Mohammed Hijab – Message to Muslim Westerners on LGBT – California

			JOHN Locke, I think you made some very valid points there. And I want to add to something very
important, right. And this is, I think, one of the biggest challenges in this state, in particular
with the Muslim community, and I have to address it head on. Obviously, we have the same challenge
in the UK. But I believe that we have better mechanisms of dealing with it there. I'm not trying to,
you know, but I think that we have, you know, more established community in the UK already, because
we've been there for much longer, and we've been able to establish ourselves and our population is
much more concentrated.
		

			And we have much less apostasy rates and in the United States. However, having said that, to answer
your question directly, I think,
		

			the question of the first and foremost about homosexuality and Islam
		

			and LGBT activism, and how does it how do we deal with that? Because, obviously, from an Islamic
perspective, we know that homosexuality, not from an inclination perspective, from a tendancy
perspective, from a feeling perspective, but certainly from an action perspective, is something
which is an aberration in religious against our religion, we can't, we're not going to change that
part of our religion, and in fact, one of the major sins of Islam. So we, I feel like this, and you
can correct me if I'm wrong, obviously, this is your state and you've been living here. But I feel
like there's a, there's a there's a pressure to capitulate to this idea that actually, we should say
		

			that the act itself, I'm not talking about the feeling, and I'm not talking about the person.
homosexuals. I'm not talking about the feeling how they feel. I'm talking about homosexual *, to
be completely honest with you. Right? penetration. Yeah, sorry to be kids in the room, I'm talking
about that. We are under pressure to say that's legitimate. And it's moral is fine. But I say and
this well, if there's anything you got to live with today, make this be the thing that you live
with. Yeah. Because it's something that hopefully will protect your community and our communities
everywhere. This is against every approach.
		

			And we stand up for this. Okay? No, it's against every single approach. Let me tell you why. We
talked about the intersectional approach. What if someone who feels gay also believes that that
homosexuality is a sin? What if they have two things that they're doing at one time they feel
homosexual? They feel like they have homosexual relations, but they also have the belief that what
if they if they act upon that impetus, that what they will do is they'll do something sinful? So on
an intersectional analysis, now, we have to go back and ask,
		

			what do we prioritize and analysis, what they believe, or what they feel.
		

			And if that person makes a conscientious decision to say, you know what, I feel like this. But my
identity as a human being is should be prioritized in this way, for example, in a religious way, and
therefore, I'm going to suppress my sexual, you know, homosexuality, for example, I'm going to
suppress it, then that is as legitimate on an intersectional analysis and the liberal analysis as
someone, quote unquote, coming out of the closet. Basically, there is a presupposition that sexual
expressionism should be prioritized over and above suppression.
		

			But that that doesn't make any sense. Why is that the case? Can that be proven? So in other words,
there's this idea which actually takes us all the way it takes us all the way back to Freud, one guy
called Freud. Yeah, Sigmund Freud, he wrote a book called civilization and its discontents. And in
it, he basically argued, and he had this thing called the Oedipus complex, I don't want to go into
major detail. But he said that, you know, When, when, when a child is born, they have psychosexual
stages of development. And at one stage, like a, for example, a young boy feels attraction for his
mother, like he wants to engage sexually with his mother, right? And then we start, you know,
		

			controlling those desires and so on.
		

			And he argues in his book that basically, we should be able to express ourselves as much as
possible. And this is incorporated into this liberal ethic, this liberal ethic of just do it kind of
like you know, the Nike slogan, yeah, just do it. You know, YOLO, live once, and so on. So sexual
expressionism is prioritized over and above sexual repression ism, if you like. So coming out of the
closet, is seen as the epitome of a self expression. Yes. Even though, as I made the point in my
debate yesterday, for those of you that are coming out of the * closet was not seen the same
way as someone who has sexual inclination for their brother or sister. Sorry to be very explicit
		

			here. But this is a very important topic. Because the truth is this on social liberalism, the Haida
or the The principle is, you can do whatever you want, so long as you don't harm anyone else. That's
what they say. Yeah, do whatever you want, so long as you don't have anyone else. Okay, so
therefore, the homosexual has the right to have * with another man. But a brother doesn't have the
right to have sexual * with his sister. Sorry to be young.
		

			Well, because deformed babies will come about, okay. contraception.
		

			The same logic applies. Why is the LGBT rights in this country and not * rights when both of
them are predicated on the same social construct? idea of harm principle. So the idea is that sexual
expressionism should be prioritized any over and above repression ism. But even in certain contexts,
there'll be exceptions that are made, like *, for example, some taboo things that they have
society still haven't has a civil rights movement. Yeah, for if there was if there was a, you know,
100,000 people that had sexual feelings for their sisters and their brothers, and they come hand in
hand in the streets, and they say, look, give us our rights. Maybe things will change.
		

			But why should it be the case that that should be? What has to happen in order for society to accept
them? Right? This, you know, they have the same issue, they should have the same rights to sexual
respect. Anyway, that's a different question. The point is, as Muslims, we say, all of these things
are go back to our expression as Muslims.
		

			We say, as Muslims, our morality is defined by what Quran and Sunnah. And through the mother have
and so on. Yeah. So if we believe that having * with a man, if you're a man is a sexual operation,
is it religious is wrong? And you say, No, that's an illegitimate belief, then you're stopping us
from believing what we want to believe. Where's the freedom of expression in that?
		

			We're not gonna we are not going to sacrifice our expression to satisfy your own expression.
		

			Don't ever allow that to happen to your community. You have to fight tooth and nail before that ever
happens in this community. Don't let them win the argument will lie even on their principles.
There's no way you can lose this argument. You should be allowed to believe that having * to men
having * with each other is a moral aberration is a religious is not correct. It's never going to
be correct. In my eyes. That doesn't mean now that I'm going to be disrespectful to homosexuals. No,
we're gonna have a good relationship with homosexuals. Because Allah subhanaw taala told us and
we're also not a matter of mental illness.
		

			Almost like a like a fountain in se. We haven't sent you except for as for all of the people for all
of the people, not just for you know, one sexuality, no discrimination. We're like, the perfect game
for everyone. The homosexual, heterosexual, the bisexual, the black man, the white man, the Green
Man, the yellowman. Everyone. He wasn't sent for specific people, which goes back to the racist
point raises important human
		

			and left for the law to be there's no fuddle there's no Liana peon. For for RP, you know over a
Jimmy or Jimmy over r&b or for a black man over a white man or a white man. So it's an inclusive
message of Islam. But that should not mean that we're going to change our morality because now
you're you're impinging on our freedom of expression. And you're impinging on our freedom of
thought. You're telling us what to believe? You're telling us what to believe it's the equivalent,
it's the moral equivalent of someone who's a vegetarian who believes that eating meat is wrong.
Yeah, it's told no, you can't have that belief. Because we have this, you know, all these people are
		

			eating meat, therefore, you know,
		

			you're calling them immoral. Even if they believe that that is an immoral action, and eating meat is
wrong. Shouldn't they be allowed to believe right that eating meat is an immoral action is
vegetarian isn't going to be outlawed?
		

			veggie phobia.
		

			Your veggie folk?
		

			No, no, don't don't go that the LGBT community, they have to know full well. And you have to make
this case very clearly. That we will definitely treat you with respect, and definitely allow you to
enter our spaces, they're more welcomed in our spaces than we are welcoming our spaces because we
want them to come into the mosque, we want the LG we want homosexuals to come to the mosque from
from, from from Muslim faith or non Muslim faith. And yet it's not an impossibility to be a Muslim
homosexual, you can have those feelings, and you can even commit the action. We're not even going to
excommunicate you from Islam, even if you have * with 1000 men that would excommunicate you from
		

			Islam. Sorry to say, I'm, however, we are going to say that action is wrong.
		

			And if you are and if we are stopped from doing this, because of this was referred to as a homegrown
nationalist agenda. Yes. Where homosexuals juxtaposed themselves away from the Muslims in order to
find some homes in nation state in the Western world and so on. Forget about it. We're not going to
accept that Muslim communities have to be strong. Just like Jewish communities. We're just like
Orthodox Jewish communities. We're just like Christian communities in the Bible Belt can say
ridiculous things. You're going to *, you know, shut up.
		

			Be quiet redneck.
		

			Donald Trump and these guys
		

			be quiet. They and they're allowed to do that. Anyhow, I got a gun here and they're walking around
with guns and threatening behavior, and they're okay. But as Muslims we have to be victimized
otherwise objected for homosexuals.
		

			You know, what we believe firmly, wholeheartedly, definitely, blatantly, obviously, willingly, that
homosexuality, if done in practice is sinful and we will never back down from that. Don't ever let
you don't ever let them back down from that position. The moment you back down from that position
will lay you back down from Islam