Abdullah al Andalusi – Fighting back against LGBT ideology & pressure on Muslim children in schools

			liberalism is in tolerant liberalism is tolerance is the delayed onset of its intolerance. Until
recently anyway, many Muslims in the West have been playing the silence game, hoping they will leave
us alone. Reject the truthfulness of the very Deen. We follow. We don't take them as allies and I
don't use speaking. They're hitting Muslims continually demanding that we compromise our religion
and change our deen to fit into the quote unquote, modern world. I am your ideological arms
manufacturer, arming ourselves with the intellectual and ideological weapons needed to fight the
fight we need to do not only ideologically defend ourselves, but we need to take the ideological
		

			fight to them. Once you call people a label and you say they are categorized by it, and it's part of
a culture the community that they have to follow you discriminate them from anybody else desires
don't define you. Your choices do teaching polygamy as an acceptable form of relationship in
schools. They would riot started attacking male circumcision, as male genital mutilation remove the
* from someone that's called Gender reaffirming surgery
		

			of the Creator of the universe on your side. What are you scared off as Muslims? We argue from the
Islamic basis not because it is our belief simply not because we are minority that we want to have
our rights respected, quote unquote, or that rights are determined by liberalism or by any man made
constitution No. The Islamic basis is reality itself. The verse is one of otherness Allahu Allah
will be bundled in one two as the level playing in the back of my mind
		

			that Allah subhanaw taala assisted you in bothered when he was small in number three could be small
in number today. But if this message penetrates the speaker's hearts and the listeners hearts, that
this message can go far and wide, as we see the Sahaba and Redwater, three under 13 In Nevada, and
the opposition was great. Allah subhanho wa Taala system was hard on a good one.
		

			This man reminded him hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen wa salatu salam, the Vicari Muhammad Ali TV was
bizarrely in the greet your Islamic greens a peace Assalamu alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.
		

			To all the brothers have come today, also to the any undercover press there'll be misrepresenting
this event at a later point in time.
		

			One of the previous speakers said that, when they were when we were asked to keep our discussion to
about 10 minutes, he didn't say Inshallah, it's been my experience that if a Muslim intends not to
follow the rules or if something they say they do say Inshallah,
		

			because as you know, the Neo jebadiah have come back and unless so many Muslims believe unless ALLAH
physically compels them, but they don't need to honor any particular promises anyway. So, today, I
want to discuss, I was not going to discuss that topic, we I asked for a change that topic, which is
arming ourselves with the intellectual and ideological weapons needed to fight the fight, we need to
do, we need to fight. I am your ideological arms manufacturer. And as you're standing in, in ranks
and the battle bother, figuratively speaking, it would help if you have a sword and a shield, and a
few spears. So that's what I'm allowed to be trying to provide based on my experience. And look, we
		

			will once told
		

			society was once told not to oppose gay marriage because they said, how would it affects you if some
people want to get married to members of the same *? Of course, once that became normalized, and
under the rubric of equality, quote, unquote, they then said, Well, it would be hateful and not
accepting of people. And it would be unequal if we didn't consider such relationships to be morally
equal to opposite * relationships, because we were all meant to believe in equality. That was was
the message and once people got hooked on the term on the concept of equality, they then had to they
were then compelled to agree to the moral equivalency of same * marriage.
		

			And of course, the Quran warns us about the people previous revelations. Of course, the people in
England are the descendants of Christians, even though we're no longer a majority Christian country
contrary last census, which is that they'll never be happy with us until we follow what they have
followed.
		

			And up until now, why
		

			Up until recently anyway, many Muslims in the West have been playing the silence game hoping they
will leave us alone. Hoping to say like convener kumbaya Deen to you your belief your way of life to
us ours. But just like as in Makkah, the pagans didn't accept that. Right? They didn't except to
your dean and to us, to us out, they wanted to force the Muslims to follow their way of life. And,
and I don't really speaking, they're hitting Muslims continually demanding that we compromise our
religion and change our deen to fit into the quote unquote, modern world. What they mean by that is
whatever the current fashion is in the west at any point in time, that's what they mean by that.
		

			So it's time for us to not only really, to stop being silent and stop trying to appease hoping that
they would just leave us alone, because they're not they never intended to, but for us to knowingly
ideologically defend ourselves, but we need to take the ideological fight to them, we should go, we
should be going on the ideological offensive. We are meant to be shahada, Allah, Nas, yeah,
witnesses to mankind. Right, that doesn't only kick in when your children are taught false ideas
that should have you should have been doing this way before. All Muslims are meant to be witnesses
to mankind of the truth. And so I will make four points for you today for sign that you should carry
		

			forth with some practical arguments you could say. Firstly, we should be arguing the Islamic case
and not the summit case from a liberal perspective. We should be arguing unapologetically from our
perspective, because all other perspectives are false. It is coffered right? There's only one
perspective that this universe recognizes and that is the one that sustains it. He who sustains it
his perspective, suppose Allah, Allah subhanaw taala the Creator.
		

			Secondly, when we do hold non Muslims to account for what they what they do against Muslims, we
should hold them on the basis of the inconsistency in their actions, as well ultimately, in their
deem, then, so people talk about muscular liberalism as a separate kind of liberalism. No, there's
no there's only one kind, liberalism, and it's always been intolerant. I always said many years ago
that liberalism's
		

			liberalism is intolerance is the so liberalism is tolerance is the delayed onset of its intolerance,
a waste persuade you first hoping that well will persuade you, and that should be fine. But if
you're not persuaded by it, it eventually ramps up the pressure until it begins to force and and
sure it might not have thought that it could crack he was as a tough nut. But it was always hoping
that you'd send your children to their schools. And of course, your children are not as well
protected as you are. And only then it's a waiting game, while they slowly assimilate your kids into
their worldview. And you think, Wow, is that ever worked before? Oh, yes, quite the most important
		

			product of it. Many Muslims are completely secular in their worldview. And they don't even realize
it even with those who are religious. Right. Just today, you mentioned to Muslims, that well, the
obligation that all classical scholars considered that Muslims should be under the United
reestablished Hill offer the successorship to the Prophet Muhammad Salam in amber in command. And
Muslims considered that to be a minor point. Not important or just or idealistic. Well,
congratulations, you're colonized. Yeah. Because your answers your forefathers were in that Western
schools that were were built in the Muslim world. So it works. They know it works. And then they're
		

			doing it to your kids. Now.
		

			Thirdly, we should be confident, right? If you have the creator of the universe on your side, what
are you scared off? Right? Is there anything greater than Him that you need to worry about? If he's
on your side, and more importantly, we try to be on his side. Right? And lastly, as Muslims, we are
told the Quran to cooperate in the good not to make alliances with those who reject the truthfulness
of the very Deen we follow. We don't take them as allies. Yeah, we can cooperate on single matters
where Islam deemed to be good, but we don't have allies. Our allies are each other, and no one else.
So let's go to the arguing Islamic case confidently.
		

			Now, first and foremost, want to correct misconception. Our issue is against things like * or
same * *, a being viewed as morally equivalent or morally permissible. We disagree of
this. We disagree with the Creator of the Universe series of this let's just put it into
perspective. It's not subjective disagreement. This isn't
		

			objective one, the truth of the old behind all reality deems is to be something which is apart
opposing the truth opposing what is what is he's declared to be good. But here's the issue, the term
homosexuality to use that or even homosexual is a very vague term and it doesn't occur in the Sharia
doesn't occur in Hadith of Quran, right? In the Hadith and Quran, in the Bible in your tested in the
Torah and the Torah turnoff, and in almost every civilization, there is no word for homosexual.
There is a word for someone who commits an action, which is haram and forbidden, but not the word
for someone who has this bad desires. Why? Because it would be actually it's quite a silly concept
		

			because we everyone every human being has was was for bad desires or you can be labeled now
according to the the Wasp was that you have the whispers or the temptations you follow? It is
ridiculous. Right? But it was created only in the late 18th century. It was created as a term to
distinguish people of different sexualities. Actual sexual pathologies, so aberrant or deviant
sexualities, that's what was used to classify. And then it became eventually used to classify a
whole community.
		

			But the the Islamic paradigm is we reject this, and you know what, we actually discriminate less
than the West does against quote, unquote, homosexuals. Why? Because we don't even recognize that's
a valid term to discriminate and categorize human beings by once you call people a label, and you
say they are categorized by it. And it's part of a culture of the community that they have to
follow, you discriminate them from anybody else. As far as we're concerned, everyone's just human.
		

			Well, either you believe in the truth or not. That's the category with which you can which we look
at. But apart from those who are believers and disbelievers, there is no other category that we
recognize. And yet the West started discriminating. And we are blamed for discrimination. No, we
don't discriminate. For on them you discriminate in the first place by inventing a term for people
who just have a sexual sexual preferences or what have you, we've all got all kinds of desires,
doesn't mean you're defined by your desires. Secondly, the Islamic paradigm, we should argue it,
they say in the West, for example, that they say, you know, * is bad and say, okay, and why is
		

			that? And you'll say, because * occurs between a person who wants to commit * and someone who
doesn't consent to * and say, Okay, and just humor me here. Why is that bad? Because the person
doesn't consent, what they own their body. And if they don't give consent, to have their body
undergo that that sexual intimacy, then that's what makes it wrong. And I say, Okay,
		

			well, in a way that our argument is the same except with one change. We also argue that all *
between people where the consent of the owner of the body isn't given is wrong. We, we actually
believe that as Muslims. Yeah, we do.
		

			Who owns human bodies? Who is the owner of everything in the universe?
		

			Allah subhanaw taala. And he doesn't give consent for you to use his property, or abuse his property
in the way that you want, or whoever wants to do so that is our argument. That is the Islamic
comment. That's what makes things right or wrong. It is the consent, the permission of the creator
of the entire universe, who is the owner and sustainer of everything in it. That is our paradigm.
That is our argument. That is how we judge good from bad Allah's permission and prohibition. And
there is no other meaning beyond that. There is no other cosmic meaning beyond others permission and
obligation is commandment and his prohibition.
		

			Now what about the second point then? So now I made the issue we all get from the Islamic paradigm.
What about the second issue? What about holding people to account for inconsistency in their own way
of life? Why should we bother arguing to liberals? They're being inconsistent with their Deen?
Surely we don't believe in their Deen. Now, of course we don't. But there's a there's a point to
this, right. Everything's false. Everything that is false, has inconsistency. We simply are pointing
out that not only are they being inconsistent with applying that Deen, but their deen is
inconsistent and is not the basis nor should be the basis for judging good and bad or for regulating
		

			the affairs of mankind.
		

			Now, the Koran uses such a similar argument. Yeah, which is it talks about the past
		

			You can quote age they used to, they used to bury their firstborn.
		

			alive if the firstborn was a female, they viewed it was very, it was a shame to only have a female
children. And yet they attribute it to Allah He had three daughters. And what does the Quran say?
Right? Has Allah preferred for you sons and taken for himself daughters, the client is not trying to
justify the belief that God has daughters know, the Quran is simply saying, in a way, look how
ridiculous you argue, you say it's a shame to have daughters, but you attribute it to almost
Motorolla. And yet for yourself, you take sons is pointing out the inconsistencies in their, their
way of life.
		

			Now, another key argument, they say we live in secular states, you know, secular states, the point
of a secular state is it is neutral on matters of religion and belief and ideas and so on so forth,
allegedly said, Well, here's the issue of this neutral, but you're not being consistent with it. Why
is that? Because it is a moral position to believe the only people who are adults and of the
opposite * can get married and form a valid couple. That's a position to argue the opposing
position to that is not neutral, that's taking a side
		

			that's adopting a position. And to argue that all relationships are morally the equivalent and the
same. Even though there there's there was a belief before that, that said that they're not all
equivalent and morally equivalent, the same. That's not neutral. That's being biased. Okay. If they
say, school should be a neutral place to say, Good, then don't teach that then to kids, okay, you
say should be neutral, fine. Act like it, then don't teach the children that. And they say, oh, but,
you know, it's for them to learn about all the different kinds of relationships that occur in the
world. And it's like, well, firstly, if you're saying that these things happen in the world, that
		

			will be something else. But to argue that all these relationships are all, quote, unquote, okay, the
same as each other in moral worth and value, that is a biased position. And that isn't neutral.
		

			Would they argue with what they teach children in school? What they teach her in school, that if a
man has four wives, and they form a family, that's okay, that's just the same as some as morally
speaking as a couple of only two people in it. Right? Now, they would, they would riot over that
teaching polygamy as an acceptable form of relationship in schools, they would riot over this. And
yet, we as Muslims are forced to accept that we are shouldn't have to be taught that it is morally
okay for that to exist. So oh, sorry, same * couples are morally equivalent to opposite *
couples. Look at the hypocrisy. They have. They hate polygamy. They will never teach the children to
		

			be okay. But it happens though, doesn't it? No, it happens. Oh, you don't want to Why don't want to
teach it though? Why don't you want to tell children, that's an acceptable form a relationship, that
is the hypocrisy we need to call them on.
		

			And bringing this to a close,
		

			we have to accept that liberalism is intolerant always was based on the idea that the humans own
their own bodies, which is an opposite to the belief that God is the owner of ourselves. So they
will always going to be biased, and they will always going to be intolerant of anyone who teaches
otherwise, this was always the case. Right? Don't expect that you can argue with liberals, for them
to accept to be actually tolerant. No, our position should be too many make them realize this. And
to argue that the you know, the first reason that liberalism was invented was to was to allow people
to follow and express different religious beliefs, because there was intolerance between people of
		

			different religious beliefs. That was the reason liberalism was brought in in the first place. It
promised to solve that problem. And yet it is going against the very first reason it was invented in
the first place. Now it is to suppress religious beliefs and the expression of such
		

			now and there's many contradictions you can bring. They say that they attack that they're going to
and they started attacking male circumcision. As male genital mutilation. You say that female
genital mutilation, they're not going to attack male circumcision as male genital mutilation. They
will say that that is, even though you're removing a vestigial part of skin that has no consequence
to the child's enjoyment of when they become adults of a full reproductive life in marriage.
However, if
		

			Have you completely removed the * from someone that's called Gender reaffirming surgery?
		

			Like, if wasn't the word mutilation used to mean to change something to this isn't doesn't that
qualify? Which not was that qualify more that they say, Oh, how dare you call it mutilation? But
it's not what that word means no, is it? This is the inconsistencies that they follow? And they will
soon be arguing, and many atheists have already started to say that teaching religion itself is
child abuse. Yeah. So and it's coming. It's coming, just teaching the children, Islam, and many in
some Western countries has been grounds for some people's, the custody of their own children to be
held in question. It's coming, you don't have a choice to be passive in this, right? It's not that
		

			you want to avoid war, war is upon you.
		

			War is already upon you. You just have the choice whether you want to fight it or not ideologically
speaking, right.
		

			Now, I'll kind of end with this, then.
		

			Which is,
		

			they are going to argue and they do that you are intolerant of people who are classified as
homosexual, because you don't accept them for who they are. You need to challenge this.
		

			Who you are, who you are, is what you choose to believe. Whether you choose to be good, or just
whether you choose to recognize the truth. That's who you are. If you're saying that your desires
define who you are, there are many bad desires that the law criminalizes in this country.
		

			Could you argue those to everyone in prisons today? That they're not been accepted for who they are?
Because they broke some law, they committed some crime. If desires define you, then are you not
persecuting criminals then, or who you call criminals anyway, for simply being who they are. That's
the ridiculousness of the argument. Who you are is your choices. You don't have to act on sexual
impulses. I hope we all don't, because most of the time, when you're new in the streets, there are
going to be fitna there's going to be temptation. And most people in Western society on a regular
basis, we have to suppress most of the of the of the sexual agitation they receive on a day to day
		

			basis, just walking down the street, you're not meant to just jump on people and attack and sexually
assault them. You're meant to, you're meant to choose to suppress those desires and not harass
people or not go up we've been sexually harassed and by the by talking to them or, or what have you,
because even even sometimes some speech is deemed to be sexual harassment. So the West expects you
to suppress your sexual desires for like, 90 90% of the time. Right? Yeah, and that's fine. We agree
we would even go one further, you know, lower the gays would go even further than that, you know,
actually lower your gaze. But here's the point, which is, well, if sexually, if choosing your
		

			choices define who you really are, and you can choose to, to reject one particular expression of, of
sexual attraction and and choose to, to kind of channel that instinct in a good way, as deemed by
the traitor, then that's that choice to find you not the presence or the desire itself, you are not
determined, you're not robots, that you must carry out every single impulse you have. What makes us
human is that we don't carry out every single impulse we have. Because desires don't define you,
your choices do. Right. And lastly, I know that there's many arguments they bring up, which I don't
I wish I had more time to go through all of them. Please check out the leaflets that are present,
		

			but to to finish up what I was saying at the very beginning, as Muslims, we argue from the Islamic
basis, not because it is our belief simply not because we are a minority, that we want to have our
rights respected, quote, unquote, all that rights are determined by liberalism, or by any manmade
constitution. No, the Islamic basis is reality itself.
		

			Right? We all do it because we're calling people to open their eyes to reality, not to minority
opinion as a, as a community in the West. No, we're telling people to wake up to the reality that
they live in as human beings as a creation of the Creator of the universe.
		

			And when we hold them to account we hold them to account from based on their inconsistency. Not
because we want to kowtow to liberalism. I want just give a very quick analogy. It's like if in the
Mecca if a Muslim was being persecuted, and as they're being praised for being tortured, they'd say,
why are you doing this to me would help I'll be happy with you what you're doing to me. You wouldn't
say that? Because you pass
		

			fake, right? And it's false. Liberalism is a modern day I don't we don't kowtow to it. We don't say,
oh, but does liberalism knights do this? No, we simply point out, look, how inconsistently you
behave, and how inconsistent your ideology is, if you truly hold to these rules, why don't you
follow them? Then? That's how we argue. But we don't say, I have a constitutional right to know,
when you have only the rights given to you by Allah subhanaw taala. Because then some somebody some
people don't argue. But if that's the case, why does God not like punish you until the day of
judgment? Right? Then that means that humans have a right to do what we want to do? No, you don't
		

			have a right to do whatever you want to do. Humans have a respite
		

			that might allow them to do what they do for a fixed duration. But even then the punishment can come
on this earth. That not even waiting for the hereafter. No, you don't no one has a right to do to do
Cofer, or to do facade or to do a fascia. You might you might have a respite. Right, but not all
right. Lastly, we need to be competent. Right? And competence doesn't mean that you seek allies. Oh,
please help me sir. Please help me. We're so weak. No, you should argue from the position of being
the uppermost that's what the Quran says. Muslims, you should be arguing from a position of you're
on the uppermost because of the truth not because we're inherently better as individuals. Now we're
		

			sinners. We make mistakes, but the Hawk is what's gonna happen most. So guess what? Act like it.
Right? Don't look at normal non Muslims around us as as our betters or superior. That's a colonial
mentality. Yeah, we look at them, as many of them as ignorant people who need to be guided, who need
to be opened up to Revelation. They're only acting according to the social programming given to them
of these false ideologies, repeating the same lines that they have been told, Oh, my body my choice
and my free. No, I'm sorry. It's it's not your body's God's body. Right? Yeah, freedom. You're not
free anywhere. Maybe if you're in a desert island by yourself, you'd be free or evil or the lions
		

			and tigers and the bears and the desert and my eaters you're not really free anyway. You're never
free. Humans can't be free Kwanzaa. Whatever weird, idealism you follow. We're all slaves to
something. So why don't just be a slave to the truth, rather than being a slave to falsehood. And
I'll finish up by saying, The Quran says, Allah will perfect his light, even though the disbelievers
hate it. So will you take up the cause of Allah spent Allah and perfect his light
		

			and not care about those who hated