Twinkling lights, cheery music, traditional food, and exchanging presents with family and friends… the Christmas season comes with a great deal of nostalgia and emotional challenges from new(er) Muslims, who often struggle to navigate establishing boundaries as a Muslim while also maintaining positive relationships with their families.

Anse Hazel and Anse Eman share their own experiences as converts, discussing some of the most common and most difficult challenges that new Muslims face, as well as providing support to those experiencing backlash from family and friends. They offer advice, compassion, and a holistic understanding of maintaining Islamic values while strengthening family ties, too.

Hazel Gómez is a Puerto Rican and Mexican Muslim convert of over 20 years hailing from Chicago’s west side. She graduated from Loyola University Chicago with double Bachelor’s degrees in Forensic Science and Biology. Hazel Gomez both studies and teaches at Rabata.org Ribaat Academic Institute, a seminary program under the tutelage of Shaykha Dr. Tamara Gray and other Muslim women scholars. She is also a community organizer, mentor, and activist, with many years of experience under her belt!

Emmannuelle (Eman) Manigat was born and raised in Montreal, Canada. She is a proud child of Haitian immigrants. She embraced Islam almost 24 years ago. Eman is the Convert Care Coordinator at Rabata and a graduate of Rabata’s Ribaat Academic Institute where she obtained her Ribaat Islamic Studies Teacher Certification in 2022 under the mentorship of Shayka Dr. Tamara Gray. Eman is currently working on completing her masters degree in Pastoral Studies with a Certification in Spiritual Care and Psychotherapy at the University of Toronto. She also provides counseling via RuhCare.com, a Muslim counseling service.

Related:

Podcast | Ho Ho Haraam | Ustadha Alima Ashfaq

Muslims Celebrating Christmas: Why the “Petty” Is Powerful

The post [Podcast] Navigating Christmas: Advice to Converts, from Converts | Hazel Gomez & Eman Manigat appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

The tone was patronizing, and Peterson’s “call” ignores the larger political dynamics at play. Peterson expects, as he says, for “Muslims to reach across the sectarian divide – especially Shiites. Find a Sunni pen pal, communicate with someone on the other side.” He also urged that, “Sunnis, do the same and then, maybe, tentatively, reach out to a Christian, or heaven forbid, a Jew.”

In the message, Peterson welcomed his new Muslim followers. But his comments on sectarian differences, while perhaps well-meaning, were slammed as ill-informed, condescending, and crass by some. He invited a Muslim to build an “electronic system to bring people from the Sunni and Shiite community together,” and that he would promote it. On Facebook and Twitter, Muslims shared their views on Peterson’s ideas of Muslim relations. We have gathered few responses from some researchers, academics, and chaplains from social media on the issue:

Uthman Badar [PhD Researcher, Australia]

Message to Dr Jordan B Peterson

Re: Message to Muslims

Dear Jordan,

Uthman Badar, PhD

Your presumably sincere intent to find solutions to world problems is admirable, but you’re looking in the wrong place. Your lack of awareness about developments in the ‘Western civilisation’ that you habitually extol is concerning. Something called ‘secularism’ happened some two centuries ago. Religion was subordinated and relegated to the margins of all that is important and influential in politics and public life. The Pope was made to retire to the Vatican and become a footnote to world politics that does little more than issue now predictable but impotent calls for peace…. Muftis and rabbis of officialdom too have been employed by secular power the world over.

This ‘enlightened’ way of life was then forced at the barrel of a gun—as only enlightened folk can—in Asia and Africa. All the states there now are secular too.

Your implicit diagnosis, then, of prevailing conflicts and problems as a function of interfaith clashes comes in naïve (or convenient?) ignorance of all this. It is, nevertheless, along with the corresponding prescription, woefully inadequate. Faith does not play such a significant role in the world affairs of a Secular Age. Secular ideologies do—manipulating faith when expedient.

But you should know this. Consider the left-right, conservative-liberal, woke-asleep debates that you’re routinely engaged in (and in increasingly commercialised fashion)—when not lecturing Muslims and Christians to sort themselves out. Are these not decidedly secular ‘squabbles’? The ‘culture’ wars are so-called for a reason, right?

Consider as well major examples of recent world conflict: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Russian aggression in Ukraine, Israeli aggression on Gaza, the ‘War on Terror’ that gave us Guantanamo Bay and ISIS. What have any of these to do with interfaith conflict? Is the United States a Christian theocracy? Or a secular liberal democracy (with a sprinkling of Christian rhetoric at times)? Is Russia an Orthodox theocracy? Or a secular socialist regime? And so on.

Likewise, you may presume that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Iran are Islamic regimes, but they are not. They are modern secular states with a sprinkling of Islamic rhetoric or embellishment.

The ‘Abraham Accords’ were signed by ‘Israel’, the UAE, and the US. Which of these is constituted or driven by faith? The ‘Jewish state’ built on a brutal dispossession of millions? The despotic gulf statelet run like a family mafia? Or the most violent state in the world, constituted by a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state?  Has that wall fallen down such that the US is now signing accords on behalf of the ‘People of the Book’?

You can’t celebrate secularism on the one hand, and then blame the problems on religion, on the other. What sort of conceptual gymnastics is that?

The fact of the matter is that secularism is the order of the day, mostly in it liberal iteration. Secular liberal states are the most influential actors on the world stage, and, in turn, are primarily responsible for the mess we see on that stage. It’s an old secular trope to construe problems as emanating from religious conflict/hatred and suggest more interfaith dialogue/harmony as the solution. This is a convenient depoliticization and dehistorisation of conflict done to essentialise it as religious (or ethnic/cultural). One must be shallow to fall for it, though.

If conversation is the way forward, then, I’m afraid you’ll need more ‘woke’ pen-pals to sort out your secular ideological squabbles. Stop hating’, start talking’ (ideally with less rhetoric, more substance). Better still, try focusing on the actual points of power in our world and we might all be better for it.

Yahya Birt [British-American writer and academic]

Yahya Birt

I feel like the circle is complete. JP addressed his considerable “Moslem” fanbase (how he drawls “Muslim”, rather fittingly sounding more like مظلم “oppressor” than مسلم “faithful submitter to God”) directly for the first time today, from his new platform at the Daily Wire. Some cannot contain their excitement: see the comment section underneath his video. One Muslim guy calls Peterson “my digital father”.

Peterson calls on his “Moslem” followers to put aside their (assumed, presumed) enmity towards Christians and Jews in particular in the wake of the Emirati-Israel-US-sponsored Abrahamic Accords of 2020. It is your inveterate anti-Semitism you “Moslems” must give up, Peterson avers (eliding opposition to violent settler colonialism and the dispossession of the Palestinian people). The real enemy is your ego, and the Luciferian woke neo-Marxist brigade, 20% of whom are irredeemable.

If I close my eyes I could have been listening to Sheikh Hamza albeit without his mellifluous fusha, which is indeed the point.

The circle is complete. The Venn diagram of the alt-right, the akh-right, the Zionists, the evangelicals, the neo-traditionalists and their Republican, Israeli and Emirati sponsors has now emerged into one.

Allahumma, save us from this heartless state-sponsored religious nationalism, whose true father is Firawn/Pharaoh rather than Musa/Moses who liberated his people from slavery and oppression. Amin.

Ahmed Deeb [Imam and Director of Religious Affairs at Islamic Center of Greater Toledo]

Imam Ahmed Deeb

Notwithstanding his potential genuineness, this was embarrassingly condescending and out of pocket. It felt like listening to a sermon that Islamophobes and most media outlets love to give: “Hey Muslims, why aren’t you condemning violence more? Why aren’t you reaching across the aisle more? Don’t you know you have the capacity for peace just like us?”

All the while never truly giving Muslims the opportunity to speak, and never amplifying the authentic voices that do.

To reduce our problems to sectarian conflict and then tell us—in the most superficial way—how to resolve them is at best the most hilarious show of naïveté I’ve ever seen from a self-proclaimed sincere public intellectual.

One rational explanation I can think of: now that he’s joined a notoriously right wing media company (the wire), maybe he feels he has to start showing some alliance to their narratives by parroting the common tropes, foremost of which in the years of Trump’s reign was how divided, dangerous, internally corrupt, and antagonistic the “Muslim world” is. Muslims are, we are told, a bunch of hypocrites unable to practice the Prophetic teachings they love to talk about so much, teachings which of course are best understood by people like him or heretics they choose to platform.

It’s videos like this that highlight the inconsistencies of his messaging and cast doubt upon his claim to sincere truth seeking and fellowship building.

No amount of “there’s truth to what he’s saying here” can justify such a tone-deaf video. I say that as someone who would wish him and everyone else guidance and call to the same type of intellectual collaboration he claims to champion.

(I have) so many more thoughts on this, and don’t even know where to begin. If I have time, I’ll do a fuller breakdown of his points here and what they highlight. I’m still processing it.

Here’s my personal takeaway reflection so far: what emboldened him to confidently be this condescending towards what he himself admits is one of his most loyal fan bases?

Imagine any celebrity public intellectual being brazen enough to say to any of their loyal fan bases the equivalent of: “as someone who has admitted he knows little to nothing about your faith and your people’s realities, let me advise you guys, through your own faith that I don’t know much about, on how you should get your act together.” Anyone who would try would be at the very least publicly corrected. Instead, Jordan gets comments from Muslims saying, “you are 100% right about us, we love you!”

The simple answer is us. We embolden these people by putting our uncritical hopes for a faith-driven existence in the hands of individuals who are clearly still going through their own messy journeys of exploration. We embolden these people by our insecurity, and we maintain that insecurity amongst our own people through our continued half-baked efforts in truly educating them about our worldviews.

This video is an affirmation of two consistent realities:  (1) People still consider us and our people utterly weak, and in need of saviours from outside our community (no surprise there). (2) We are clearly not succeeding in the public intellectual sphere when people like him are saviours for young Muslims and their faith.

We have yet to appreciate the task at hand and have little grip on proper priorities when we spend more time arguing with each other in our group think bubbles here than to work harder towards properly producing the infrastructure—institutionally and personally—that allows us to engage people like him at the highest level. At the very least giving our young people confidence to not have such blind trust in people like Peterson.

As Muslims, we are no strangers to defeat or embarrassment. Yet as people who believe we hold the Truth, is our Ummatic response—as arguably the most privileged Muslim community in the world in education and economics—representative of our legacy of triumph over any such defeat?

So yes, there’s certainly a grain of truth to what he said, and if we’re tired of hearing such bigotry-laced, condescending half-truths, we might do ourselves a favour to re-prioritize our energies.

“A believer does not humiliate himself.” -Prophet Muhammad ‎ﷺ

Allahu A’lam. I’ll let my far more qualified colleagues and friends who are well-known to you all share their thoughts, which I know will be insightful and piercing.

Sharif Abu Laith [Researcher, Speaker and Commentator]

Sharif Abu Laith

Dr Jordan B Peterson, I appreciate that you have invited Muslims onto your show and sincerely engaged them to understand Islam. However, your latest video titled “Message to Muslims” frankly comes across as patronising and ignorant about the contemporary status of the Muslim world. The problem isn’t conflict between or within religions. The conflict exists due to colonial and neo-colonial policies that have had a lasting impact on the Muslim world.

Let me give you a few examples. Zionism was a political movement that started in the U.K., calling for a homeland for the Jews. Thirty one years after Britain occupied Palestine in 1917, they helped established a Zionist entity that resulted in the forced expulsion of about 1 million Palestinians. Israel then continued to expand its occupation of Palestine territory, causing resentment, anger and destruction of the way of life of the original inhabitants.

At the same time, we know that it wasn’t only a matter of Israel being founded (by the West) after the British occupied the region, but Western countries, in particular America, committed to supplying billions of dollars to the Israeli state (in the form of military aid) while turning a blind eye to the killings and oppression of Palestinians by Israel.

So why is there anger? Not because of some problem within, but a broader problem with colonialism and the continued Western support for regimes like Israel while turning a blind eye to their oppressive actions and killings of innocents.

Similarly, we see that Western states helped create the current political regimes that reside in the Muslim world. An easy example is the Egyptian regime, which receives military aid for maintaining a military-business dictatorship, thus not allowing the people to choose the type of governance they want. The Egyptian military not only controls politics, but also the economy, media and even education. As such, anyone caught criticising the military and its leadership faces imprisonment, torture and even death. To reiterate, this is a military regime that has close ties with Western states as seen through military aid and economic ties.

And these same regimes would stoke sectarian and religious conflict, like the false flag attacks on Coptic churches in Egypt in 2011 to secure their authority by distracting the people away from their egregious crimes of the regime and attempts to paint any Islamic opposition as potential threats to minority populations.

There are so many other examples, but one last one is the current sectarianism that plagues Iraq. It primarily resulted from the West’s invasion of Iraq in 2002 and the resultant fallout that saw sectarian militias, some of whom were directly supported by Western occupying forces, to police other sects and areas.

The point is that one cannot whitewash Western states and their political agendas within the Muslim world, considering their interventions have directly contributed to the current turmoil within the Muslim world. And as we know, this agenda is driven by largely capitalist interests.

If then you want to see stability in the world and foster real engagement of Muslims, my request to you is to introspectively look at Western states’ policies toward the Muslim world, not only over the last 130 years or so but also the current political interference we see today. It’s only by engaging in this honest introspection and holding powerful states like America to account for their actions in the Muslim world can we foster better understanding on both sides.

Samir Hussain [Researcher and teacher trained in Islamic Sciences]

Ustad Samir Hussain

Dr. Jordan Peterson just posted a ‘Message for Muslims’ on YouTube. I first spoke about how problematic it is for Muslims to blindly follow JP in religious discourse many years ago, and I’m sounding the alarm again, just harder this time.

Some notes:

1) We said that. On his message on unity and working together and letting Islam show in our actions, some of our top scholars have been saying the same thing he said for years. I teach the same ethos in my classes. But I wonder how many people will listen now only because their Sheikh JP said it. Unless you’ve been under a rock, scholars like Sh. Amin Kholwadia & Sh. Abdul Hakim Murad and all those scholars involved in anti-sectarian or interfaith dialogue have been saying the same thing.

2) Reductive. JP’s message is deliberately (or ignorantly) reductive and condescending. He omits the fact that much of our sectarianism has political roots. You can try to promote Muslim unity all you want, but you’re fighting an uphill battle against Saudi, Emirati (whose propaganda JP seems to be falling for) and Iranian petrodollars.

The same goes for having positive interactions with Christians and Jews. We’d love to do so, but that exhortation is Orientalist and racist (as research into our history keeps demonstrating). It’s very hard for Muslims to think positively of these faiths when their members are drone bombing Muslim countries, oppressing Palestinians, or when the far-right and conservative Christians are preaching ‘Muslim bans’ and Islamophobia. JP quotes the Abraham Accords, because apparently to be good to Jews (which we have repeatedly done throughout our history) we have to acquiesce to the crimes of Israel.

As I highlighted many years ago, not only is theology a weak point, but his grasp of geopolitics is also dreadfully poor. If you consider him an authority, you’re going to be misled. He’s a clinical psychologist, not a theologian, exegete or even a philosopher.

3)Misrepresentaton coming. It seems that all those who wanted JP to be more pro-Muslim got their wish. But now I’m anticipating more commentary by JP on Islamic theology and tafsir. Christians have already been critical of JP for his misrepresentations of Christian theology and biblical exegesis. We should expect similar misrepresentation.

4) We have our own thinkers. Lastly, JP deserves credit for ‘opening up’ and normalizing conservative, religious discourse in light of all the madness we are seeing from hard liberals. He also deserves credit for being sympathetic to Islam and Muslims in light of the radical Islamophobia of many popular online atheists and pseudo-intellectuals. It would be nice to see qualified Muslim scholars continuing to engage him.

Young Muslims, I once again warn you again from taking this person as an authority and considering him some sort of standout, towering intellectual figure. He’s not. He’s quite average for an intellectual, and the problem is that many of his followers (and at times it seems he himself) consider him to be above average or of an extremely elite level.

Become more familiar with your own high-level scholars and more fluent in your own intellectual tradition. There is a lot (to value and learn) there.

The post Response To Jordan Peterson’s Message To Muslims appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

Introduction

And Allah is not shy of the truth. (Q. al-Aḥzāb, 33:53)

If only there had been, among the generations before your time, people with a remnant of good sense to forbid corruption on the earth! We saved only a few of them, while the unjust pursued the enjoyment of plenty and persisted in sin. (Q. Hūd, 11:116)

In the Quran, Allah ﷻ informs us of past peoples who, when presented with guidance, chose to disobey. These people were obstinate, arrogant, and rapacious. Though Allah often speaks of these disbelievers as an undifferentiated category, a few societies were distinctive in their iniquity. Their crimes were too brazen, transgressions too felonious, and rejection too manifest to go unchecked, and so Allah destroyed them. In recounting their destruction, Allah ﷻ says: “So We seized each for their sin: against some of them We sent a storm of stones, some were overtaken by a (mighty) blast, some We caused the earth to swallow, and some We drowned. Allah did not wrong them, but it was they who wronged themselves” (Q. al-ʿAnkabūt, 29:40).

Of the few societies whose destruction is related in the Quran is the people of Lot . Their misdeeds are registered in the Quran, and the most significant of them, singled out repeatedly alongside their mention, is the sin of sodomy. The words of the verses mentioning this sin could not be clearer: they “approached men with sexual desire instead of women.”

Though the people of Lot were unique in many ways, their propensity to sin was not. Human beings all share the trial of desiring vice, and this is something the Prophet ﷺ spelled out directly in one hadith: every son of Adam sins, and the best of those who sin are those who repent. In another hadith, the fire of Hell is described as surrounded by temptation, while Paradise is surrounded by hardship. Elsewhere, the “goods of Allah” are mentioned as precious and weighty (silʿat Allāh ghāliya), these “goods” being admission to Paradise. In these and other reports, the basic theme and instruction are clear: we have a choice to obey or disobey Allah’s commands, and obedience often comes with hardship, difficulty, and trials. Moreover, obedience requires us not only to follow Allah’s command but also to stand up in difficult circumstances to call for what is right and true against those who disobey and deny, regardless of their number and might.

The moral imperative to stand for truth has become increasingly challenging for Muslims in the West with the rise of the LGBT movement. Though this movement has been around for decades, recent years have witnessed a radical advance in LGBT rights, cultural programs, political campaigns, and a virtual ubiquity of LGBT representation in the media. Within such a setting, we are often told that being critical of  the LGBT movement is being “on the wrong side of history.”

How did things get this way? It is surreal at times to reflect on the pace of change when it comes to the LGBT movement. Just six years ago, the Supreme Court narrowly decided in a 5–4 ruling that same-sex couples enjoyed a “fundamental right” to marry. At the time, President Obama, though himself still opposed to gay marriage only three years earlier, praised the ruling as an “extraordinary achievement.” But he was also sensitive to conscientious dissent. Obama spoke of “Americans of goodwill” holding a range of beliefs on the matter and described people opposing same-sex marriage as motivated not by irrational animus but by “sincere and deeply held beliefs.” He went on to urge people to “revere our deep commitment to religious freedom” while also recognizing “different viewpoints.”

Not all were as sanguine as President Obama on the potential for cultural compromise. In his dissent, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito portended the following:

Today’s decision . . . will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

In hindsight, Justice Alito’s prognostication was prescient. A movement that was once publicly focused on obtaining marriage rights has since radically expanded its political remit, shifting its focus in recent years to transgender advocacy. LGBT representation in media—including, crucially, children’s programming—is now a mainstay of popular programming. Recent years have witnessed curriculum adjustments throughout the country to further entrench LGBT-related teachings in public schools, including far-left pieties regarding gender fluidity, non-traditional families, and “stereotype-breaking” modes of living. Whereas the program of LGBT cultural initiation once played out mainly on college campuses, today’s indoctrination begins in spaces occupied by children as young as three years old.

In the face of all this, the Muslim community in America has demonstrated little willingness to resist these cultural forces, opting most often to stand behind the movement as a matter of public advocacy. This capitulation to LGBT promotion has been especially pronounced among Muslim civil rights organizations. Muslim Advocates, a leading civil rights organization committed to ensuring that “American Muslims have a seat at the table with expert representation,” has supported a wide range of LGBT rights, going so far as praising a Muslim drag queen as “living her [sic] truth.” Meanwhile, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) featured lesbian TV actress and producer Fawzia Mirza in its annual conference as a “Muslim creative.” Mirza’s media productions have focused on queer Muslim representations, including her writing for an episode of the CBS television show The Red Line. Mirza’s episode was significant in that it marked “the first instance of a gay-Muslim romance on network television.” In 2019, Muslim Advocates, MPAC, and CAIR-Oklahoma collectively submitted an amicus brief in favor of gay and transgender employment protections alongside the heretical “reformist” organization Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV)—a peculiar inclusion, particularly given MPV president Ani Zonneveld’s prior repudiation of Yasir Qadhi, Hamza Yusuf, the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Hussam Ayloush (Executive Director, CAIR-LA), Nihad Awad (co-founder and Executive Director of CAIR), Zaytuna Institute, and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) as “homophobic.” All the aforementioned organizations rely heavily on the Muslim community for support and publicly claim to be zakat eligible, justifying their solicitation of zakat monies under the rubric of working “in the path of Allah” (fī sabīl illāh).

Indeed, the list could go on. Despite the ubiquity of LGBT advocacy, in addition to the many public and repeated acts of political support for LGBT put on by Muslim organizations and leaders, little has been written offering a theologically or even a politically defensible theory for why Muslims should take such a stance. This article acts as an intervention in this regard, arguing emphatically for the opposite.

Specifically, I contend that

• Muslim political advocacy for the vast majority of LGBT rights is fundamentally immoral and inimical to the sexual and gender ethics of Islam;

• the political rationales so far offered for such advocacy, few as they are, have been ill-supported and often rely on infirm or otherwise tendentious assertions that have managed to dodge any serious scrutiny;

• the general ambivalence of the Muslim community towards the LGBT-critical stance advocated here has exacerbated the already powerful effects of the pro-LGBT Zeitgeist, preying on young Muslims who already struggle to negotiate their identity in a society increasingly inhospitable to a life of faith; and, finally,
• a continuation of the status quo will only deepen extant theological crises while paradoxically politicizing the Muslim community, even while attempting at times to do the very opposite.

We ask Allah ﷻ to guide our thoughts in this regard and to protect us from error. Āmīn.

Clearing the Theological and Moral Air

It is important at the outset to lay out a few straightforward points of Muslim confession, points increasingly ignored by Muslims who spend most of their days online arguing about Islam. The first of these is that being Muslim is predicated on a belief, which is to say that one is not simply a Muslim through self-identification. The moniker “Muslim” carries entailments, and one of the most essential of these is the acknowledgment that this world and our place in it have been created and are managed by an Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Merciful Creator, Allah ﷻ, before whom we will be taken to moral account after our days in this world have come to an end. That account will examine our deeds and their accordance with His guidance as revealed to His final messenger Muhammad ﷺ and preserved in the Quran and Prophetic Sunnah. Of this reckoning Allah says:

On that Day, the weighing of deeds will be true and just. Those whose good deeds are heavy on the scales will be the ones to prosper, and those whose good deeds are light will be the ones who have lost their souls through their wrongful rejection of Our messages. (Q. al-Aʿrāf, 7:8–9)

As Muslims, therefore, we are obligated to submit to Allah ﷻ and adhere to His commands. Our failures to act morally are a matter of sin (with some greater than others), and although sins are indeed weighty, they do not expel a Muslim from the fold of Islam provided the sin is not a sin of disbelief. Moreover, our trespasses are forgivable through repentance and righteous conduct, and a great many good deeds expiate wrongdoings—even grave ones. Indeed, a believer should never lose hope in Allah’s mercy, no matter the quantity of his misdeeds.

However, the propensity to sin (and sinning itself) is altogether different from denying that sin is sin. The latter amounts to a rejection of Allah’s instruction. Although mitigating factors, such as coercion or ignorance, may pardon such rejection on a situational basis, it is important to note that as a normative matter, denying Allah’s revealed guidance is tantamount to disbelief. A Muslim may commit the sin of drinking wine and still remain a Muslim; he may not, on the other hand, deny the sinfulness of wine drinking and remain a Muslim, even if he has never imbibed so much as a drop of alcohol.

Allah’s instruction and guidance are divided into matters that are clear and unambiguous, on which there is no scholarly disagreement and which are fixed across time and place, and those that allow for some plausible range of interpretation, most often bounded within a scope of recognized scholarly difference. A number of details within Sacred Law fall under those matters that are subject to legal reasoning (ijtihād) and on which the acceptable range of positions may therefore vary. Nonetheless, the essential elements of Islam—that Allah ﷻ is one, that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the last and final messenger of God and that his religion supersedes all previous dispensations, that the Quran is the inerrant word of Allah, and that the Prophet’s Sunnah provides us guidance to be followed—are beyond dispute. Akin to these central tenets is a host of moral instructions that likewise form an indefeasible part of Muslim belief and are thus identified by scholars as belonging to those things that are “known of the religion by necessity” (maʿlūm min al-dīn bi-l-ḍarūra). The prohibition of wine, swine flesh, fornication/adultery (zinā), murder, theft, and much else falls under this designation. Like it, the prohibition of homosexual behavior—and all sexual acts that fall outside specifically delineated legally sanctioned relationships (all of which are necessarily heterosexual)—is also “known of the religion by necessity.”

The proofs for the prohibition of same-sex sexual behavior are many. The most explicit verses condemning such behavior appear in the story of Lot (as), where Allah ﷻ reprimands Lot’s people for “approaching men with sexual desire instead of women” (la-taʾtūna l-rijāla shahwatan min dūni l-nisāʾ) (Q. al-Naml, 27:55). Although same-sex behavior was not the only offense Lot’s people committed, it was nonetheless their emblematic transgression. It is the sin most commonly imputed to them in the Quran and is mentioned repeatedly, while their remaining crimes, like highway robbery and practicing evil in their gatherings, are mentioned only once. However, the verses of Lot, unequivocal and self-evident as they are, do not stand alone. The entire corpus of the Quran and Sunna sanctions very specific sexual relationships between men and women and provides instruction for how these relationships should be practiced. This instruction includes everything from how marriages are to be conducted, the specifics and limits of polygyny, what kinds of sexual behavior are permitted within marriage, inheritance distribution when a spouse passes away, and, of course, how to dissolve a marriage when things go south. In addition to matrimonial relationships, the Quran, Sunna, and Sacred Law speak of contractually bound sexual relationships between a master and a concubine (“what your right hands possess”). At no point is there even implicit support for homosexual relationships in all of this mention.

In recent years, heterodox groups have emerged proposing reforms to this sexual ethic, arguing that the Quranic message has been misunderstood by jurists or that perhaps the language itself is malleable enough to accommodate same-sex relationships alongside normative heterosexual ones. Interested readers may review two pieces I have authored in refutation of such arguments, one attending to Scott Kugle’s revisionist arguments and a follow up reflecting on responses to that piece.

The sexual ethics of Islam are based on a clear socio-familial ethic, which is directly undermined by the adoption of a non-heterosexual norm. As I have written previously on the question of Islam’s sexual ethics:

The principal wisdom undergirding the prohibition of same-sex acts is situated within the principle objectives (maqāṣid) of Islamic law. One of the five principal objectives of Islamic law is the preservation of lineage (nasl) along with the accompanying family structure predicated upon that lineage. Accordingly, Islamic law not only prohibits adultery, fornication, sodomy, and tribadism [i.e., lesbian sex], but slanderous accusation (qadhf) that casts doubt upon one’s lineage (common examples include referring to someone as “a child of fornication,” or bastard – ‘ibn zinā’). The socio-familial guidelines in Islam are thus regarded as paramount, with the complementarity of the male and female as necessary constituent elements for any legally sanctioned relationship. The teleology of the male and female bodies for reproduction and penetrative sexual intercourse refracts this heterosexual paradigm and purpose of preserving progeny. The fact that reproduction cannot occur in any same-sex arrangement absent artificial insemination or surrogacy only reinforces the organic biological and physiological realities of paradigmatically heterosexual acts. God speaks of this often in the Quran when addressing the matter of creation. A verse in chapter 49, Sūrat al-Ḥujurāt, reads: “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you. Indeed, God is Knowing and Acquainted.” Elsewhere, men and women are said to have been created from a unified soul, and from them to have produced posterity: “O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear God, through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed God is ever, over you, an Observer” (Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 4:1). By disregarding this cosmic purpose, same-sex acts dishonor this ordering of creation.

The religion of Islam therefore prescribes a clear sexual ethic in light of which homosexual acts are prohibited and the act of sodomy specifically is a grave moral sin (as are heterosexual fornication and adultery). Attempts to approve homosexual acts not only violate clear verses of revelation (thus constituting a position of disbelief, or kufr) but also profoundly undermine the very socio-familial ethic whose preservation is an essential principle and one of the main overriding objectives of Islamic law, namely, the preservation of lineage (nasl). 

Discussions of homosexuality are complicated by the notion of sexual identities, which abounds in any discussion of sexuality today. Terms such as sexual orientation, gay, straight, homosexual, heterosexual, and the like are all exceedingly recent categories and concepts, inaugurated in the late nineteenth century and which, according to Michel Foucault and others, served to introduce a new “species” of sexual being, one to be studied, examined, and pathologized for medical purposes.¹ Though many scholars have supported this periodization, a few recent voices have argued for slightly earlier beginnings, with some locating the origin of “homosexuality” (as a social concept, if not a fully formed term) in late eighteenth- / early nineteenth-century Germany². Nevertheless, it is important here simply to note that although some people in the past (pre-nineteenth century) certainly expressed and acted on homoerotic desires, they had no concept of an attending identity to which that sexual expression was tethered. Unlike past peoples, the modern individual experiencing same-sex attraction begins first to conceive of his identity before anything else: his first order of business is to wrestle with whether he is “gay.” And that identity, once internalized, carries with it a number of entailments. When the homosexual identity is fully internalized, being gay (or lesbian) denotes not only to whom one is attracted sexually but also how one behaves romantically and sexually, how one thinks politically or socially, how one relates to religion, and, of course, who one truly is. The gay person today is not simply a person with same-sex desire but someone whose “being gay” is an essential part of his or her very being.

When homosexuality is viewed in this manner, the withholding of moral approval from homosexual acts and disapproval of the gay identity come to be seen as a rejection not of a discrete set of sinful acts and a problematic self-conception but of the very person himself. It is precisely for this reason that people objecting to homosexual activism are seen not as individuals with a specific moral claim about what does and does not constitute acceptable sexual behavior but as retrograde, hateful bigots. In such a setting, few feel confident in saying as little as “of course homosexual acts are ḥarām.”

In spite of a discursive context that routinely levels charges of hate and bigotry against traditional religious groups and that brooks no opposition on this topic, Muslims have no choice but to be forthright about the Islamic faith and its sexual and family ethics. It is an obligation to preach the religion clearly and confidently, even—indeed, especially—in difficult times. We must do so with discernment, taking great care to avoid the frequent conglomeration of sexual desires (which in and of themselves do not necessarily constitute sin), sexual acts, and everything else that is bound up in the homosexual identity and with an eye towards helping confused members of our community understand this topic more easily. In doing so, we must remember that we do not control hearts. Indeed, even the Prophet ﷺ was told by Allah ﷻ in the Quran:

“You [Prophet] cannot guide whomever you wish to the truth; rather, it is Allah who guides whomever He wills” (Q. al-Qaṣaṣ, 28:56).

Not everyone will accept the message of Allah, but if we remain silent on a topic that is increasingly difficult for young Muslims to understand, what chance are we giving them ever to accept that message when they come of age? In what world will someone exposed to the media storm of LGBT representation and a totalizing LGBT-affirmative discourse ever view Islam as reasonable—or even moral, for that matter—on the topic of sex and sexuality when Muslims have made no attempt to offer an explanation for this disjunction let alone defend the Islamic faith itself? This task—of preaching with wisdom the values of Islam—is even more urgent in an environment like ours that grates against religious guidance, views it as bigoted and hateful, and promotes disbelief under the guise of religious reform. As Muslims, we absolutely must keep this in mind when thinking about homosexuality or the LGBT movement more broadly and our responsibilities connected thereto.

An additional component of the LGBT movement is that of transgenderism. Gender and gender nonconformity are lengthy topics that cannot be covered comprehensively here. Suffice it to say, however, that Islam makes no distinction between one’s (biological) sex and one’s (psychological) gender and that it explicitly prohibits the deliberate imitation of the opposite sex/gender. Nevertheless, the Sharīʿa does account for intersex individuals and for innate gender nonconforming behaviors. Legal discussions addressing disjunctions between behavior and mannerisms can be found in an earlier study in which I review scholarly treatments of gender nonconformity. A lengthier follow-up article provides a comprehensive review of contemporary transgenderism and discusses the prohibition of medical interventions for gender dysphoria, including hormone therapy and so-called sex reassignment surgeries. In short, the core elements of the homosexual and transgender movements are immoral, as they normalize, promote, and celebrate behaviors and actions that constitute patent transgressions of the Divine command. It is imperative that Muslims not lose sight of this elementary fact.

In exercising our judgment on any question at a given point in time, we as Muslims should not merely think as a secular civic community untethered to any greater commitments but instead ask ourselves what would obtain the pleasure of Allah. The answer to this question is not always straightforward and people of faith may sincerely differ on it. Chances are, however, that when deciding between what pleases Allah ﷻ and what is socially expedient, many will conflate the two or incline to expediency, particularly in the face of intense social pressure. “Resistance” is a nice slogan to throw around and lay claim to when it falls within the status quo, but it is a difficult ethic to uphold when the cost of resisting the regnant ethos and remaining firm on the path of Allah could be ostracism (or worse). This is why the Prophet ﷺ gave glad tidings to “the strangers” (al-ghurabāʾ), those who experience alienation in following Allah’s guidance yet persist in spite of it. May Allah ﷻ give us the fortitude to be among the ghurabāʾ. Āmīn.

Political Rationales for Muslim LGBT Advocacy

The bulk of what follows is a review of what I have termed theo-political arguments for pro-LGBT political and social advocacy, namely, arguments that some have attempted to make on the basis of Sacred Law or with reference to religious precedent. The principal proponents of these arguments have endorsed a limited set of LGBT rights as being compatible within an Islamic framework of negotiated pluralism. In particular, Dr. Sherman Jackson, an esteemed scholar of Islamic law, has written a fair amount on the question of same-sex marriage, while an equally esteemed scholar, Dr. Jonathan Brown, has likewise argued in general terms for supporting some LGBT rights. Brown later clarified that his support of certain LGBT rights did not entail “celebrating” LGBT lifestyles while also stating his support for the efforts of Muslims in Birmingham to oppose LGBT teachings in schools. He has more recently emphasized the importance of religious freedom and freedom of conscience in the face of certain pro-LGBT measures in the United States, even expressing his support for the Christian baker in the infamous “gay wedding cake” case. Brown has done so while promoting a “common cause” platform, though in recent years he has expressed second thoughts about the feasibility of such a platform. More recently, he retracted a widely-read publication he had authored at Yaqeen Institute arguing for the “common cause” approach.

Notwithstanding, the arguments of Jackson, Brown, and others continue to animate American Muslim politics and to provide fodder for those seeking scholarly support for LGBT advocacy. And although these figures do not address, for instance, whether gender fluidity should be taught in elementary schools (we can, I believe, safely assume that they are opposed to it), some of the arguments they have made in favor of LGBT rights do not stipulate any limiting conditions for when LGBT demands should not be supported (at least they do not do so explicitly). Accordingly, it is important to review the specific arguments themselves and to examine whether they ever held ground, even within the contexts within which they were originally imagined. In doing so, it should be noted that it is not my intention to treat Jackson or Brown as antagonists or to cast their scholarship in disrepute altogether. As a personal matter, I hold both in high regard as they have expended considerable scholarly energy over the years in defense of the Quran, the Prophet ﷺ, and the Muslim community. Nevertheless, this religion was described by the Prophet ﷺ as naṣīḥa, or good counsel, and a healthy community should pursue the truth, even if it requires correction along the way.

Finally, a word about my specific use in this piece of the terms “LGBT advocacy” and “LGBT rights.” Already elusive, the meaning of these terms is complicated by the frequent motte-and-bailey sidestepping of activists who, on the one hand, push for legislation that specifically undermines the rights of religious communities in the name of LGBT protections while, on the other hand, insisting that their work is merely about “saving trans lives” or ensuring that gay children are not bullied in school. As of the writing of this piece, same-sex couples enjoy a nationwide right to civil marriage, gay and trans individuals are protected by Title VII protections, and members of the US military are free to be “out and proud.” LGBT representation in the media continues to climb, with roughly ten percent of all characters on primetime television counted as LGBT-identified. GLAAD, a prominent LGBT advocacy organization, has called on Hollywood to raise that number to twenty percent (!) by 2025—a figure many times greater than the actual number of LGBT-identified people in the population—while hardly a day passes without a new celebrity “coming out” as sexually or gender atypical.

The term “LGBT rights” as used in this piece encompasses a wide range of claimed rights. Though some are already recognized in law, such as same-sex marriage, “LGBT rights” refers mainly to the many proposed measures that are still under deliberation. Such measures include efforts to change school curricula by introducing critiques of gender, masculinity, femininity, and “heteronormativity” while also changing sex-specific spaces, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, into “gender identifying” ones. The push for “gender-identifying” spaces seeks to supplant the notion of gender as defined by sex with the notion of gender identity as a self-chosen psychosocial reality, which then determines the facilities one uses, the sports one plays, and the way one must be spoken to. LGBT rights also refer to those measures that continue to impinge on religious communities, such as the Equality Act’s explicit subordination of religious freedom, pushes for the integration of sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”) education into school curricula without so much as an opt-out possibility, and deliberations over “affirmative therapy” as the only permissible intervention for gender dysphoria or dissatisfaction with one’s homosexual thoughts and desires. Meanwhile, the term “LGBT advocacy” as used in this piece refers to all that goes above and beyond the explicitly political. It denotes the unceasing public program of indoctrination and the shoehorning of LGBT themes into all corners of life, including public libraries and the media, the rewriting of history, and the refracting of LGBT issues and perspectives into myriad disciplines and endeavors—including, significantly, religion. 

In light of the foregoing considerations, it is my contention that

1. all the aforementioned LGBT rights and advocacy efforts are unequivocally harmful for society,
2. such rights and advocacy efforts can have no reasonable political or theological justification for Muslims, and
3. those specifically restricting their “support for LGBT” to limited anti-discrimination protections have no need to advocate for them, as such protections have long since been passed into law; consequently, continuing to appeal to them serves no other purpose than the further curtailment of religious freedoms and conscientious objection. 

LGBT advocacy is not merely about accommodating a small community that identifies as gender or sexually atypical; rather, it actually serves to induce sexual and gender confusion while promoting LGBT lifestyles as liberating and worthy of unending celebration. The fomenting of gender and sexual confusion is evidenced in the rising number of youth who identify as LGBT, as well as the growing “sampling” of same-sex experiences. The proliferation of sexual immorality sullies the soul of a society, while unquestioned support for LGBT rights and advocacy produces spiritual crises, with religious teachings that run counter to the LGBT perspective reported as a major cause of apostasy across religious boundaries in recent years.

In stating all this, I recognize that some of what is occasionally raised in discussions of “LGBT rights” may, in fact, be supported by American Muslims without any moral conflict. It goes without saying that certain forms of harassment, bullying, and violence should not be sanctioned, even against iniquitous or otherwise immoral people. However, the crux of the debates in our current political climate is those areas that have moral implications for religious communities, such as the right for religious organizations to exercise moral discretion in their hiring practices, to maintain sex segregated spaces without having to reconfigure them to accommodate subjective gender identities, and so forth. The collapsing of all these issues under the general umbrella of “discrimination”—without any distinction between the “LG” and the “T,” any consideration for conscientious exceptions, or even a minimal tolerance for the mere belief that LGBT-related acts are inherently immoral—makes it very difficult to have honest discussions about what things we can all agree count as mistreatment and how we can come up with a modus vivendi capable of accommodating individuals and groups with vastly differing moral outlooks.

Theo-political Arguments for Supporting LGBT Rights: Zoroastrian Incest Marriage

Although a handful of justifications for Muslim support of LGBT rights have been marshaled over the years, perhaps the earliest and most commonly cited theologically informed position was exposited by Dr. Sherman Jackson. Beginning with a 2003 article entitled “Shari‘ah, Democracy, and the Modern Nation-State: Some Reflections on Islam, Popular Rule, and Pluralism,” Jackson contests the hegemonic nature of the modern nation-state, describing it as an institution that exercises “an absolute monopoly over law-making and [carries with it] the concomitant imposition of a uniform standard of conduct on all of its citizens.” From there, he contrasts the institutional domination of the modern state with the legal pluralism of pre-modern Muslim polities. According to Jackson, these polities afforded considerable moral autonomy to minority faith communities, such that a number of acts prohibited under Islamic law were nonetheless permitted for minority religious groups whose faith traditions allowed them. To buttress this point, Jackson draws on the judgment of the famed Ḥanbalī theologian Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 1350 CE), who, in his Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma (Rulings for protected peoples), addresses the practice of Zoroastrian “self-marriage,” in which a man would marry his mother, sister, or daughter—a practice referenced frequently in Muslim juristic and exegetical works that mention Zoroastrians. For Ibn al-Qayyim, self-marriage, though morally repugnant by the standards of Islam, was a type of marriage that the Muslim polity would recognize, provided that (1) adjudication concerning such marriages was not presented to Muslim courts and (2) the marriages were themselves permitted in the religious tradition in question. (I hereafter refer to these twin stipulations as the “two conditions.”) Jackson goes on to suggest a sort of libertarian compromise on the question of marriage, one in which the government relinquishes the right to define or bless marriages and assigns this prerogative to religious communities instead.

In 2006, Jackson wrote another piece commenting briefly on gay marriage entitled “Legal Pluralism Between Islam and the Nation-State: Romantic Medievalism or Pragmatic Modernity?” In it, he argues against efforts to ban or prevent gay marriage, regarding such efforts as “unduly entangling the government in religion (at least for that sizeable segment of the population that sees marriage as a religious institution) and of discriminating against those established religions that do not proscribe homosexual relations.” As in his 2003 piece, Jackson again exposits the legal diversity of prior Muslim polities, which acknowledged “the standards to which constituent communities held themselves,” and makes passing reference to Ibn al-Qayyim’s “self-marriage” position cited in the 2003 article. In lieu of efforts to define marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution, Jackson once more proposes compromises that would result in a legal decentralizing of marriage, removing it from the monolithic control of the state in favor of a pluralism that would delegate authority in marital matters to religious institutions or other non-state bodies. 

One year later, in 2007, Jackson wrote perhaps his most explicit support of gay marriage legislation for the Washington Post’s now defunct OnFaith blog in a piece entitled “On Morality and Politics.” In it, he states that although Islamic law imposes stiff sanctions on homosexual acts, such legislation in the past generally applied “only to Muslims.” He continues: “As for non-Muslims whose religious traditions sanctioned homosexuality, many jurists, perhaps a majority, would place them under the general provision that left religious minorities to their own discretion, at least in the private realm (marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc.).” Jackson makes clear in this article where his own moral commitments lie—namely, as a Muslim he opposes homosexual acts on religious grounds—while also asserting that the very same Muslim commitments he maintains would nonetheless require him to validate the existence of alternative moral regimes in the public square.

Jackson’s Zoroastrian “self-marriage” argument was picked up by later scholars and writers who similarly argued that Muslims should support gay marriage and LGBT rights more generally. In a 2014 piece in the Huffington Post, Dr. Faisal Kutty opined that “gay marriage may not be contrary to Islam,” citing, like Jackson, the example of Ibn al-Qayyim and Zoroastrian self-marriage. In a popular 2016 article published at Al-Madina Institute, Dr. Jonathan Brown wrote in a similar vein, following up a few months later with a more provocative piece elaborating not only on Zoroastrian self-marriages and Ibn al-Qayyim’s Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma but also on the (often coerced) immolation of Hindu widows in Mughal India as another example of what Muslims have been willing to “tolerate” in the way of the morally reprehensible.

Given the centrality of the appeal to Ibn al-Qayyim and his treatment of Zoroastrian self-marriages, it is important here to revisit Ibn al-Qayyim’s discourse on the topic, as well as why his seeming accommodation for Zoroastrians may not produce the purported goods desired by contemporary Muslims seeking theological justification for the support of same-sex marriage and LGBT rights more broadly.

First, it is important to note that the aforementioned treatments of Ibn al-Qayyim’s treatment of self-marriage are partial and selective. Ibn al-Qayyim poses the question of Zoroastrian self-marriages and responds with two opinions, not one. The first of these opinions is one of limited allowance of the practice (provided that the previously mentioned “two conditions” are met), while the second entails a forceful dissolution of self-marriages. The first position is primarily supported by the Prophet’s ﷺ direct instructions to collect the jizya tax from Zoroastrians with no further mention of their marriages, worship, or various other immoralities. The absence of any explicit instruction in this regard from the Prophet ﷺ is taken as tacit acceptance of Zoroastrian practice and accounts for the support this position received in subsequent scholarship, which continued appealing to the Prophet’s ﷺ instructions. The second position contests this view by referring to the directive of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb , who instructed that Zoroastrian self-marriages be dissolved during his tenure as caliph. 

Ibn al-Qayyim reconciles these two views by arguing that each is appropriate within a given set of circumstances. The Prophet’s ﷺ instructions were given when Muslims had little authority over Persia and were in no position to curb self-marriages without risking revolt and loss. ʿUmar’s subsequent order to dissolve self-marriages came when those dynamics had changed. During ʿUmar’s reign, Muslims gained firm political control of Persia and thus had the ability to put an end to self-marriages. Ibn al-Qayyim describes ʿUmar’s willingness to act in this regard as “one of his best [acts of] juristic discretion” (min aḥsan ijtihādihi), one that is beloved to Allah ﷻ and His Messenger ﷺ.

Moreover, Ibn al-Qayyim’s gloss of the first view (that of permission contingent on the fulfillment of the “two conditions”) explicitly rejects any possible expansion of this permission to authorize, alongside Zoroastrian self-marriage, the acts of sodomy (liwāṭ) or fornication (zinā) in particular. Ibn al-Qayyim’s reasoning on this point appeals to the possible effects of sodomy and fornication on the Muslim community. Unlike these two enormities (kabāʾir), self-marriages could be localized and kept out of the sight of Muslims. Their presence in Zoroastrian quarters would not harm the Muslims, whereas a legalization of fornication and sodomy would³. 

Although Ibn al-Qayyim does not elaborate on how permitting sodomy and fornication could harm Muslims, his reasoning is not difficult to surmise on the basis of revelation and his own writings elsewhere. When mentioning the people of Lot , Allah ﷻ describes sodomy as an iniquity (fāḥisha) and as wanton excess (isrāf) and those who engage in it as transgressive (ʿādūn). Elsewhere, He describes fornication and adultery (zinā) as an iniquity and an “evil way” (Q. al-Isrāʾ, 17:32). In his work al-Dāʾ wa-l-dawāʾ (The ailment and the cure), Ibn al-Qayyim cites a report from Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 855 CE) stating that he knows of no sin greater in the eyes of God after murder than fornication⁴. This report is buttressed by a verse from the Quran that reads (in part): “those who invoke no other deity besides God, nor take a life that God has made sacred except by way of justice, nor commit fornication” (Q. al-Furqān, 25:68). In a later section detailing the gravity of sexual immorality, Ibn al-Qayyim cites a report in which the Prophet ﷺ says that the majority of those who enter the Fire shall do so on account of their tongues and their sexual organs (i.e., the sins committed with them), then mentions a hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ declares adultery (zinā al-muḥṣan) a capital crime⁵. In a subsequent section, Ibn al-Qayyim addresses the gravity of sodomy in particular, drawing on a number of scholars who regarded it as a more heinous sin than (heterosexual) fornication, one whose consequences include the potential ruining of one’s worldly life, a total loss of shame and modesty in front of both God and man, and a severe punishment in the life to come⁶. Though incest of the Zoroastrian type undoubtedly constitutes a reprehensible sexual transgression as well, it is indeed possible, perhaps even probable, that Ibn al-Qayyim and others considered that practice more easily localizable (given the natural repugnance almost all people feel regarding incest) to a small minority religious community that interacted little with Muslims and whose members would conceal their incestuous relationships from believers when the two parties met.

Moreover, Ibn al-Qayyim goes to great lengths in his Aḥkām to make clear his principal concern for the welfare of the believers. Muslims, he avers, must retain a distinctive position that evinces clear and unambiguous superiority in social status and standing within an Islamic polity. Nothing can be allowed to jeopardize that, and permissions granted to the ahl al-dhimma are frequently stipulated as being provisional, contingent upon the social and political stability of the umma. On this, Antonia Bosanquet writes in her exposition of the Aḥkām:

The book (i.e., Aḥkām) as a whole is a statement of Muslim power over the dhimmi subalterns and a reminder of their submission to the law that they rejected. In this sense, the exercise of power acquires a theological or apologetic relevance. Nowhere in Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma is this more evident than in the demarcation of territory, boundaries and control that forms part of Ibn al-Qayyim’s construction of space in the text⁷.

The delineation of space, with hard boundaries between believing and unbelieving communities (with distinct quarters, markets, and so on), animates Ibn al-Qayyim’s work in crucial ways. As Bosanquet notes when commenting on the topic of space, “Ibn al-Qayyim is relatively unconcerned with what happens within dhimmi separate space . . . It is as if, having established the boundaries and defined the space, he has no further interest in their contents.”⁸ The bulk of Ibn al-Qayyim’s writings and scholarly effort in Aḥkām revolve around where the boundaries between believer and dhimmi break down or are transgressed. In those moments, the integrity of the community comes first. Understanding this dynamic of space is essential to the presuppositions undergirding his vision for relations between Muslims and dhimmī peoples. In this context, even permissions provided to the ahl al-dhimma are often conceived of as activities that occur entirely outside the Muslim eye and away from Muslim spaces.

Sensitivity to the harms that various practices posed to the Muslim community is not exclusive to Ibn al-Qayyim, as it abounds in all discussions of ahl al-dhimma. Jurists generally permitted non-Muslim minorities to practice their faith and to live according to their own moral code, though this permission was never unqualified. For example, non-Muslims were not to trade in swine and alcohol in predominantly Muslim quarters and spaces, at least not publicly.⁹ Transacting in Islamically forbidden items was to be limited to towns and regions that were predominantly or exclusively populated by non-Muslims or else was to be done discreetly. If Muslim rituals and worship, such as congregational prayers and public observances of Eid, appeared in the towns, then the forbidden transactions would have either to occur out of sight and away from Muslim residents or to be moved altogether to a neighboring town or locale where Muslims did not live in large numbers.¹⁰ Non-Muslim minorities were also required to adhere to certain dress requirements in public spaces. Women often donned the hijab and, at a minimum, were forbidden from making wanton displays of their charms (tabarruj) or revealing more than their hair and hands, while men were also to ensure that their ʿawra was covered in public spaces in order to prevent the spread of corruption (darʾ al-fasād) and to maintain the norms of Islamic propriety.¹¹ Finally, the case of “new religions” was always fraught: though the Islamic polity created negotiated spaces for non-Muslim minorities, these were almost always for religions whose existence predated the appearance of Islam. On this, Yohanan Friedmann writes in his Tolerance and Coercion in Islam:

Wholly different is the case of religions which came into being after the revelation of the Quran. For them the harshest treatment is reserved, especially if they are derived from Islam. Few people tried to establish a new religion in the lands ruled by Muslims in the medieval period and no toleration was accorded to those who did. In view of the dogma asserting the finality of Muhammad’s prophethood, any prophetic claim in the Muslim period was nipped in the bud.¹²

In the case of LGBT rights, those who instrumentalize Zoroastrian incest-marriage permissions make no attempt to square away the possible harms that the advancement of these rights presents to Muslims, both domestically and abroad. Rather, they tend to treat political judgments as hermetically sealed activities that have no relationship to, and bear no consequences for, culture or society at large. Furthermore, they draw incommensurate analogies on the basis of permissions granted by past Muslim authorities to religions that, while errant, nonetheless drew from officially recognized doctrines and traditions, not emergent cultural and social phenomena that post-dated Islam and/or that had no grounding in any religious tradition whatsoever.

Ahl al-Dhimma as a Model for Political Engagement?

In addition to the above considerations, more fundamental questions relate to whether the status of ahl al-dhimma and the phenomenon of self-marriage provide the appropriate frame of reference for modeling contemporary Muslim political engagement. For one, Muslims are not at the moment being asked to formulate policy on gay marriage, though the aforementioned defenses of a Muslims-for-gay-marriage posture seem to presuppose just that: namely, that Muslim opinion on the question of gay marriage would somehow affect policy debates or otherwise influence broader social trends. The Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision recognizing same-sex marriage took place despite objections from corners more numerous and politically influential than our own, and subsequent LGBT activism has proceeded with little concern for American Muslim opinion. Perhaps more important, as Jackson himself notes, the modern nation-state is qualitatively different from pre-modern Muslim polities. The emergence of modern technologies has introduced a degree of control over vast swaths of land that was previously unimaginable in societies and empires just a century or two ago.¹³ 

The current state of technology not only supports far quicker and more reliable communication between peoples, but it also—more nefariously—enables a high degree of state hegemony and invasiveness through the use of surveillance, media, and sprawling governmental institutions self-tasked with monitoring and influencing the general public. Both the hard and the soft power of the state engender forms of social and cultural conformity. Given these realities, the moral foundations of law and the relationship between law and morality, as well as the objectives of negotiated moral commitments for non-Muslim minorities in a Muslim-majority polity, bear little meaning in this new age in which the state seeks to dominate and subordinate all in the name of its own self-legitimation. In this, Jackson’s drawing on pre-modern Zoroastrian self-marriage as a paradigmatic case of legal pluralism for supporting contemporary LGBT rights in reality engages in what Alasdair MacIntyre has critiqued as a “process of projecting the present onto the past and of retrieving a modernized past into the present.”¹⁴

As Wael Hallaq has observed in his The Impossible State, the Sharīʿa “did not possess a political will, at least nothing comparable to the will of the state. The Sharīʿa was about society and far less about politics; it was about the moral social character, not political society.”¹⁵ Accordingly, self-regulation most often occurred in social terms, not legal ones, and “apart from the distant presence of the ruler and his unsystematic attempts to tax them, societies practiced self-rule.”¹⁶ The family and religious institutions were essential components of this moral self-regulation. Modern society has undermined the strength of family, religious institutions, and other private, non-state actors that were once crucial to the stability and ongoing activity of pre-modern societies, supplanting the roles that these various actors previously played with the political will of the modern state and its attendant institutions. There is no escaping these institutions, as the state leviathan oversees, dictates, and controls people’s lives, while its legal/political regime serves to consecrate the ever-shifting moral fashions of the elite and superimpose them on recalcitrant communities. Given these disjunctions between past Muslim societies and the contemporary secular West, the purported “pluralism” of prior Muslim polities serves as poor fodder for those Muslims looking to make a theologically persuasive case for endorsing newfangled liberal pieties.

In addition to the political disanalogies inherent in popular appeals to Zoroastrian self-marriage, additional divergences come to the fore when we consider what some social scientists have termed “sociologies of the self.” Put simply, the Zoroastrian who practiced self-marriage was not in any meaningful way defined by this self-marriage. He did not maintain a broader social identity to which his incestuous marriage was related. He did not have cultural opinions that were predicated on that social identity nor a political orientation that likewise related in significant ways to such an identity. Indeed, he did not even advertise his incestuous self-marriage in public (and certainly not in front of non-Zoroastrian residents). For all intents and purposes, he registered in the eyes of others primarily as a Zoroastrian member of society, and his marital practices were incidental, not essential, to his sense of selfhood and public identity.

This, however, stands in sharp contrast to how modern-day homosexual and transgender individuals view themselves. They seek not to legitimize a religious practice that has a meaningful precedent anchored in a recognized tradition but instead to inaugurate a fundamental reordering of the moral life of society. In this, gay marriage and transgenderism do not simply reconfigure a few minor policies and concomitant distribution of rights; rather, they profoundly redefine what it means to be a “good” person—indeed what it means to be a family, a husband and wife, a man and a woman. It is on the basis of this remoralization that opposition to homosexuality and transgenderism has been cast not merely as a matter of differing discretionary judgments or subjective moral preferences but as one of discrimination, hatred, and regressiveness. The centrality of identity to both homosexuality and transgenderism and the connotations of these identities in the social, cultural, and political spheres make an “Islamic” endorsement of gay marriage and LGBT rights, even as purely political matters, ever more fraught as they set the groundwork upon which the undermining of religious freedoms for Muslims (and the adherents of other religions) gains steam.

The “Shirk, therefore” (or “sati, therefore”) Argument

Related to the aforementioned theological arguments is another common argument that is either implied by them or explicitly posited as a “commonsense” religious inference: namely, since the Sharīʿa permits shirk—overt idolatry—to exist within its political boundaries, anything less than shirk should enjoy similar accommodation. Likewise with a related argument: the Muslim polity of Mughal India tolerated, to varying degrees, the Hindu practice of widow burning, or sati, which involved the sacrificing of a living widow over her dead husband’s funeral pyre.¹⁷ If morally grotesque acts like sati could be tolerated, then on what grounds should Muslims feel compelled to oppose LGBT rights? The reservations of Muslims who object to LGBT rights are therefore regarded as more of a cultural taboo than something entailed by a reasoning process indigenous to Islam. After all, if the Sharīʿa can permit the practice of idolatry—the most heinous sin in the eyes of Allah—within the borders of Dār al-Islām or feel at home with widows being put to the torch, then surely it can allow Muslims in a non-Islamic polity to tolerate sexual transgression.

Perhaps the most obvious and immediate retort to this argument is to ask whether Muslims should then have any moral concerns for society at all. If they can permit non-Muslims shirk, rightly highlighted as an abominable crime against Allah ﷻ, then, on this reasoning, we would be right to ask why we cannot simply be pleased for them to permit everything. What rationale would there be for advocating any limits on the desires of non-Muslims? If our tolerance for the reprehensible begins with shirk and burning widows alive, then why care about income inequality? Or the environment? Or violence against women? Why should Muslims care about criminal justice reform? Should we simply remain silent on debates over legalizing gambling, narcotics, prostitution, and more?

It goes without saying that just about any concern we have for the world around us—short of shirk, of course—will, by definition, fall below the line of open idolatry. And if we lower the bar from shirk to burning widows alive, there is still a great deal in the world that may animate our interests that would pale in comparison to the obscenity of witnessing a living woman put to the torch. The mere idea of a Muslim politics would be practically eliminated under such a rubric.

There are more arguments, of course: the fact that the Sharīʿa did not categorically accept shirk without stipulations and controls or without instituting incentives to convert to Islam as part of its political program (the khilāfa was hardly a shirk free-for-all); the fact that the Sharīʿa prohibited much that falls within the domain of social morality, such as prostitution and public indecency¹⁸; the fact that Allah ﷻ and His Messenger ﷺ condemned the Quraysh’s practice of infanticide when the Muslims had no political power to speak of and were a beleaguered and weak minority; the sociological and cultural consequences and direct effect of LGBT advocacy and the passage of LGBT rights on Muslims generally and the acute effects on young Muslims specifically; the practical irrelevance of Muslim “support” for causes like LGBT given the diminutive size of the community and its consequent lack of meaningful influence on high-stakes public debates; and more, though this will suffice for now.

Socio-political Arguments for Supporting LGBT Rights: Intersectionality and Quid Pro Quo

Having addressed the primary theological justifications offered in support of Muslim LGBT advocacy, it is now time to turn to those justifications that are proffered in secular terms. Such arguments are occasionally made by those Muslims drawn to reformist views on the permissibility of homosexual acts and transgenderism or who, at the least, doubt the univocality of their prohibition. Though these arguments come in several variations, the most common of them appeals to the question of individual freedoms in a secular state.

On this understanding of American politics, the US Constitution enshrines a distinct separation of church and state for the purpose of protecting the rights of all religious (and secular) persons to live in a manner consistent with their beliefs, provided those beliefs do not impinge on the rights of others. Accordingly, all people are free to express themselves as they wish, and the force of law will only be brought to bear when that expression harms someone else or is itself being threatened. Muslims are said to be in special need of these protections given their status as a beleaguered minority, and legislation that targets Muslims unfairly can only be overcome by resisting the impositions of the state in the name of freedom and justice. Furthermore, just as Muslims depend on freedom and justice to live in a manner expressive of their commitments and beliefs, so too do other minority groups—including, naturally, sexual and gender identity minorities as well. Given this shared challenge, it is argued, collaborating as civic minority groups seeking to obtain rights from the state and protection against discrimination not only makes sense strategically but is also necessary to ward off criticisms of hypocrisy (i.e., that we are in favor of freedom for our own identity group but are unwilling to extend that freedom to those with whom we differ).

This argument, convincing as it may sound at first blush, relies on a number of tendentious assumptions. Some of these assumptions lie at the heart of secular society, such as the notion of a secular society being able to detach itself from a set of “thick” beliefs and values (alongside the category of “religion” itself and what it entails) or the idea that law and policy can be meaningfully negotiated without appeals to deeply held beliefs (see this piece on law and narrative). These philosophical and conceptual arguments are beyond the scope of this article, though they have been elaborated at length by scholars and thinkers who have critiqued the secular project as inherently contradictory, incoherent, and generally unsustainable. Interested readers can avail themselves of a few of these critiques here.

Setting structural critiques aside, there are yet other assumptions that tend to be elided in discussions concerning the “common cause” imperative promoted by Muslim advocates of LGBT politics. Perhaps the most significant of these assumptions relates to the underlying question of “freedom.” Unbeknownst to many, the very concept of freedom itself is heavily contested and not nearly as self-evident as most would like to imagine. As Eric Forner chronicles in his The Story of American Freedom, American history is replete with political conflicts between parties appealing to “freedom.” Should the government provide corporations the freedom to act with no government interference, or is it responsible for protecting the freedoms of the labor class? Should universities be free to admit students based on their own criteria, or should the government impose rules (such as affirmative action) to ensure fair admissions for minorities? Legal historian Michael Klarman writes about the seemingly infinite malleability of “freedom” as something that makes virtually all court decisions not a matter of adjudicating between a freedom and a non-freedom but instead a matter of determining which freedom should be advanced over another. Understanding just about all legal disputes as matters of competing freedoms renders the concept “freedom” itself plastic—something amenable to manipulation and distortion—as well as something that often cannot independently determine obvious outcomes in disputes. In this vein, Klarman observes that freedom is, in fact, an “empty concept.” As a consequence, he continues, “to say that one favors freedom is really to say nothing at all.”

Because “freedom” can accommodate virtually any position, it is conceptually infirm. In practice, this infirmity results in the ostensible persuasiveness of a given freedom stemming from the attractiveness of the cause with which it is associated and not whether its adoption leads to a state that is objectively more “free” than the alternative. As Klarman notes when discussing Brown v. Board of Education (1954):

White southerners who criticized Brown v. Board of Education as an invasion of their freedom did not misunderstand the concept. The freedom of local communities to govern their own schools and of individuals to choose with whom they associate have long and respected historical pedigrees. Such freedom arguments are unpersuasive to us today not because they misconstrue the concept of freedom, but rather because we no longer choose to respect the freedom of those who denigrate other human beings because of their race or to defer to the freedom of local political majorities to use their power in the service of white supremacy.

The point Klarman makes about freedom can easily be extended to two other vital concepts that pervade modern political and moral discourse: equality and harm. Steven Smith, in The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse, argues persuasively that the concepts of equality and harm, in addition to the concept of freedom, are infinitely malleable and, therefore, essentially without content, that is, empty.¹⁹ Consequently, the question of Muslim support for LGBT rights is not whether Muslims should support LGBT rights on the basis of a common commitment to “freedom” and “equality” but rather whether Muslims should endorse the particular conception of freedom and equality advanced by LGBT groups. In committing to the specific articulation of freedom and equality advanced by these groups, Muslims have paradoxically undermined alternative conceptions of these notions that would preserve heterosexual marriage, the right of children to their biological mother and father and to grow up learning about the family as something normatively consisting of a mother and father, the ability of men and women to be meaningfully distinguished biologically, and more.²⁰ Furthermore, American Muslim promotion of the LGBT freedom and equality platform has drastically undermined the ability of the Muslim community itself to live with, or even conceive of, a conception of freedom and equality that would be most conducive to sexual probity, moral decency, and the preservation of faith across generations. Indeed, if elementary freedom, equality, and justice require the social and legal equation of homosexual with heterosexual relationships, then the Shari‘a—like all traditional religions that prohibit homosexual acts—is indeed oppressive and unjust. What could possibly be gained for the Muslim community if we adopt discourses and engage in actions that inevitably lead to such a conclusion?

An additional argument relates to the demand for reciprocity, or quid pro quo. LGBT groups are regarded as reliable allies who protest and lobby for causes specifically beneficial to Muslims, such as opposing the infamous “Muslim ban” and speaking out against Western imperialism. This support, it is argued, warrants reciprocity on our part. Thus, Muslims should make an effort to demonstrate that just as LGBT groups support Muslims, so too do we support them.

Now, while it is true that some LGBT groups do occasionally support Muslim civil rights and lobby on our behalf, it is also true that they do so in line with their own moral commitments. The popular platform of LGBT advocacy resides in leftist political spaces, and opposition to imperialism and support for immigration fit firmly within that space. Therefore, their advocacy, though beneficial to Muslims, does not pose any material or moral conflicts for them as a community. Moreover, when those conflicts do arise, LGBT groups are generally steadfast in their opposition to the rights in question, even if such rights are beneficial to Muslims. How so?

Let us imagine a situation in which LGBT groups were asked to support Muslims specifically in things that go against their own deeply held convictions. Imagine, for example, that we asked them to come out and positively affirm Muslim views on gender, sexual morality, and family norms. It is hard to imagine them doing so, as they recognize our views on these issues to be in direct conflict with some of their most profoundly held moral beliefs. But, one might object, they need not come out and “march with us,” so to speak, on such issues just as long as they agree to support our freedom to uphold our values and practice our beliefs within our own spaces and society at large. But are they doing even that? The truth of the matter is that many LGBT advocacy organizations are aggressively attempting to winnow away whatever remaining spaces religious groups and other LGBT naysayers have to organize themselves and their communities in line with their own principles on matters related to gender and sexuality. This is evident in LGBT opposition to religious rights, including the rights of religious groups like ours to maintain moral autonomy in various spaces. LGBT groups oppose, for instance, religious exemptions to LGBT discrimination laws, even for explicitly religious organizations. Moreover, their advocacy pushes for LGBT teachings to be integrated throughout school curricula, thus putting students in a position where opting out is either implausible or, increasingly, not even offered as an option. Taking this even further, recent efforts have resulted in schools not only adopting an “affirmative therapy” approach to counseling children concerned about their gender identity (or sexual orientation) but also concealing from parents any gender transition for which children may opt in consultation with teachers, counselors, and school administrators. 

When viewed in this light, what is being asked of Muslims is not so much to reciprocate support for LGBT groups on the basis of a quid pro quo but to participate politically in a manner that is explicitly contrary to our own moral commitments—in return for LGBT groups participating politically in a manner that is in accord with theirs. This can hardly be called a fair bargain.

The Enemy of My Enemy Is Not My Friend and More Coalition Building

Given the intensity of political partisanship today, popular political calculus on virtually any issue of consequence is most often conducted by evaluating how the opposition will respond. When politics is conceived in this way, social groups develop quickly among allies. “We’re all in this together” becomes the siren call for activists, and the new in-group, formed initially to band around a solitary cause, builds ideological solidarities around a broader platform. This more thoroughgoing ideological solidarity, especially in our times, is often paired with contempt for members of the political opposition, viewing them principally as bad-faith antagonists in an unending series of existential conflicts.

The aforementioned dynamics—of affiliation, social group identification, political ideological adherence, and partisan hostilities—relate to what political scientists refer to as “political socialization.” Political socialization describes “the process by which citizens crystalize political identities, values and behavior that remain relatively persistent throughout later life.” Recent research has studied the degree to which this occurs within or produces “echo chambers,” the point being that political activism today is (1) highly tribalized, (2) ideology shaping, and (3) identity forming.

It is within this politically charged context that another common argument finds root. Espoused by several Muslim activists, this argument begins by ascribing political enmity to the “right” as archetypal Islamophobes.²¹ It then proceeds to urge coalition building against this right-wing nemesis, resulting in devout loyalty to the “left.” Put simply, it is the simple calculus of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” which in this case results in the left being viewed as “pro-Muslim” and the right as “anti-Muslim.”

But this calculus, even at a casual glance, does not hold up. In recent years, the Democratic Party has become more favorable to the national security state. In fact, Democrats today are far more supportive of the FBI, CIA, and NSA than their Republican counterparts. They are also in favor of greater Internet censorship, are allied far more deeply with big tech, are more likely to favor free speech restrictions, and are more likely to oppose religious freedom. Seeing how Republicans sit on the other side of these policy debates, should Muslims reflexively support Democrats and become advocates of the national security state too? Should they, too, seek to impose ideological censorship on anti-liberal content? Recently, progressive groups have come out against efforts by the GOP and centrist Democrats seeking to rein in China over human rights abuses against the Uyghur Muslims. Should Muslims, too, abandon our Uyghur brothers and sisters simply because the GOP has recently gotten behind them? At what point can we call on Muslims to use their own brains and live with principle instead of slavishly shifting with the winds of left–right politics in Western nations? 

Dogged political partisanship serves no one well. It results in obsequious obedience meant to curry favor with political elites. It serves to alienate scores of those—the majority, in fact—who do not feel represented by either wing of the regnant political establishment. It often produces moments that can charitably only be described as embarrassing, such as the 2016 Presidential Eid Banquet, when scores of Muslim attendees chanted “Four More Years!” for a president whose legacy included the radical expansion of the drone program and the initiation of Israel’s “Iron Dome” and who, two months after the banquet, passed the largest military aid package for Israel in American history.

Rather than reduce our public behavior to Machiavellian political calculations and alliances that demand conformity to that which violates our beliefs and values, Muslims should seek to transcend partisan politics altogether. The values of Islam, divine in origin, are timeless. The fights in front of us and the alliances beckoning us, alluring as they may be, are not.

Time for a Change

It is past time for a change. The common logic of intersectional advocacy and coalition building has for too long gone uncontested, with its promises never scrutinized or revisited. In the meantime, the LGBT movement has grown considerably more muscular and demanding, its political and social engineering program ever more totalizing.

What is more, LGBT advocacy has long shown itself to be an essential cog in the wheel of Western colonial imposition, championed by the wealthiest nations in the Western world as a marker of Western superiority. This colonial agenda is regularly weaponized against Muslim nations and often used to justify brutal forms of repression. Just last May, AIPAC, the renowned Zionist advocacy organization, posted a tweet reading: “Do you support LGBTQ+ rights? Hamas doesn’t. Hamas discriminates against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people”—a tweet posted at the height of Israeli bombardments of Gaza. At the same time, Israeli embassies eagerly tweeted pictures of their embassies flying rainbow flags, juxtaposing their support for the LGBT movement with the restrictions on homosexual practice in place throughout the Middle East. Avi Mayer, the Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, recently tweeted: “I’m super-excited [sic] for Gaza #Pride, which will be taking place *checks notes* never, not at all. Because Hamas executes you if it thinks you’re gay.” Julie Burchill at the Spectator took aim at celebrity support for Palestine by highlighting the apparent contradiction between Palestinian social values and the otherwise strident LGBT support offered by celebrities: 

Show-business types are notorious for their desire to get drunk, sleep around and be homosexual. I’m not knocking it – it’s what makes them so much fun to hang out with. But why then are they throwing their weight behind a movement wherein music is haram and ‘break a leg’ isn’t a blessing but something Hamas might do to gays? No matter what contortions a performer might have learned at circus school, you cannot support both gay rights and a Palestinian state; the only place in the entire region where people are free to be gay is Israel.

This program of neo-imperialism is increasingly bipartisan. In 2019, Ilhan Omar condemned the Palestinian Authority for not allowing gay pride events to take place in the West Bank. Popular liberal talk show host Bill Maher has often inquired of guests defending Palestine where the gay bars are in Gaza, while the Palestinian queer group Al Qaws has become a favorite of progressive activists eager to promote queer Palestinian voices. Can there be a non-liberal future for Muslims in their own lands? Will the West tolerate it?

Although Palestine is a prominent example, it is not the only one. Liberal social values have regularly been weaponized by Western nations to justify militarism, sanctions, and political penalties of various kinds. President Biden announced in his first foreign policy speech that he was “ordering all US government agencies active abroad” to promote LGBT rights. He also mentioned LGBT rights in his remarks to the 2021 Africa Summit, while the State Department recently condemned “anti-LGBT rhetoric” in Turkey. This past February (2021), the Biden administration issued a memorandum entitled “Memorandum on Advancing the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Persons Around the World,” the goal of which is to promote LGBT causes globally. Glenn Greenwald observes on this now common tactic:

Figuratively dressing up American wars in the pretty packaging of progressive social causes, or literally decorating pernicious spy agencies with the colors of the LGBT cause, should leave no doubt about what this tactic is. Militarism and aggression don’t become any more palatable because the institutions that perpetrate them let women and gays participate in those abuses.

As of the writing of this article, imams and Muslims around the world are being targeted for their views on gender and sexuality. Imam Mmadi Ahamada, originally from the Comoros Islands, is currently facing deportation from France—the self-styled home of liberté—for mentioning verses from the Quran during his Eid sermon that instruct women to remain in their homes. These verses, French officials claimed, are contrary to France’s “Republican values.” More recently, Mohamed el Mehdi Bouzid, a Tunisian imam also working in France, has been dismissed from his employment and is back in Tunisia following a sermon where he criticized female immodesty. The mosque at which Bouzid preached was threatened with closure, leading the mosque’s president to remark that “every mosque in France should be worried about its future.” Farrokh Sekaleshfar, a Shīʿī imam, quickly left Australia following a scandal for having made “inflammatory remarks” about gays. Earlier this year, the Belgian government deported a Turkish imam for stating on social media that being gay is an “illness.” The government of Flanders has since embarked on an effort to “clean up” Islamic communities by targeting, inter alia, the views of Muslim leaders on homosexuality. Popular preacher Bilal Philips was asked to leave Germany and never return on account of his “open homophobia.” In Birmingham, protests erupted recently over the introduction of LGBT teachings in predominantly Muslim schools, and the president of a university Islamic society in London was removed from his post following public outrage for his tweeting that “homosexuality is a disease of the heart and mind.” Meanwhile, gay rights campaigners in the UK have urged the government to ban “homophobic clerics” from mosques. So much for reciprocity and for “live and let live” with respect to “non-affirmative” religious groups.

Given this context, Muslims who continue to support the LGBT movement make themselves instruments of this global machine that is being used to socially engineer the values even of their brothers and sisters in the Muslim world while radically undermining the ability of Muslims to so much as speak about their own sexual ethics in Western societies. The days of Western Muslims feigning ignorance over the implications of their political decisions—or otherwise insisting that their support for LGBT rights is merely instrumental as part of a limited, shared-freedoms platform exclusive to Western, liberal societies—are over.

The LGBT movement itself has also pivoted from targeted political advocacy to the work of much broader social indoctrination. Whereas it once fought for limited legal protections and so-called “marriage equality,” it currently seeks to impose itself on every man, woman, and child. Today’s LGBT advocates seek to rework school curricula, calling for pedagogical materials to include “trans affirmative” instruction for children. They work to eliminate any and all disagreement over transgenderism, including childhood gender dysphoria / gender identity disorder, and to remove any and all obstacles that would impede unfettered access to transgender medical intervention for adolescents and adults. They push for LGBT lifestyles to be seen as chic and publish ever more literature targeting children and young adults, urging libraries far and wide to feature this literature whenever possible and to host “drag queen story hours.” They regularly target diverging opinions, pushing for legislation that would outlaw non-LGBT affirming positions in professional quarters and appealing to big tech and other sectors to censor LGBT-critical speech. Even career feminists who have reservations about transgenderism are summarily dismissed as bigoted, disparagingly described as “trans-exclusionary radical feminists” (TERFs). Perhaps most concerning, LGBT advocates actively seek to override and dissolve any possible religious exceptions to the above. Again, so much for reciprocity and for “live and let live.”

A few examples: just a year and a half ago, congressman Beto O’Rourke, then a member of the House vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, supported removing the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage. More recently, the Equality Act—proposed by Democrats, passed in the House earlier this year, and endorsed by the White House this past June (2021)—explicitly states that “the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which became law in 1993, cannot be used to challenge the Act’s provisions or be used as a defense to a claim of unlawful discrimination under the Act.” Groups like the ACLU support such measures while deriding “religious freedom” as merely a cover for unlawful discrimination. Even more recently, the White House retreated slightly after initially committing to uphold exemptions for religious schools from extant anti-LGBT discrimination laws. In a revised statement, government attorneys wrote that “the Department of Education is conducting a comprehensive review of its regulations implementing [the law], which sets forth the current administration’s policy on guaranteeing an educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex.” Unlike their initial statements, this revision is noncommittal and potentially opens the door to revoking religious freedom protections for religious schools.

Given the maelstrom of pro-LGBT advocacy and the total denunciation of any belief or position critical of LGBT lifestyles, it was always naïve to believe that young people would or could ever make their political determinations in an exclusively secular capacity—as something compartmentalized and distinct from their “true self” and deeply held religious beliefs. No one can have two faces, nor has Allah ﷻ created two hearts in any man’s breast (see Q. al-Aḥzāb, 33:4), not least those who are already beset with challenges and doubts about their faith in the modern world. Recent polls have revealed dramatic shifts in American Muslim opinion on issues like transgenderism and gay marriage. Leading organizations like the ISPU publish guides for “LGBT Muslims” and “scholars’ takes” saying things like “Muslims cannot privately consider same-sex couples as morally inferior while publicly maintaining that everyone is equal under the law” and “same-sex marriage is considered a sin. Still, that does not mean this particular understanding of Islam is not contestable,” while contemptuously describing the Council of Glasgow imams opposing same-sex marriage as “backward” “Indian sub-continent” immigrants who do not speak English and need to “move with the times.” And this type of openly anti-Islamic rhetoric from an organization that claims—absurdly—to be zakat-eligible and to be working fī sabīl illāh!

Perhaps even more damaging, the continued promotion of LGBT rights by Muslim leaders has the effect of demoralizing Muslims. One need not be a scholar to understand fully where LGBT acts and the LGBT agenda fit within the moral paradigm of Islam. And yet, repeated abandonment of those morals in the interest of political gains has the effect—as Dr. Jonathan Brown has described it aptly in a different context—of placing a ceiling on Muslims’ political expectations. The modern state, as both Jackson and Brown argue elsewhere, is a hegemon that controls and dominates the societies under its aegis. Telling Muslims that they should never hope for better governance or for a better social order crushes their spirit and integrates them into the Western social order as inferiors who are the lone group not permitted to have a political voice that is truly its own. As Brown writes when discussing categorical appeals to political quietism,

every other country, nation or religious community can demand that their governments do a better job using the only means that ever convince the powerful to change, namely some public display of displeasure by sufficiently large numbers or sufficiently influential individuals. But not for Muslims. For us, there can be no calls for accountability, transparency, less corruption, better provision of services, etc.

Brown’s sentiments, put slightly differently in an LGBT context, might read: “Every other group in this country can make demands in accordance with their moral commitments using the only means that ever convince the powerful to change, namely, some public display of displeasure by sufficiently large numbers or sufficiently influential individuals. But not for Muslims, and never on LGBT.”

The toll of LGBT advocacy on Muslims cannot be overstated. A colonial tool of global oppression, domestic coercion, and social domination, totalizing in its moral demands and proliferating at a rapid rate with little signs of letting up, the LGBT movement is now a juggernaut of cultural power and authority. The decision of some Muslim leaders and activists to do and to say nothing meaningful on the LGBT question—or, worse, to actually support the movement—sets the stage for heresy, apostasy, untold spiritual crises, and communal demoralization. If the goal of American Muslims is to retain and uphold our faith as minorities in the West, the promised benefits, or maṣāliḥ, of LGBT advocacy have never materialized, while multitudinous social, cultural, and spiritual harms abound, both domestically and internationally.

So What’s the Point? Concluding Thoughts

Under current conditions, the sociological winds do not appear to be in our sails. Recent polling shows that support for gay marriage in the United States stands at seventy percent, with majorities of both Democrats and Republicans now backing the legal recognition granted by the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision of 2015. The days of a meaningful debate on this topic are, at least for the moment, behind us. We need to be attentive to political realities, and it would be foolish to propose a politics that does not at least acknowledge how many LGBT rights are beyond debate in the current political and social climate. Nonetheless, there remains important ongoing deliberation as to how LGBT rights should be negotiated for those who maintain moral reservations regarding homosexual acts and transgenderism. Though there is no telling where all these debates will land, it should be expected that many will be decided in ways prejudicial to the interests of religious communities like our own. Some issues will be adjudicated by the courts, while others will be subject to the deliberative mechanics of public opinion and majoritarian politics, which are fickle and subject to alteration over time.

There are also many reasons to be discouraged by what the future might hold for Western Muslims. Religions in the West before us have largely collapsed at the altar of homosexuality and are quickly proving incapable of resisting transgenderism too. Just this May, a Lutheran pastor in California became the first transgender bishop in a major American denomination. It should be expected that more will follow suit. Self-identified Muslim organizations promoting revisionism on the question of homosexuality are sprouting up by the day, many of which are well-funded through government, corporate, and university grants.²² Some Muslim figures who have built public reputations through social justice work have come out strongly in support of LGBT rights, while lesser-known ones have likewise been unequivocal in their support of Pride month.

Concerning these realities and more, I am under no illusions about our ability as Muslims to reform society or substantially to influence the direction in which our culture is headed. How Muslims poll in 2030 for Pew or Gallup is not something a single paper will change, nor is it an outcome that is within our control. We should keep in mind our limitations, as well as remind ourselves that it is Allah ﷻ who is in control of our affairs, not we. Our relative agency, being exercised as faithfully as we can in a proximate, worldly sense by way of a unified politics, may still fail to make much of a dent in the larger Western socio-political sphere.

That being said, our moral obligations as Muslims—and the social responsibilities that stem from those obligations—are never, and can never be, reduced to mere calculations of Realpolitik. And it is important to be clear here about what this paper is not: it is not a call for Muslims to become Republicans or Democrats. On LGBT rights, Republicans and Democrats are far more bipartisan in their support than public debate would lead one to believe, even if important differences exist regarding where the two parties fall in some current debates. What this paper is, however, is a call for Muslims to transcend partisan political interests, to move past thinking of every issue of political or social concern through the prism of which party serves us best (as imperfect as that service is in either case), and to become comfortable standing up for and speaking the truth, even at the expense of public ostracism. We need to remember that Allah’s prophets ministered to people who often rejected them. The truth can be a bitter pill for those habituated to falsehood. In this vein, Shabbir Akhtar writes:

The Prophet inculcated in Muslims a sense of their colossal social responsibility so that they cannot plead neutrality about political stances. It is every Muslim’s duty to identify injustice²³ and to call it by its name. Wherever religious obligation and the demands of professional detachment clash, the Muslim scholar is religiously obliged to indicate which loyalty comes first. Genuine religion – the qualification is necessary – entails political activity though not necessarily impulsively revolutionary activism.²⁴

How numerous are the verses and prophetic teachings that tell us to command the good and forbid the evil? Indeed, the very act of doing so is essential to a faithful adherence to Allah’s path. In an inverse of this instruction, Allah ﷻ describes the hypocrites as those who “enjoin what is evil, forbid what is good, and withhold [what is in] their hands” (Q. al-Taubah, 9:67). In the verse that follows this description, Allah promises the hypocrites the fire of Hell. In yet another verse, in Sūrat al-Nūr, Allah condemns those who “love to see indecency spread among the believers” (Q. al-Nūr, 24:19). The very weakest of faith is described by the Prophet ﷺ as opposing evil in one’s heart, while the best is acting to change the evil one sees.

Even in seemingly hopeless circumstances, Muslims are called upon to stay the course. In the Quran, Allah ﷻ mentions the story of those who circumvented His command not to fish on the Sabbath. As part of Allah’s test, fish appeared in abundance on the Sabbath but were sparse on other days. Among those who resisted the urge to pursue the world in defiance of Allah’s command were some who warned the transgressors, while others said nothing. Those who said nothing asked those who warned, “Why do you preach to a people whom God will destroy or [at least] punish severely?” Those who warned replied, “In order to be free from your Lord’s blame, and that perchance they may take heed” (maʿdhiratan ilā rabbikum wa-laʿallahum yattaqūn) (Q. al-Aʿrāf, 7:164).

We ask that Allah ﷻ raise us among those who lived righteously in this world, that He free us from His blame, and that He bless our efforts such that others may, perchance, take heed. Ameen.

And Allah Knows Best.

The post Where The Rainbow Ends: American Muslims And LGBT Activism appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

According to different polls, these spiritual or religious “nones,” as some have called them, appear to be on the rise¹, and nothing suggests that their numbers will dwindle anytime soon.

What explains this phenomenon? Why are people becoming so vehemently opposed to the idea of religion in general, rather than only being averse to specific religions they find detestable? Several reasons have been suggested², such as:

– A growing sense of autonomy. Many are being taught to “think for themselves,” even if it results in breaking away from tradition and religion. Thus, as more people feel emboldened to question their beliefs, many find themselves abandoning religion altogether.

– Social factors. Some studies have shown a link between embracing non-religious
worldviews and being born into a mixed-faith family³, befriending “spiritual nones” themselves⁴,

on marriage to non-religious spouses, etc.

– Political polarization. In the past, religion used to assemble people and define them politically, but this is no longer the case to the same extent⁵. Thus, people disregard religion and instead elevate the importance of those factors that contribute to political mobilization.

– Quest for authenticity. Many people wish not to be confined to a particular religion as it makes them feel less authentic and “true to themselves.” Instead, they desire to choose a path that fully resonates with them at a personal level.

– An increasing distrust in institutions. In some countries such as the United States, misgivings about organized religions with clerical systems align with the growing trend of general skepticism about institutions, such as government, the media, corporations, etc.

– Increased education. Some have argued that increased education has made several people view religion as less relevant to their lives, especially if they are inclined towards the study of the sciences, as people’s minds become more shaped to not “blindly believe” in anything and reject the supernatural.

– Intellectual curiosity. Some people do not feel that any single religion defines them and prefer experimenting with different rituals from a host of religions till they find what works for them and aligns with their “spiritual personality.”

– Shift of focus toward more humanistic concepts. The Enlightenment promoted  certain aspects of religion, including notions such as morality, worldly progress, and free will, while discarding others. This resulted in viewing rituals and being preoccupied with one’s fate in the afterlife as backward or otherwise irrelevant.

– Egalitarian concerns. Driven by egalitarian ideals, many people struggle with the idea of a clerical system, which allegedly presupposes that the clergy deem themselves to be spiritually ‘superior.’

Other reasons include temptations to join the mounting trend towards non-religion, exposure to greater cultural diversity, secular cultural conditioning, the hypocrisy observed in several ‘religious’ people, moral and intellectual disagreements with religious doctrines, and so on.

I do not wish to dismiss all of these concerns offhand as totally unreasonable. Undoubtedly, experiences with religions differ from person to person, and some grievances with certain religions may be legitimate.

Nevertheless, I think that some of the matters raised need not be entertained too seriously. For instance, there is the concern that people have with hypocritical religious people. Surely, though, not all religious people are hypocritical, nor do religions teach people to be such. Thus, it would be unfair for one to judge religions based on a selective sample of their adherents when they do not even strictly abide by their religions’ injunctions.

Let us also take “autonomy” and “intellectual curiosity” as other examples. Being autonomous and intellectually curious by thinking for ourselves need not lead us to reject religion altogether. One could be a fully independent and inquisitive person, yet convert to another religion, or even become more confident in his current one. Not everyone who sticks to the religion he was born into is necessarily a blind follower of that religion. Nor is everyone who abandons religion for non-religious alternatives necessarily a “free thinker.”

Moreover, sticking to one religion does not necessitate being less authentic and true to ourselves. In Islam, for example, we find a rich and vast array of scholarly discourse proffering a variety of opinions in wide-ranging disciplines from which the Muslim is free to choose. A Muslim could still feel ‘authentic’ by choosing to adopt from the various valid religious opinions at his disposal, despite doing so within the broad parameters of Islam.

Also, there is nothing ‘unscientific’ about a religious person who believes in the supernatural realm, as Science as an epistemic tool is limited to assessing the natural world. This is not withstanding the positive role religion could play as it complements science⁶. Whatever general grievances one may have with religion due to personal experiences, these grievances must be weighed against many of the positive advantages of religion. We will look at some of these advantages below.

The Benefits of Religion

By religion, I am broadly referring to a system of mutually shared beliefs and practices that serve as a means for one to grow spiritually. This would include both theistic religions (e.g., Islam, Christianity, etc.) and nontheistic religions (Buddhism, etc.).
Some⁷ have pointed out several benefits of religion, such as:

– Improvement in happiness and mental health. Several studies have highlighted a strong positive correlation between mental well-being and religiosity. Some of the reasons for this are that ascribing to a religion provides access to a vast network of non-family social support, improves mental health through optimism about the future, relieves one from the stress of grappling with existential questions, etc.

– Providing social cohesion. Religion could effectively create and uphold social unity through collectively shared beliefs and rituals.

– Encouragement of forgiveness. Several scholars have pointed out that all the major world religions are structured to highly encourage forgiveness.

– Strengthening the family unit. Some studies have shown that marital stability directly correlates to the spouses’ religiosity, and serves as a reliable predictor of marital success.

– Social regulation. Religion could enable and facilitate the social enforcement of moral codes.

– Inoculation against social problems. Studies have demonstrated that increased religious practice generally prevents social ills such as drug abuse, out-of-wedlock births, suicide, alcoholism, etc.

Other suggested benefits include anti-depression, better chances of illness recovery, greater self-esteem, etc.
However, it could be argued against some of these points that they are not necessarily unique to religion (e.g., social cohesion). Moreover, some of these benefits heavily rely on how qualitatively good the religion in question is (e.g.,social control). Nevertheless, there is merit in these arguments when presented accumulatively, albeit with qualifications.

Having said that, I would contend that these are not the primary benefits of religion, especially theistic religions. Rather, religion’s principal benefit lies in its being the optimal means through which one can traverse a spiritual path to God.

Religion as the Ideal Framework for Spirituality

David McPherson describes spirituality as:

A practical life orientation that is shaped by what is taken to be a self-transcending source of meaning, which involves strong normative demands, including demands of the sacred or the reverence-worthy…Thus, spirituality in the fullest sense is more than just belief in God, or a spiritual force (“fate,” “destiny,” etc.), or the recognition of something sacred. Spirituality requires actions that will bring about and express a spiritual transformation, which involves growth toward spiritual fullness. We can also describe this as a process of sanctification (i.e., making holy), where one seeks to have a proper relationship in feeling and in action to what is seen as sacred or holy or reverence-worthy. In other words, one seeks to become more God-like or virtuous in accordance with a spiritually inflected understanding of the good life⁸.

Drawing upon the insights of classical Islamic theologians⁹ and contemporary western philosophers¹⁰, I will briefly present some reasons in favor of why spirituality is optimally pursued through the adoption of a theistic religion in particular.

We must consider the essentiality of theological creeds and doctrines that non-religious spiritual systems typically neglect to have. An established theology is critical for several reasons, such as:

a. It increases our love for God by informing us of His attributes. Other than being our Creator, what do we know about God? Just as our love increases for people as we better come to know them, the same applies to God if we wish to build a loving and spiritual relationship with Him. Knowing God demands that we come to learn of and contemplate His beautiful attributes of mercy, justice, glory, etc. However, without an actual theology to refer to, such an endeavor would lack any firm grounding.

b. It apprises us of God’s relationship to us. Are human beings God’s friends, enemies, spiritual children, servants, puppets, etc.? Are we some of these things, all of these things, or none at all? If some or all of them, then are we so conditionally or unconditionally? Where precisely are human beings situated in terms of their relationship to God? Knowing this is important, as the kind of relationship we have with Him would necessarily determine the nature of our reverence to Him. Without theological doctrines conveyed to us through divine revelation, we could only speculate about the answer to this pivotal question.

c. It clarifies our purpose in life. What does it truly mean to have faith in God? Is faith merely about cognitively acknowledging God’s existence, or does it also entail some level of submission to Him? Does He desire us to worship Him, or are people who pray to Him simply wasting their time? Also, who said that the purpose of life is necessarily about our “personal spiritual journeys”? Perhaps there is something greater to life than us striving for private spiritual pursuits that make us “feel more comfortable on the inside”? We do not have the authority to make ourselves the arbiters of who God is and what He asks of us.

d. It directs our worship and suffuses it with meaning. We worship God with our hearts, speech, and limbs. With our hearts, we love Him and yearn to see Him. We fear Him yet feel gratitude to Him for the blessings He bestowed upon us. In our speech, we say our prayers and glorify Him and beseech Him to answer our supplications. With our limbs, we bow and prostrate to Him in the pinnacle act of submission. What we are to feel, say, and do as we manifest our reverence to God is strongly interconnected with and guided by our theological beliefs concerning Him. For example, all this worship would be a waste of time if this God turned out to be deistic in nature¹¹.

e. It makes sense of the world for us. How does God interact with the world? Is there such a thing as fate? How much free will has God given us, if any at all? Is there an afterlife or a path to salvation? And if so, is this life a test filled with hardships God expects us to bear patiently as part of His broader plan for us? Theology answers these questions in a manner that non-religious frameworks of spirituality could never. It provides us with a framework that enables us to perceive, understand, and evaluate the events of this world as part of God’s bigger plan. Having such knowledge makes the world and what happens in it more meaningful and sensible to us.

f. It provides a means for discussing and scrutinizing different spiritual practices. With our theological beliefs, we can express a systematic and  coherent picture of what we believe about God and how we spiritually seek to attain a loving relationship with Him. This, in turn, enables us to engage in  dialogue with others regarding our beliefs. It also allows us to carefully assess seemingly harmful and potentially exploitative spiritual practices (e.g., self-flagellation, healing crystals, etc.) that could at times shroud themselves in mystery in order to evade critical evaluation.

g. It affords us moral clarity. Is God a morally good being who issues moral dictates to human beings to adhere to? Does the universe exhibit a moral order that demands we orient our lives to abide by it? Do we have intrinsic moral worth as human beings that makes us superior to other creatures such as animals and insects? Are there moral values worth exhibiting and possibly even fighting for? How do we rectify our moral judgments? A sound theological framework offers pertinent answers to such critical questions.

As a being, God is too important¹² and transcendent to be understood impressionistically. Rather, God honors and exhibits His compassion to human beings by speaking to them through intelligible revelation.

Spiritual practices must facilitate the development of a better self. Their ultimate role is to help us take care of our souls by purifying them of our sins, as opposed to merely assisting us in experiencing oceanic feelings of serenity and to feel good about ourselves. For the latter, there are ‘quick fixes’ for that, such as tranquilizers or narcotics.

Spirituality is not merely some reductive idea of rejecting materialism but an actual path to pleasing and connecting with God Himself. God is a genuine intrinsic source of value that is inherently worthy of striving to connect with, and it is only via that connection that our lives are genuinely fulfilled, and our hearts find true contentment.

In their opposition to “organized” or “institutionalized” religions, what many of these “spiritual nones” fail to grasp is that with ardent and consistent pursuits of a spiritual connection with the divine, one cannot help but come to realize that spiritual practices inevitably tend to become routinized and “organized.” This occurs as these practices become tested with time and appear to be effective in contributing to spiritual development in the eyes of its practitioners.

Are Religious Rituals Outdated and Backward?

In Islam, worship is an immersive way of life that extends beyond rituals. Ibn Taymiyyah said, “worship (Al-‘Ibadah) is a comprehensive term encompassing everything that Allah loves and is pleased with whether sayings or actions, both outward and inward.¹³” So whether it is obedience to our parents, giving charity, visiting the sick, helping others, establishing ties of kinship, being honest in our business dealings, standing up for the oppressed, feeding the hungry, protecting the environment, etc. worship constitutes any action beloved by God when it is performed with the correct intention of pleasing Him.

Nevertheless, religious ‘rituals’ still form an essential aspect of worship in Islam. Some find the idea of rituals to be archaic, but this sentiment is odd, to say the least.

Rituals are similar to routines in a way, but unlike routines that usually tend to be tasks we seek to treat as habits (e.g., having breakfast before going to school, making your bed after you wake up, etc.), rituals have a more meaningful purpose underlying them. They are meant to be regarded as important instead of merely being treated tasks we tick off a to-do list. They are not mere habits but rather demand our attention and conscious presence. When engaging in these rituals, there should be a certain level of intention, drive, devotion, and energy. When performed without being understood and appreciated, these rituals get reduced to tedious chores that we’d rather be without. The problem here is not the ritual, but the understanding of the ritual and how it is being performed. We follow rituals in many spheres of our lives, and we do so because they are greatly valuable. For example, rituals are very beneficial in improving corporate culture by creating connections and strong habits, elevating employee engagement, and facilitating continuity, onboarding, and training¹⁴. Research has also shown that rituals effectively alleviate grief by helping people cope with the death of loved ones, reduce anxiety, increase confidence before performing tasks by positively influencing thoughts, feelings, and behaviors¹⁵. We also perform rituals to give structure and order to our daily lives, celebrate joyous occasions, commemorate historical events to stay connected to our past, sustain communal identity by forging bonds through shared practices, mark important events and phases in our lives, etc.

In light of all this, if rituals could be so effective and beneficial in different spheres of our lives, then why is it difficult to grasp their positive force in the domain of religious worship as well? From the Islamic perspective, Muslims have written extensively about the profound spiritual, physiological, and communal benefits undergirding the rationale of rituals such as the Salah, Fasting, Hajj, etc. To keep this article short, I will not delve into them here, but they are merely a google search away for anybody curious to know more.

Undoubtedly, these rituals lose their utility and meaning when the person mindlessly practices them as mere habits and merely goes through the motions of the rituals; however, one cannot blame the idea of rituals themselves for the wrong frame of mind exhibited by some (or even many) of those who engage in them.

Undoubtedly, there are many harmful rituals practiced by people, such as self-flagellation, for example. Yet, would it be fair for us to judge all rituals simply because there are some (or even many) harmful ones? Surely, we should avoid committing such a fallacy.

In short, there is nothing irrational or archaic¹⁶ about the idea of worship rituals in the least.

Conclusion: So Is Religion Outdated?

As a Muslim who believes Islam to be the only true religion, I most certainly am not defending all religions, creeds, and practices, but rather only the idea of religion itself. I do not believe that all the advantages attributed to religion are positively exemplified by and applicable to all religions. Moreover, I believe that theistic religions (e.g., Islam, Christianity, etc.) as concepts are significantly more advantageous when contrasted with nontheistic religions (e.g., Buddhism), especially when the former provide a much more robust theological framework that could undergird spiritual practice. As a Muslim, I would even go further by arguing that Islam is superior to all religions.

Religions as a whole provide for a much more optimal context in which spiritual nourishment and growth can occur. Popular “do-it-yourself” spirituality, as discussed above, is not proper spirituality as it lacks a coherent theological framework underpinning it. The idea of religion remains relevant and will continue to be so. Those who have argued for its irrelevance and outdatedness are urged to examine their stance more carefully.

4    

This brings into perspective the famous hadith of the Prophet Muhammad :

“A man follows the religion of his friend; so each one should consider whom he makes his friend.” [Sunan Abī Dāwūd and at-Tirmidhī]

The post Is Religion Becoming Outdated? appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

Unfortunately, there is also an increasing number of Muslims who have jumped on the bandwagon of celebrating Christmas with really no compelling reason to do so – putting up decorations in their homes, Christmas trees, giving Christmas presents to their children, etc.

Frankly speaking, I do not think this is because people are unaware of the Islamic teachings on the matter; in fact, I would venture to say that most people are aware of its rulings and prohibition by scholars, and could not counter the strength of those arguments or its proofs. Instead, what I have seen as the most common response is the genuine feeling that there is no harm in it. In simple terms: It’s just a tree! It’s just for fun. What’s the big deal?

There are two points I would encourage us to reflect on in response to these thoughts and beliefs.

Why the ‘Petty’ is Powerful

The first is about how we look at matters of haram and halal and fiqhi rulings in general. There is a certain outlook that has become increasingly popular in our times — a feeling that these issues and rulings are petty, trivial, and irrelevant, and that religion should not be about these ‘small’ matters, but instead about larger ideas of spirituality, belief in God and just being a good person.

This is contrary to our understanding of religion as Muslims, in which these larger spiritual ideas are actually deeply and essentially connected with an everyday practice of the faith. When one is divorced from the other, there is a severe imbalance, a fracturing, that does not allow faith to remain in tact nor for spirituality to actually be enlivened. Abiding by religious teachings is the first step and the portal to spiritual heights.

The ‘petty’ is in fact powerful! It is the means to spiritual growth and connection to God Most High.

Instead of dismissing these matters as topics for the small-minded, we should know that they are what make up the path to the Vast (Al-Wasi’). We are reminded by Allah to consult those of knowledge – that is, the scholars – on matters that we do not know the rulings of.

“So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know.” [Surah An-Nahl:43]

It’s All Fun and Games Until…

Secondly, many see their participation in this holiday as a way of having fun, with no deeper intent behind it, and also a means of fitting in a little better in a society that often makes us feel excluded. While these things may seem harmless and light to us, we should broaden our vision to consider what weight it may have on our children and their children. What family culture, traditions, and norms are we establishing and nurturing? What legacy are we leaving behind?

We must realize that we are not the first Muslims in this land, and study the waves of immigrants who came before us, as well as the African American Muslim community. We need to consider what helped keep people strong in faith, and what eroded it. While some held fast to faith, others assimilated such that they only came to know Islam as a religion their grandparents vaguely practiced, or the source of their Muslim last name. I would especially encourage every Muslim to read about the African Muslims enslaved in the Americas, and how they strove to keep their faith and religious traditions even in the most difficult of circumstances (Sylviane Diouf’s ‘Servants of Allah’ is an amazing book on this).

Muslim interreligious family with christmas tree in background

Preserving Islam for Our Children

The best legacy and treasure we can leave for our children is faith and a connection to Allah . If we want to do this, we must make Islam a vibrant reality in our lives, families, in the big decisions we make as well as in our everyday life. We should seek to attach our children’s hearts to Allah , Allah’s Prophet , Allah’s Book, Allah’s House, Allah’s people, and Allah’s Deen. Putting aside the legal ruling, celebrating and embracing with love the holiday of another faith tradition does not benefit this effort, but will only harm it.

Our beloved Prophet said that there would come a time in our community when someone would wake up a believer and go to sleep in disbelief. Never feel confident or arrogant in faith; it is a gift the heart is graced with, and that needs nurturing and care through those things that give it life. Learning, being in good company, remembrance of God, Quran, making our homes blessed spaces imbued with Prophetic teachings… all of this and more.

O Allah , guide us and guide our children and keep our hearts firm on Islam. Make us a means of a beautiful legacy of faith that continues far beyond our lifetime. O Allah , protect us and our loved ones from trials in faith, and guide us to that which You love. Keep us in the Shade of Your protection and draw us ever closer to You.

Ameen.

The post Muslims Celebrating Christmas: Why the “Petty” Is Powerful appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

All I Want For Christmas Is… For Muslims To Read This

As a side note, please take into consideration the health advisories from your local health and government agencies regarding the best practices for safe gatherings due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.

When The RSVP is No

Do not be offended if your Muslim guest declines your invitation to a religious or holiday gathering. Islam has two celebrations: Eid al-Fitr (after the month of fasting in Ramadan)  and Eid al-Adha (after Muslims perform the Holy pilgrimage of Hajj), and the weekly ‘Eid’ which is Friday (Yawm al-Jumu‘ah). Furthermore, it is deemed impermissible for a Muslim to be part of any gathering if it entails one participating in unlawful things such as alcohol, or if the party is connected to a religious event of other faiths. So many Muslims will feel uncomfortable attending the event as they believe they are sinning by doing so and hope that their neighbors, family, colleagues, and friends of other faiths understand why they would not attend.

Food For A Muslim Guest

The major area of concern will be around food because Islamic rulings do have a few big dietary restrictions for its followers. If you’ve heard of “halal” food before, this is what we’re discussing. The big restriction categories are: foods/drinks with animal products and foods/drinks with alcohol in them.

As far as animal product consumption goes, there are two rules of thumb:

1. most Muslims will never eat anything which has any pig products in them (ham, bacon, pig-derived gelatin in desserts, etc.)
2. any vegetarian or vegan foods should be safe for all of your Muslim guests (unless they have alcohol, or other drugs, like marijuana, in them)

Muslims have a varied approach to animal/meat consumption within orthodox Islam, so you should just ask your guests because there’s no way to guess what they follow. Some Muslims will eat meat that is slaughtered in a specific way (often known as “zabihah”) and others will eat meat slaughtered in any way but will only eat certain animals (poultry is a common one some Muslims eat.) And to make things a little more nuanced, some Muslims are also fine with eating anything labelled as “kosher” from the Jewish tradition. Honestly, even I, as a practicing Muslim, will often ask my Muslim guests what their meat-related preferences are because it’s so different from one person to another.

With the growing prevalence of vegetarian and vegan food options, the awareness about animal by-products in food is more prevalent than it used to be. Watch out for packaged broths, stuffing, and gravy mixes as well as animal-derived gelatin in desserts. With more transparent food packaging available nowadays, it can be easier to determine whether or not something is vegetarian or vegan.

If at all possible, I would suggest you refrain from having main dishes with pork front-and-center if you have any Muslim guests coming over, like a smoked ham or ribs. This may be the one thing that could be very off-putting to Muslim guests and some might feel disgusted or offended. Even if you plan for your Muslim guests to eat specific dishes within their dietary restrictions, I would still suggest this. Most people would be too polite to say anything, so I’ll say it for them, since the goal of this article is to be as straightforward as possible.

The next big no-no is alcohol for Muslim guests. You may run into some Muslims who drink alcohol or do drugs, so it might not be a problem for some despite clear Islamic injunctions against using alcohol and drugs. The obvious place to find alcohol is in alcoholic beverages—wine, beer, hard liquors. I’ll be honest here—many Muslims will decline any invitation to a gathering at which they know or suspect alcohol will be served. Those coworkers/friends who feel obligated to attend a gathering may attend just out of fear of not being rude, but they spend the entire party feeling highly uncomfortable (I fall into that category.)

Here are some ways you can accommodate your Muslim guests when it comes to serving alcoholic drinks. The first, and most ideal, would be to have a completely dry event, or no alcohol served whatsoever. The second would be hosting a partially dry event in which the beginning half of the event, through dinner, is dry. You can let your guests know that dinner will be served at 7 and the bar will open up at 9, for instance. This will give your Muslim guests a chance to come by and enjoy dinner with you, but leave before they start feeling uncomfortable. You may be surprised that Muslim guests aren’t the only ones who value dry events There are plenty of people struggling with alcoholism and addiction who may be incredibly thankful for a way to attend your gathering but leave before it becomes problematic for them. If having a completely dry or partially dry event isn’t something you’re willing to do, then consider having the drinks isolated to a particular spot, setting up a bar in a corner or specific area so that Muslim guests may distance themselves comfortably. Once again, it’s best to just ask your specific Muslim guests what could work for them.

But alcohol isn’t only limited to drinks! There are also some foods where alcohol creeps up and surprises you, such as sauces, glazes, or marinades. Doesn’t the alcohol cook off, though? That’s still a problem according to the orthodox Islamic diet. Another surprising place you’ll find alcohol is in extracts, commonly used for baking, such as vanilla extract. Extracts are a place where orthodox Islamic scholars differ, so some practicing Muslims do believe it’s permissible for them to eat food with extracts in them. Once again, it’s a great idea to ask beforehand or have an alternative dessert option for Muslim guests.

All in all, when it comes to what you serve at your gathering, communication is key. Ideally, talk before the event to adjust your plans. At the party, clearly label all food items or accompany your Muslim guests as they fill their plates so you can answer questions that they may have about what is in a certain food. A potluck can be slightly challenging, but asking about each dish when it’s brought in and labelling food with dietary restrictions relevant to your guests (vegetarian, vegan, no alcohol, peanuts/walnuts, et.c.) is still possible.

Navigating Cross-Gender Boundaries For A Muslim Guest

Another aspect of the party to consider is helping your Muslim guests navigate being in a party with people of different genders than themselves. Generally speaking, practicing Muslims are only allowed to make physical contact with adults who belong to the same gender as themselves. So as a rule of thumb, don’t attempt to greet a Muslim with touch—like a handshake or hug. You can wait for them to initiate any friendly physical contact. If they don’t reach out for a handshake or go in for a hug, then simply just move on to showing them in or continuing your conversation without touching them.

Something else you may consider is making comfortable seating arrangements. If you’re assigning seats, I’d suggest you ask them who they’d feel comfortable sitting next to, because they might be uneasy sitting next to someone of a different gender than themselves in case they accidentally touch them, like bumping elbows or something with them at the table, or if they are more reserved when it comes to socializing with them in order to observe Islamic principles of modesty between genders.

Dogs And Muslim Guests

As a small note, many Muslims try to avoid being around dogs due to a specific ritual purity issue. If it’s possible to keep any pet dog/s in a particular area of the house while guests are around, or at least prevent the dog from jumping on/drooling over your Muslim guest, that would be easier for some Muslim guests. Since many Muslims avoid being around dogs, you’ll find that some are coincidentally somewhere between nervous to terrified around them. I know your dogs are a part of your family, so maybe reach for a compromise.

Provide a Prayer Space For A Muslim Guest

Your guest may or may not need a private space in which to pray, depending on if they need to offer one, or more, of the five daily ritual prayers Muslims perform. As long as the floor is pretty clean, they should be good enough to offer their prayers (and will probably be done with them, quietly/silently, in about five minutes.) You might also offer them a clean pillowcase to use on the floor in lieu of a prayer rug, for extra hospitality points. If the space isn’t full of pictures of animals or people or statues, that’s a bonus. The best thing to do would be to ask your guest beforehand, upon inviting them to your party, or when they first arrive if they’ll need to pray so you can show them where they can do that.

Approaching Religious Activities

Holiday parties, weddings, or other gatherings may be full of activities that are related to religious traditions other than Islam. I assume any Muslim guest who is being invited to a church wedding or Christmas celebration will understand that. My biggest suggestion would be to give them their own space when it comes to something like singing Christmas carols together, praying communally, or anything else that is specifically from a religious tradition different from their own.  They’ll find a way to observe, join or excuse themselves.

If you know your Muslim guest doesn’t celebrate whatever holiday/s you’re celebrating, then avoid wishing them “Merry Christmas.” If it slips out on accident, just acknowledge the awkward moment: “Oops! I know you don’t celebrate Christmas. Sorry about that! Thanks for coming!”

If there are games being played or gifts given out, especially for children, try to make specifically nonreligious options available for your Muslim guests. For example, kids decorating stockings or making ornaments together at a Christmas party might be a little iffy for some Muslim families because those are rituals directly related to celebrating Christmas, a Christian holiday. Try decorating gingerbread cookies/houses instead. If the kids are playing Bingo, why not use winter-motifs instead of religious ones? If your party has goodie bags or favors, perhaps an innocent candy cane print bag or a snowflake favor, rather than something with Rudolph or Santa all over it, would be better. An easy way to make “Secret Santa” more halal in this case, would be simply to call it a “secret gift exchange.”

Another issue: music and dancing. There’s a range of what orthodox Islamic rulings are regarding these two topics. As far as music goes, you should be pretty safe to include it in your event if you have music playing reasonably quietly in the background at your gathering. Dancing in a mixed-gender crowd is considered impermissible. Once again, just ask your Muslim guest about this if it’s on the agenda and try to make a plan they’re okay with. If your Muslim guest leaves before the dance floor opens at your wedding, know that they’re simply avoiding an activity they believe they are not allowed to participate in.

Overall, leave enough room for your Muslim guest to feel comfortable joining in or distancing themselves with anything going on, and never pressure them to participate. If you can communicate with your guest beforehand, great! If not, then give them space and/or check in with them if you’re feeling unsure about something. And once again, your Muslim guests may not be the only ones who value the sensitivity your holiday party has. There could be other guests at your party who have varying religious backgrounds and affiliations.

As a side-note: for a holiday that is not mainstream, like Hannukah or Kwanza, you may want your party to fully lean into your specific celebration—I get that, and support it, in light of the marginalization and erasure of minority communities. If that’s the case, just be upfront with your Muslim guests and ask them if they’d like to come and what they will be observing and/or potentially participating. Having a conversation about it might be uncomfortable, but it will be worth it if you really want your Muslim friend to be there at a wedding or special event.

Conclusion

I wish you the best as you navigate including and accommodating Muslim friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers in a gathering you are hosting. Some Muslims will politely decline an invitation outright while others will be grateful for an invitation once they know you’re planning to accommodate them. Whatever response you find, thank you for at least thinking of inviting your Muslim neighbor, coworker, or friend to share in your merrymaking. Remember, this article is providing you with suggestions based on orthodox Islamic rules; some rules are black-and-white and some have a lot of gray. As a side note, the way Muslims practice and avoid practicing Islamic rules/principles varies from person to person. Communication is going to be your best tool to accommodating and including your Muslim guests at your gathering/celebration.

The post Interfaith Guide: Hosting A Muslim Guest appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

Whether or not you celebrate Thanksgiving on ethical grounds as an American Muslim knowing the ugly truths of our country’s historic and present-day treatment of Native Americans and Indigenous Peoples, here are some real, meaningful actions you and your family can participate in to learn more about the truths of the colonized peoples who are indigenous to this land and to support their work through donations to various organizations.

Organizations to Support

Read about the various organizations listed below and choose a cause which resonates the most with you after you’ve researched their organization and projects. This list is partially taken from an article in Teen Vogue.

Native America Today

Native America Today represents an alliance between Native American Media and News From Indian Country, a unit of Indian Country Communications. Our mission is to bring forward current news and thought-provoking journalism, while bringing people closer together by broadening perspectives of Native American peoples, marginalized by traditional stereotypical images.

Donations should be sent to their parent organization.

Native American Media
907 Westwood Blvd, Suite 403
Los Angeles, CA 90024

Community resources: https://nativeamericatoday.com/native-american-resources/

Lakota People’s Law Project

For over a decade, we’ve been standing strong with the Lakota to counteract treaty violations, protect sovereignty, and confront systemic racism. We’re helping to safeguard sacred lands and water, end the epidemic of children being removed from their families and traditions, and amplify Native voices.

Native Movement

We are dedicated to building people power, rooted in an Indigenized worldview, toward healthy, sustainable, & just communities for ALL.

Native Movement supports grassroots-led projects that align with our vision, that dismantle oppressive systems for all, and that endeavor to ensure social justice, Indigenous Peoples’ rights, and the rights of Mother Earth.

Seeding Sovereignty

Acting in kinship and building community, like our grandparents taught us to.
Seeding Sovereignty, an Indigenous-led collective, works to radicalize and disrupt colonized spaces through land, body, and food sovereignty work, community building, and cultural preservation. By investing in Indigenous folks and communities of the global majority, we cross the threshold of liberation together.

Native Women’s Wilderness

Murdered and missing Indigenous women.

Our women, girls, and two-spirts are being taken from us in an alarming way.  As of 2016, the National Crime Information Center has reported 5,712 cases of missing American Indian and Alaska Native women and girls. Strikingly, the U.S Department of Justice missing persons database has only reported 116 cases.  The majority of these murders are committed by non-Native people on Native-owned land. The lack of communication combined with jurisdictional issues between state, local, federal, and tribal law enforcement, make it nearly impossible to begin the investigative process. Please click here to learn more.

 Indigenous Environmental Network

Established in 1990 within the United States, IEN was formed by grassroots Indigenous peoples and individuals to address environmental and economic justice issues (EJ). IEN’s activities include building the capacity of Indigenous communities and tribal governments to develop mechanisms to protect our sacred sites, land, water, air, natural resources, health of both our people and all living things, and to build economically sustainable communities .IEN accomplishes this by maintaining an informational clearinghouse, organizing campaigns, direct actions and public awareness, building the capacity of community and tribes to address EJ issues, development of initiatives to impact policy, and building alliances among Indigenous communities, tribes, inter-tribal and Indigenous organizations, people-of-color/ethnic organizations, faith-based and women groups, youth, labor, environmental organizations and others. IEN convenes local, regional and national meetings on environmental and economic justice issues, and provides support, resources and referral to Indigenous communities and youth throughout primarily North America – and in recent years – globally.

IEN is an alliance of Indigenous Peoples whose Shared Mission is to Protect the Sacredness of Earth Mother from contamination & exploitation by Respecting and Adhering to Indigenous Knowledge and Natural Law

Earth Guardians

Earth Guardians is an intergenerational organization with youth at the forefront that trains diverse youth to be effective leaders in the environmental, climate and social justice movements across the globe – using art, music, storytelling, on the ground projects, civic engagement and legal action to advance solutions to the critical issues we face as a global community.

National Congress of American Indians

NCAI was established in 1944 in response to the termination and assimilation policies the US government forced upon tribal governments in contradiction of their treaty rights and status as sovereign nations. To this day, protecting these inherent and legal rights remains the primary focus of NCAI.

NCAI Mission

-Protect and enhance treaty and sovereign rights.

-Secure our traditional laws, cultures, and ways of life for our descendants.

-Promote a common understanding of the rightful place of tribes in the family of American governments.

-Improve the quality of life for Native communities and peoples.

Native Hope

Native Hope exists to address the injustice done to Native Americans. We dismantle barriers through storytelling and impactful programs to bring healing and inspire hope.

Native American Rights Fund

Throughout its history, NARF has impacted tens of thousands of Indian people in its work for more than 250 tribes. Some examples of the results include:

• Protecting and establishing the inherent sovereignty of tribes

• Obtaining official tribal recognition for numerous Indian tribes

• Helping tribes continue their ancient traditions, by protecting their rights to hunt, fish and use the water on their lands

• Upholding Native American religious freedom
• Assuring the return of remains and burial goods from museums and historical societies for proper and dignified re-burial
• Protecting voting rights of Native Americans

Documentaries

A note to readers: please research these films and documentaries before watching them to determine if they are suitable for you/your family to watch, viewer discretion is advised. This list of documentaries has been sourced primarily from an article in Teen Vogue.

We Shall Remain: The Trail of Tears 

This documentary tells the story of the forced relocation by gunpoint of thousands of Choctaw, Creek, and Cherokee people between 1830 and 1840 due to provisions of the Indian Removal Act under President Andrew Jackson. Some of these people were forced to march more than 1,200 miles. As a result, thousands of people died due to cold, hunger, and disease.

Dawnland

Dawnland is a documentary that focuses on the systematic separation of Wabanaki children from their families by government agents, children that were then placed with white families during most of the 20th century.

The Canary Effect

The Canary Effect is a documentary that explores a variety of topics, including various policies from the United States government that have negatively affected Native American people over the years.

Project Chariot

Project Chariot puts a spotlight on when the United States government wanted to experiment with nuclear testing in Alaska during the 1950s and’60s.

The Long Walk: Tears of the Navajo

The Long Walk: Tears of the Navajo is a documentary that tells the history of when the United States Army marched over eight thousand Navajo men, women, and children at gunpoint through three hundred miles of desert in the Southwest to a prison camp in eastern New Mexico.

Unspoken: America’s Native American Boarding Schools

Unspoken: America’s Native American Boarding Schools focuses on the history and brutality of American boarding schools that tried to “kill the Indian” in Native peoples, as put by U.S. cavalry captain Richard Henry Pratt.

*Disclaimer: The author of this article is not Native American and  has a basic understanding of Native American history and current affairs. She was in contact with Mike at Native America Today/Native American Media. I sincerely apologize if I have misrepresented or misspoken for any Native peoples in this attempt to spread awareness and garner support for your causes. I wanted a person belonging to and identifying with a Native American tribe to have put together this information to share with you. 

More Reading and Engagement

Check out the publication Native America Today‘s list of Community Resources for a wealth of information.

The post Learning About And Supporting Native Americans And Indigenous Peoples This Thanksgiving appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

In recent years, crime, drug trafficking, an influx of undocumented workers, and increasingly white nationalism created stricter immigration policies in the U.S., directly impacting those who live straddling both sides of the border. Included in these are families whose loved ones have been deported – parents, spouses, children, and other relatives – to Mexico, undocumented workers providing for their families, and relatives who have not made physical contact with each other in years, sometimes decades. They gather along the steel mesh barriers of the border wall at Friendship Park to touch each other’s fingertips and pray.

The documentary, “A Prayer Beyond Borders,” produced by CAIR California, MoveOn, and Beyond Borders Studios captured some of these emotive moments during a Sunday prayer service held by the Border Church in partnership with the Border Mosque. Christians and Muslims came together in solidarity at Friendship Park on September 30, 2019, and held a joint bilingual ceremony, led by Reverend John Fanestil, Pastor Guillermo Navarrete, Imam Taha Hassane, and Imam Wesley Lebrón.

Imam Lebrón, National Hispanic Outreach Coordinator for WhyIslam, witnessed the nightmare families separated at the border endure when he was invited to participate in this first meeting of the Border Church and Border Mosque. As a Puerto Rican, U.S. born citizen who never experienced the hardships of immigration, he was moved by what he witnessed. He said,  

“I entered Mexico and reached the border at Friendship Park and immediately noticed families speaking to each other through the tiny spaces of an enormous metal wall. They were not able to touch except for their fingers, which I later learned was the way they kissed each other.”

He described families discussing legal matters and children crying because they could not embrace a parent who traveled for days only to speak to them briefly behind the cold steel mesh partition. 

“Walls are meant to provide refuge and safety from the elements and they are not meant to prevent human beings from having a better life,” he explained, “As I stood behind that wall, I felt hopeless, angry, and had many other mixed emotions for our Mexican brethren who have been completely stripped of the opportunities many of us take for granted.” During the service he addressed the crowd gathered on the Mexican side of Friendship Park and recited the Adhan, the Muslim call to prayer. It was the first time the call was heard in Friendship Park, but not the last. 

The Border Church and Border Mosque will continue to provide a joint service on the last Sunday of every month and are calling for a binational day of prayer on Sunday, October 27th. They will be joined by Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and indigenous spiritual leaders to “Pray Beyond Borders.” The event will be filmed and possibly live-streamed to a global audience with the objective of raising awareness and requesting financial support to address issues related to family separation in the region. 

On October 7th CAIR California with MoveOn, Faith in Action, MPower Change, and a social media team and distribution partners released the film “A Prayer Beyond Borders,” With the digital launch of this film in English and Spanish they wish to reach millions of viewers in telling the story of the Border Church and the Border Mosque and bring more faith leaders and activists on board to protect families’ right to gather. Please join them at Pray Beyond Borders – A Binational Day of Prayer – Sunday, October 27th at Friendship Park. 

“when the righteous cry for help, the LORD hears and delivers them out of all their troubles” (Psalm 34:17 – NIV).

“And seek help through patience and prayer, and indeed, it is difficult except for the humbly submissive [to Allah ]” (Qur’an 2:45)

Photo by Max Böhme on Unsplash

The post Prayers Beyond Borders Offers Hope to Separated Families  appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

There. I said it.

There is no nice way to put it. Muslims can be very intolerant of those outside their circles, particularly our Latino neighbors. How do I know? I am a Latina who came into Islam almost two decades ago, and I have experienced my fair share of stereotypes, prejudice, and just outright ignorance coming from my very own Muslim brethren.

And I am not alone.

My own family and Latino Muslim friends have also dealt with their daily doses of bigotry. Most of the time, it is not ill-intentioned, however, the fact that our community is so out of touch with Latin Americans says a lot about why we are often at the receiving end of discrimination and hate.

“Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves…” (The Qur’an, 13:11)

Recently, Fox News came under fire for airing a graphic that stated, “Trump cuts aid to 3 Mexican countries,” on their show, “Fox and Friends Weekend.” The network apologized for the embarrassing error, but not before criticism of their geographical mishap went viral on social media. The reactions were of disbelief, humor, and repugnance for the controversial news channel that has become the archenemy of everything Islamic. People flooded the internet with memes, tweets, and comments regarding the ridiculous headline, Muslims included. American Muslim leaders quickly released statements condemning the lack of knowledge about the difference between Mexico and the nations of Central and South America.

Ironically, however, just about two months ago, my eldest son wrote an essay about the bullying he experienced in an Islamic school, which included insults about him being Mexican and “eating tacos” even though he is half Ecuadorian (South America) and Puerto Rican (Caribbean), not Mexican. I include the regions in parentheses because, in fact, many Muslims are just as geographically-challenged as the staff at Fox News. When a group of Hispanic workers came to replace the windows at his former school, my son approached them and spoke to them in Spanish as a means of dawah – teaching them that there are Latin American and Spanish-speaking Muslims. His classmates immediately taunted him saying that the laborers were “his cousins.” Although my son tried countless times to explain to his peers the difference between his origins and Mexico and defended both, they continued to mock Latinos.

On another occasion, a local masjid invited a famous Imam from the Midwest to speak about a topic. My family and I attended the event because we were fans of the shaykh and admired his work. A few minutes into his talk, he made a derogatory remark about Mexicans, and then added with a smile, “I hope there aren’t any Mexicans in the room!” A gentleman from the community stood up behind my husband, who is Ecuadorian, and pointed at him saying, “We have one right here!” Some people chuckled as his face turned red. The shaykh apologized for his comment and quickly moved on. We looked at each other and rolled our eyes. This was nothing new.

Imam Mohamed Alhayek (Jordanian Palestinian) and Imam Yusuf Rios (Puerto Rican) share an intimate moment during the 16th Annual Hispanic Muslim Day. Photo/Caption by Melissa Barreto — at North Hudson Islamic Educational Center (NHIEC).

Once, I visited a Pakistani sister, and as I enjoyed a cup of warm chai on her patio, she turned to me earnestly and said, “You and (another Latina Muslim) are the only educated Hispanics I know.” She then asked me why Latinos did not have “goals and ambitions” because supposedly, all the Hispanic students in her daughters’ school only aspired to work in their parents’ businesses as laborers. She went on to tell me about her Hispanic maid’s broken family and how unfortunate it was that they had no guidance or moral values. I was shocked by her assumptions, but I realized that this was the sentiment of a lot of Muslims who simply do not know a thing about our culture or have not taken the time to really get to know us.

When I accepted Islam back in 2000, I never expected to hear some of the narrow-minded comments and questions I received from those people who had become my brothers and sisters in faith. After all, I came to Islam through the help of an Egyptian family, I declared the Shahada for the first time in the presence of people from Pakistan, and I was embraced in the masjid by worshippers from places like Somalia, Sudan, Palestine, India, Turkey, and Afghanistan. A white American convert gifted me with my first Ramadan guide and an Indian sister supported me during my first fast. I expected to be treated equally by everyone because Islam was for everyone and Muslims have been hearing this their whole lives and they preach it incessantly. I do the same now. As a Muslim Latina, I tell my people that Islam is open to all and that racism, colorism, classism, and xenophobia have no place in Islam.

Nevertheless, it did not take long for me to hear some very ugly things from my new multi-cultural community. I was questioned about whether I was a virgin or not by well-meaning sisters who wanted to find me a Muslim husband. My faith was scrutinized when my friend’s family introduced me to an imam who doubted I had converted on my own, without the persuasion of a Muslim boyfriend or husband. I was pressured about changing my name because it was not “Islamic” enough. I was lectured about things that I had already learned because foreign-born Muslims assumed I had no knowledge. I was even told I could not be a Muslim because I was Puerto Rican; that I was too “out there,” too loud, or that my people were not morally upright.

I know about good practicing Muslim men who have been turned down for marriage because they are Hispanic. On the other hand, I have seen sisters taken for marriage by immigrant Muslims to achieve citizenship status and later abandoned, despite having children. I have been approached by Muslim men searching for their “J-Lo,” who want to marry a “hot” Latina because of the disgusting exploitation of Latina women they have been exposed to from television, movies, and music videos. I have made the mistake of introducing this type of person to one of my sisters and witnessed their disappointment because she did not fit the image of the fantasy girl they expected. I have felt the heartbreak of my sister who was turned down for not living up to those unrealistic expectations, and who continues to wait for a Muslim man who will honor her as she deserves. An older “aunty” once said to my face that she would never let her children marry a Latino/a.

I met a brother named José who was told that he had to change his un-Islamic Spanish name so that he would be better received in the Muslim community, even though his name, when translated to Arabic, is Yusuf! I have been asked if I know any Hispanic who could work at a Muslim’s store for less than minimum wage 12 hours a day or a “Spanish lady” who can clean a Muslim’s house for cheap. I have spoken to Latino men and women who work at masajid doing landscaping or janitorial services who have never heard anything about Islam. When I approached the Muslim groundskeeper at one of these mosques with Spanish literature to give them, he looked at me bewildered and said, “Oh, they are just contractors,” as if they did not deserve to learn about our faith! I have heard that the child of a Latina convert was expelled and banned from returning to an Islamic school for making a mistake, once. I have been told about fellow Hispanics who dislike going to the masjid because they feel rejected and, worse of all, some of them have even left Islam altogether.

Latina Muslims share a laugh during the 16th Annual Hispanic Muslim Day.
Photo/Caption by Melissa Barreto — at North Hudson Islamic Educational Center (NHIEC).

A few weeks ago, news was released about the sentencing of Darwin Martinez Torres, who viciously raped and murdered Northern Virginia teen, Nabra Hassanen during Ramadan in June 2017. The story made national headlines and left her family and the entire Muslim community devastated. Although the sentence of eight life terms in prison for the killer provided some closure to the public, the senseless and heinous act still leaves sentiments of anger and frustration in the hearts of those who loved Nabra Hassanen. Muslims began sharing the news on social media and soon, remarks about the murderer’s Central American origin flooded the comments sections. One said, “An illegal immigrant from El Salvador will now spend the rest of his life in a U.S. prison where all his needs will be met, and his rights will be protected… When we attack efforts to stop illegal immigration and to deal with the criminals coming across the border every day, remember Sr. Nabra… we should all be united in supporting common-sense measures to ensure that our sisters do not walk in fear of attacks. (And no, this is not an ‘isolated case’…).”

Although I was just as relieved about receiving the news that there was finally justice for our young martyred sister, I was saddened to see that the anti-Hispanic immigrant sentiment within our own community was exposed: To assume that Latino immigrants are “criminals coming across the border every day” is to echo the very words that came from current US President Donald Trump’s mouth about immigrants prior to his election to the presidency. To blame all Latinos for a crime committed against one and claim it is not an “isolated case” is to do the same thing that Fox News and anti-Muslim bigots do when they blame all Muslims for a terror attack.

Why are we guilty of the same behavior that we loathe?

I do not like to air out our dirty laundry. I have always felt that it is counterproductive for our collective dawah efforts. It is embarrassing and shameful that we, who claim to be so tolerant and peaceful, still suffer from the very attitudes for which we blame others. As I write this piece, I have been sharing my thoughts with my close friend, a Pakistani-American, who agreed with me and said, “Just like a recovering alcoholic, our first step is to admit there is a problem.” We cannot demand our civil rights and expect to be treated with dignity while we mistreat another minority group, and this includes Latinos and also other indigenous Muslims like Black Americans and Native Americans. I say this, not just for converts, but for my loud and proud, half Puerto Rican and half Ecuadorian children and nephews and others like them who were born Muslims: we need a community that welcomes all of us.

Latinos and Muslims share countless cultural similarities. Our paths are the same. Our history is intertwined, whether we know it or not; and if you don’t know it, then it is time you do your research. How can we visit Islamic Spain and North Africa and marvel at its magnificence, and travel to the Caribbean for vacation and notice the Andalusian architecture present in the colonial era structures, yet choose to ignore our shared past? How can you be proud of Mansa Musa, and not know that it is said his brother sailed with other Malians to the Americas prior to Columbus, making contact with the indigenous people of South America (even before it was “America”)? How can you turn your back on people from the countries which sheltered thousands of Muslim immigrants from places like Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey after the collapse of the Uthmani Empire, many of which carry that blood in their veins?

Latino Muslim panelists during “Hispanic Muslim Day” at North Hudson Islamic Educational Center, Union City, NJ Photo/Caption by Melissa Barreto — at North Hudson Islamic Educational Center (NHIEC).

We need to do a better job of reaching out and getting to know our neighbors. In recent years, the Muslim ban has brought Latinos and Muslims together in solidarity to oppose discriminatory immigration laws. The time is now to establish lasting partnerships.

Use this Ramadan to reach out to the Latino community; host a Spanish open house or an interfaith/intercultural community iftar. Reach out to Latino Muslims in your area for support, or to organizations like ICNA’s WhyIslam (Por qué Islam) for Spanish materials. A language barrier is not an issue when there are plenty of resources available in the Spanish language, and we have the universal language that has been declared a charity by our Prophet, Muhammad , and that is a welcoming smile.

There is no excuse.

The post Cleaning Out Our Own Closets This Ramadan: Bigotry appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

Immediately since, right wing media platforms have begun spreading negative coverage of the Imam Omar Suleiman – calling him anti-semitic, a common tactic used to discredit both Muslim activists as well as criticism of Israel policies.

News outlets citing the criticism have pointed to a post from The Investigative Project on Terrorism or ITP, as the source. The  ITP was founded by and directed by noted Islamophobe Steven Emerson. Emerson’s history of hate speech has been documented for over two decades.

Since then, the story has been carried forward by multiple press outlets.

The immediate consequence of this has been the direction of online hate towards what has been Imam Omar Suleiman’s long history of preaching unity in the US socio-political sphere.

“Since my invocation I’ve been inundated with hate articles, threats, and other tactics of intimidation to silence me over a prayer for unity,” Imam Omar Suleiman says. “These attacks are in bad faith and meant to again send a message to the Muslim community that we are not welcome to assert ourselves in any meaningful space or way.”

MuslimMatters is proud to stand by Imam Omar Suleiman, and we invite our readers to share the evidence that counters the accusations against him of anti-semitism, bigotry, and hate. We would also encourage you to reach out, support, and amplify voices of support like Representative E.B.Johnson, and Representative Colin Allred.

You can help counter the false narrative, simply by sharing evidence of Imam Omar Suleiman’s work. It speaks for itself, and you can share it at the hashtag #UnitedForOmar

JazakAllahuKheiran

A Priest, a Rabbi, and an Imam Walk Into a Church in Dallas

At an interfaith panel discussion, three North Texas religious leaders promoted understanding and dialogue among Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Amid a vexed political and social climate, three religious leaders in North Texas—a priest, an imam, and a rabbi—proved it’s possible to come together in times of division. Source: DMagazine.com

Muslim congregation writes letters of support to Dallas Jewish Community

The congregation, led by Imam Omar Suleiman, penned more than 150 cards and letters. source: WFAA News

Historic action: Muslims and Jews for Dreamers

“We must recognize that the white supremacy that threatens the black and Latino communities, is the same white supremacy that spurs Islamophobia and antisemitism,” -Imam Omar Suleiman

Source: Bend The Arc

Through Dialogue, Interfaith Leaders Hope North Texans Will Better Understand Each Other

“When any community is targeted, they need to see a united faith voice — that all communities come together and express complete rejection of anything that would pit our society against one another more than it already is.” -Imam Omar Suleiman

Source: Kera News

Conversations at The Carter Center: Harmonizing Religion and Human Rights 

Source: The Carter Center

Imam: After devastating New Zealand attack, we will not be deterred

“My wife and I decided to take our kids to a synagogue in Dallas the night after the massacre at Tree of Life in Pittsburgh to grieve and show solidarity with the Jewish community. My 5-year-old played with kids his age while we mourned inside, resisting hate even unknowingly with his innocence…” Source: CNN

The post #UnitedForOmar – Imam Omar Suleiman Smeared by Right-Wing News After Opening Prayer at US House of Representatives appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.