Jun 29, 2011

Hijabbed & Homosexuals

Remember this video? Everybody was soo touched by those who stood up to the Islamophobic guy and defended the muslim woman. After 9/11, life as a muslim has gotten a little bit rough in America. Well, not so much for a guy as it is for a woman.

But, if you think Americans are Islamophobic, discriminatory and narrow-minded, just read this blog post. It happened to one of my cousins, in our own so-called 'multi-racial' country, Malaysia.


And now, from the show that brought to you this heart-touching video, "What would you do?", they did another experiment to see what would people do in scenarios like this:

So tell me, if you happened to be in that restaurant, would you stand up to the waitress as we expect other people to stand up to those who discriminated against hijabbed women?

If your answer is no, then this would be a great time to discuss on this interesting topic.

Islamophobia is now a great concern to those who fight for human rights. That's why it is not so surprising to see non-muslims defending the civil rights of a muslim nowadays. Why not, it is not fair after all to treat people based on their beliefs.

As a muslims, we are appalled by those who discriminated against us. Living in foreign countries, we expect people to treat us the same with everyone else. And if we were to be denied service just because we are muslims, we would stand up and expect other people to back us up.

But what if the situation is reversed. What if other people are discriminated against because of their, say, sexual orientation? Would we back them up, or just keep quiet and mind our own business?

This is a huge dilemma that a muslim must deal with. Homosexuality is just another example of a social taboo, yet it gives us the clearest example of the practice of double standards among muslims. Would we accept, as a fact, that non-muslims have the same right to be homosexual as we do to be muslims?

If yes, what happened to the people of Prophet Lot? And if not, why the double standards?

We play the freedom-of-choice card when it comes to our benefit, but we simply discard the very same concept that we've used before when it is not parallel to our principal.

We adapt the 'Western' idea of social freedom whenever it is convenient and abandon it whenever it is inconvenient.

Is it morally correct, then? How do we justify this?

No comments: