Yasir Qadhi – The LGBTQ+ Issues

			Follow
		

			up Bell carry colonna
		

			bu. F.
		

			All praise is due to Allah subhana wa tada who made the heavens and the earth and created the
creation and revealed to us the Quran guaranteeing its preservation and sent us a prophet to be a
paradigm of emulation. And blessed us with the Kadima as our solid foundation, and gave us the
Shetty to be our source of legislation and gifted us the faculties of hearing seeing perception and
sensation, and united us from different tribes and races to make us an Obama one nation and created
the sun and the moon in orbital harmony and rotation and gave us the day in the night in perfect
alternation. He is the King of Kings on the final day of compensation, and he shall raise our
		

			Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. On that day in the Praiseworthy station. He made heaven for the
believers a powerful motivation and desire destination. And he created * to be a place of
excommunication and eternal damnation. Praise be to Him for all that is in the heavens and earth
bows to him in prostration. To proceed, I welcome you all to our conference today and ask Allah
subhana wa tada to make it a source of Baraka a source of benefit, a source of care. What started as
an idea for a small local conference and a contemporary issue in our messages here in East Plano, as
you all know, very shortly became itself the topic of conversation across social media. So many
		

			groups, so many parties, so many different entities began speaking about this conference itself,
accusations as skepticisms from a diverse groups contradictory in nature, each group reading in its
own fears and prejudices into this conference. And in fact, I was actually expecting there might be
some conferences about the conference itself, if anything, if anything, this shows the importance of
discussing this topic. Tensions are at an all time high. Everybody's walking on eggshells, different
people are reading in different fears, contradictory fears, how can the same conference be anti and
pro at the same time? And the very fact that this conference itself generated so much discussion at
		

			the National dare I say international level, it really demonstrates that this is a topic that needs
to be discussed multiple times. I do not claim that this one day conference is the final end all and
be all I do not claim that today's conference is going to be perfect, but I do claim very clearly
that some step is better than done. something is better than nothing to begin the discussion is
better than not having one. So let this conference be a first step. It is not perfect, nothing is
perfect, other than Allah subhana wa Tada. And I humbly suggest that anybody who has alternative
visions, points of contention, may Allah bless you organized another conference and show us a better
		

			methodology. I do not claim perfection. But I do know that merely pointing out imperfection will not
get us anywhere, show us a better way, bring another group with another set of topics and Bismillah
I will support any effort that is meant to better our understanding of Islam in the modern world
time is very limited. And each one of our speakers only has one talk and this is my talk for today.
So I will jump straight into the lecture at hand. As you know the conference today is themed around
the LGBTQ plus issues with regards to Islam. And we have to very briefly explain what this term
means. This term is a loose umbrella term that is meant to encompass all types of people who don't
		

			identify as straight, meaning they don't identify as being sexually attracted to the opposite
gender, and also who don't identify as cisgender. And cisgender is a term that means somebody who
identifies with the gender they were biologically born into. So if you're not straight, if you're
not cisgender, then you're automatically in the LGBTQ plus and the plus here means there's many
different multiple competing identities. Now today's topic cannot be about every one of these
identities, there's actually more than 25 plus of these identity
		

			ditties Today's topic is primarily about same * unions and about the moral and political issues
pertaining to them. Not exclusively, but primarily about same * unions. The issues of
transgenderism are very important, but frankly, they come with a whole different set of issues that
do deserve another topic and another conference. Today's topic is about Muslims, battling through
negotiating their identities. Visser v. These other LGBTQ plus identities in the broader spectrum of
the American democracy that we live in, my talk will center around seven points, each one of them is
worthy of its own separate topic, but I will try my best to summarize in a few paragraphs, seven
		

			different topics. So let's begin the first of these seven. Where do we derive our values from who
gets to decide what is ethical and unethical? Who gets to decide what is good and what is evil?
Well, this is a very deep, very interesting, very necessary philosophical discussion. For us as
Muslims, the answer is very clear. We begin our conversation by saying we derive our values from the
Sharia. Allah says in the Quran, you can do the homework per year but when you have any more Allah
him acaba if Allah makes the pure things permissible, and he makes the impure things impermissible,
Allah makes the halaal he makes the hubby's how long so we firmly believe that our ultimate source
		

			of legislation is Revelation. Revelation is what tells us right from wrong, good and evil. And we
also believe that revelation doesn't just assign how Rahman Helen based upon irrational values know
the how ROM is not good for us. And the heroin is good for us. The Haram is dangerous for us. This
is what we believe Allah didn't just arbitrarily decide how I'm in * and Allah subhana wa tada
made what is harmful for us? He made it impermissible and he made what is good for us. He made that
permissible. And we firmly believe that revelation confirms what sound intellect and what pure souls
would automatically understand is good and evil, sound intellect and pure souls would know that this
		

			is good, and this is bad. And revelation comes and confirms it that yes, indeed, for example, murder
is evil. Yes, indeed, stealing is evil. Even if Allah didn't say that we know murder is evil. We
know stealing is evil, but to shitty outcomes to confirm. But what do we do in case of conflict? You
see, while we firmly believe that people of sound mind and pure souls will generally be able to
assert values of good and evil, independent of Revelation, if the soul is corrupted, if the fitter
of man or is corrupted, if the society that a person is born into has altered or changed values,
then it is very easy for a person to think that right is wrong and wrong is right. If a person is
		

			born at a time and place where values are different, and they absorb these values from broader
society, then it does become difficult to separate morality from morality. Therefore, what a society
feels is good and ethical is not necessarily good and ethical. What a particular time and place
feels is unethical doesn't mean it is unethical as a very extreme example. And I chose this extreme
example, knowing it was extreme. And there's a documentary on YouTube, you can look it up. It is
about the korowai tribe of Papua New Guinea, the Kota ye tribe, the korowai tribe was only
discovered by the rest of the world around a generation ago, the first person to enter into that
		

			region 1970s from before 1970s were around 2000 years or something. Nobody had met this tribe. And
this is one of those tribes that used to practice the the the issue of cannibalism. If they went to
war, and they conquered another tribe, as a part of the victory, they would kill and eat the
prisoners of war. This was something standard in these tribes of Papa New Guinea. Now, a modern
documentary made this decade a researcher and a cameraman tracks down now this tribe has been
associated with civilization, this practice is gone. They don't do it anymore. A modern
		

			cameraman and a photographer found this tribe and wanted to interview some of the elders. They're
all in their 60s now who participated in some of those raids back in, you know, 50 years ago, and he
found somebody interesting documentary, he found somebody who participated in one of those raids,
and he interviewed him about cannibalism and as part of the interview
		

			Have you he asked him? Did it not occur to you that it is wrong to eat another human being? Did it
not occur to you that it is immoral to sacrifice and kill and then slaughter and then cook another
human being. And this person just looks straight at the camera essentially shrugs and says, but
everybody was doing it. But everybody was doing it. How did you expect me to know it's immoral, when
the culture and society I was born into that's what everybody did. I'm not defending. I'm not
criticizing but everybody was doing it. Now, I know this is an extreme example. But it is meant to
get the point across. It is meant to make us understand that if everybody is doing something, and
		

			we're born in that time and place, it might be very difficult for us to overcome the prejudices of
our own time and place in a society where a particular habit is rampant. A child born in that land
might find it difficult to be neutral about that habit. And again, I don't have to go as extreme as
cannibalism. In this country of ours, America, how much racism was a part of its DNA was enshrined
in its laws for 250 years, it took almost three centuries, almost three centuries for this notion of
racial superiority to become politically incorrect. And even if it's politically incorrect, we're
still seeing the after effects. It's still latent and hidden in society. Therefore, my first point
		

			is that ethical values Yes, indeed, it is true sound intellects, and pure souls can find them, no
doubt about it. But we need an external verification to tell us our minds are sound and our souls
are pure. We need an external mechanism outside of our society outside of our time and place. And
that external verification for us as Muslims is a laws revelation. So today's entire conference is
coming from this premise. It is a conference by Muslims for Muslims meant within the paradigm of
Islam. If you don't believe in this paradigm, no doubt we need to have conferences and talks. But
today's track is for people who believe in the Koran we have to be very, there's conversations that
		

			need to take place. There's no doubt Muslims need to converse with people outside of our faith
tradition, we need to explain to them our values and modules No, no doubt that needs to be done. But
as well, we need to have frank conversations from within our community. So I want to make this very
clear point number one of seven. Our entire Today's conference is coming from within the paradigm of
Islam. I am expecting all of us here that we understand our morality is derived from Allah subhanho
wa Taala halal and haram, ethical and unethical, good and bad. It is based upon revelation
primarily. That's our first premise. Now, the second after we establish that the second topic of the
		

			seven now that we've established our ethical values are from Revelation. What does our revelation
say about this whole issue? Well, our half is our recited verses and the Quran is explicit in this
point so that that out off verse at Luton is all in a call with me here tonight for his shatta
masaba combi Hamad I had him in alameen. When Lord said to his people, are you committing an
indecency, that no one before you did? Do you approach men with lust and desire instead of women?
Please underline this point do you approach men with lust and desire instead of women? Rather you
have gone beyond the measures but uncommon mystery phone is Seraph means to go beyond what is
		

			permissible. You have gone beyond what should be done. But until almost muster phone when Lord said
this to his people for makanda Joba comi Hilda unqiue woman Katya to come. The people said get rid
of loot and his followers. They are a group that want to purify you, we don't want to be purified in
pseudo tissue. Allah subhana wa Taala mentions the story of loot, and he says, a tune of the Quran a
minute Allah mean, do you approach men out of all of this world you approach men? What does aluna
mahakala Kumara Bookman as Raja come and you leave what Allah has created for you to do this and
that is you leave your wives, this act, Allah created a gender that you do this act with and he
		

			created for you your wives, you leave your wives and you approach men, but until June, June once
again another verb is used or another noun is used. Rather you are a group that has transgressed
either you have transgressed and he says in this series of verses, or in nearly ama de camino
Coleen, he said, this action that you are doing notice, he said
		

			Action, this action that you are doing, I do not like it. He explicitly publicly said I do not like
this action, this action I do not approve of it. So the origin is very clear the sun as well it is
explicit, the Hadith the Muslim Mohammed, our Prophet sallallahu Sallam said howdy this authentic Is
that the one who does the deed of the people of loot is cursed. Notice what is cursed is the deed.
And I'm going to come back to this point and the verse What does he get angry at the action and the
deed? In this Hadith, what is cursed the deed? The prophets are seldom said that whoever does the
deed of the people of loot is a cursed once again, it is the action that is a cursed, and when it
		

			comes to our scholars of legal law, our theologians, our odema, despite the fact that one finds a
vast diversity of opinions on almost every single issue, when it comes to this issue of same *
actions, one finds not even a peep, not even a squeak, not even a hint of a difference of opinion.
It is one of the very, very few issues where there is ultimate unanimous consensus, not just in the
Sunni schools of law in the if not actually schools of law in the zedi schools of law in the A Baldy
schools of law in the in the, in the other schools of law, the more density of schools, Allah was in
every single school of law, one does not find even one dissenting voice and I have researched to the
		

			best of my knowledge for a number of years and I have challenged on a number of academic servers
that I'm involved with, I have challenged find me one theologian, or one scholar of any sect of any
previous interpretation of Islam that allowed same * actions and there is deafening silence. Not a
single alum in Islamic history of any sect ever said that these actions are permissible, there is
absolute unanimous consensus that acting upon this desire and engaging in same * relations. It is
a sin, like many other sins of Islam, but it is a sin. So we have explicit Koran, authentic hadith,
and unanimous consensus, there is no controversy now, what exactly is the sin? to be very clear, our
		

			Islamic religion, our law, our Shetty never criminalizes a feeling. It never makes a desire
inherently evil, you will never go to jahannam for something that is inside your heart, some
Westwater some thought, some inclination, this is a general rule for all internal feelings. I mean,
some feelings might not be healthy. Sometimes we're in a fight, we might want to murder our opponent
when punch somebody but wanting to kill somebody you don't like and then controlling it. In and of
itself. You are not committing murder, are you right? Or else all of us would be in trouble wanting
to punch somebody in an argument in and of itself, that desire is not sinful. You control it. And
		

			this is a general rule. Our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said that Allah has forgiven what my
oma thinks to itself in the soul. Whatever desires come, whatever was Switzer, whatever inclinations
come, Allah has forgiven them. So what is criminal, what is sinful, what is morally reprehensible is
not an internal feeling, it is not an inclination, it is acting upon those inclinations to desire
alcohol to desire drugs to desire extramarital affairs in and of itself. It's not healthy, but it is
not sinful, to act upon it is sinful. And therefore, it is very clear in our Shetty out that having
an inclination per se, even though it might not be healthy, but it will not lead one to jahannam it
		

			will not make one and the lesser of a Muslim, and rather controlling those feelings and not acting
upon them is of the highest forms of submission to Allah subhanho wa Taala. This also then leads us
to perhaps the most contentious and controversial issue of this issue of Islamic law. And that is
we're always asked it Okay, what is the penalty? What is the verdict on those who practice this
deed. And as we know, in Islamic law, societies that base their law on the Sharia societies that are
judging by the Sharia, they do have punishments for all types of moral in decencies and sexual
infractions. However, all of these have a very high bar to prove. And if that bar is crossed, if it
		

			is proven, then indeed, there are extremely harsh deterrence that are meant to scare people.
		

			way they're meant to that people don't act upon them the crime of extramarital * for
example extramarital * for example, the crime of extramarital * in classical
Islamic law carries the death penalty. However, in actual Islamic history, it was hardly ever
enacted as a crime. The books mentioned that yes, extramarital affairs have this punishment, but in
actual history, even TV and others point out, never in Islamic history was somebody actually
executed for an extramarital affair because of a crime only because of a confession, because the bar
to be proven is so high for witnesses looking at the act exactly. It is almost impossible, if not
		

			impossible to actually meet. So we should not sensationalize the textbooks that mentioned classical
punishments we need to understand the wisdom of mentioning those punishments is to be determined.
They are rarely acted upon, even in utopic Islamic ideals. They're rarely implemented, even in the
history of Islam. It's there. It's meant to frighten it's meant that you don't do it. But
historically speaking, they will rarely done and there is no denying that. As even though he
mentioned his in his book,
		

			that the penalty for *, some of them said it is worse than that the punishment for extramarital
affairs. Some said it is the same as extramarital affairs, and some said it is lesser than
extramarital affairs. This is the famous hanafy position where they said that it is actually not
even the execution is going to be done. So we have a diversity. And you can look up a really good
article by Dr. Jonathan Brown, if you can find it online is called the Shetty, homosexuality and
safeguarding each other's rights, the study of homosexuality and safeguarding each other's rights in
a pluralistic society. He goes over the evidences and the positions of this. So there is no question
		

			that the punishment for this is mentioned in our classical books. That's the second point. This
leads us to our third point out of the seven. What then does this mean? Does this mean now that I've
said that the shitty I says * is immoral? That the shady I says that this action might have a
punishment if certain conditions are met? The third of the seven? Does this mean we are preaching
hatred? Does this mean we are preaching violence? Does this mean that we are asking for others to be
harmed? What if somebody asks us point blank? Why don't you tell us what the shitty are says about
homosexuality, about these penalties? This is our third point. Do we say we are preaching any of
		

			these things? And the response. disagreement is not the same as discrimination. disagreement is not
the same as discrimination. Since some people accuse us of harboring what they call homophobia, we
have to say be consistent. You say that if we disagree with an action, this means we are preaching
violence and hatred. Let's flip it around. You are accusing us and disagreeing with us in our
stances. You are problematizing our morality? Are you criminalizing us? Are you preaching hatred
against us? Are you preaching violence against us? You are disgusted by our stances? You are
terrified by our morality? Can we not accuse you of hetero phobia? Can we not accuse you of the same
		

			things you accuse us of, of having an irrational fear, an irrational hatred of those who think
heterosexuality is the norm. And when they laugh, and scoff at that, say the same thing for us? The
same thing for us, we should have the right to have our morality, our version of what is right and
wrong. And we are not preaching any type of violence or bigotry against anybody else. These are
loaded terms homophobia and whatnot, we will not use them. It is not a part of our vocabulary. We
are teaching morality, we are teaching what is ethical and unethical. And we should have the right
to do that. And you can clarify this even more explicitly. Nobody gets confused with Islam stance on
		

			drinking alcohol. Even the most, you know, the most far away removed from Islam doesn't know
anything about Islam. They know that Islam teaches its followers not to drink alcohol. Okay. Does
anybody think that Muslims are out to kill everybody who drinks alcohol? Does anybody think that
Muslims are out to destroy every bar and pub? No. So why can they not understand the same thing when
it comes to other issues of morality? We are not calling for any shady punishments to be
implemented. But yes, we will say for example, with alcohol as the Quran says there might be some
benefits, but there is much harm and the harm outweighs the benefit. We will say this public
		

			likly also dear Muslims, when somebody comes up to you, and tries to corner you and says, What do
you say about the punishment of Islam and Islamic punishment of *? What do you say about books
of Sharia? When they tell you what should be done? realize? Generally speaking, they're not asking a
question to learn. They're asking a question to get a 10 second clip that they can put on fox news
or on memory. They're not interested in learning.
		

			They want to paint you as a backward barbarian. And they want you to make a 10 second statement that
they can cut and paste and then spread. These are what Muslims believe the fact of the matter, these
questions are more nuanced. They're much more nuanced. And I have spoken at length about how to
respond time is limited. I'll give you a two minute response.
		

			somebody asks you one of these very awkward questions, you do have to take a step back and say,
Listen, I cannot give you a 10 second clip, I have to give you at least two to three minutes. This
question must be responded to in a multi layered manner, at least four, actually five or six. But
today's talk, at least for the first of these is what do our classical books of law say about this
crime. And that's what you want to hear from me. You want to hear from me exactly quoting what the
great scholar 1000 years ago said, and you're going to take with that and run, but I'm not going to
give you that quote, because that's only point number one. It's there. I've already referenced it.
		

			10 minutes ago, we all know what the shady books are shady, I say. But let's move on to point number
two, which is, many of us Muslims don't even think about historically, how often were these laws
found in the books actually applied? Historically? What was the relationship of Muslim society,
Islamic caliphates with these crimes? And this is where when you study history, most of us don't
study history, it's eye opening, it is eye opening? Do you really think that our Islamic lands never
had alcohol in them? Alcohol was available in every single era, and every single epoch of Islamic
history without exception, the books of fit say one thing and they should the LMR preach one thing
		

			and they should the fuqaha and the thieves tell the people and they must. But do you really think
that 100% of the Muslim Ummah, avoided alcohol throughout its history, be real, since always exist
on the periphery? What do you think was the relationship between the AMA and the masses the same
that it is now? it's the job of the Roma to teach and preach? And the Masters some will listen, some
will not listen? Isn't that the case? Right? The same goes for these affairs as well. And there is
plenty of documented evidence. There's actually a very, very academic book. It's a historical book
by a professor from Harvard, Haditha, Roy Hill, about homosexuality in the Muslim world,
		

			historically speaking, and it's actually a very eye opening book where he's basically saying
everybody knew these things were in the periphery. And he actually says no scholar ever justified
it. But cultures knew everyday Ibis is the omega is the Ottomans. They all knew even in some of our
Muslim cultures and lands, there are groups of people, we know who they are, we know where they
live. Society knows that happens over there. But they turn a blind eye to it doesn't make it right.
But when they are not doing something in public, when they're doing it in private, it is not the job
of the shady to install spy cameras in people's houses. It's not the job of the Shetty is to go
		

			knocking and pushing down doors and then seeing what's going on inside. So historically speaking,
and this is not normalization. It is a fact people drank alcohol, people committed Zina, and yes,
people did this sin as well, throughout all of Islamic history. There were famous incidents, well
known look at the some of the famous poets of the buses. So we have to bring in reality, along with
theory, theory is always strict. It's always ideal reality, temporary theory down in all of Islamic
lands, that ideal was there, but it was never actually found in a real society historically, hardly
ever was this crime actually punished in the manner that is described in the book. So that's point
		

			number two. Point number three.
		

			Yes, indeed, the books have say one thing. What is the permissibility of fine tuning in modern
times? Not every not every classical opinion needs to be maintained. Can a modern Muslim society
rethink through some of these issues? That's a very good question. And modern fifth councils and
Muslim lands should take charge of this lands that are governed by the shediac. We are all knowing
right now. For example, blasphemy laws right. In Pakistan. The controversy with regards to them or
them are on both sides.
		

			It's a modern debate how much of those classical laws should be applied? How should they be applied?
What fine tuning should be done? So the third question, so again, there's four points. Number one,
what do the classical texts say? I mentioned that number two, the history that needs to be mentioned
as well. Number three, modernity in Muslim lands. Is there any leeway to fine tune? That's a good
question. I'm not involved with that the scholars and Muslims should think about that. And number
four, what is relevant for us? What do we Western Muslims say about these produce punishments? What
is our responsibility towards these very, very clear cut laws found in ancient textbooks? Is any
		

			Muslim living in America calling for the Hadoop is this something that God wants from us? Here? We
unequivocally say it is not our job as Muslims living in minority lands to take these laws and to
implement them. And we have plenty of explicit evidence for this. Most obviously, the Muslims that
Abyssinia when the Prophet sallallahu Sallam told the Muslims to go to Abyssinia and they were
living there as a community, they did not apply the produce amongst themselves. They did not do
these punishments because it's not their land. So we have to be very clear here, somebody comes a
reporter with the microphone, they want those 10 seconds, not only do we not give them we turn the
		

			tables around, we say No, we are not calling for any implementation of any punishments. But we do
not want our faith to be criminalized. We do not want our methodology and ideology to be banned. It
is my right to practice my faith in this land, and to not be demonized for that. So that is the
third issue. And that is that we are not calling for any acts of bigotry, acts of vigilante justice,
acts of hatred, acts of violence. On the contrary, what we are calling for clearly and unequivocally
is the right to maintain our religious freedoms and our fates. According to the Constitution of this
land. That is what we are calling for. We want to be Muslims faithful to our identity without being
		

			demonized without being criminalized. That is our goal. This leads me to my fourth point, the fourth
point, which really is a topic that needs to be done completely separately, if you really want to
talk about the LGBT movement, if you really want to understand this movement, it is essential for
anyone who truly wants to understand what is going on, to take a step back and study the history of
the LGBT rights movement, the history of how within one generation attitudes changed 180 degrees.
And everyone here above the age of 30 knows what I'm talking about those that are below 20. You
don't everyone here that is in their 30s 40s 50s, especially 60s, those of you that are above the
		

			age of 60, you have seen this issue literally night and day, literally 180 degrees in one lifetime.
Regardless of what your personal views are, it is one of the most successful achievements of any
social movements platform, regardless of whether you think it's good or bad. It is one of the most
radical achievements that in one generation, the civil rights took, how many decades slavery took
how many decades to ban, this movement, whatever your views might be, has clearly influenced the
global culture in one generation. I do not know of any other movement that has been as successful in
achieving its goals as quickly as this movement has been. Now this means those of us that are
		

			interested in talking about this, we need to do our research, we need to study how did that happen?
How did it go from being something that was criminal in every single state of this country and in
every European nation one generation ago, something that was a criminal punishable offense, how was
it changed within one generation? So that merely saying that it was a criminal offense becomes
problematic, merely quoting history, merely pointing the truth that once upon a time, there was
unanimous consensus that this was an indecent act to say this factual statement becomes problematic.
How did that happen? This is the history of the LGBT movement. And that is a very, very important
		

			topic. I'm just going to give you some key head points that you should all be aware of realize that
of course, this movement, most modern historians, they look to a particular incident in 1969 called
the Stonewall riots, in which a well known bar and the handout for people of the LGBT community it
was raided by the police and in 1969, the people in Stonewall basically fought back they barricaded
they they they fought back the police and they
		

			Do you have no right to stop us from doing this? This was called the Stonewall riots of 1969. In New
York, it is considered that this Riot sparked the LGBT advocacy movement. And after this, for the
first time, a concerted public effort was begun to change prevailing attitudes. But of course, there
was a lot of resistance. So throughout the 70s, and early 80s, there's now methodologies advocacy
groups are formed, that one of the most famous is called glad to GLADGL ad, which is essentially
it's like the APAC for, you know, the Israeli friends, they have the glad for the the same *,
basically advocacy groups. And this is perhaps the largest in North America was founded in 1985. So
		

			they have strategic strategic plans, and methodologies and techniques that they want to sway public
opinion. And, of course, during the 80s, is when this issue came to the forefront, politicians and
actors got involved. And we're all aware those of us that grew up in the 80s, and 90s. We're all
aware of some of the interesting things that happened. As recently as 1987, the Prime Minister of
England, Margaret Thatcher, not that I'm a fan of hers, but to have a prime minister say this in
Parliament and to have the parliament clap at what she said, shows you the prevailing attitude in
1987, Margaret Thatcher, and again, this is not a support or a defense. I'm simply stating the head
		

			of state, the head of state, the prime minister in Parliament, decries the growing influx of what
she calls homosexuals in schools. She's irritated. She's flustered, and she's saying this is not
good for our children. And Parliament goes wild with claps they're like, Yes, finally, somebody
speaking out. This is 1987. And again, I'm just being factual. In 20 years, look at what has
happened. You cannot have forget ahead of state you cannot have a small unknown actor even say
anything of this nature. In 1988, the UK Parliament passed a law called section 28 that prohibited
local authorities, schools and councils from promoting same * lifestyles. And this law was only
		

			repealed in 2003 2003 in 1989, to intellectual members of the advocacy groups, LGBT activists,
advocate advocacy groups, one of them was a Harvard grad and neuropsychologist. Another was an
advertising expert, basically, an expert in writing ads for various companies, the two of them, who
were both members of the LGBT movement. They came together and they wrote a book called and this is
available on Amazon, you can read it, it's called after the ball, how America will conquer his fear
and hatred of gays in the 90s. So famous book, you can find it on Amazon. Now, Muslims, this isn't
some conspiracy theory. This isn't Illuminati coming together in a dark room. No, it's called
		

			strategic planning. You want to get something done, you come together, you form a plan and you do
something, stop believing in conspiracy theories. We wish Muslims did this for Islamic PR. We want
Muslims to make sure Muslims come together and advocate for Islamic causes nothing sinister about
it. A group of people came together intellectual thinkers, and they laid out a strategic plan and
they published it in a book, the book is available go read it is called after the ball published in
1989. And the goal was what what is the subtitle how America will conquer its fear and hatred of
gays in the 90s. They laid out a six point plan. Very simple, very clear. And they said all of you
		

			start doing this six points. What were these six points very quickly, number one,
		

			talk about gay gayness gay identity, gay people as much and as frequently and as loudly as possible,
make it mainstream, make it normal. Don't make it something on the periphery or the fringe, wherever
you can just bring in this term this, this this notion and start talking about it. So make it a part
of the conversation. Number two, portray people who are of this movement, as LGBT as victims,
portrayed them as victims don't portray them as wanting to challenge status quo know portrayed them
as those who are the victims of hate. That's number two. Number three, those that want to fight on
behalf of homosexual homosexual causes LGBT, make them into superheroes make them protectors with
		

			the just cause. Give them the aura of civil rights fighters. These are people that are fighting for
the just cause point number three, point number four.
		

			Bring characters that are part of the LGBT movement and put them into media and make them look cool.
make them look hip and sophisticated, make them look cutting edge. You want them to be mainstream
and respected. And then finally
		

			Number five, the exact opposite. Anybody who criticizes them? Anybody who makes fun of them, anybody
who disagrees with them, make them look like bumbling idiots. make them look like backward buffoons
make them look like people out of the Stone Age. that's point number five. Anybody who dares
disagree the caricatures the stereotype should be an intolerant bigots make the person look good.
And the victim, sorry, make the LGBT person look good. And the one who doesn't agree make them look
bad. that's point number five. And then point number six, make this a tax exempt not for profit
groups so that we can get corporate funding to do the previous five things. So after this, many
		

			groups were formed across the country. And in the 90s, these six point plans were implemented. And
that's what those of us who are coming to that age of age of that era we saw with our own eyes,
slowly but surely, more and more talk of LGBT rights and homosexuality. The very first time an
openly gay character comes on a mainstream show is as recently as 1998 and willing grace, the famous
show willing grace, that was the 1998. Before that, you will not find the main character main
character that is portrayed in a positive manner. This is 1998. We all remember those of us in the
90s the debates about Clinton and the army and homosexuals in the army, until finally the government
		

			had to do a cop out neither this nor that. Don't Ask Don't Tell. Right. That's the government cop
out neither this nor that. We just didn't want to get involved. The government did not want to
remember this is all back in the 90s. Slowly but surely, these six points not only were implemented,
but were successful to a resounding degree. Last year glad this Advocacy Group announced that they
had a they had reached their targets of 10% of all characters and actors in soap operas and dramas
and TV shows should be LGBT. They happily announced they had reached their target. And then they
said the next target of this decade 20% of all characters will be of the LGBT community. Now pause
		

			here footnote. Every statistic and survey shows that in the broader country, around 2% of people
identify with that trend 2% and the media wants 20% to be portrayed as part of this community. This
is a part of again, this is tactics is nothing there's no conspiracy. We wish Muslims had a good,
you know, PR company to come together and do the same thing. Muslims, we need to stop believing in
bizarre conspiracy theories. This is simple. This is simple maneuvers and tactics that are done to
convince people of anything and they succeeded in a manner that was beyond anyone's expectation. Not
only is it now socially acceptable, but in the last decade, for the first time in human history,
		

			human history. The religious community is now sanctioning this lifestyle. This is something that is
completely and totally unprecedented. In 2000 plus years of Judeo Christian Islamic history, never
did any priest never did any Rabbi never did any Imam and he must use any church, any synagogue
sanction this union, this is happening not last generation right here. And now this decade. This is
the first time even the people of loot said get rid of loot. He wants to get auto heroin. They
didn't say we are thought and pure. They recognized who started and who's not. They recognize what
is new thing. What are we saying? That has now flipped around. And now, there is a massive debate
		

			going on within Jewish and Christian circles. And even for the first time in Islamic history, some
Muslim voices are coming to say that this is now legally sanctioned and permissible. Christian
churches are debating this divisions are happening amongst the Jewish community. Recently, the
conservatives changed their stances, and they have accepted this union. Only the Orthodox basically
don't allow it. And even in our own Islamic tradition, as you are aware in America, Canada, other
places for the first time in human history, mosques have opened up and they are openly advocating
unions of the same * and they are saying this is something that is islamically permissible. This
		

			is all unprecedented within not even our generation, our decade, the book that I would recommend you
to read for point number four, it is called a queer thing happen in America by Dr. Michael Brown, a
queer thing happened in America by Dr. Michael Brown, point number five and after wrap up quickly.
Point number five.
		

			For the last four decades, there has been a consistent effort as we just mentioned, to make others
tolerant and accepting of the LGBT community. That battle has been won. If you don't accept if you
don't
		

			Green, then you are labeled the bigot, they have won that battle. But now the tables have turned.
First, it was just ubu IBV. First, it was just acceptance, they've won that battle. Now that they've
won it, they want more than just acceptance, what they want, what we are seeing is a new wave of
intolerance of reverse bigotry. They don't even want people to personally hold views that are not
consistent with their own. First it was let us be us and you can be you. They won that a decade ago.
Now, it is not even socially acceptable to live in that live. You cannot even hold values that were
mainstream across the globe for 2000 plus years to hold such views. You become the social pariah you
		

			will might suffer at your job or at your political level. And in fact, in some European countries,
there's legislation that is being debated as we speak to literally criminalize, criminalize holding
views that were considered to be mainstream for over 2000 years. And one of the main tactics that is
being employed is the equation of gay rights with civil rights. The claim that one sexual identity
is akin to one's racial identity. So to oppose one sexual preferences is the same as the bigger to
oppose basically racial equality. And we need to be very, very explicit here. In Arabic, this is all
as metaphoric in English is called false and ology. One sexual orientation has nothing to do with
		

			one's race, sexual orientation. Firstly, who said that is your primary way of categorizing yourself?
Do I need to know your sexual preference and fetish? Do I see it when I look at you is that
something that never changes? Everyone knows that one, sexual preferences are within oneself, it
doesn't have to be an identity, it doesn't have to be a primary identity. Secondly, it's not
recognized where our skin color is recognized. Thirdly, every single medical
		

			research that has been done has yet failed to prove that sexual identity is something that is
inherent, we don't know the jury is out on this, whether it's nature or nurture, the jury is still
out. And the very fact that the jury is out. The very fact the scientific community is still
debating really speaks volumes for itself. The point is that we need to be very clear here. There is
a hypocrisy and a double standard. For those who claim to practice liberalism. liberalism is meant
to preach Live and let live. If you want us to be like that. Okay, fine. Let us be our way and
you'll be your way nutcombe De Luca, Malia, Dean, we are willing to get to that level. But what is
		

			happening is No, we are not even allowed to preach and teach in our own massage. We're not even
allowed to hold our own views without some sense of social and in some countries, legal
ramifications, we are being portrayed as being the inherently evil simply for holding internal
views. And the irony seems to be lost on those who used to advocate for freedom for all that they
are not willing to give freedom for all when people disagree with them. So we will and we must fight
this moral and legal battle, we have the right to be who we are. If you want us to give you that
right. We demand the same right in return. And our values and views cannot be criminalized. The
		

			second to last point six point.
		

			And this is a very deep one. The issue of Muslims in America allying with forming political
allegiances with other people and individuals that might also support the LGBT agenda. We have two
other speakers that will be talking about this in more detail. It is clearly one of the most
contentious issues and one that cannot be resolved in a few minutes simplistically put the right
demonizes Muslims. The right wants to ban us the right wants to ban Islam. The right wants to invade
Muslim lands across the globe and the left. It doesn't like maybe even it hates some things that are
Islamic, some aspects that are orthopraxy and orthodoxy. So what do we do here? On the one hand, one
		

			group doesn't like us for who we are, but they agree with some morality. On the other hand, one
group is willing to embrace us, they want us they want that diversity, but they don't like the fact
that we are morally different from them. And this is very problematic. I mean, we're not going to
mention any names here. But there are some very, very famous politicians running for president. No
names mentioned here, but they are everything we want them to be proud of.
		

			immigration, pro health rights, anti war, anti imperialism pro Palestinian anti a pack. I mean, this
is like a win after win. I mean, again, no names mentioned over here. But clearly there are some
burning issues that we are talking about in the Muslim community. There are clearly lines in the
sand that are clearly being drawn here. And no doubt these burning sand issues that we're talking
about some of these candidates, we really, really are happy at everything. Unbelievable. Except,
except their stance on LGBT. consistently. Some of these people have been arguing for LGBT rights.
What do we do? I don't have an answer. I do not have an answer. It's very easy to say we shouldn't
		

			support them. But then who else are we going to support? It's very easy to boycott and say form your
own parties. But we Muslims in America are less than 1% of this country. What parties are we going
to support? We're going to have to find Coalition's those other Coalition's they're going to have
views we disagree with, what do we do? I don't have an answer. But I do know one thing our community
needs to become more mature and stop demonizing other members of our own community. There is no one
right answer. I fully understand. Some people are very concerned about these alliances, I fully
understand. And by the way, for the record, I do not call them neophyte Cotta dice as they think
		

			they do know they are sincere people, I respect their sincerity, they do have solid concerns at the
same time. At the same time. The other side is forming alliances that they think is for the
betterment of the oma and they're getting some tangible results when the presidential candidate
invites a mainstream Muslim speaker to his campaign last night. That is clearly not just a symbolic
victory, it is a massive victory for Islam in America. But that's not going to happen. If those
types of individuals have statements that will be problematic. It's a given take, even as you
criticize some of those Muslim individuals, whether you like it or not, you are benefiting from
		

			their presence, you are benefiting from the fact that they have been given that platform. And it's
very easy to criticize, but there is no easy alternative. All I'm saying dear Muslims start being
more mature. This is not a matter of hedeman helado. It's not a matter of Akita and coffin and Emma,
it's a matter of politics. And every one of us has to decide where we want to be as long as as long
as the red line of moral theology is not crossed. As long as nobody comes in says the Quran
justifies that would be the moral line. Other than that, give and take agree and disagree. But don't
demonize the other. My final point, my time is up to seven point and this is my final point.
		

			What should we, mainstream orthodox, conservative call whatever names you want, what should we do
when other Muslims come to us, and they say they are considering this lifestyle. I have said this
many times, there is a clear spectrum of people. It's not just one, and we cannot treat everybody
the same. We can easily divide into at least three camps. On the most far extreme side are those who
want to change the laws of Islam, they think they're going to change it those who want to justify
this lifestyle, those who want to say this is acceptable to align His Messenger and they open up
their temples and their mosques and they do what they want to do. With regards to them. I have
		

			really no sympathy personally, they have the legal right in this country. They have the legal right
to do as they please, they can open their temple, they can call it a mosque, they can open their
places of worship, they can say they are Muslim, from our perspective, anybody who rejects the
Shetty and who says I don't care what Allah says, this person has rejected Islam. I'll be very clear
here again, please don't misquote me what I'm saying. Anybody who says I don't care what the Quran
says. I don't care what Allah says, I don't care what our tradition says, I'm going to do this
anyway. This is called esta halaal. And this is a rejection of Allah and His Messenger in this
		

			country. Freedom is there Do as you please. But we have the freedom to say that is not Islam. But
not everybody is of that nature? How about Muslims that are involved in this as a sin? Well, why
should we treat them any different than we treat any other sinner? And in fact, am I not a sinner?
Are you not a sinner? We have to make a clear line between those who want to challenge a law versus
those who are saying, No, I'm a sinner and I know I'm a sinner. I am a sinner and you are a sinner.
None of us are angels. We are all sinners in the eyes of Allah subhana wa Tada. It is not our job to
be judge, jury and executioner for somebody who's engaged in any sin. They come to the masjid. They
		

			want our guidance. They are our brothers.
		

			and sisters, the messenger is open to anybody who wants to come to alone His Messenger and is not
trying to teach something against to learn his messenger. It's not my job to quiz you to see what
your private lifestyle is. So any sinner who comes to us, we welcome them like we welcome any
sinners, brothers, sisters, who amongst us as an angel, we are all sinners, we will not we will not
make anyone feel unwelcome when they want to come to the masjid. And they're observing the idea of a
law. That's that's one side. And then the final group. How about those and with this, I conclude and
pass it on to the next speaker, which is a segue to the next speaker. How about those who, they're
		

			not even engaged in the sin, but they're tempted, they're struggling? their internal desires are
different than perhaps what many of us feel they're worried they don't know where to go. They're
worried because if they come to their family, their friends, they might be demonized. They're going
through perhaps issues of depression, maybe even contemplating suicide, which is very common and
well known in that segment. What do we do with them? Do we tell them to shut up? Do we tell them to
don't talk? Do we tell them to not seek help? Dear Muslims, if somebody comes to you struggling with
any any desire, not just this one, anything? That's something that is not healthy to act upon? And
		

			they come to you for help? Would you not have mercy and compassion on them? would you not want to
reach out and help them? Why then and I'm being honest, too. Why do we not understand the same when
it comes to this issue? Well, law if a person is struggling with drugs came with alcohol, they came
and said, I need your help. We would welcome them with open arms, we would embrace them, we would go
out of our way to show them compassion and mercy. Why? I asked you why when somebody comes and says,
I'm struggling with same * desires, I'm struggling with LGBT issues. All of a sudden, some of us
we become the most cold hearted, callous people, how is this possible? They're coming for help. I'm
		

			not talking about those that are rejecting a lot those that are trying to justify, I'm talking about
those that want help from us. Why would we not to give them help? Why would we not support them in
every way possible? And that is why do you Muslims, one of the people that I was very adamant on
inviting and I got a lot of flack for it, but I stood by this and I will continue to stand by it.
One of the people I was adamant on inviting is a person who has dedicated his life to really
reaching out to those who might internally be going through a lot of issues, and they want to live
their lives in accordance with the Shetty yet they don't know what to do. And this is of course,
		

			brother, Wahid Jensen. He is a pseudonym of an individual who has publicly written about his own
struggles as a practicing Muslim who went through shame, who went through depression, even thoughts
of suicide he had to overcome because no one wanted to help him out. No one wanted to give him some
help when he came to them for help. And he overcame this on his own. And he then was one of the
founders of an online forum called straight struggle, the goal of which is to help Muslims around
the world remain faithful to the teachings of Islam and offer spiritual and emotional support to
those who might need it.
		

			Enough it dounia Salah
		

			Leah
		

			Leah