Yasir Qadhi – The Moral, Theological, and Historical Considerations LGBTQ+ Conference
AI: Summary ©
The upcoming conference on Islam is a chance to discuss the topic of skepticism and the importance of finding one's political status. The speakers emphasize the need for deeper discussions on morality and the importance of acknowledging the lack of morality. They also discuss the history of Islam and the importance of controlling emotions and behavior. The conversation touches on the upcoming conferences and the importance of avoiding harm to others.
AI: Summary ©
hamdulillah you're denied me in a rush man you're Moshe, Maliki Dean. He cannot.
Ghana's dowry. Dino slave all ones Debbie said all Kalina and Ron darling him while you're in enough bull behind him or clean.
Giselle Kamala, who Smilla rahmanir rahim.
All praises due to Allah subhanho wa taala, who made the heavens in the earth and created the creation and reveal 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 ummah, 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 subhanahu wa taala to make it a source of Baraka a source of benefit, a source of prayer. What started as an idea for a small local conference in a contemporary issue in our Masjid here in East 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 of skepticisms from 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 daresay 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 none. 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 subhanho wa taala. And I humbly suggest that anybody who has alternative visions, points of contention, may Allah bless you organize
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
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 identities. 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, visa vie, 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 hand Lula homework per year, but
what you heard him what led him Allah is Allah makes the pure things permissible, and he makes the impure things impermissible, Allah makes the use of Halal he makes the Hadith haram. 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 haram and halal based upon irrational values. No, the Haram is not good for us. And the halal is good for us. The Haram is dangerous for us. This is what we believe Allah didn't just arbitrarily decide how Rahman ALLAH, 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 the 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 fitrah 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 absorbed these values from broader society, then it does become difficult to separate morality from immorality. Therefore, what a society feels is good and ethical is not necessarily good and ethical. What a particular time and phrase fifth 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 quarter ye 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, around 2000 years or something. Nobody had met this tribe. And this is one of those tribes that used to practice the 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 Papua 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 has 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
And, you know, 50 years ago, and he found somebody, it's an interesting documentary, he found somebody who participated in one of those rates. And he interviewed him about cannibalism. And as part of the interview, we 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 in place, and that external verification for us as Muslims is Allah's 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 Quran, 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'm going 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 established that the second topic of of the seventh, now that we've established our ethical values are from Revelation. What does our revelation say about this whole issue? Well, our office have recited verses and the Quran is explicit in this point so that that our offers at Wollaton if Allah call me to an alpha Hey Schutter ma Saba Combi Hamid I had the middle Alameen wa 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 unto him almost mystery phone when Lord said this to his people from icon that Yabba call me he is on call to do human cardio 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, Allah subhanho wa Taala mentions the story of loot and he says tuna the Quran and mineral Allah mean do you approach men out of all of this world you
approach men with the rune Amma halacha camera book woman as you 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 spirit agender that you do this act with and he created for you your wives, you leave your wives and you approach men, but unto him Coleman dune once again another verb is used another noun is use rather you are a
A group that has transgressed either you have transgressed. And he says in this series of verses, all in nearly ama de camino, Coleen, he said this action that you are doing notice he said the 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 Quran is very clear. The Sunnah as well it is explicit, the Hadith and Muslim Muhammad, our Prophet sallallahu sallam said hadith is authentic is that the one who does the deeds of the people of loot is cursed. Notice what is cursed is the deed. And we're going to come back to this point and the verse What is he get angry at the action
and the deed in this hadith, what is cursed the deed? The prophets of salaam said that whoever does the deed of the people of Luth is a cursed once again, it is the action that is accursed. 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 alternate 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 the other schools of law, the more intensive US 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 item 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 Quran, 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 study, 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 West wasa 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 will 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 ummah thinks to itself in the soul. Whatever desires come, whatever West wasa 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 based
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,
over 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 away. They are 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 Taymiyah 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 utopian 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 were rarely done and there is no denying that as Ibaka you mentioned in his book, a double window up that
the penalty for *, some rouda Ma 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 Hanafi 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. It's called the Sharia homosexuality and safeguarding each other's rights to Sharia 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 Sharia says * is immoral, that they're shady I says that this action might have a punishment if certain conditions are meant 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 I 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 accused 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 and 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 accused 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 charity or punishments to be implemented? But yes, we will say, for example, with alcohol, as the Quran says, there might be some benefit, but there is much harm and the harm outweighs the benefit. We will say this publicly. 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 the 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 fifth,
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'll 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 to
10 minutes ago, we all know what the shitty books actually are 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 or fix a one thing? And they should the URL amount for each one
thing? And they should? The folk AHA and the hot leaves tell the people and they must. But do you really think that 100% of the Muslim ummah, avoided alcohol throughout its history? Be real sins always exist on the periphery? What do you think was the relationship between the ruler Ma and the masters the same that it is now is 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 new everyday Abbas is the OMA years, 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 Sharia, to install spy cameras in people's houses. It's not the job of the Sharia 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 in as well. Throughout all of Islamic history. There were famous incidents, well known. Look at the some of the famous poets of the Abbasids. So we have to bring in reality, along with theory theory is always strict. It's always ideal reality tempers 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 filled councils
and Muslim lands should take charge of this lands that are governed by the Sharia. We are all knowing right now, for example, blasphemy laws, right? In Pakistan, the controversy with regards to them, or them 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 aren't should think about that. And number four, what is relevant for us? What do we Western Muslims say about these who do 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 huddled? Is this something that Sharia 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 exquisite evidence for this, most obviously, the Muslims of 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
hoodooist 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
I'm a well known bar and the hangout 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 said, 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 A D, which is essentially the it's like the APAC for, you know, the Israeli funds, they have the GLAAD 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 are all aware of those who was the group in the 80s and 90s. We're all aware of some of the interesting things that happen 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 authority schools and councils from promoting same * lifestyles. And this law was only repealed in 2003 2003. In 1989, two intellectual members of the advocacy groups, LGBT LGBT 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 its 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. It's 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. LGBT as victims, portray 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 point 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 bigot, 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 wheeling grace, the famous show Will and Grace that was the 1998 Before that, you will not find a main character, a 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 COPPA. neither this nor that it was just didn't want to get involved the government did not want to do 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 target 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 in the masjid 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 thaw
hid and pure. They recognize who's ahead and who's not. They recognize what is loot saying 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 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 happened in America by Dr. Michael Brown. A queer thing happened in America by NOC Dr. Michael Brown. Put 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 agree, then you are labeled the bigot, they have won that battle. But now the tables have turned first, it was just You be you 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 and let 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 opposed
basically racial equality. And we need to be very, very explicit here. In Arabic, this is all they asked my father 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 its 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 will be your way lecom 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 misogyny, 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 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 more really 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 pro immigration, pro health rights, anti war, anti imperialism, pro Palestinian anti AIPAC. I mean, this is like a a win after win. I mean, again, no names mentioned over here. But clearly, there are some burning issues that we're 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 accept 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 Ummah, and they're getting some tangible results when their 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 give and 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 haram. And Khaled is not a matter of al Qaeda and Kofi Annan, Iman, 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 and 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 of 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 Allah and 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 there are Muslim, from our perspective, anybody who rejects the Sharia, 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 is the halal and this the halal 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 to say that, are you not just sinner? We have to make a clear line between those who want to challenge Allah 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. No
None of us are angels. We are all sinners in the eyes of Allah subhanho wa taala. It is not our job to be judge, jury and executioner for somebody who is engaged in any sin. They come to the masjid. They want our guidance. They are our brothers and sisters. The Masjid is open to anybody who wants to come to Allah and His messenger and is not trying to teach something against Allah and 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 Sharia of Allah. 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 Oh, two Billa 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 here. Why do we not understand the same when it comes to this issue? Well, Allah He if a person is struggling with drugs, came with alcoholic 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 countless people. How is this possible? They're coming for help. I'm not talking about those that are rejecting Allah, those that are trying to justify I'm talking about those that want help from us. Why would we not give them help? Why would we not support them in every way possible? And that is why dear 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 What Hey, Jenson 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 is 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 and with that I want to hand over directly to our brother Wahid. We will have an open q&a Tonight after Isha please write your questions down
in metal Mussolini, now almost Lima D one meaning I will not mean it will quantity now look on it was law the law the Ponte was saw the Rena was Slavia before she you know
what unfortunately no one was washing I do one down one BP now one downside the party was on me now was all in.
Wouldn't have you Lena photo gentleman one Hatfield law D was that good enough long, I guess.
What's going on? I don't know who
Eileen