According to Pew poll numbers, 51% of American Muslims favor legalization of gay marriage. Furthermore, 59% of American Muslims allegedly oppose the right of religious business owners to refuse LGBT services that violate their religion. And 65% of American Muslims apparently support laws to protect LGBT’s from job discrimination.
There is a strong chance that these numbers are, more or less, completely made up by Pew. Poll numbers are a great way to manipulate public opinion, and one way to get Muslims to ditch Islamic values and embrace the rainbow is to tell them, “Hey, all Muslims are rainbow huggers already!”
Regardless of whether the numbers are accurate or not, there is a serious problem with Muslim youth accepting LGBT dogma hook, line, and sinker. I base this on anecdotal experience as well as speaking to dozens of imams and scholars over the years who publicly and privately admit that they see this as one of the most serious issues affecting the faith of their communities.
The Rainbow Gestapo Cometh
In the past year, the liberal thought police have set their sights on crushing any and all Muslim resistance to LGBT indoctrination. The biggest news was the mandatory LGBT curriculum imposed on UK schools. Such mandatory curricula already exist in certain US states, like New York and California, and are spreading across the country at rapid pace. There was also Trump’s new mandate to sanction any Muslim country that criminalized sodomy. And the beloved Ilhan “The Sharia is Barbaric” Omar introduced sweeping anti-Sharia legislation to hammer the small Muslim country of Brunei for daring to implement Islamic justice against al-fahisha.
There was also the recent case of Jamila Choudhury, an unapologetic Muslim sister — in the truest (not the fakest) sense of that word — who was arrested and charged in the UK for courageously denouncing the totalitarian rainbow regime on the streets of the UK (there were reports that her denunciations were in response to being taunted and harassed by pride marchers).
So, from every direction, Muslims are feeling suffocating pressure.
And just recently, the US Supreme Court is considering whether religious business owners and employers generally can be sued for discriminating against gay and transvestite employees. This case has massive implications for Muslim businesses and institutions. As I explained in a facebook post, masajid, Islamic schools, and other Islamic orgs and businesses face a major liability if this queer idea of discrimination becomes federal law. The whole community is directly impacted by this and the level of potential harm it brings to our institutions and the iman of our youth is incalculable.
Underlining the gravity of the situation, Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke has made it crystal clear that mosques will be penalized if he becomes president if they don’t go full rainbow. And the argument he is using — i.e., that we don’t let mosques, churches, etc., discriminate on the basis of race, so we shouldn’t let them discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation” either — is probably going to be adopted by all the Democrats sooner or later.
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 14, 2019
Coincidentally, Imam Omar Suleiman supported O’Rourke in his bid for Senator in Texas earlier this year.
So What Are the “Compassionate” Imams Doing to Help?
That sound you hear is the deafening silence from all the “relevant” celebrity social justice imams on such a critical issue. The most you might hear once in a blue moon from one of them is that “liwat is haram.” Basically, that is the most that such figures can say without enraging their LGBT-loving activist friends, employers, and associates. So they generally stay quiet. Do they justify their complacency by telling themselves, “LGBT is not really that big a deal, guys!”?
News flash: the fact that liwat and other same-sex acts are haram does not provide any practical advice for how the community should, first of all, understand what is happening all around them and, secondly, what to do in response as their mosques, schools, and homes get invaded by this terrorizing force. The silence from those who brand themselves as brave political activist imams and spiritual leaders of the community is simply shameful.
But what is even more egregious than silence are those who have, in one form or another, been pushing Muslims to jump on the LGBT liberation bandwagon and collaborating with zanadiqa who do.
From Certainty to Confusion
I pointed out this egregious violation of the Umma’s interests in two facebook posts this past week (here and here). I cited the examples of Imam Omar Suleiman and his Yaqeen Institute and asked simple questions, the most important of which was : What does Omar Suleiman think about the current Supreme Court case regarding discrimination against LGBT in light of the operations of thousands of Muslim institutions and businesses that will negatively be impacted if the pro-LGBT position becomes law? Is his position on this affected by the fact that he has a history of working with pro-LGBT activists and academics?
Employees and supporters of Yaqeen responded angrily by calling me a deceiver and a liar, claiming I misrepresented Imam Omar with just one picture of him standing next to two pro-LGBT figures. So, since the couple of pictures I provided wasn’t enough for them, I decided to write this article with more substantiation of this connection and collaboration between Imam Omar and clear deviants.
In the first post, I pointed out how activist Linda Sarsour has once again taken it upon herself to shamelessly support the LGBT agenda in this critical Supreme Court case that affects Muslims.
What Sarsour doesn’t want to acknowledge is how such a pro-LGBT decision would drastically harm the community by forcing the rainbow down the throat of every masjid, Islamic school, etc.
But “leaders” like Linda Sarsour apparently don’t care about our masajid, Islamic schools, and organizations. Apparently, Sarsour’s priority is LGBTQ, not Muslims. All she seems to care about is her career as a token Muslim progressive liberal mouthpiece.
Sarsour is not ignorant of any of this. I personally had an exchange on my facebook page with her about it last year, where she refused to prioritize Muslims and their iman over the gays. You can see screenshots from the exchange here.
Unfortunately, with Sarsour there is a long, consistent pattern of supporting left wing causes that clearly contradict Islam. The danger of this, as I have argued before, is she is often promoted as a religious role model and even as a religious scholar by Muslim institutions and figures. For example, at this year’s ISNA convention, Sarsour was advertised as teaching a session on her insights about the Attributes of Allah.
What amplifies this impression of Sarsour as a Muslim religious figure is her association with prominent imams and scholars who implicitly and explicitly endorse her and thereby authorize her.
When some of these imams are called out on such associations and endorsements, the oft-repeated response is, “Well, people know I don’t agree with the haram things she promotes!”
But, ya shaykh, that’s the problem. You know what is haram and halal and can make those distinctions in your understanding of Sarsour, et al. BUT average Muslim teenagers and college students have no clue. All they know is that their favorite imam is really enthusiastic about Sarsour and has no issues sitting next to her on a panel or speaking with her at a convention. So, in their eyes, her and her views must be Islamically legitimate.
Beyond that, in terms of Sharia and Islamic ethics, it is well known that those who are openly calling for deviance and sin should not be associated with, let alone promoted. This is especially true if one’s association and/or promotion of the deviant will spread his deviance. This is a very clear-cut, well-established principle in all schools of thought based on many indicants within the Quran and Sunna.
And lower your wing [O Prophet] to those who follow you of the believers. And if they disobey you, then say, “Indeed, I am disassociated from what you are doing.” [Quran 26:215-216]
Despite this clear cut prohibition, certain figures continue to work with, endorse, and associate with deviant activists and blasphemous politicians.
Top of the list is Omar Suleiman.
Once Is an Accident, Twice Is a Coincidence, Three Times Is…
Sadly, Imam Omar Suleiman has a long history of working with far left Muslim figures, politicians, and “reformers.” This goes way beyond one or two chance meetings. This is a consistent pattern. And it is disturbing.
For example, his work with Omid Safi. As the founder and president of the Progressive Muslim Union, a failed Islamic reform organization, Safi has a long history of promoting gays, female imams, perennialism, and much more. As far as deviants go, he is in a league of his own.
In addition to his association and allyship with figures like Sarsour and Safi, what was beyond shocking was his recent participation in and glowing endorsement of the Muslim Caucus Convention, an event featuring a female “imam,” numerous Muslim reformers, LGBT promoters, and CVE counter-extremism shills.
How could an imam not only go to such a gathering, but also praise it, its organizers, and its participants?
How could an imam praise and associate with people like this:
Let me repeat the question:
How could Imam Omar praise and associate with people like this?
And, just as importantly, how could these people have such praise and high approval for Imam Omar?
The second question is what is so haunting. If such unabashed deviants love you so much, what does that say about you?
Now, someone could reply that that is unfair: You can’t control who loves you. True.
BUT you can control who you associate with, who you collaborate with, who you praise and endorse. And, unfortunately, Imam Omar has a clear pattern of doing all of those things with the worst of the worst.
Beyond associations, Suleiman has said some very concerning things about supporting LGBT rights over the years.
In response to the Orlando night club shooting, he perhaps overcompensated by saying:
“We are determined to cry together, to pray together, to stand together – straight, gay, Floridian and Texan.”
Later, when a journalist asked him “How do faith leaders in the Muslim community teach [the story of Qawm Lut] from the Quran?” Imam Omar had these interesting remarks:
One of the things we do, and this is very important, in America we (Muslims) are not united by a set of religious beliefs. We’re united by a guiding principle that everyone has a right to their own set of moral values and their own practice and to be treated in a civil manner and to be treated as friends and allies.
Hmm… Who is teaching about Qawm Lut and the Quran like this?
Gay Muslims exist, and they are a part of our community. It depends on the mosque they are going to, whether the mosques are going to accept them or not. A lot of that has to do with how American those mosques are, how acclimated they are to the country they are in.
Yes, gay Muslims do exist and committing liwat does not take one out of Islam. But what is all this about mosques accepting them or not? And what does he mean “how American” a mosque is?
As far as I am aware, there are no masajid that interrogate people who step in the door, asking them whether they are committing liwat or not. So, by saying this, he is perpetuating the stereotype that some mosques ban gays and he is further marginalizing such hypothetical mosques as un-American.
The only type of ban that does make sense is masajid banning those who are loudly promoting homosexuality. In those cases, the masjid should ban such gay propagandists. But, the way Imam Omar has described it, such masajid would be deemed foreign un-American weirdos that don’t know the tolerant “Islam means peace” theology Imam Omar is describing.
He also says:
If you believe that homosexuality is immoral, that’s fine, but you do not treat someone who’s gay as less than you because they don’t hold that belief. And that’s a realistic social contract that we can try to come to terms with.
That’s a weird way to put it. Saying, “That’s fine,” makes it sound like he doesn’t think it is immoral and he is making a concession to those Muslims who do. The rest of it is a mess too.
To be fair, Imam Omar seems to have recognized that this interview was a train wreck, so he issued a clarification here. The clarification doesn’t address the un-American mosque point. However, in this clarification he also says this:
Finally, I said that we should be unequivocal in condemning violence and discrimination of any form against people on any basis, including orientation.
This is, of course, exactly what is at stake with the whole LGBT rights debate. LGBT rights just means freedom from “discrimination of any form.”
So can we conclude from this that Omar Suleiman supports LGBT rights, like his associates Linda Sarsour and Omid Safi?
Perhaps his true attitude towards LGBT rights can be gleaned from what his research institute, Yaqeen, publishes…
A Common Vision?
At the end of 2017, Yaqeen published an essay by Professor Jonathan Brown titled “LGBTQ and Islam Revisited.” …revisited?
Now, based on the title, one might wonder what exactly about Islam and LGBTQ needs revisiting. As far as Muslims are concerned, Islam is very clear on all matters pertaining to the gay. But I guess that is perhaps not the case for Omar Suleiman and Yaqeen.
Yaqeen framed the article as a “debate” between Jonathan Brown, an Islamic Studies academic at a secular university and Dr. Shadee Elmasry, a religious scholar. But the notion that this is a “debate” is a farce, as I explain below.
But first, let’s take a look at what exactly Brown argues. In reality, most Muslims around the world are smart enough to know how ridiculous and contrary to Islam Brown’s position is, but for the sake of due diligence, let’s take a closer look:
Ok, I just made up this acronym, but it seems useful and accurate. The RACCIO position holds that 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.
This is his thesis statement. It is important to understand what Brown is saying here. He is NOT saying that Islam accepts LGBT. He is explicit that these things are prohibited in Islam.
BUT, while acknowledging that, Brown thinks Muslims should affirm and advocate for many LGBT rights.
If you are utterly bewildered by what this means, you’re not alone. How can Muslims simultaneously hold that homosexual behavior is something so immoral, so terrible, so grievous, that Allah literally annihilated an entire people for engaging in it, but also affirm and advocate people’s “right” to engage in that behavior?
And let’s not forget the B and T of LGBT. Which “rights” of bisexuals and transgenders should we affirm and advocate?
This makes absolutely no sense. Dr. Shadee says as much in his rebuttal:
This position will cause cognitive dissonance in those who adopt it. Beliefs and political stances must be aligned and should not contradict the Sacred Law or else one will internalize this contradiction and never be able to escape the agitation that dissonance causes. Separating what you believe religiously from what you support politically is the very eye of secularism.
What other group in the US has this huge divide between its moral commitments and its political advocacy? Do anti-war pacifists privately believe war is immoral but publicly affirm and advocate war? Do pro-life Christians privately believe abortion is murder but publicly affirm and advocate a women’s right to… murder? Do gun rights advocates privately believe gun ownership is one of the most important human rights we have but publicly affirm and advocate banning guns and thus violating what they think is the most important human right?
Of course not. So why should Muslims be any different on the issue of rainbow rights, especially given how LGBT rights directly harm Muslim interests in the US and the world?
The tired response that we hear to this is: “But brother, Muslims believe that shirk is the worst crime, but we actively support people’s right to worship whatever gods!”
We do? Are Muslims liberal secularists? If tomorrow, there is someway, somehow a public debate in the US on whether to make Islam the official religion of the nation and establish Sharia, Muslims are going to be supporting that initiative with everything they can muster. Meanwhile, the few confused Muslims will be arguing against Islam and Sharia for all because, “We have to respect people’s religious rights!”
But, circumstances as they are, establishing Sharia as the official religion of the USA is not on the ballot. What HAS been on the ballot, however, for the past 10 years is the gay. And we have had many opportunities to join the majority of Americans who are seriously opposed to it and lead the way. We have had the opportunity to easily translate our moral commitments to political advocacy, if for nothing else, then at least for the protection of our community’s interests and the future iman of our youth. We have had a golden opportunity to stand for the truth, enjoin good and forbid evil, and protect ourselves and our children from the potential destruction and punishment of Allah for those who disregard His commands. All lands belong to the Creator, Allah, and no one has a right to disobey Him and wage war on Him with fahisha.
But confused people like Brown, Sherman Jackson, and others have campaigned to push LGBT rights acceptance in the Muslim community for the past 12 years. And now, we find ourselves in the embattled, dire position of “Celebrate the Rainbow… Or Else.”
The other tired response we hear: “But brother, we can’t impose our values on non-Muslims!”
How would we be imposing our values? On opposing LGBT, clearly its more than just Muslims who have that position. In fact, the majority of Americans in the past 10 years have been anti-LGBT rights. Obama and Hillary Clinton only accepted gay marriage within the past 7 years. So, it’s not only “our values.”
Secondly, recall that the Prophet Lut (Lot) `alayhi-salam was commanding his people to stop committing their indecency. Allah explicitly says that his people were not Muslim [Quran 51:36]. Was there something wrong, then, with Lut imposing his moral position on kuffar?
Brown’s argument takes a turn for the worst when he says:
Does the Muslim in the lifeboat refuse to row with the devil worshipper because s/he disagrees with the devil worshipper’s beliefs and lifestyle? This is an absurd hypothetical, but its point is clear. Restrictions on Muslims’ rights, constant pressure from the security state, and the long-running and increasingly severe Islamophobia in American society (now ensconced in the White House) seem to me to have resulted in a situation more analogous to being stuck in a lifeboat than anything else.
Quite an imagination there. Envision two people lost at sea, stranded with nothing but miles of ocean as far as the horizon in every direction. Death is all but inevitable unless one literally makes a deal with the devil. What. Will. You. Do?
Gah. This is such an ugly fear tactic that has been fed to the Muslim community for years now. Are we really in a life or death situation of: Affirm and advocate gay man love or
YOU WILL DIE
How could anyone take this garbage seriously?
Really though, tell me the playbook for how Big Brother is going to crackdown on Muslims if we don’t join the pride parade? Can you give me something practical and definitive instead of wild speculation? Like, is it Republicans who are going to lobby to get all our Muslim marriage licenses revoked? Why would they when they’re conservative anti-LGBT rights themselves? Or is it the Dems that are going to throw us into Muslim concentration camps and make us pay the ultimate price for not towing the homoerotic line? But aren’t the tolerant, loving, amazing Dems our greatest allies, who imams like Omar Suleiman and co. are constantly telling us to support?
Yeah. It doesn’t add up.
In Islamic civilization and under shariah rule, Muslim scholars allowed non-Muslim subjects to engage in marital practices that they considered grossly reprehensible when Muslims could easily have put an end to them. Muslim scholars allowed this because these practices were part of the religious practices of those non-Muslim communities. I concede that LGBTQ lifestyles are not part of any religion that I know of and thus not entitled to some dhimmi protection under Islamic law.
That last sentence is so incredibly disingenuous because Brown knows that Islamic governments actively prohibited dhimmis and everyone else in their jurisdiction from engaging in same sex behaviors. I know he knows this because I am one of those who have personally told him about it and corrected him on it. But he conveniently leaves that crucial fact out in this article and the few others he has written on the topic.
My favorite part of the article is where Brown says that Muslims should affirm and advocate for LGBT rights because Muslims and LGBTs have “a common vision for the future of the country.”
What is that common vision, you ask?
Is it this?
Is it this?
Or is it this?
A Farcical “Debate”
Dr. Shadee proceeds to eviscerate Professor Brown’s paper. The significant thing is that Dr. Shadee plainly states that affirming and advocating LGBT rights, as Brown suggests, is… you guessed it!
The accusation is that īwā’, the act of supporting what Allah prohibited, is itself prohibited, even if I announce that I don’t believe in it. The Sacred Law only allows the haram to become halal in cases where life or limb (dire need at the physical level) are at stake, and evidence of neither has been presented.
When I say such things as “support LGBTQ groups,” I have now placed their ideas and their doctrines at the forefront, and that is not legitimate in the sight of Allah.
You can read his evidences at the link above, but I wanted to focus on two issues.
First, the entire premise of this being a “debate” is ludicrous. An Islamic studies professor gives his incoherent musings on why Muslims should support LGBT rights on the basis of strange claims of “common visions” and being stuck on a life boat with a devil worshipper, not citing a single Quranic verse, hadith, or fiqh precedent to justify his pro-LGBT rights position. Then a religious scholar slams those musings and says support of LGBT rights is religiously prohibited and illegitimate in the sight of Allah on the basis of numerous proofs from the Quran, Sunna, and fiqh principles.
How are these two arguments comparable?
The bigger question is: If it is religiously prohibited, i.e., haram, to support LGBT rights, as Dr. Shadee establishes, why is Yaqeen publishing a paper promoting the haram? Dr. Shadee did NOT say that there was ikhtilaf or there was room for disagreement on the issue (because there isn’t). Only clear cut prohibition. Is Yaqeen trying to pull some trick?
And why is Yaqeen putting the opinion of an academic on the same level as, or even above that, of an `alim? What does that say about their respect or lack thereof for `ilm?
Shifting the Goal Posts
Now, there are only two positions that were represented in the “debate”:
- Support of LGBT rights
- Political Neutrality, where Muslims just mind their own business and don’t oppose or support LGBT rights
Both of these positions are argued for. But what about a third, obvious option:
3. Opposition to LGBT rights
Don’t you find it interesting, perhaps convenient, that Yaqeen doesn’t include this third option? Why isn’t this option argued for? If this were a true debate, why wouldn’t this option be considered, especially since the proliferation of LGBT rights directly harms the Muslim community?
Isn’t it telling and egregious that that position is nowhere represented? Do you think it has something to do with Omar Suleiman and Yaqeen not wanting to offend all of their left wing activist “allies”? This is just a hunch, but I don’t think Omid Safi would have invited the “love warrior” Omar to his pad as recently as last month if he were publishing articles against gay love.
And, at the end of the day, that’s what’s important. Maintaining one, big, happy activist family fighting for “social justice.” Who cares if, in the UK, the LGBT curriculum is being mandated for Islamic schools? Who cares if, in the US, Muslim businesses are possibly going to be forced to accommodate LGBT employees? Who cares if all masajid will have to allow men to enter the women’s restrooms because of transgender bathroom bills being passed? Who cares if these activists and academics push countless Muslim youth into thinking gay sex is cool and the Quran, Islam, and Muslims are wrong on LGBT?
It seems like Yaqeen thinks these issues are irrelevant and a waste of its time and resources to address.
Well, several of their current and former employees and affiliates did respond on social media to my posts. They were not very happy with me. They accused me of “slandering” Yaqeen and misrepresenting things.
The accusation of slander is quite confusing. If someone asks hard questions about your work, is that slander? If there is nothing wrong with your work, then it should be easy to address those questions and move on with life. But literally none of my original questions were addressed or even acknowledged. Just angry rants, calling me ugly names, and chest thumping. If nothing else, this is a bizarre PR strategy from Yaqeen.
Where are the adab police now?
Let me clear the air here: I am fairly sure that most of the people involved with Yaqeen Institute haven’t even read Brown’s paper, much less agreed with it. The people who are accountable for this travesty of literally promoting something haram is the Yaqeen leadership, not the average Yaqeen employee. Their leaders are the ones who decided to publish this paper, fully knowing the position it advocates to be impermissible, since that is what Dr. Shadee establishes.
The other funny rebuttal from the Yaqeen gang was citing the fact that all Yaqeen papers have a printed disclaimer:
The views, opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in these papers and articles are strictly those of the authors. Furthermore, Yaqeen does not endorse any of the personal views of the authors on any platform. Our team is diverse on all fronts, allowing for constant, enriching dialogue that helps us produce high-quality research.
This is some real Orwellian doublespeak. So, just because they include this paragraph, we can’t hold Yaqeen leadership accountable for what they publish and spread across the land?
Isn’t Imam Omar Suleiman’s Yaqeen Institute publishing papers it judges to be worthwhile and beneficial for Muslims? Isn’t that the whole premise of their mission? Why would they publish something they didn’t find beneficial? So clearly, if something is published on Yaqeen, that means that they do have a positive assessment of the paper’s conclusions and its merits. Clearly, Yaqeen is not an open platform where anyone can publish anything. And given the narrow left-leaning ideological spectrum all of Yaqeen’s articles fall within, we should be skeptical of how “diverse” their decision makers, who decide what does or doesn’t get published, really are.
Those who position themselves as community leaders and arrogate to themselves the responsibility of opining on such serious issues should be ready for push back and hard questions, especially when the views they push are contrary to deen and have led to bad results. This is accountability.
The publishing of Brown’s paper combined with Omar Suleiman’s ongoing public associations with and shameful repeated promotion of numerous pro-LGBT activists, “proud allies”, and politicians leads to many questions. Does Omar Suleiman agree with Brown in thinking Muslims should affirm and advocate for many LGBT rights? If so, on what basis and which rights exactly?
Also, is it legitimate for Yaqeen to be giving air time to this haram position in the first place? Do they disagree with the assessment of an `alim, namely, Dr. Shadee, and consider Brown’s pro-LGBT rights position Islamically valid? If so, how? If not, doesn’t that mean Yaqeen is publishing Islamically illegitimate opinions and spreading them to the Muslim masses?
These questions are especially relevant to ask at this moment in time because a major Supreme Court case is happening about LGBT discrimination, a case that could majorly disrupt religious institutions in the US. So it behooves us to look closely at the record of those who have had a hand in pushing the pro-LGBT rights narrative onto the community. What do they say now?
Thus far we have received no answers and this is now a pattern from Omar Suleiman. Is his answer silence? As long as a Muslim figure chooses silences as his response to legitimate questions from the community, he should fully expect that the community will draw its own conclusions.