Will Ilhan Impose Sanctions on Palestine for Being Anti-LGBT Rights?

When American Muslims, like Jonathan Brown, loudly encourage the Muslim community to support LGBT rights in the US context, the question arises: Should Muslims also insist on LGBT rights outside the US, specifically in the Muslim world?

It seems only logical that if American Muslims will passionately defend LGBT rights in the US out of some moral concern for equal rights, they should believe in the same rights for any homosexual and transgendered persons in Muslim countries. Why would there be a difference?

As Brown argues:

Muslims in the U.S. should affirm and advocate for many (but not necessarily all) LGBTQ rights, not because of a quid pro quo they-stood-by-us-so-we-have-to-stand-by-them logic, but rather because Muslims in the U.S. and LGBTQ groups seek protection for the same rights and, ironically, arguably have a common vision for the country’s future.

It is not clear what Brown means by this. In what world do Muslims and LGBT advocates have the same vision for America’s future? Do Muslims want to see their children taught an LGBT curriculum in schools? Do Muslims want their businesses to be forced by law to serve gay weddings? Are Muslims enthusiastic about “Drag Queen Story Time” happening in their local libraries?

Is this the shared vision of America Brown is referring to?

Brown concludes his article with this:

One of the most intense and long-running debates in American history is whether the United States is a White (Protestant) Christian country in which religious and racial minorities are welcome as long as they know their place, or if it’s a country in which there is no ruling racial or religious majority but only a common framework of rights and a vision of equal liberty in which all are welcome provided they affirm the rights and liberties of others. The first vision has never been able to, and still cannot, accept real demographic, religious, or moral diversity. The second embraces this diversity and makes it a strength. It’s also a vision not too different from the one that Muslims held for many centuries. It seems like the vision that Muslim Americans should fight for now.

So you see, diversity must be embraced because it is a strength! And you can’t have true diversity unless there is a healthy dose of sodomy and drag mixed in there.

Apparently, this is a vision Muslims have held for centuries. We love diversity! The only question is, why does the US get to hog all that juicy diversity? If diversity is strength, as Brown so eloquently puts it, we need to spread the love. Literally. We need to strengthen Muslim nations around the world by ensuring that true diversity is embraced and “LGBT minority rights” are championed from Morocco to Indonesia and every Muslim society in between.

You know what that means? Drag Queen Story Hour for ALL Muslim children worldwide!!!

So much strength in this photo. Breathtaking.

At least that’s the clear implication of Brown’s logic. Hopefully, he can clarify, perhaps with another article for Yaqeen Institute, on why Muslims should be vociferous defenders of LGBT rights in the US but, at the same time, oppose LGBT rights in the Muslim world, since such “rights” are categorically contrary to Islam.

Here Comes Ilhan

While Muslim academics like Brown and Yaqeen Institute provide the “intellectual” basis for Muslim support of LGBT rights, politicians like Ilhan “The Sharia Is Barbaric” Omar are the warriors on the front line, championing that potent mix of sodomy and drag for Muslim nations.

In the latest Twitter controversy, some obscure Twitter account called “Robby Starbuck” tweeted at Ilhan and her “squad,” daring them to denounce the recent move by the Palestinian Authority to ban LGBT demonstrations in the West Bank.

Ilhan, of course, was all too eager to take the bait and reply to this random, no-name account, to prove just how important LGBT in Palestine means to her.

This is not news, of course. Ilhan has denounced Muslim nations for not satisfactorily embracing the rainbow since before she was elected.

Two things to note:

First, on LGBT for the Muslim world, there is absolute two-party consensus. Republicans and Democrats have come together on the one issue that unites them through thick and thin: men rectally penetrating other men. Donald Trump’s administration has made it clear that they intend to put pressure on all Muslim countries to de-criminalize same sex behavior, contrary to the dictates of the Sharia and Islamic ethics writ large practiced in many of these countries.

Even bitter enemies like Zionists and BDS-supporters can join hands and shed a tear for the poor LGBT Palestinians who can’t freely enjoy man-on-man anal sex.

Secondly, how far is Ilhan willing to go to defend LGBT rights in Palestine?

She has already shown what she is willing to do as a legislator against a small Muslim nation like Brunei for its stance against LGBT, working to pass laws in Congress to impose strict sanctions for the purpose of crippling the country.

So if she is going to be consistent, she should also impose similar sanctions against the Palestinian Authority. Why sanction some Muslim governments with anti-LGBT policies and not others?

Without a doubt, Republicans and Zionists will make sure to exploit this inconsistency on Ilhan’s part. Why is she in support of sanctions for other anti-LGBT countries, but not Palestine? And, Ilhan, being the clueless controlled opposition puppet she is, will most likely cave and make precisely the denunciations against Palestinian political groups that the Zionists are hoping for. This will, then, cause quite a bind for all those BDS, pro-Ilhan fanboys, seeing their champion in Congress denouncing Palestine. Awkward…

It’s funny. Some were claiming that Palestine is a red-line, no compromise issue for Ilhan “The Sharia Is Barbaric” Omar. As it turns out, the only no compromise issue for her is gay love and men surgically removing their genitalia to transition to womanhood (or vice versa).

Break Out the Rainbows!

Ilhan was not content to merely denounce Palestine for not sharing her hatred for the Sharia. She also went out of her way to promote to her 1.5 million followers a shady LGBT advocacy group called alQaws.

Given all this, we have to ask, how pro-Palestine is Ilhan really?

She opposes the religion of Palestinians. She has loudly denounced the two main political parties of the Palestinians: The PA and Hamas. She is also an advocate of the two-state solution. On all these major points, she is in perfect lockstep with AIPAC and American Zionists.

Lately, Ilhan has also been retweeting Zionist shill and BDS-violater Wajahat Ali.

I’m sure that all the Muslim supporters of BDS will have no problem with their shero Ilhan amplifying MLI “faith-washing” stooge Wajahat.

And As Usual…

Let’s take a moment to remember and appreciate those who, time and again, pick up the megaphone to bravely promote our beloved Ilhan to the Muslim community around the world.

One of the numerous times CAIR has featured Ilhan.
ISNA calls Ilhan an “inspiration”
Hatem Bazian, co-founder, Zaytuna College, working his network hard to get Ilhan re-elected.

 

MuslimMatters celebrating, well after Ilhan’s Islamically questionable views had come out publicly.
Muslimmatters stands with Ilhan “The Sharia is Barbaric” Omar.
Omar Suleiman consistently promoting “historic” Ilhan as benefiting “American Muslim identity”

 

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!

16 COMMENTS

  1. Actually, neo-Nazi trolls make a lot of sense when they go on criticizing their own mainstream culture. When you see the degeneracy, you can’t unsee it, no matter what religion or color you are.

  2. I think it should be mentioned that Johnathan brown did ask for a response article to be done by Dr. Shadee Elmasry which examined and even refuted some of the arguments he made. This was posted as a continuation to Dr. Brown’s article on his site. As such I don’t thing representing him in this fashion as completely supporting the view that we should stand with LGBT people is necessarily correct. Nonetheless, his article does suffice as a good representation of the arguments that some Muslims believe when they decide to support the LGBT movement.

  3. Oy hoy… looks like Ali the mule is pretending to be Meshuggahite paa ji. OYE VEY!
    Is this another tactic of nasal e mujra to BAND KAR LOO? But they can not SHUT IT DOWN!

    JAY KALI MA KE TRUE ISLAAAM! MUGHUL ISLAAAM! NO TO ARABI ISLAAM!

    JAY HOOOO!

  4. “First, on LGBT for the Muslim world, there is absolute two-party consensus. Republicans and Democrats have come together on the one issue that unites them through thick and thin: men rectally penetrating other men.”

    Ofcourse. Promoting non reproductive sexual acts is meant to change the demographics of these countries. And that is exactly the aim: they want to halt islam through the womb. Women’s “Liberation” must also be looked at through this lens. This programma is put into effect on Israel’s Arabs and it’s seems like it’s working.

    https://youtu.be/6Rk60vNUJ9Y?t=3178

  5. To be fair the in the Johnathan brown article he states (Here I want to be very clear: I am only talking about this question in the American setting. What I say may be useful for Muslims in other countries, but I am in no way advocating what I suggest here for Muslims everywhere.) Even if we don’t agree with him it’s only fair to mention that he is not advocating this for abroad.

    • He says it may be useful, so it’s not accurate to say he is *not* advocating his position for Muslims abroad. Why doesn’t he clarify? And how does it make sense, given the actual substance of his argument, to only limit his pro-LGBT stance to America and no where else?

  6. I think by useful to Muslims in other countries he is referring to Muslims in other *western* countries (i.e. the diaspora.) That was the natural impression i got reading his article. And the reason why this makes sense is because his argument is a purely pragmatic one. In Muslim majority countries Muslims dont need this kind of pragmatic approach because they have social power.

    • “In Muslim majority countries Muslims dont need this kind of pragmatic approach because they have social power.”

      Most muslim countries are ruled by a Westernized elite. Media, the means of production and higher education are largely in their hands. The masses are generally not very educated in both the secular and religieus sciences. They mix islam with folk religion. There is a small middle class of which a part is seriously practising.

      roughly:

      5% elite (either very Anglophile or Francophile depending on colonial history)
      20% serious muslims
      75% ‘awaam, regular people. Generally people who love the deen but are not firmly rooted in its sciences and thus are easily misled. Most of these people will not be able to answer very basic questions regarding the deen like: what is tawheed? what are the pillars of imaan? or recite al-Fatiha without mistakes.

      Ironically enough most extremists are ex-Westernized ‘awaam who got disappointed with Western ideals and in an attempt to rectify previous mistakes overreact in the other direction. Most of these people will have had an extended secular episode in their life.

      Exactly because people keep misdiagnosing the problem (“the source is islam itself”) this issue will persist and probably even grow larger in the future. The root of the problem is Western liberal egalitarian culture which alienates people in general but men in specific….even many of its own non-muslim men.

      • Well said akh. I was referring specifically to the issue of homosexuality; the awwaam in Muslim countries are not prepared to accept this, generally speaking. Therefore a pragmatic approach to the issue is not required.

      • The Muslim Theist August 26, 2019 at 12:30 am

        I don’t know about that. Westerners didn’t go along with the gay agenda up untill recently. The West was still very anti in the eighties, the shift started in the nineties. Mass acceptance came about after 2000. Roughly around the time when Millenials started to reach adulthood – people born in 1984 and upwards.

        This is also the generation that got atheized very quickly and on mass by individuals like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Another trait of this group is their extremely poor work ethic and rejection of authority.

        The source of all of this is problably broken homes and fatherlessness. Which in its turn was caused by the Feminist Movement started in the sixties and picking up steam in the seventies. This trend is also noticebly in muslim countries i.e. the proliferation of feminism, broken homes and fatherlessness.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here