I am surprised at Eastenders', for the latest story line about a homosexual Muslim

1. There is no such thing as a homosexual Muslim.

2. Rather if a Muslim chooses' to be a homosexual, under religious scripting' of revelations' they have left the folds' of adherence to the one true God; Allah. Of what all muslims' believe to be correct.

3. Therefore, under the religious clergy, and established religious community, they are no longer classed as a Muslim, rather someone who has chosen to abandon their religion, and facts' have to be correct before broadcasting on national television, as it can lead to tremendous upset and cause mass offense worldwide, because of the ignorance and or unknowledge people have of Islam.

4. And rather; the story should have been under factual accounts' of religious principle, that sadique left his religion and no longer associates' himself with his family and or relatives', unless it is done discretely.

5. This is extremely provocative production line, and the producers' are brandishing all muslims' with the same title as allowing homosexuality, when infact; that is not the case as stated by factual evidence in the quran that clearly states', if you breech this condition, under your own agreements' of continuation of affairs'; thus you choose to act without an extreme added pressure of circumstance under occupation of higher powers' who have no disregard for the Islamic ways' of life, then yes, they no longer , under all communities' that up-hold the faith scriptations', remain a Muslim. And in extreme circumstances' where by they are openly displaying such conduct ions' in the public domain, action is taken, in far off lands' where it is forbidden to practise it, thus if Arabs' do practise homosexuality it is not in the open domain and not under the muslim title of islam.

6. And Eastenders' could be held liable for getting their facts' wrong without investigating first; the correct conditions' under Islamic law on the rulings' of such nature.

7. And thus to read it straight from someones' memory is not first hand accounts' of religious revelation, and thus Eastenders' have got it wrong.