Muslim groups call for Starbucks Boycott in Malaysia and Indonesia

I just saw this headline and wonder what progressives would say about it:

“Muslim groups in Malaysia and Indonesia have called for a boycott of Starbucks because of the coffee chain’s support for LGBT rights.”

1 Like

It’s not at all surprising that some religious groups of Malaysia and Indonesia are homophobic?


The same I have to say to Christians:

They can personally believe what they want, but the second they try forcing their beliefs on other people is the second I have problems.

Thankfully most of the Christians and Muslims I have known over the years are not that type of person.


I don’t know, maybe you can tell me what you think progressives would say about it? And then I can tell you if I agree with that or not.


But which Muslim groups?
I bet there are Christian groups that do exactly the same, but I doubt that the mainstream Catholics or Episcopalians (or Unitarians, Quakers etc) do.
Pretending that Islam is homogeneous actually plays right into the hands of :poop:Saudi :poop:Arabia​:poop:


I boycott Starbucks too, I guess. Most of their coffee is burnt.


Actually, mainstream Islam in Malaysia takes a very dim view of homosexuality; Malaysia is a very conservative, racist country, complete with apostasy laws, racial purity laws and racist laws regarding the operation of corporations above a certain size (corporations above a certain size must be run by descendants of the people indigenous to the Malay peninsula or Borneo). While this has had some salutary effect (the indigenous population didn’t get their land stolen out from under them, which is a damn good show considering what happened in, say, Australia or America), it has resulted in some really perverse and murky politics.

Let’s be honest, though, it’s not just Islam in the region because Malaysia’s neighbor to the south, Singapore, which is pretty much a secular nation, also takes a pretty dim view of homosexuality.


That this progressive, for one, would never turn his back on an Abrahamic monotheism in a dark alley?

1 Like

I think that’s key. And knowing the history of homophobia in the middle-east (basically written into local laws by european colonialists) I wouldn’t be surprised if homophobia was originally imported separately from islam.

FWIW, Malaysia recently went through an embarrassing banana-republic style political persecution of a former deputy prime minister on sodomy charges:

And just to reinforce the point that islam is not monolithic:

TBH though, “better than the evangelicals” is a very low bar.


This is the frustrating point and the point I was making earlier about needing labels.

WTF does Christian mean? Because it can mean A LOT of things. From a devout Catholic, to an end times Evangelical, to an Amish person, to someone who barely shows up on Easter an Christmas. Where are they from? America? Probably not, there are many more non-American Christians in the world. What race? What do they believe? How firm is that belief?

You can’t easily answer any of those questions based only on the label of Christian.

Same with Muslim. Usually we think of some one from the Middle East, an Arab or Persian - even though there is a huge Asian population and African population as well. So you can’t assume where they are from. Odds are they aren’t from/in America, which is probably why the Islamaphobia is so strong here. But let’s continue - what do they believe? Are the Sunni or Shiite? Are they something else? Are they devout? Do they eat pork? Do they condone violence? Are they barely observant? You can’t tell really anything about them based on that label.

Unfortunately, Islamic based/influenced terrorism is a reality in parts of the world, and even though it is a minority, it gets over weighed in the brains of most people. Some of this understandable - we are human. But you NEED to go beyond the stereo type of the label in your brain and realize that odds are anyone “Muslim” is not a terrorist. The odds are they are not violent. There are a BILLION Muslims in the world. If most or even a significant portion of them radically violent, there would be A LOT more blood shed around the world. You can condemn the bad actors with out condemning everyone.


To the point of the original post by @SSVT - the world isn’t black and white. There are problems with homophobia in Islam just like there is in Christianity, Judaism, and even atheists. You can condemn specific issues with out condemning EVERYONE. Not all Muslims think like that. And even if that attitude is prevalent in a large population, you can condemn that attitude with out lumping in everything else.

I know gay Christians who obviously don’t agree with some of the views from some of their fellow Christians, but they aren’t going to condemn all of them based one some of the very vocal ones out there.

It isn’t all or nothing. There is no man with out sin and evil somewhere in their hearts. Even if you don’t believe in religion, every man holds darkness somewhere. To condemn one is to condemn us all. So maybe try some nuance in your life.

1 Like

While it is often the case that some colonial era penal code is the direct source of any current legal prohibition or restriction; I’m always inclined to wonder exactly how many post-colonial years you get to change things before one has to conclude that the law is ‘as codified by a colonial administration; but accepted or even popular locally’.

Even in the cases where the former colonial power still enjoys doing as much meddling as they can without maintaining a permanent military presence; those colonial powers have all(if there are any exceptions, do tell; but I was unable to find them) abandoned such laws in their own territories; under the weight of enough popular pressure that reactionaries couldn’t hold the line.

None of the above is to excuse or soften the deeply troubling work involved in colonial activity; but colonial laws and institutions can, and are, overturned sooner or later if they don’t have, at least, some sort of locally entrenched advocates; so while nothing diminishes the culpability of whoever imported and mandated the bad plan to begin with; sooner or later its endurance has to be evidence that it is either an import that successfully made converts locally; or a foreign codification of a sentiment with local support.

1 Like

I’d say “that looks remarkably similar to a headline I saw about American Christian groups boycotting Starbucks for exactly the same reason.”

But I try not to judge adherents of either religion by their douchiest public representatives.


Is Donald Trump a secret Muslim?


I might have not explained very well (it’s been too hot and humid again, and I haven’t have a good nights sleep in about a week), but I agree with you and was trying to make that point.

In the UK the only religious people who I have concerns about forcing their beliefs on other uninterested people are the 10 people who are propping up the government. The are in a party that thought the most urgent issue in 1970s Northern Ireland was stopping the possibility of two men having sex. Everyone else doesn’t really have enough power to do that outside of small social circles.

And the majority of the people being targeted by Islamic terrorist attacks are more moderate Muslims, but that gets forgotten because it isn’t happening in the west.


No, no, I know you were. I just used it as a springboard to further elaborate.

Absolutely. Nearly everyone blown up, executed, or killed in battle in Iraq, Syria, etc, is another Muslim. A fact worth repeating.

Sure, I’m not disputing that the laws and their precepts haven’t been incorporated into the local culture. Society has inertia. Just that the origin of such beliefs isn’t the religion.

That’s not a fair comparison. Most former colonies quickly fell into the clutches of repressive regimes. They held over practically all of the worst laws, not just anti-gay laws, because liberal ideals don’t get much attention in those situations.

1 Like

That’s hardly a fair characterization. Based on how they allocated their political pressure and paramilitary violence; they clearly thought that popery was at least as serious an issue as sodomy.

That is unfortunately true; my intention in noting that the colonial powers had abandoned the position was to suggest that it was less likely to be something that they would apply pressure about. Nationalize their extraction industries, or make noises about cozying up to communism; and you run the real risk of ending up on the pointy end of their displeasure. Abandon a law they’ve also abandoned; less so(some of the NGOs, like the churches that depend on the developing world to provide conservative clergy and congregants when their headquarters locations increasingly fall to liberalism or apathy, might be less pleased; but also not as well armed).

It’s also the case that, while repressive governments tend not to have a fondness for ‘rights’ and liberal causes; they aren’t generally against doing things that are popular and not a risk to state power; or which enhance their nationalist cred. “Abolish the law imposed by your former colonial overlords to impose their sexual mores” is not something that would be hard to cast as a vigorous nationalist rejection of oppressive foreign impositions, rather than some warm and fuzzy universal-human-rights-of-unpopular-minorities thing. If the regime assumed that it would increase rather than decrease its popularity.

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.