More on Pav and FOSIS April 4, 2006Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Media, Queer Muslims.
The debates continue. Now a story has been posted by Benjamin Cohen of PinkNews:
Gay Muslim claims Islamophobia denied him post as student leader He has also posted at Ednet asking for more opinions, saying: “it’s been hard to get all the facts straight”!
Well, I suppose it has. As I have said, if FOSIS delegates made a decision that took Pav’s declared sexuality as a factor, they could well be justified in that: not so much for his being gay, but rather for being a “gay Muslim”. Cohen says:
Last month, the Guardian published an article “Muslim students find a voice” in which they said that Mr Akhtar “will be hoping for the backing of Muslim delegates, but he doesn’t fit the fundamentalist stereotype. He’s gay.”
Following this “outing” by the Guardian, a posting on the Muslim Public Affairs Committee message board asked students if they would still back Mr Akhtar. One poster, ‘bro shabaz’ said: “he will never get my support if he is homosexual.” Another, ‘Muntasir’, said: “I think im gonna puke.” ‘Binty’ added: “the dirty homo can DO 1!!!” Other posters were more supportive of Mr Akhtar, ‘Khalid Bin I’ argued that “if FOSIS wishes to become a powerful organisation within the Political Arena it needs to changes it’s politics.”
OK, first I should point out that this was hardly an “outing” by the Guardian. People within the student movement, including FOSIS folks, were well aware. And come on Cohen, the MPACUK forum is hardly the place to judge another organisation’s political strategy! So what if some people posted offensive comments? Those posters might actually be kids, and such comments could be found in all sorts of places. They should not be given attention.
Incidentally, the MPACUK forum had a long debate about homosexuality round about the time of the C4 documentary, so at that point I decided to sign up and join the discussion. I think I could have enriched it! Sadly, the moderators seem to have banned my account, and haven’t replied to my request for an explanation. Could it be as petty as my having written that “The contents of the MPACUK site and forum don’t usually encourage me to come back for more”? I hope not.