Friday, 6 June 2014

The curious case of iERA and homosexuality

This blog post has moved here

The Council Of Ex Muslims recently wrote a report on the various statements of staff of the iERA, the report claims they are a far-right extremist hate group. This report coincided with an announcement from the UK Charity Commision that they are investigating the iERA for its policies on invited speakers and payments to the charity's trustees.

The iERA have on numerous occasions had to distance themselves from comments made in the past by employees and even its own directors and founders. Some have accused them of trying to appease the public whilst still holding the views that were originally seen as being so offensive.

Sometimes getting a straight answer to a direct question can be very difficult. In a recent Twitter exchange Mr Adnan Rashid claimed the Council Of Ex Muslims were like Nazis for misrepresenting the views of the iERA.  I asked him to confirm his views on punishments for consenting adults having same gender sex in the privacy of their own home by asking a specific, carefully worded question.

Getting an answer was going to be a tough job.

Indeed there were posts where Mr Rashid said that what he believes is clear, but is clearly refusing to state exactly what his clear opinion is.

And again...

And again...

Each time deflecting the questions with comparisons to secular society.

And now many self indulgent morally corrupt nights later I find my question still has not been answered. Well, not directly, but if I look at the Islamic books of law that Mr Rashid says he agrees with wholeheartedly I get a "clear" picture of his idea the perfect law he desires.

recent appearance at an Islamic conference by Yusuf (Timothy) Chambers, secretary of iERA, has raised questions about the stance of iERA representatives on matters such as homosexuality. Mr Chambers is clearly seen sitting at the front of the room next to the main speakers when one of the event organisers takes to the microphone and conducts a survey of the audience, asking how many believe in stoning for homosexuality and other Islamic crimes. The results of the ad-hoc survey are quite alarming, but more alarming still is the complete lack of protest from iERA company secretary Mr Chambers.

So here is the question, just in case iERA would like to give a straight answer.

"Under the laws you desire what would be the punishment if two family men (married with children) decided to get divorced and live together, and were happy to openly and repeatedly admit that they are having anal sex with each other in the privacy of their own home?"

I shall leave the last word to Mr Adnan Rashid.


  1. It's actually better for the counter-apologist that he refuses to give a straightforward answer like this. In addition to making it clear what he thinks, he also makes it clear what he thinks about what he thinks.

    Those disingenuous, slippery responses are just as good, if not better, than a straightforward answer.


  2. For anyone reading between the lines they make it clear just how ass backwards & barbaric an ideology they believe in, also taking every chance they get to spit at secularism that gave them the rights they're using to spread their hatred & misinformation about their inhumane religion. :\ It worries me now as an ex-muslim how much these people have convinced the west they're the real victims and how their religion is simply misunderstood by everyone who sees it for what it is. We're all bigots, islamophobes or racists for pointing out the problems in their doctrines. But keep up the awesome work Rationalizer love reading your post.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.