Earlier this year, I went to a panel discussion entitled, “Perceptions of Queer Identity in the Muslim World” where I came across two very interesting men. The first speaker was Michael Luongo, who is the author of the bestseller book, “Gay Travels in the Muslim World” that describes his experiences as an American traveler in numerous Islamic countries, but draws particular emphasis in Afghanistan. Some of the stories are emotional and deeply meaningful, while others demonstrate a more humorous appeal. More importantly, they all present a rare perspective on Middle Eastern travel, along with the not-so-prominent gay community. Luongo’s preface (which he read aloud) details specific examples of “Islamophobia” taught during the course of his upbringing in New Jersey; which mainly consisted of a liberal suburban public school system. However, it was not until later when his personal traveling experiences led Luongo to realize for himself, that his “Orientalist” perspective was completely incorrect and unjust.
Furthermore, the issue of homosexuality in the Middle East has recently been exaggerated with Ahmedinejad’s comment(s) during his visit to Columbia University last Fall. According to the transcript, he stated:
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.(Laughter.) We don’t have that in our country. (Booing.) In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it. (Laughter.)
Perhaps, there was a lack of an accurate translation or maybe Ahmadinejad’s perception towards homosexuality is simply this arrogant. Regardless, it must be reassured that homosexuality does exist, everywhere.
The second speaker validates my argument, because Ahmad Malick found out about “homosexuality” when he was only twelve years old. He grew up in Pakistan and had heard about the queer community through a distant relative that lived in London. He can remember growing up and not actually having a word for his sexual orientation, because it was disrespected and unacceptable. Then, he said, “ something started telling me that something wasn’t wrong with me—but where I lived”. He also mentioned that the world he grew up in was “less globalized”, with no outside media influences to reinforce his uniqueness.
Despite the various forms of disapproval and marginalization, queer perceptions have changed, just not as quickly as we would like. Malick continued to say that, “there is no real acceptance of the homosexual community—it is more individual…and if you are going to face violent homophobia, it will most likely be your family. Where the outside people may dislike you, but wont take coercive action”. Clearly, my curiosity eventually led me to ask him if he had already “come out of the closet” to his family. He smirked, and said, “yes, they are indifferent about the entire thing, but they just want me to be content”.
With this topic in mind, and if it’s accessible, check out A Jihad for Love. The film gives many interesting/diverse stories of the ongoing struggle for passion and love in this world full of dichotomies.
i think it’s important to contextualize president ahmadinejad’s comments. yes, when he was questioned about homosexuality, he denied its existence in iran. however, the identity of homosexuality, and even the concept, originate in “the west”. and for how “backwards” iran was painted as, let’s take another look at the u.s. - we offer asylum to “homosexuals” living in countries where they are not able to openly be queer…how safe are queer folks here in the u.s.? aren’t we always hearing about physical violence, murders, abuse, etc. with few legal consequences? iran’s government is also supportive of sex changes, allowing individuals to change their legal sex on official documents with little trouble. the u.s. audience probably wouldn’t have gotten a “we’re superior” laugh out of that.
columbia’s president, lee bollinger stated in his opening remarks,
“…this event has nothing whatsoever to do with any rights of the speaker, but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves. We do it in the great tradition of openness that has defined this nation for many decades now.”
allow me to translate,
“we don’t actually care what president ahmadinejad is going to say. we already know we don’t respect him.”
none of this is to dismiss the important issues of queerness and muslim culture. this is only to say that i believe a wider scope is required to examine them - one that includes reflection on u.s./western culture.
I could not agree more. In fact, I often go off on rants about the negative outcomes of Western diplomacy and the bourgeois attitude it imposes and inflicts (in so many levels) onto “developing” nations. Unfortunately, there is a cyclical pattern of imperialist (and/or colonialist) manifestations of power in contemporary society. This topic, nonetheless, leads us into an entirely different dilemma.
Also, thanks for the dialogue, it is necessary to bring forward the reality of this “developed” nation in regards to social progression, or lack thereof.