[intopieces]

>where being member of Groups A, B, and C means you must hold Ideas X, Y, and Z because those must be the views you hold as a member of those groups.

This was never more obvious to me than when I was in college. As an out gay guy who studied Arabic, this seemed to short-circuit the expectations of my peers; being in awe of Islamic art, and wanting deeply to travel to Iran and see the mosques of the world was something that, for some reason, didn't compute to them. "But don't they hate your kind over there?" was not an uncommon reaction. I get it, I really do, but sometimes it felt like I wasn't allowed, in their eyes, to have access to those beautiful things in the world, or else I was considered "brave" for trying to access them. But to me they have been wholly distinct interests from the start, and only incidental that they happen to coexist in me as a individual person.

[int_19h]

And then there's the converse - when e.g. Iranian and Arab immigrants are shamed for legitimately criticizing religious-based oppression in their societies, because their criticism - with extra weight lent to it by their background - supposedly fuels Islamophobia in the West; and is thus a form of cultural imperialism that they're expected to not partake in, regardless of the reality of oppression that they talk about, or their own personal experience in that regard.

The most famous example is probably Maajid Nawaz - a former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir who renounced his extremist views, and since then has been actively criticizing political Islamism (of both violent and non-violent variety), while remaining a practicing Muslim. Despite that last fact, he was identified as an "anti-Muslim extremist" by SPLC - and they only retracted this after a massive outcry.

[smitty1e]

Contrast that with the utter fragmentation of Christianity in the West. Pope Francis needs a Sgt. Hulka to encourage him to lighten up[1].

Lord have mercy on anyone who takes temporal leaders more seriously than those absolute truths to which those leaders (purportedly) point.

[1] Reference to the movie "Stripes".

[john4534243]

You are trying to portray ISLAM as religion of peace. It is not. ISLAM is incompatible with democracy. I understand all types of people exist given the amount of population. With ISLAM it is followed very strongly and that's why even physics majors don't question the existence of god in the open even when they are non in the Islamic state.

[mattalbie]

I think the reason it short-circuits their expectations is that what they're actually trying to do is "cancel" Islam on your behalf. Like: "wait a minute, I'm trying to defend/protect you here, isn't that what you want from a majority, to stand up for you?" And what you're doing, ignoring their protective effort, becomes a kind of betrayal. Which has got to be so frustrating -- the idea that you're not qualified to have your own opinion, that you have to conform to what the majority says simply because they're "helping" you.

[mam2]

Interesting, but I'm not sure this qualifies to the point, in this case they are worried for your safety for valid reasons.. not trying to force you an opinion on something.

[oh_sigh]

There is absolutely no problem being gay and going to Iran. There isn't some magic gaydar they can scan you with to discover your nature. I'd recommend not trying to find hookup partners while you're in Iran, but that is different than them just figuring out you're gay and deciding to harm you. Being an American in Iran is a far bigger burden IMHO, because of the required government minders.

[AaronFriel]

I think their concern was well-founded and the reason identity and politics have become so intertwined is because "the personal is political".

In Iran, homosexuality has been punished by imprisonment, torture, and execution. People who are gay in Iran do not have the luxury of being able to go and visit, they live under that threat every day. And many countries in the Middle East have similar policies and their gay population - rarely out - live under similar threat.

Wanting to go study the beautiful works of art in Iran is brave. As an atheist, it would be dangerous for me to do so as well, and yet the Islamic scientific and cultural golden age is still quite interesting to me.

But yet, it's still true that many, perhaps most of them "hate my kind" over there. Atheism is also punishable by execution in several countries in the Arabic speaking world. If I told friends I wanted to go study and live in Iran and they were concerned and asked me that question, I don't think it'd be disproportionate. If they said it was brave, I don't think I'd dispute it.

(Though in all fairness and perhaps you find this cringeworthy, I am fortunate and privileged in that being a straight atheist in these countries is a lot easier than being gay, and being gay and Muslim might actually exacerbate the threat.)

[davidzweig]

I studied in Iran for a couple of months and travelled a lot around the country as an anglophone atheist (that happens to speak Farsi). I don't think anyone ever asked me about religion. Everyone was nice.