A Collision at the Intersection

The American term “intersection”, what the British call a “crossroads”, is both a practical solution and a hazard. Aided by traffic lights and signage, it allows the flow of traffic travelling in different, non-parallel directions, but the fact that these differing streams have to traverse common space is what gives it a greater element of risk than driving on a regular road. There are often auto accidents at intersections.

“Intersectionality” is also part of the lexicon used by those under the spell of identity politics. For a definition, who better to turn to than the Center for Intersectional Justice (CIJ)?

The concept of intersectionality describes the ways in which systems of inequality based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, class and other forms of discrimination ‘intersect’ to create unique dynamics and effects.

Unique dynamics and effects. Keep that in mind, as this Venn-like model is currently producing both, although not in the way the CIJ passionately strive for. Intersectionality is designed to produce a united front of the oppressed and, presumably, each of the separate identities so put upon will find the others right behind them. However, at one particular intersection, a pile-up has been coming for some time. A recent and apparently insignificant example from England perfectly illustrates a culture clash that was built into the system from the outset.

Until recently, the Mayor of Keighley in Yorkshire was a Muslim, Councillor Mohammed Nazam. He attended a pride festival, and later apologized for his attendance on a Facebook page called “Keighley Pakistanis”, calling his decision to attend “a lapse in judgment”. This did not sit well with his political party, the Conservatives (we will return to Muslim conservatism), and he was forced to resign. One point of interest, from his own defense on Facebook, is that he claimed the ceremony contradicted his “personal religious beliefs”.

This is only partly true. There is a sense in which Muslims have personal religious beliefs in that they are technically individuals. But the Muslim faith is collective, that of the ummah. It is sectarian, certainly, but the Five Pillars of Islam, along with the Koran, are a common center of gravity for Muslims, an amalgam of faith and politics which features certain immutable characteristics. One of these is an explicit rejection of homosexuality.

While homosexuality is illegal in around 70 countries, there are 11 which explicitly impose or can impose a death sentence. They are all Muslim countries, and perhaps Gay Times — or at least its tourism advice department — can be relied to know where they are. This thorough-going inventory includes the relevant clause from the various nations’ penal code. The exception is Saudi Arabia, which has no penal code and instead cuts out the middle-man by applying shariah direct from the Koran.

Muslim parents have also protested against LGBTQ in the classroom in Canada and America, stamping on pride flags and not confining their protests to placards at the school gate. Three sets of Muslim parents in Maryland are taking the Montgomery School board to court on the principle that their inability to opt-out from books they find offensive contravenes their First Amendment rights. Muslims are very effective in the law courts, because what individuals don’t know, their imam does.

Protests in Ottawa caused severe cognitive dissonance among counter-protestors, says the National Post, as the opposing marchers “…appeared to be discomfited by the fact that their protestors weren’t their supposed bogeyman [conservative Whites] but included many people of color, including socially conservative Muslims.”

Socially conservative. Watch that phrase, because it has a big future in the Left’s explanation as to why intersectionality has become, to use their language, “problematic”.

Those on the political right are often accused of “not understanding” Islam. We certainly understand it better than did the White liberal residents of Hamtrack, Michigan. From the UK’s Left-wing Guardian;

In 2015, many liberal residents in Hamtrack, Michigan, celebrated as their city attracted international attention for becoming the first in the United States to elect a Muslim-majority city council … This week [published June 17] many of those same residents watched in dismay as a now fully Muslim and socially conservative city council passed legislation banning Pride flags from being flown on city property. [Italics added]

What exactly did they expect? The dominant far-Left in the West, while they are obsessed with hated conservatism, have overlooked the fact that Muslims are the most hyper-conservative creed on the planet. While an old-school British Tory might want to ease the UK back to the 1950s, many Muslims would prefer to route-march us all back to the eighth century. They make the Amish look like progressives.

And so Muslims can be reasonably said not to devote too much time to doing what the rest of us are mandated to do, which is “celebrate” pride month, or season, or year. By all accounts it is not possible to travel far in any British city without seeing the dystopian bunting of the pride flag, an ensign as ugly as the ideology that forces it on schoolchildren and, by proxy, their parents. But you won’t see the pride flag flown in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Luton or any other “social conservative” majority area of London. You will, on the other hand, see so-called “Shariah zone” posters in those areas.

Early versions of such posters had two men hand-in-hand with a cross struck through, but this was removed as Islamic activists doubtless did not want to be seen as homophobic. It would be inadvisable, however, for two men to walk holding hands in the areas mentioned, and many others in the UK. Muslims are the only British group actively promoting hardline conservative values.

But Muslims are not some ideological cavalry riding to save the timid kufr, who dare not otherwise criticize the forced LGBTQ curriculum. Elsewhere in Yorkshire, a teacher and his family, under new identities, are still in hiding after the teacher showed a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed from French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo to the class he was teaching. No one from the “intersectionality” lobby has ever spoken up to help him.

The gay community are also having problems with the trans lobby, and the latter’s embrace of diversity at every level is making it problematic to be homosexual in an increasingly Islamized society. The French gay community, although staunchly against Marine Le Pen and her Rassemblement National due to its opposition to same-sex marriage, still saw one third of them voting for her in the run-off stage of the last French Presidential election.

Unlike Western politicians, representatives of the extensive Muslim community are quite clear on their tolerance level. In the USA, a document precisely outlining the Islamic position on the LGBTQ community was released in May of this year, and it achieves what no Western politician has been able to in that it makes absolutely clear Islam’s attitude to shifting cultural norms. Navigating Differences: Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam has hundreds of signatories from the Western Islamic infrastructure. And these signatories cannot be dismissed as crank lobbyists unsupported by the heads of their religion. Islam has no head, it has no Pope. Imams and Islamic scholars (the ulama) make a consensus by weight of numbers, not by Papal decree.

In the section Our Constitutional Right to Hold Our Views, an interesting legal juxtaposition is made:

We recognize that our moral code conflicts with the goals of LGBTQ proponents. We also acknowledge their constitutional right to live in peace and free from abuse. Nevertheless, we emphasize our God-given and constitutional rights to hold, live by, and promote our religious beliefs in the best manner (Quran, al-Nahl: 125) without fear of legal reprisal or systematic marginalization.

Despite the document claiming “constitutional” rights, the American Constitution is not referenced, despite the famous First Amendment being explicit about religious freedoms. “Constitutional rights” here refer to the Koran.

The Democrat-media complex took a little while to spin this, but eventually wheeled out Jen Psaki to explain that the GOP are “recruiting” Muslims to oppose transgender policies. They surely know that no recruitment is needed. Muslims are already conscripted, just not to the GOP but what they see as a higher authority.

So-called “woke” ideology is becoming a victim of its own pathological obsession with diversity, its intersectional mainframe rupturing as Muslims — and Blacks — will not tolerate homosexuality and all its works. And there are other stress fractures within “intersectionality”. “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists”, or TERFs, have been ostracized by the LGBTQ community for their biologically realist approach. And left-wing feminists are leaving areas controlled by  Muslims for fear of harassment.

The default left-wing riposte to the Islamic injunction on homosexuality is that the Bible says the same thing as the Koran. Quite so, but if you arrange a drag show in Birmingham, Britain’s second city — 34% Christian, 30% Muslim — it won’t be the Seventh-Day Adventists who pay you a visit. The Koran, incidentally, although it condemns homosexuality, does not endorse the death penalty. That occurs in the Hadith, the supposed sayings of Mohammed: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lut (Lot), execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done”.

The dar al Islam does not recognize the separation of state and religion it sees in the dar al harb and will not tolerate LGBTQ propaganda in its children’s schools — or anywhere else as their presence increases. The British state — an extension of globalist concerns — will not countenance opposition to its LGBTQ agenda. Either an unstoppable force is about to be stopped, or an immovable object is about to move. Stay clear of the intersection.