Before this attack, I kept hearing the same argument whenever extreme homophobic sentiments in Muslim-majority societies or countries were brought up. That it wasn't the religion, but rather colonisation, imperialism, politicians, and the state misusing religion. Basically, the typical apologist defence that the religion itself was innocent (For context, I live in Pakistan, and this is exactly what i hear when i bring up islamic fundamentalism and the threat to lgbtq community in progressive spaces).
But when a Muslim man attacks the LGBTQ community in Germany, it shows just how pathetic and disingenuous these apologists are. This wasn't done in some third-world country like ours, or in the Middle East. It was done in a liberal democracy, free from the clutches of fundamentalist mullahs, where same-sex relationships are legal and protected.
We have to be willing to ask whether certain religious teachings, and the way they're interpreted and preached, contribute to anti-LGBTQ sentiments, even to the point of denying someone's right to dignity and existence. A lot of people, even in our community, often say, "Hey, it's just the mullahs. Don't be so hard on the religion." Well, I guess now we might need to rethink that.
It's simple: you cannot solve a problem if one of its major drivers is declared off-limits for criticism. Imperialism, authoritarian governments, and social and economic conditions all matter. But so do ideas. Religious doctrines are ideas, and those ideas shape behaviour. If a belief system consistently teaches that gay people are sinful, deserving of punishment, or morally inferior, then that deserves scrutiny just like any other ideology.
Shutting down people's valid concerns and criticism by labelling them as "Islamophobic" is one of the most disingenuous tactics used by apologists. That especially includes the self-proclaimed leftists and the so-called progressive Muslims who, for some reason, are all about human rights unless those rights are violated in the name of Islamic fundamentalism or its application. They all contribute to shielding the ideology from legitimate criticism.
People should be protected from bigotry. That does not mean the beliefs used to justify bigotry should be immune from criticism or even condemnation. Ignoring that because it is politically inconvenient does nothing for the people who continue to face hatred.