let me break this down for anon in a way that helps dissect every bigoted point you have here .
i think , personally , the issue here is that you are conflating several completely different things into one singular entity called β islam β and then treating that entity as uniquely oppressive in a way that other ideological systems somehow are not .
there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing patriarchal structures , misogyny , homophobia , religious conservatism , or theocratic governments . those things should be criticised . i donβt think any serious person believes religious institutions or leaders are above criticism .
muslims themselves critique religious institutions and interpretations constantly . the problem is when critique stops being materially specific and turns into broad civilisational rhetoric about an entire religion practiced by nearly 2 billion people across dozens of cultures , political systems , histories , ethnic groups , and theological traditions.
because at that point it stops being β criticism of oppression β and starts becoming essentialism .
for example β you mention gender segregation in religious spaces , modesty practices , hijabs , burqas , separate pools , et cetera . but segregation / modesty practices are not unique to islam whatsoever . orthodox judaism has gender β separated prayer . conservative christianity has modesty doctrines . catholicism historically enforced head coverings for women in church . hindu communities have gendered purity practices in some traditions . even secular societies enforce gendered dress expectations constantly , just in different forms .
the question is not β does gender exist in this religion . β the question is :
1 . how are these practices enforced ?
3 . what are the material conditions surrounding them ?
4 . can people dissent safely ?
5 . what role do state power , class , colonialism , and patriarchy play ?
because there is a massive difference between :
a β a woman personally choosing modest dress as spiritual devotion ,
b β familial / social pressure ,
c β patriarchal cultural norms ,
and a state violently enforcing dress codes .
flattening all of those together under β islam is misogynistic β removes all nuance and ultimately tells muslim women they have no agency or interpretive capacity themselves .
and truth be told , western discourse around muslim women very often infantilises them while pretending to β save β them .
the obsession with hijabs especially has always bothered me because western societies act as though muslim women uniquely experience gendered control over appearance while simultaneously hypersexual using women nonstop through media , advertising , beauty standards , cosmetic industries , workplace expectations , and misogynistic violence .
one form of regulation gets labeled β barbaric religion , β while another gets normalised as culture , fashion , or empowerment.
that doesnβt mean compulsory veiling is okay . it means patriarchy is global , not uniquely islamic .
you also mention countries where anti β LGBT laws or misogynistic laws exist under islamic governments . again : those laws absolutely deserve criticism . however β i think it is intellectually dishonest to imply this emerges from islam in some isolated vacuum detached from history and material conditions .
many of these states were shaped heavily by colonialism , western intervention , dictatorships backed by foreign powers , economic destabilisation , cold war politics , and reactionary ruling classes . saudi arabia , for example , did not become globally influential in isolation β western powers heavily empowered gulf monarchies for geopolitical and oil interests while simultaneously portraying muslims as inherently backwards .
and meanwhile , western nations themselves are hardly innocent regarding misogyny or queer oppression . the united states , for example , only federally legalized same β sex marriage recently in historical terms . nationalism is currently influencing legislation across the u.s . women still face staggering levels of violence , reproductive control , workplace discrimination , and sexual exploitation under secular capitalism . transsexuals are openly targeted politically . so i find it strange when people speak as though misogyny is a uniquely religious or specifically muslim defect rather than a broader structural issue .
i also think thereβs an orientalist tendency in a lot of this discourse where muslim societies are treated as uniquely savage while western violence becomes invisible . a western country can drone strike civilians , destabilise entire regions , support dictatorships , imprison migrants , exploit the global south economically , and still maintain the image of being β civilised β because it frames itself as secular and progressive . but then a muslim woman wearing a hijab becomes proof that her entire civilisation is oppressive ?
that double standard is impossible to ignore .
and to be honest , saying β why should i respect a religion that does not respect me β also becomes difficult because religions are not singular conscious beings . there are queer muslims . feminist muslims . progressive muslims . muslim socialists . muslim women who interpret their faith entirely differently than conservative clerics do . reducing all muslims to the most reactionary expressions of political islam is no more intellectually fair than reducing all christians to fascist evangelicals .
i think a lot of queer people believe they have understandable trauma from religion , and i understand why someone could come to that conclusion . religious institutions and leaders absolutely have harmed many LGBTQ people . but personal trauma does not automatically justify broad prejudice toward billions of people . otherwise every form of bigotry could justify itself through bad experiences .
you can critique patriarchy , homophobia , clerical abuse , theocratic governance , forced dress codes , reactionary interpretations β without turning muslims into a civilisational enemy category .
and frankly , i think progressive spaces should be extremely cautious about rhetoric that mirrors imperial propaganda . historically , anti β muslim rhetoric has never remained β just criticism . β it gets weaponised into surveillance , invasions , immigration panic , hate crimes , dehumanisation , and collective punishment very quickly .
so yes , you should critique oppressive leaders . absolutely . but there is a major difference between : β this government / law / institution is oppressive β vs β this religion and its followers are fundamentally backwards . β
the former is political critique . the latter other slides very quickly into chauvinism .
