to fabricate an incident.

[squanto]

How could it be Islamic, when the very nature of the 'punishment' these men incurred on the man are grossly against Islamic creed? It's not logical in the slightest. By example, these men were secular. The article itself even alludes to this, but only is so few words because they want some readers, to come away with what you have. Which is unfortunately understandable.

Do you need to be religious to hate gays? Homosexuals are ridiculed in the vast majority of the world's population, all with varying religious identities and levels of faith.

That's a useful pipe dream that I see is used to recruit a lot of sympathy around here. Your Islam is different from theirs, is different from everyone else's. It's either plainly ignorant and/or self-centered to think that there is an absolute consensus. Sayyid Qutb's Islam was different from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Islam was different from Hassan al-Banna's Islam.

No, you need to be an imbecile (and potentially in the closet) to hate gays. Religion helps, but doesn't always garuntee you're one or both of the former.

[NotStandingBy]

But what if it was 4 women with guns raping you? I'd be scared for my life but the sexual actions wouldn't be so bad.

Are you being serious? Are you this desperate for sex? I have turned down sex with women simply because I do not want to risk the HIV/AIDS. Do you know how painful it is to have rhinovirus (I know, making a contrast and comparison here), let alone some more serious and more powerful infections?

[subpolarbear]

If these guys raped him because he was gay, does that mean the kidnappers are now presumed to be gay for raping a man and will now be kidnapped and raped themselves?

[NotStandingBy]

If these guys raped him because he was gay, does that mean the kidnappers are now presumed to be gay for raping a man and will now be kidnapped and raped themselves?

Haha, for a second I thought of that.

[squanto]

fail on OP for trying to fabricate an incident.

It's a CNN article from July, call them about the fabrication.

[Ironstone-]

****ty.
Whatever happened to normal executions?
I thought that was the rage.

[mehdi84]

That's a useful pipe dream that I see is used to recruit a lot of sympathy around here. Your Islam is different from theirs, is different from everyone else's. It's either plainly ignorant and/or self-centered to think that there is an absolute consensus. Sayyid Qutb's Islam was different from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Islam was different from Hassan al-Banna's Islam.

No, you need to be an imbecile (and potentially in the closet) to hate gays. Religion helps, but doesn't always garuntee you're one or both of the former.

It's not a matter of a pipe dream. You're suggesting they are Islamists. It's your label, not there's. Via this label you are proceeding to deduce your conclusion. Just because they are brown, from Iraq, have arab names, and rape gays does not conclude they must acting on Islamic creed.

There is an absolute consensus on this matter. What makes you suggest there isn't? What you are implying is, that under the blanket of interpretation, you are justified in calling anything you want as a part of Islam. This is not only un-scholarly, but it's a fallacious assertion.

I generally agree with you final statement. Which is really the only conclusion that can soundly be made with this story.

[SB_Stong]

Are you being serious? Are you this desperate for sex? I have turned down sex with women simply because I do not want to risk the HIV/AIDS. Do you know how painful it is to have rhinovirus (I know, making a contrast and comparison here), let alone some more serious and more powerful infections?

I was in no shape or form being serious but if the bolded is true then I'm very sorry to hear that.

[ZenBowman]

Totalitarian beliefs tend to foster these kinds of abuse. Even though they may work in theory, in practice, putting power in the hands of too few people eventually leads to massive abuse of power. This is why whether or not you want Sharia, concentrating power in the hands of the Taliban or any other single entity, as opposed to distributing it to the people, is a bad idea.

Read J Edgar Hoover's "A Study of Communism" where he highlights the flaws of totalitarian systems.

[NotStandingBy]

I was in no shape or form being serious but if the bolded is true then I'm very sorry to hear that.

I'm in NY dude. AIDS/HIV runs rampant here. Go talk to HIV/AIDS victims.

[SB_Stong]

I'm in NY dude. AIDS/HIV runs rampant here. Go talk to HIV/AIDS victims.

Many people die in automobile crashes everyday but that didn't stop me from getting in my car and driving to work today.

I mean yea, it is okay to be risk averse to a certain extent, but don't you think this is a little............well............................ .......extreme???

[squanto]

It's not a matter of a pipe dream. You're suggesting they are Islamists. It's your label, not there's. Via this label you are proceeding to deduce your conclusion. Just because they are brown, from Iraq, have arab names, and rape gays does not conclude they must acting on Islamic creed.

I am asserting that the atrocities were justified in the name of Islam. I am calling them Islamists, yes. Consider the fliers being distributed in Bagdhad (source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/baby...n-baghdad.html) declaring a mandate for death to homosexuals for being perverse. Gay activists have publicly declared that it's not only the police, but separate militia within Iraq responsible for persecuting homosexuals/transgenders etc (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8005420.stm). The culture of persecution and intimidation of homosexuals is entirely a consequence of the religion.

There is an absolute consensus on this matter. What makes you suggest there isn't? What you are implying is, that under the blanket of interpretation, you are justified in calling anything you want as a part of Islam. This is not only un-scholarly, but it's a fallacious assertion.

I generally agree with you final statement. Which is really the only conclusion that can soundly made with this story.

The exact reasoning that I just posted.

Yes, under the blanket of interpretation, I am free to call anything done in the name of Islam, Islamic. This is why I refer to September 11th as Islamic terrorism, yet those who speak out against it using scripture can also be called naive... I mean, Islamic. It is fallacious and cartoon-ish to assert that everyone's opinion needs to revolve around yours or anyone else's.

Consider the ****lians or Ethiopians who incorporate Djinns into their version of Islam, or the blatantly sexist Saudi's who specifically prohibit women from driving cars in their version of Islam, or, like I said, those who follow the insane bull**** of Qutb who justify violence and martyrdom, or the more progressive European Mullahs who are accepting of homosexuals and wish not to ever impose Sharia on their countrymen, or the Muslims I interact with on a daily basis who view Islam as little more than a philosophy, extremely limited in it's application and validity. Each interpretation is as disjointed and painfully ridiculous as the next.

[ZenBowman]

I am asserting that the atrocities were justified in the name of Islam. I am calling them Islamists, yes. Consider the fliers being distributed in Bagdhad (source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/baby...n-baghdad.html) declaring a mandate for death to homosexuals for being perverse. Gay activists have publicly declared that it's not only the police, but separate militia within Iraq responsible for persecuting homosexuals/transgenders etc (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8005420.stm). The culture of persecution and intimidation of homosexuals is entirely a consequence of the religion.



The exact reasoning that I just posted.

Yes, under the blanket of interpretation, I am free to call anything done in the name of Islam, Islamic. This is why I refer to September 11th as Islamic terrorism, yet those who speak out against it using scripture can also be called naive... I mean, Islamic. It is fallacious and cartoon-ish to assert that everyone's opinion needs to revolve around yours or anyone else's.

Consider the ****lians or Ethiopians who incorporate Djinns into their version of Islam, or the blatantly sexist Saudi's who specifically prohibit women from driving cars in their version of Islam, or, like I said, those who follow the insane bull**** of Qutb who justify violence and martyrdom, or the more progressive European Mullahs who are accepting of homosexuals and wish not to ever impose Sharia on their countrymen, or the Muslims I interact with on a daily basis who view Islam as little more than a philosophy, extremely limited in it's application and validity. Each interpretation is as disjointed and painfully ridiculous as the next.

Excellent post. It is worth noting mehdi84, that it is best to see both the positive and negative sides of a religion or culture. Unfortunately, in the Muslim community today, people tend to see their interpretation of Islam as the only valid one. Thereby, they can denounce terrorists as un-Islamic, progressives as un-Islamic, Shia as un-Islamic, Ahmadi as un-Islamic and so on. Basically avoiding the community level problems by dissociating themselves from the people who are held responsible.

However, what if Americans did the same. If a Pakistani claims that Americans are the ones sending drones that kill people, Americans can deny it by saying it is unAmerican or unconstitutional, and therefore it is not their fault? I don't think so. You can't avoid the problem, you have to tackle it head on and acknowledge your problems.