Muslim homosexual men and women have been recognized in television programs, articles, newspapers, research projects, and political events. This is considered a progressive step and is seen as a positive development. Additionally, as Leslie Feinberg states, there has been a strong interest in Muslim homosexuals arising from a fear of Islam. This raises the question of what discussions have been published in this field and how these discussions have strengthened or weakened racism.

This article focuses on the current situation in Britain, where the terms “Muslim” and “homophobia” are widely understood to mean the same thing. The central figure in this process is Peter Tatchell, who has been able to play a liberating and expert role in the field of Muslim gay men and women. This point highlights the problems of one-dimensional representation policies, which equate gay with white and ethnic minorities with heterosexuals. However, the fact that the Tatchell group is known as Outrage and is recognized as a post-colonial policy in Britain, shows that Islamophobia cannot be reduced to a critical analysis of identity. The active participation of both right and left, feminists and gays, official authorities and civil forces in the industry of Islamophobia shows that racism is more than ever a problem of whiteness and is linked to other political and social differences.

Two writers named Jasper Powar and Leslie Finberg, both of whom are queer and non-Muslim, examined the racial policies of English-Australian politician Peter Tatchell and his group. This group was known for a long time as a pioneer of queer policies and opposed the Stonewall group, which had chosen lobbying as their political method, and put direct actions on their agenda.

Peter Tatchell not only plays an important role among the people of Britain and is known as one of the major representatives of the gay community, but he has also introduced himself as an expert on gay issues in Muslim countries, as well as in Zimbabwe and Jamaica on the international stage. Frinberg introduces him as one of the main actors in the International Day Against Homophobia in Iran on June 19, 2006. Although his request for sanctions against the “Islamic fascists of Iran” was a vague translation of a text into Persian, he was able to expand his “global” agenda through the creation of a new organization called the Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund. Tatchell lists the actions of this fund on his website.

Her sentences are interesting in the sense that she wants to evoke the idea that Southern queers have put themselves in danger by sacrificing their own well-being to respond to their requests for help. However, she uses racist language to describe the environmental and social problems in the South that, if left unchecked, will reach a breaking point. Her sentences bring to mind the old metaphor of the white man who, in order to save helpless victims who cannot help themselves, ignores his own needs.

In fact, in the current context of Islamophobia, white people can once again present themselves as international champions of civilization, modernity, and identity development. Muslim homosexuals are the latest symbol of this identity. These individuals are victims of ideological signs and must be rescued from their savage and backward society in a way that also includes political and military pressure. In this regard, Muslim homosexuals join Muslim women, whose liberation has traditionally been used as a document for imperialism.

The concerning issue about these images is not just the representation of Muslim homosexuals as victims without representation, but rather the problem is that these images directly feed into the racist and anti-Muslim hatred. This issue is happening in the context of a new global order, where Islam and Muslims have replaced the Eastern bloc and communists as the new global enemies. The differences of Islam, compared to the old enemy that was only seen as different in political beliefs, are now being portrayed much deeper and rooted in a non-civilized and pre-modern culture.

The creation of “Muslim Homophobia” has been placed at the center of discussions on security and has been transformed into the core values of the new Europe. This issue has led to legitimizing repressive actions against anti-terror, attacks on nationality, educational and immigration rights, as well as limiting the civil liberties of individuals. Sexuality and sexual orientation, alongside terrorism, have become areas in which Islamophobic wars are fought both domestically and internationally.

This issue reflects a transformation in European identity, which now counts claims of women’s equality and LGBTQ rights as symbols of modernity and civilization alongside democracy. Through this, gender and sexual orientation gain a political position. While we celebrate this progress, we must remember that its main foundation is not progress in gender and sexual politics, but a return to racist policies.

For example, regarding the intense discussions that took place after the homophobic remarks of Iqbal Sacranie, the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, and during which the rights of homosexuals were recognized as a central value, it must be said that this happened only 5 years after the legal age of consent for homosexuals was equalized and only 3 years after the repeal of Section 28, which prohibited discussion of homosexuality by teachers. The resistance of the British people against the equality of homosexuals can also be seen in the fact that the Labour government had to use the Parliament Act to repeal Section 28, as it had been repeatedly rejected by the House of Lords.

The creation of “Muslim Homophobia” gives value to Western identities and provides Westerners with a political capital that they have generally been deprived of. The biggest beneficiaries of this event are white male feminists and homosexuals, who have even worse positions compared to language and colorful minorities. White feminists have been able to gain access to the political arena for the first time by representing Muslim women. Similarly, white homosexuals also play a key role in representing Muslim homosexuals. We have seen previously how Touchell was able to obtain financial resources and recognition for his international human rights campaign.

His success is based on using the language of empathy, unity and coherence, cosmopolitanism and anti-fascism. However, he often describes Muslims as Nazis. He also addresses the Supreme Leader, the Iranian government, and the Muslim Council as Nazis in an article on his website, and compares the Muslim Council to the British neo-Nazi National Party. The main effect of this article is to equate Muslims with Nazis and Muslims with evil.

The misuse of empathy becomes clear when we see the negative consequences of his policies on the majority of Muslim communities. Politicians like Touchel have made it difficult for them to help the situation of the majority of Muslims, instead of helping them. Protesting against sexual discrimination in Muslim communities will be difficult for groups that have been forced to create an artificial divide between Muslims and homosexuals. The more homophobia is attributed to Islam, the more the discourse against homophobia will turn into a discourse of white supremacy and even racism, making it harder for straight Muslims to tolerate and understand.