The US Supreme Court ruled yesterday that employers and businesses can be sued if they discriminate against LGBT. I’ve talked about this case several times and spelled out the implications for masajid, Islamic schools, Muslim orgs, and Muslim-owned businesses.
This ruling creates a HUGE problem for all Muslim institutions in the US. AS WE SPEAK, pro-LGBT activists are strategizing how to use this new legal landscape to force Muslim institutions to accept their fahisha through the civil courts. This is a major step in further restricting how Muslims can think and make decisions for themselves, their families, their orgs and businesses. The damage that is set to be caused by this cannot be overstated.
Some Muslims mistakenly think that the passage of this pro-LGBT law is somehow good for Muslims because, without this law, Muslims could be discriminated against too. This is complete and utter ignorance of the law. Title VII passed in 1964 already protects Muslims from religious discrimination. The new legislation, however, can be used to viciously attack masajid and Muslim orgs for believing what we believe, namely the truth about modern day Qawm Lut.
It is ironic, then, how the major national Muslim orgs in America and their celebrities had ZERO opposition to this. These orgs are supposedly concerned with the best interests of the Muslim community, yet they have nothing to say if it is the left wing that is stabbing us in the face. In some cases, figures like Linda Sarsour and orgs like CAIR, actually loudly supported the LGBT cause. And then there were the special celebrities who, short of wearing LGBT pride flags, propped up these pro-LGBT activists, sat with them on panels, shared the stage with them at conference after conference without a peep of criticism, took selfies with them, etc. Remember all the compassionate imams who posted #IMarchWithLinda?
Many of us do.
Let’s take a look at two of the biggest offenders: Yasir Qadhi and Omar Suleiman. They deceive (yes, deceive) the Muslim community by repeating “gay sex is haram” while at the same time promoting LGBT policies and pro-LGBT activists. Their organizations push gay marriage and they invite pro-LGBT rights activists to speak at their masajid.
Who is holding these celebrities accountable?
While the Muslim community suffers from this LGBT assault, these celebrities benefit handsomely by being in the good graces of the left wing. They enjoy their university positions, their funding, invitations to “pray” in front of Congress and former presidents, invitations to write op-eds for left-leaning mainstream publications, and on and on.
Where is the outrage?
This is what Yasir Qadhi had to say yesterday about the Supreme Court ruling on his page:
“This law will definitely pose a new set of challenges to certain segments of religiously conservative folks (remember the baker in Colorado?).”
Re-read that sentence. He expresses ZERO negativity about this ruling, no criticism, no nothing. He doesn’t even mention the word “Muslim” in the entire post. He just says, it’s a “challenge” for “religiously conservative folks.” Who are these “folks”? Does he mean Muslims? Why isn’t he saying Muslims? Is it not a “challenge” for non-conservative folks?
If you may recall, earlier this year, Yasir Qadhi held an LGBT conference at his masjid, along with Omar Suleiman. At the time, many criticized the poster advertising the conference because it used rainbow-colored font. But not as much attention was paid to what was actually presented at the conference.
One of the speakers was Asma Uddin. Asma Uddin is a pro-LGBT rights activist. In her talk at Qadhi’s masjid, she explicitly promotes LGBT anti-discrimination laws as a “measure to prevent suffering” of “downtrodden” LGBT people, which is what this Supreme Court ruling writes into law. How fitting that YQ is the one introducing Uddin and giving her a platform at his masjid to spew this just a few months before the Supreme Court made its decision.
Uddin also has an extensive history promoting what she calls “win-win” where Muslims support LGBT rights (i.e., fahisha) and LGBT let Muslims run their masajid and orgs without being harassed. She is also the founder of the AltMuslimah website, which includes all kinds of shocking articles, everything from online dating tips to praising Amina “Ibrahim Is a Deadbeat Dad” Wadud to an article condemning the hudud as “unIslamic.”
Why is such a person invited by Yasir Qadhi to push this propaganda onto the community? Why does Omar Suleiman work so closely with such a person?
Omar Suleiman also spoke at the conference, saying the Prophetic Sunna is to stand against LGBT hate. His whole talk is his same cliche butchering of hilf al-fudul to justify allying with the worst of the worst rainbow groups.
I mean, what can you expect from Suleiman, whose org, Yaqeen, published an article arguing that Muslims should support LGBT rights like gay marriage and anti-discrimination? What can you expect from a celebrity that goes and prays side by side with Hindus and Sikhs and attends gay vigils?
Suleiman and Uddin have also collaborated on other occasions, such as a recent conference on interfaith pluralism at the Aspen Institute (which, for those not aware, was founded by Michael Chertoff, co-author of the anti-Muslim Patriot Act).
So again, I ask: Who is holding these people accountable? Why are they allowed to pretend like they represent the Muslim community when they are actively collaborating with those who are working against it?
Between calling the “medieval” Sharia “bizarre” and “problematic” and in need of “updating,” and generating shubuhat in the minds of Muslims, these personalities act like they are above criticism. They are not.
Further Reading on LGBT Politics and Islam
Is Islam’s Prohibition of Same-Sex Behavior Discriminatory?
How Compassionate Imams Sneak LGBT Normalization into our Mosques
Making the Ummah Proud: UK Muslims Shut Down LGBT Indoctrination
Does Linda Sarsour Think Islam Accepts Homosexuality?
Explaining the Islamic Prohibition of Same-Sex Acts to a Western Audience
1) There’s a typo here: I mean, what can you except from Suleiman, whose org
2) Yasir Qadhi clarified the “bizarre shariah” comment in a recent interview, stop using that as an argument because it’s obvious cherry picking and childish.
At any rate, I’ve been talking about the coming Gay Imam quota for years, it’s the logical outcome of progressive thought and Muslims are not setting themselves up to deal with this problem at all. The LGBTQ mafia has positioned themselves up to start making their final assault on all things sacred and voices like Daniel – as much as they get wrong – are important for this reason. Very few people are drawing attention to this upcoming war which we are already set up to lose as far as legal battles are concerned.
He did not clarify it AT ALL. He doubled down by saying that by “problematic” he meant “mushkil.” Mushkil means ambiguous, not problematic in Arabic. And even if we accept that flimsy excuse, he never explained his use of the word “bizarre” or saying that “updates” are needed.
This seems quite coordinated. Just last week there was an issue involving a well known Kuwaiti daee – Dr. Muhammad al- ‘Awadi – where he chastised muslim societies (using the euphemism mujtama’aat as-sarqiyyah/eastern societies) for being to harsh on homosexuals, in a YouTube lecture titled ‘Do not oppress the homosexuals’ (لا تظلموا المثليين). Specifying: sodomites (liwaat), lesbians (suhaaq) and bisexuals.
This is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkECE5NZufM
Not one daleel from the Quran or Sunnah is brought. The whole talk is: western research, philosophy and humanism.
Yes he did though. Did you watch the interview with Mohammad Hijab where he CLEARLY states that you can’t just change the hudud, and that it is part of Islamic law, and him saying it’s problematic is the same as when ibn hajir said the 60 cubits hadith is problematic. I don’t know it seemed like it was very clear. All he was saying about updates is how WE IN AMERICA think it. There are Muslims who fight and say we must do the hudud punishment in America whether the law allows us to or not.
Also when in the LGBTQ video from Yasir qadhi, he specifically said we cannot change the religion and say homosexuality is allowed in Islam. He said the main point of this talk is so Muslims don’t beat up a gay Muslim (which has happened and I’ve been a witness to it)
Being sympathetic to a difficulty people are going through does not mean that you are then supporting them lol. That’s like saying that I feel bad for alcoholics, which thus means that I am in favor of being an alcoholic. Not mutually exclusive.
Also did you not see the video where Yasir was specifically arguing and debating against some of Linda sarsour points? Just because you praise someone does not mean you affiliate with them. During Trump’s time the economy was pretty good doesn’t mean I’m then in Trump’s cabinet.
I do agree with a lot of what you said but I feel like a lot of these points against the imams are so cherry picked. Literally watching the videos of Yasir qadhi and even Omar Suleiman to some extent point to a totally different conclusion (cause I watch them a decent amount).
As mentioned, the “problematic” when referring to the science of seemingly contradictory Hadith is something ENTIRELY different from using it to refer to the texts and Hudud generally in front of the masses. Tell me: how many people in the audience were even aware of the sciences of Hadith? Spoiler: probably 0.
Then he should communicate more clearly. The way he tries to bring his message across makes it seem like he’s making a way to introduce deviant and newly invented things into the religion. Especially in this time of fitna it’s extremely important to not confuse to masses. Speak with wisdom and don’t mince your words. When something is haram state this clearly and then go into details. Don’t associate or employ people as the face of your organisation when they’re clearly acting in opposition to islamic rulings ie. females who do tabarruj.
Brother Daniel, don’t waste your time responding to “The Muslim Theist” and “Uthman”. Two names created by the same person. “Yaqeen troll factory limited”.
I commend you on your courage and integrity Daniel. To speak on such issues so openly and without inhibition in such an environment is not easy. Keep it up.
May Allah SWT bless (inflict) the offerings of any Muslim, openly or secretly, that advocates for normalizing LGBTQ among Muslim communities, with LGBTQness.
May their children all become homosexuals, transgenders, transexuals, queer, lesbians, and everything else under the rainbow. May their lineage be stopped this way from producing another generation.
May they reap all the rewards of this “amazing blessing” (drug abuse, mental health problems, suicides, alcoholism, STDs) before any righteous/innocent Muslim family is ruined or bankrupted by it.
This is not hate, this is what they want and I wish for them what they wish for themselves.
If you are a Muslim and you support LGBTQ and their rights, and you march with them, may Allah SWT make you and your seed from among them. For what Allah SWT is made HARAM is because it is bad for you. But if you insist, may HE SWT give you a taste of it before any.
May Allah SWT increase it a thousand fold. May their children be the first to march in the pride parade and may we witness the outcome, like a sitcom, with pop corn ready.
God wills it.
Daniel,
This is a very much related aside from the article.
You say the supreme court ruling mentions “employers and businesses”.
Does that necessarily include religious organizations and houses of worship?
I think the law makes provisions for people of a religion to adhere to it. Religion and religious dogma in itself is nothing concrete or defined from the point of view of liberal secularism.
For example, tomorrow the satanists or scientologists could pass an edict in their religion that all straight sex is haram for them, and liberal secularism would be forced to accept that this is a part of their “faith”.
Coming to the reality on ground, would the satanists then be forced to accept straight priests in their houses? It would be absurd for liberal secularism to respect satanism’s prohibition of straight sex but ask them to promote it at the same time by hiring straight priests.
Of course anyone can offer his or her “interpretation” of a said religion and choose to side with anyone and promote anything, like the qadianis, Amina wadud, and so many others, but there really is no deterrent for it in liberal secularism dominated societies, since there is no official number of religions or their dogmatic definitions in such societies.
I don’t think the law can force mosques to hire gay imams, or for that matter force orthodox Jews or some Christian denominations to hire gay clergy.
Of course religion based non-profits might be a different issue. Things like MSA’s, CAIR, etc.
But then practicing and believing Muslims will have to come up with creative ways to use the at-will provisions of the law.
More than anything, we need believing Muslim lawyers to tackle this on both fronts, one lobbying for the right to believe and practice in Islam properly, one for coming up with workarounds against the law.
Would be good to see your comments on this ground reality aspect in liberal secular societies, in addition to touching on it ideologically as you did.
You need to focus on where we’re going, not just where we’re at. If you look at the basic premises of the postmodernist worldview and draw out the logical conclusions and then look at the practical progressive steps they are taking, it becomes obvious where this is going. You can see my recent take here:
https://www.facebook.com/themuslimtheist/posts/2024353211041863?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCxcgUObzQ6wp15Mqogip4jpcgvXBxU3AmqX3jAZRWjyC2edYD-mXH_VqC6-uFWyhsl2Ic5M2iiR98IMC8fPvvBmdUFBQO0A2b0gBAYwEYPzzS26LO0l72EFcRTzOUpejo26ZkDNEWZ7r7UCbwf9hM9s7RTVcFrRYGUaNjuaPhgyUdP1P5_Y2PdYG19B5zFOSiMXRgKatwzhDYjSjDflRZqsCGbWcSgeaAUd7hIV9RK7XBKzD70-N3W1LEMNDHwdjgWTEiGssZiCzh1F6dKc1hFAGFBRzHXcaTAG1XTxWx8Mg0wjxPVxjmeCjZ7amPhf-R2ZhgAlLCNkRv9pPGMRw&__tn__=-R
I agree that this ruling is just a step in a certain direction that will make any resistance to homosexualism impossible. The incursion into the mosques has already happened in most of the West. In all Western countries except the US, there are hate speech laws that prevent preaching against LGBT. And all schools, even religious schools, in most Western countries are being forced to teach LGBT acceptance. So even if there isn’t a law passed that prevents masajid from discriminating by not hiring gay imams, we might be facing a future where the Muslim community wouldn’t see a problem with a gay imam to discriminate against in the first place because they just haven’t been taught that that’s a problem.
“Linda Sarsour
@lsarsour
is a fearless & eloquent voice for all of us. I am proud to call her an ally and friend.
#ImarchwithLinda”
How can a non-mahram woman be a friend/sadeeq?
Aallahu al musta’an.
While no doubt this is bad, Yasir Qabeeh has statements of clear kufr doubting the authenticity of the Noble Qur’aan and promoting the aqeedah that the Quraan is created. This man is a heretical philosopher.
Well done. Please continue writing in this vein. This kind of information can open eyes and change hearts, inshāAllāh.
May Allah reward all those who speak up against Islam being Islam being reformed to fit the liberal values.
Its important to refute the liberal assertions used to justify LGBTQ+ to clearly show that it is a clear falsehood and only Islam provides the correct criteria to determine right and wrong.
I actually see this as an excellent opportunity to convey Islam to the thinking non Muslims who are probably growing more and more disillusioned with the way the world is going.
Here is a presentation I presented to some ulema on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpfCDeeQU7ojLONou_mt8GCa3gw-rSMrt
The deception of “Minority Rights” used to entrap Muslims to support the liberal agenda
https://youtu.be/qNArAH6xLJE
I find Yasir Qadhi’s approach to the LGBT issue problematic.
He acknowledges that it is a sin, but then says everything to undermine that.
1. He sees ‘some’ validity in Muslims supporting minority rights (right to sodomise) because we Muslim also get equal rights.
2. He says he agrees with the separation of ’church and state’.
3. How we tolerate the sinner and not the sin, as if that’s the best we can do.
Just because Muslims live in a non Islamic society dominated by liberal values that doesn’t mean be say ’You to your way and we to ours’.
Firstly, there is only ONE valid furqan to determine right and wrong. The Prophet‘s ﷺ mission ended with ‘The ONLY acceptable Deen to Allah is Islam’. So giving any kind of legitimacy to liberal values is wrong, but more than that, let‘s not miss a very important lesson from the life of Lut ﷷﷵ .
Unlike most prophets, he was a FOREIGNER in the land of Sodom. The system was alien with un-islamic laws. He never said it was ok for them to do what they did because it’s ‘their’ land . He never felt that as an OUTSIDER he had no right to tell them what is right and wrong.
Muslims in the west need to take that lesson and invite liberals, feminists, atheists democrats or what ever else to the straight path of Islam.
We should not be like some who want to ‘shoe horn’ Islam into the greater fabric of liberal Kufr.
“1. He sees ‘some’ validity in Muslims supporting minority rights (right to sodomise) because we Muslim also get equal rights.”
This is plain nifaaq and cowardice. Reminds me of the hadeeth in which the Quraish offered concession to the Muslims in the form of one year Islam followed by one year of idol worship.
“2. He says he agrees with the separation of ’church and state’.”
Indeed. Church should be seperate from state. Like every deviant religion: secular or non-secular.
“3. How we tolerate the sinner and not the sin, as if that’s the best we can do.”
This is something someone would say who seperates actions (a’maal) from faith (imaan), like the Christians and the Murji’ah….and those that follow their manhaj like the Sufis and the Rafidah.
If the sinner wants to be tolerated he should’nt declare his sins openly, and even worse normalizing and promoting his sins. The problem with homosexuals are many (and they are working on many more):
1. the sin of zina in itself
2. the sin of sodomy ie. liwaat
3. the sin of publicizing the sins ie. idhaar
4. the sin of normalizing the sins ie. munkar
4. the sin of inviting others to partake in the sins ie. fasaad
5. the sin of demonizing rejectors of the sins ie. dolm
6. the sin of criminalizing the rejectors of the sins ie. dolm
“Just because Muslims live in a non Islamic society dominated by liberal values that doesn’t mean be say ’You to your way and we to ours’.”
Exactly becaue this is the case people should hold on more tightly to the deen not loosen up. When a tidal wave is coming your way you don’t want to roam around freely but rather secure yourself in solid structure: a bunker, a castle or fortress.
One of the major problems muslims are suffering from in both muslim majority countries and non-muslim countries is the lack of dialogue between the two major political school of thoughts (salafi and muslim brotherhood).
I think Daniel and Yasir should talk to each other. While I disagree with Yasir political tactic on dealing with modern day sodomite; I think he is a good muslim scholar and shouldn’t be compared with some far left extremists.
Imagine being an imam and supporting lgbt.
Daniel,
Bro take a break from what’s happening in USA as these are all distractions, and raise some awareness about what’s happening in Al-Quds right now as we speak; and highlight the traitors who are abetting these crimes against the Masjid Al-Aqsa and Muslims.
Asslamaliekum Sheikh,
Admire you for being an unapologetic muslim in today’s society, it’s difficult to be one. (may Allah bless you).
Sheikh, most lgbt supporters/ enablers say that lgbt is not a choice but an orientation. It is natural, and cite some living examples, I respond them by saying that it can be medically treated and should be considered as a disease. But ppl just lose it when i say this. am I right to respond like this? how else do we counter such an argument (if considered to be one) ?
JazakAllah
Even if that were to be true sodomy is a choice and so is exposing oneself.
Say what needs to be said and accept that many people are not going to change their views. No matter how convincing your arguments are. Most people can’t be convinced through rational argument anyway. People need to be moved emotionally before an attempt at rational argumentation can be made.
How is it an orientation, don’t some liberals believe in the blank slate theory? How does it fit with their theory of evolution, which many of them believe in?
Even if it is true, it is not permitted in Islaam. Even intimate relationship with the opposite gender can be haraam if it is not done according to sharee’ah, is marriage or right hand possession. So whatever the Lord of the Aalameen legislates, as Muslims we submit. If one has those desires and out of fear of Allaah azza wa jall he abstains from acting on it, he will be rewarded immensely. And we ask Allaah taalaa for safety and pardon
It is a Paraphilia – what irony that they use the term to descibe mental health issues relating to unnatural sexual desires, but they will not allow homosexuality (i.e. homophilia) to be designated as such.
Similarly transexuality/gender dysphoria can be likened to Xenomelia i.e. the irrational want of someone to sever their limb, classified as a mental health defect.
These people need help not encouragement!
I think the argument of the incest of two brothers, adult and of good mind, is useful in showing the where their subjective moral ethos leads them. At least atheists like Lars Gule and Richard Dawkins admit they view incest as perfectly fine and morally acceptable, Gule even extending this to animals! Disgusting but at least their consistent. Their views show where subjectivity in morality will take us.
Salam,
Could you please comment on Johnathon Brown and Omar Suleiman’s clarification on the podcasts of Mohammad Hijab and Islam21c respectively on their controversial positions.
Regarding Yasir Qadhi, as some one who watched his response and has also read what you have said, I think objectively speaking you are misunderstanding his position. Yes he described it as “Mushkil” but then went on to say that even Imam at-Tahawi Rahimullah Alay uses the word, “Mushkil” as the name for his book “Mushkil al athar” He clarifies he believes in the hudood too.
I was wondering if you could also respond to the Fatima Elizabeth’s institutes podcast with Shaykh Shadee Elmasry and Shaykh David Jalajel on the topic of evolution and its compatibility with traditional Sunni theology, and I also sent you an email on this issue which you never seemed to respond to.
I think there is always space for valid criticism including criticism of you for your slowness to engage and your tendency to focus on criticism without giving much praise to these scholars when they say the right thing. We should have a balanced approach – praise them when they do right and criticise them when they do wrong. This is what Amr bil Maroof wa Nahi ‘anil Munkar is about.
“We should have a balanced approach – praise them when they do right and criticise them when they do wrong. This is what Amr bil Maroof wa Nahi ‘anil Munkar is about.”
This is not correct. Praising is not a shart of امر بالمعروف و نهى عن المنكر. If you mean being friendly الرفق and الحلم not quick in casting judgment…and having the niyaah of rectifying/islaah instead of wanting to win the argument at any cost.
The point is protecting de deen and imaan of the Muslims.
Does such a person who says as you have said, know more than Allah who praises the believers for their right actions in the Quran? Does such a person think our religion is a religion solely of criticism and harshness when someone does wrong and silence when they do the correct thing?
Such a person advocates Judaism, not Islam.
May Allah protect us from the Jews who incurred his wrath and forbade what was permissible and went to extremes in religion.
I do not advocate being friendly and being slow to cast judgement, I advocate praising for the good and criticising for the wrong. Amr Bil Maroof means enjoing the good – and what better way to enjoin then to praise when they do it correctly? Do you not reward you children when they do right? Will Allah not reward the believers? Do the angels not praise them when they do right?
I agree with protecting the deen and iman of the Muslims, but that is done in two ways and by adopting the middle path. As Allah says in the middle ayah of Surah Baqarah, he has made us a middle nation. Being a middle nation means being just – not overly harsh and not overly lenient.
Perhaps some of the Muslims have forgotten what it means to be just.
He should thank the likes of Johnathon Brown and Omar Suleiman for their clarifications on their missteps. Then he should continue to criticise for any further missteps, whilst being mindful of his own errors. The Muslim loves his brother and wants to see him do what is right. What better path to take then to enjoin the right and forbid the evil?
That’s why you shouldn’t hasten judgment. First make sure you’ve understood the situation correctly, and leave room for someone to rectify. When someone persists (and by extension mislead) you have to inform the public to create awareness. Prefacing your critique with praise is only going to confuse the public more. Justice sometimes is going to require you to be direct and rough. Many people who have been raised in the West aren’t used to this. Getting to the point is often considered rude and verbally abusive.