"Recently, I read a report titled, 'A New Political Vision for Muslim Americans' by Abdullah bin Hamid Ali, a professor at Zaytuna University. This article provides an example of muddled thinking and what a poor education does to the human intellect. The basic argument is that Muslims should be practical and unopposed to Trump and his bashing of Islam and Muslims. The article argues, ‘Isn't it better to have a president who's honest about their hatred of Muslims rather than one who engages in the dynamics of civil discourse by believing one thing and acting publicly in a different way?’..."
Years ago I read a absurdly bad piece about critical race theory by Abdullah Ali and saw him posting absurd conspiracy theories during the pandemic. He represents the Muslim version of MAGAs fighting liberals by maximising their own stupidity.
Not only is it your constitutional right "They bluntly express and signed: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, 'IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH' it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. I capitalized the part I felt was of importance the right and responsibility is put on the people to be protected as their constitutional right.
Yes, Bin Hamid has unfortunately gotten worse over the years. His devotion to Trump is odd, to say the least. His views on Palestine have always been problematic. And I'm old enough to remember when he was sharing content from the Jordan Petersons and Ben Shapiros of the world. I have no idea if he still does that, as I muted him a while back.
I'm not sure if I have the chuckles today or what but this had me going: "How, then, should Muslims demonstrate that they are ‘real’ Americans without bridged identities linked to other places on the world map? Exit WhatsApp groups with their cousins in Egypt? Burn their books of"
When shaykh Abdullah's presence became visible online I was rooting for him to succeed, and I still do, I felt that he was being treated unfairly by people with similar backgrounds to carry his approach differently, I also thought he was sincere in trying to help members of the NOI to Islam even though I disagreed with certain techniques which he discussed on his episode of The Mad Mamluks. This discussion was necessary and what I'm convinced of being the most rebuttal, and you touch upon, is all of what you address isn't what the founders believed in and what we have is a new approach and redefinition of what America has always been. There is enough room in this world for America to be America based on it's foundations without being manipulated with the corruption to dictate policies and redefine what America has always been in a deceitful way and Muslims to live in honor and dignity in their homeland with their own governance. The current endorsement of what America is isn't the endorsement and appreciation of what America was founded to be so anyone who thinks they are being patriotic by endorsing the current state of overreach is not a patriot and if you think it is and calling to it is your duty that's what we call ass.
I only mentioned the declaration of independence and the view of Lincoln (who is not a founder)- but it's important to note that calling for the end of the United States is still constitutionally protected, see Brandenburg v. Ohio.
This is all well-established law in the United States.
Your mentioning of Thomas Jefferson and the declaration of independence when understood in its entirety is that a committee of founding fathers selected 5 founders to draft and word the declaration of independence. So the collective body signed off on the declaration.
Given that I discuss these issues with Ustadh Abdullah (may Allah preserve him) and have told him where I disagree with him as I have never voted for Trump and find his support for Israel and Trump's Gaza Riveria scheme to be gravely immoral, I understand Ustadh Abdullah's position not to be pro-Israeli, but that he believes that Palestinians should strategically retreat instead of being slaughtered because they cannot militarily win just as Muslims left Palestine for 98 years during the 1st Crusade before returning under Salahuddin al-Ayyubi. So I wouldn't characterize him as not caring about Palestinians because I believe that he truly does. I can honestly say that there is fiqhi precedence in madhhab Maliki for his perspective on strategic retreat. He is a scholar of the Maliki madhhab.
Regarding nationalism, the Palestinians who seek a secular nation-state and do not desire the West Bank to be under Jordanian control nor Gaza to be under Egytpian control advance a form of nationalism. There's a distinction between nativism and nationalism in my understanding. I personally do not agree with nativism but see nothing inherently evil about nationalism as long as it is not conjoined with imperialism. Of course, America is an imperialistic nation-state, so I am not out here waving the flag, nor agree with much of American foreign policy under the elephants and the donkeys.
Jazakallahu Khair for your thoughtful reply Imam Dawud.
I agree his position is not “pro-Israel” and he is not a Muslim Zionist like some others who have emerged. He is pro-Trump however. Ali plainly wishes to encourage the non-Zionist or anti-Zionist folks in the Trump coalition.
The thing about not caring about Palestinians less is because he cares about people not in his “homeland” less. He said that.
His desire for say Egypt to open up its borders (which he did on x) for a strategic retreat until Israel collapses like the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem of old (as you mentioned) did flies against both Egypt and its nationalism but also the Zionist project itself, which is expansionist. Palestinians in large numbers already retreated, to Gaza. Palestinians also retreated to Lebanon and Syria. In every instance Israel will take more of it and garrison the place.
Say Palestinians move across the border to Egypt. Does Israel just sit across the border while Palestinians build their economic and military might as a new Salaheddin emerges? No. All evidence is they will continue the pattern. They will bomb, periodically invade and destroy schools and hospitals in whatever place folks retreated to (unless they are sent to Uganda or Greenland or whatever). Egypt won’t take Palestinians under any circumstances unless they decide to subcontract another occupation.
I agree certain forms of civic nationalism are harmless, and may even be beneficial- though we don’t see much of that in the United States. Any nationalism that throws other Muslims under the bus, actually throws anyone under the bus is pretty awful.
The real problem is not if he has one position or another, but rather his grasp of basic facts he is claiming and the overall quality of his product. I personally think saying you will vote democrat or republican is defensible and maybe even as I disagree with both (and agree with you).
Claiming that other people’s children or other people’s security is less valuable is rancid and indefensible to my eyes. He is giving an Islamic scholar rationalization to active advocacy of injustice. Am I wrong about that?
Among scholars, is there truly a difference of opinion on if we should act justly or unjustly based on their national borders?
The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) warned strongly about corrupt or misguided scholars, highlighting their dangerous impact on the Muslim community. Several authentic hadiths address this issue:
• The Prophet said, “There is something more I fear for my Ummah more than the Dajjal: misguided scholars” (Musnad Ahmad). This indicates that corrupt scholars pose a grave threat to the community, even greater than the great deceiver (Dajjal).
• He also said, “Most of the hypocrites of my Ummah will be its Qurra’ (i.e., evil scholars)” (Musnad Ahmad). This links corruption among scholars to hypocrisy, a serious spiritual failing.
• Another narration states, “At the end of time there will be ignorant worshippers and corrupt scholars (‘ulamā’ fussāq)” Al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak. This highlights a future prevalence of scholars who are not righteous.
• The Prophet warned against scholars who seek popularity or political favor, saying that those who frequent rulers for gain are among the worst scholars, and that such behavior leads to severe punishment in the Hereafter.
• Imam Ali (a.s.) also said, “How many a scholar is corrupt and how many a worshipper is ignorant, so be wary of the corrupt among the scholars and the ignorant among the worshippers”. This emphasizes the need for caution in following scholars who may have knowledge but lack moral integrity.
• The Quran similarly condemns scholars who unjustly consume people’s wealth and turn them away from the path of Allah: “Indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert them from the way of Allah” (Quran 9:34). Such scholars mislead the community and cause corruption.
• Scholars who align themselves with rulers for worldly gain are warned against, as this often results in them compromising their integrity and misleading others.
In summary, the hadiths and Quranic verses warn that corrupt scholars are a severe danger to Islam and the Muslim community. They misguide people, exploit them, and may even be hypocrites. Muslims are urged to seek knowledge from righteous and sincere scholars and to be cautious of those who pursue power, wealth, or popularity at the expense of truth and justice.
Why will Muslims come to his defense at all when he outright advocates for injustice, not against specific people but just as a matter of principle? It’s quite amazing.
We should not come to his aid. Aid is provided to friends, allies, and the oppressed on the basis of justice established by Allah. Not to the corrupt oppressors and their lackeys, no matter their "credentials". The scholar who gives support to the oppressors is worse than the oppressor. Patriotic nationalism is a Taghut. It is worship of a flag and what it stands for above Allah.
The Quran is clear:
Surah Al-Fatiha, verse 5
إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ
Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.
Btw to clarify I did not mean Imam Dawud with that comment he was explaining the Maliki fiqh point and not defend the explicit the advocacy of injustice.
Dr. Abdullah's advocacy is very much needed to get out of bad leftist Muslim group think. His critiques push for much needed discussions and I appreciate him taking unpopular stances.
There is ultimately something off in the way Muslims operate in the US and our relationship with the broader public. While we do benefit the society in terms of larger Islamic centers operating food pantries and medical clinics, I just don't see our connection beyond what's linked to our physical spaces. I love going to museums and rarely see Muslim names on the donors lists posted on plaques at the entrances. I typically see Muslims in my region show up to local politics meetings when it's something related to social causes (like gender issue textbooks). Local moms went fundraising in my town to build a better playground and while we have wealthy Muslims, the money didn't come from them. There is a drug epidemic that has destroyed so many non-Muslim families and while others are trying to find innovative ways to intervene, I don't know if we've stepped up to help our fellow citizens in the same way. Most of our charitable advocacy is internationally geared. I just don't blame non-Muslims if they see our presence as annoying in a similar way to Turks being upset at Syrians. Dr. Abdullah seems to sense everything I briefly wrote and trying to diagnose it. Whether he hits the mark or not, we have some strides to make in this country and I appreciate the Muslims who are doing their part.
DMV. I've benefited from his traditional scholarship during my own studies (I particularly recall using his article on ijma for my own article during grad school). So I don't doubt his ilmi credentials (also some of my friends were his students at Zaytuna and generally appreciate their time under him). About the wider article, I'd rather walk away with general sentiments to think about than be stuck up on specific claims or else it becomes a toxic tariff like discussion where everyone starts throwing numbers at each other and we don't get anywhere.
Sentiments vs. specific claims? If he says lots of lots of things that are obviously false, in service of an argument you feel is about right, does the argument help you? How?
To be honest your own post is partially sentiment filled like his too (you both are ranting a lot). Just because the SC ruled flag burning is legal does not mean that's always going to be the case (think recent abortion parameter changes after Justice Alito's landmark majority decision). Law adjusts based on popular notions of how it should be adjusted and that may very well happen with the flag situation. Prioritizing the well-being of one's residential land seems quite expected to me. After all, anyone who studied fiqh knows the one exception to not seeking permission from parents for going out to jihad. And no, Jefferson and Lincoln were very pro America and wanted the best for America. Comparing them to immigrant Muslim Americans who cheer whenever America is seen to lose some global standing to American heroes like Jefferson and Lincoln is hilarious.
Feelings don’t trump facts. Be pro haqq not baatil.
The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) warned strongly about corrupt or misguided scholars, highlighting their dangerous impact on the Muslim community. Several authentic hadiths address this issue:
• The Prophet said, “There is something more I fear for my Ummah more than the Dajjal: misguided scholars” (Musnad Ahmad). This indicates that corrupt scholars pose a grave threat to the community, even greater than the great deceiver (Dajjal).
• He also said, “Most of the hypocrites of my Ummah will be its Qurra’ (i.e., evil scholars)” (Musnad Ahmad). This links corruption among scholars to hypocrisy, a serious spiritual failing.
• Another narration states, “At the end of time there will be ignorant worshippers and corrupt scholars (‘ulamā’ fussāq)” Al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak. This highlights a future prevalence of scholars who are not righteous.
• The Prophet warned against scholars who seek popularity or political favor, saying that those who frequent rulers for gain are among the worst scholars, and that such behavior leads to severe punishment in the Hereafter.
• Imam Ali (a.s.) also said, “How many a scholar is corrupt and how many a worshipper is ignorant, so be wary of the corrupt among the scholars and the ignorant among the worshippers”. This emphasizes the need for caution in following scholars who may have knowledge but lack moral integrity.
• The Quran similarly condemns scholars who unjustly consume people’s wealth and turn them away from the path of Allah: “Indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert them from the way of Allah” (Quran 9:34). Such scholars mislead the community and cause corruption.
• Scholars who align themselves with rulers for worldly gain are warned against, as this often results in them compromising their integrity and misleading others.
In summary, the hadiths and Quranic verses warn that corrupt scholars are a severe danger to Islam and the Muslim community. They misguide people, exploit them, and may even be hypocrites. Muslims are urged to seek knowledge from righteous and sincere scholars and to be cautious of those who pursue power, wealth, or popularity at the expense of truth and justice.
That's just cherry picking. Ulama and the Prophetic traditions are quite explicit about being obedient to rulers as long as they give space to carry out your basic pillars of Islam essentially- something most American Muslims would fail miserably at if a khilafa returned as all they know what to do is publicly criticize rulers.
Check out this khutbah by Professor Khaled Abou El Fadl at The Usuli Institute from over 4 years ago (starting at minute 36) or read the transcript at (included an excerpt below): https://www.usuli.org/2020/08/21/when-truth-principle-and-ethics-are-trumped-by-politics/
"Recently, I read a report titled, 'A New Political Vision for Muslim Americans' by Abdullah bin Hamid Ali, a professor at Zaytuna University. This article provides an example of muddled thinking and what a poor education does to the human intellect. The basic argument is that Muslims should be practical and unopposed to Trump and his bashing of Islam and Muslims. The article argues, ‘Isn't it better to have a president who's honest about their hatred of Muslims rather than one who engages in the dynamics of civil discourse by believing one thing and acting publicly in a different way?’..."
Years ago I read a absurdly bad piece about critical race theory by Abdullah Ali and saw him posting absurd conspiracy theories during the pandemic. He represents the Muslim version of MAGAs fighting liberals by maximising their own stupidity.
I don’t understand why Muslim leaders and especially Zaytuna don’t see him as anything other than an embarrassment
This is the what Yusuf said about Syrians rising up against Assad while at a Sufi retreat in 2016:
“Allah can humiliate whoever He wants. If you humiliate a ruler, God will humiliate you.”
As an entire generation of Syrians were being slaughtered Yusuf mockingly asked, "how's that revolution looking for you, huh?"
Is there a source for this?
Not only is it your constitutional right "They bluntly express and signed: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, 'IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH' it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. I capitalized the part I felt was of importance the right and responsibility is put on the people to be protected as their constitutional right.
Yes, Bin Hamid has unfortunately gotten worse over the years. His devotion to Trump is odd, to say the least. His views on Palestine have always been problematic. And I'm old enough to remember when he was sharing content from the Jordan Petersons and Ben Shapiros of the world. I have no idea if he still does that, as I muted him a while back.
I'm not sure if I have the chuckles today or what but this had me going: "How, then, should Muslims demonstrate that they are ‘real’ Americans without bridged identities linked to other places on the world map? Exit WhatsApp groups with their cousins in Egypt? Burn their books of"
When shaykh Abdullah's presence became visible online I was rooting for him to succeed, and I still do, I felt that he was being treated unfairly by people with similar backgrounds to carry his approach differently, I also thought he was sincere in trying to help members of the NOI to Islam even though I disagreed with certain techniques which he discussed on his episode of The Mad Mamluks. This discussion was necessary and what I'm convinced of being the most rebuttal, and you touch upon, is all of what you address isn't what the founders believed in and what we have is a new approach and redefinition of what America has always been. There is enough room in this world for America to be America based on it's foundations without being manipulated with the corruption to dictate policies and redefine what America has always been in a deceitful way and Muslims to live in honor and dignity in their homeland with their own governance. The current endorsement of what America is isn't the endorsement and appreciation of what America was founded to be so anyone who thinks they are being patriotic by endorsing the current state of overreach is not a patriot and if you think it is and calling to it is your duty that's what we call ass.
I only mentioned the declaration of independence and the view of Lincoln (who is not a founder)- but it's important to note that calling for the end of the United States is still constitutionally protected, see Brandenburg v. Ohio.
This is all well-established law in the United States.
Your mentioning of Thomas Jefferson and the declaration of independence when understood in its entirety is that a committee of founding fathers selected 5 founders to draft and word the declaration of independence. So the collective body signed off on the declaration.
Yes lots of people signed it. They were overthrowing the government they had at the time.
As-Salaamu 'Alaykum akhi Ahmed,
Given that I discuss these issues with Ustadh Abdullah (may Allah preserve him) and have told him where I disagree with him as I have never voted for Trump and find his support for Israel and Trump's Gaza Riveria scheme to be gravely immoral, I understand Ustadh Abdullah's position not to be pro-Israeli, but that he believes that Palestinians should strategically retreat instead of being slaughtered because they cannot militarily win just as Muslims left Palestine for 98 years during the 1st Crusade before returning under Salahuddin al-Ayyubi. So I wouldn't characterize him as not caring about Palestinians because I believe that he truly does. I can honestly say that there is fiqhi precedence in madhhab Maliki for his perspective on strategic retreat. He is a scholar of the Maliki madhhab.
Regarding nationalism, the Palestinians who seek a secular nation-state and do not desire the West Bank to be under Jordanian control nor Gaza to be under Egytpian control advance a form of nationalism. There's a distinction between nativism and nationalism in my understanding. I personally do not agree with nativism but see nothing inherently evil about nationalism as long as it is not conjoined with imperialism. Of course, America is an imperialistic nation-state, so I am not out here waving the flag, nor agree with much of American foreign policy under the elephants and the donkeys.
BarakAllahu feek
Jazakallahu Khair for your thoughtful reply Imam Dawud.
I agree his position is not “pro-Israel” and he is not a Muslim Zionist like some others who have emerged. He is pro-Trump however. Ali plainly wishes to encourage the non-Zionist or anti-Zionist folks in the Trump coalition.
The thing about not caring about Palestinians less is because he cares about people not in his “homeland” less. He said that.
His desire for say Egypt to open up its borders (which he did on x) for a strategic retreat until Israel collapses like the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem of old (as you mentioned) did flies against both Egypt and its nationalism but also the Zionist project itself, which is expansionist. Palestinians in large numbers already retreated, to Gaza. Palestinians also retreated to Lebanon and Syria. In every instance Israel will take more of it and garrison the place.
Say Palestinians move across the border to Egypt. Does Israel just sit across the border while Palestinians build their economic and military might as a new Salaheddin emerges? No. All evidence is they will continue the pattern. They will bomb, periodically invade and destroy schools and hospitals in whatever place folks retreated to (unless they are sent to Uganda or Greenland or whatever). Egypt won’t take Palestinians under any circumstances unless they decide to subcontract another occupation.
I agree certain forms of civic nationalism are harmless, and may even be beneficial- though we don’t see much of that in the United States. Any nationalism that throws other Muslims under the bus, actually throws anyone under the bus is pretty awful.
wa iyyak, thank you for your response.
I agree that Israel would probably go into the Sinai just as it's taking more land in Syria. I was just articulating how I understand his position.
The real problem is not if he has one position or another, but rather his grasp of basic facts he is claiming and the overall quality of his product. I personally think saying you will vote democrat or republican is defensible and maybe even as I disagree with both (and agree with you).
Claiming that other people’s children or other people’s security is less valuable is rancid and indefensible to my eyes. He is giving an Islamic scholar rationalization to active advocacy of injustice. Am I wrong about that?
Among scholars, is there truly a difference of opinion on if we should act justly or unjustly based on their national borders?
The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) warned strongly about corrupt or misguided scholars, highlighting their dangerous impact on the Muslim community. Several authentic hadiths address this issue:
• The Prophet said, “There is something more I fear for my Ummah more than the Dajjal: misguided scholars” (Musnad Ahmad). This indicates that corrupt scholars pose a grave threat to the community, even greater than the great deceiver (Dajjal).
• He also said, “Most of the hypocrites of my Ummah will be its Qurra’ (i.e., evil scholars)” (Musnad Ahmad). This links corruption among scholars to hypocrisy, a serious spiritual failing.
• Another narration states, “At the end of time there will be ignorant worshippers and corrupt scholars (‘ulamā’ fussāq)” Al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak. This highlights a future prevalence of scholars who are not righteous.
• The Prophet warned against scholars who seek popularity or political favor, saying that those who frequent rulers for gain are among the worst scholars, and that such behavior leads to severe punishment in the Hereafter.
• Imam Ali (a.s.) also said, “How many a scholar is corrupt and how many a worshipper is ignorant, so be wary of the corrupt among the scholars and the ignorant among the worshippers”. This emphasizes the need for caution in following scholars who may have knowledge but lack moral integrity.
• The Quran similarly condemns scholars who unjustly consume people’s wealth and turn them away from the path of Allah: “Indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert them from the way of Allah” (Quran 9:34). Such scholars mislead the community and cause corruption.
• Scholars who align themselves with rulers for worldly gain are warned against, as this often results in them compromising their integrity and misleading others.
In summary, the hadiths and Quranic verses warn that corrupt scholars are a severe danger to Islam and the Muslim community. They misguide people, exploit them, and may even be hypocrites. Muslims are urged to seek knowledge from righteous and sincere scholars and to be cautious of those who pursue power, wealth, or popularity at the expense of truth and justice.
Why will Muslims come to his defense at all when he outright advocates for injustice, not against specific people but just as a matter of principle? It’s quite amazing.
We should not come to his aid. Aid is provided to friends, allies, and the oppressed on the basis of justice established by Allah. Not to the corrupt oppressors and their lackeys, no matter their "credentials". The scholar who gives support to the oppressors is worse than the oppressor. Patriotic nationalism is a Taghut. It is worship of a flag and what it stands for above Allah.
The Quran is clear:
Surah Al-Fatiha, verse 5
إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ
Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.
Btw to clarify I did not mean Imam Dawud with that comment he was explaining the Maliki fiqh point and not defend the explicit the advocacy of injustice.
Yes, I am not referring to him either.
Dr. Abdullah's advocacy is very much needed to get out of bad leftist Muslim group think. His critiques push for much needed discussions and I appreciate him taking unpopular stances.
I get that. You appreciate the quality of his factual assertions and scholarship? How so?
There is ultimately something off in the way Muslims operate in the US and our relationship with the broader public. While we do benefit the society in terms of larger Islamic centers operating food pantries and medical clinics, I just don't see our connection beyond what's linked to our physical spaces. I love going to museums and rarely see Muslim names on the donors lists posted on plaques at the entrances. I typically see Muslims in my region show up to local politics meetings when it's something related to social causes (like gender issue textbooks). Local moms went fundraising in my town to build a better playground and while we have wealthy Muslims, the money didn't come from them. There is a drug epidemic that has destroyed so many non-Muslim families and while others are trying to find innovative ways to intervene, I don't know if we've stepped up to help our fellow citizens in the same way. Most of our charitable advocacy is internationally geared. I just don't blame non-Muslims if they see our presence as annoying in a similar way to Turks being upset at Syrians. Dr. Abdullah seems to sense everything I briefly wrote and trying to diagnose it. Whether he hits the mark or not, we have some strides to make in this country and I appreciate the Muslims who are doing their part.
What geographic area do you live in?
Also, what do you think of his actual factual presentation and scholarship?
DMV. I've benefited from his traditional scholarship during my own studies (I particularly recall using his article on ijma for my own article during grad school). So I don't doubt his ilmi credentials (also some of my friends were his students at Zaytuna and generally appreciate their time under him). About the wider article, I'd rather walk away with general sentiments to think about than be stuck up on specific claims or else it becomes a toxic tariff like discussion where everyone starts throwing numbers at each other and we don't get anywhere.
Sentiments vs. specific claims? If he says lots of lots of things that are obviously false, in service of an argument you feel is about right, does the argument help you? How?
To be honest your own post is partially sentiment filled like his too (you both are ranting a lot). Just because the SC ruled flag burning is legal does not mean that's always going to be the case (think recent abortion parameter changes after Justice Alito's landmark majority decision). Law adjusts based on popular notions of how it should be adjusted and that may very well happen with the flag situation. Prioritizing the well-being of one's residential land seems quite expected to me. After all, anyone who studied fiqh knows the one exception to not seeking permission from parents for going out to jihad. And no, Jefferson and Lincoln were very pro America and wanted the best for America. Comparing them to immigrant Muslim Americans who cheer whenever America is seen to lose some global standing to American heroes like Jefferson and Lincoln is hilarious.
Feelings don’t trump facts. Be pro haqq not baatil.
The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) warned strongly about corrupt or misguided scholars, highlighting their dangerous impact on the Muslim community. Several authentic hadiths address this issue:
• The Prophet said, “There is something more I fear for my Ummah more than the Dajjal: misguided scholars” (Musnad Ahmad). This indicates that corrupt scholars pose a grave threat to the community, even greater than the great deceiver (Dajjal).
• He also said, “Most of the hypocrites of my Ummah will be its Qurra’ (i.e., evil scholars)” (Musnad Ahmad). This links corruption among scholars to hypocrisy, a serious spiritual failing.
• Another narration states, “At the end of time there will be ignorant worshippers and corrupt scholars (‘ulamā’ fussāq)” Al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak. This highlights a future prevalence of scholars who are not righteous.
• The Prophet warned against scholars who seek popularity or political favor, saying that those who frequent rulers for gain are among the worst scholars, and that such behavior leads to severe punishment in the Hereafter.
• Imam Ali (a.s.) also said, “How many a scholar is corrupt and how many a worshipper is ignorant, so be wary of the corrupt among the scholars and the ignorant among the worshippers”. This emphasizes the need for caution in following scholars who may have knowledge but lack moral integrity.
• The Quran similarly condemns scholars who unjustly consume people’s wealth and turn them away from the path of Allah: “Indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert them from the way of Allah” (Quran 9:34). Such scholars mislead the community and cause corruption.
• Scholars who align themselves with rulers for worldly gain are warned against, as this often results in them compromising their integrity and misleading others.
In summary, the hadiths and Quranic verses warn that corrupt scholars are a severe danger to Islam and the Muslim community. They misguide people, exploit them, and may even be hypocrites. Muslims are urged to seek knowledge from righteous and sincere scholars and to be cautious of those who pursue power, wealth, or popularity at the expense of truth and justice.
That's just cherry picking. Ulama and the Prophetic traditions are quite explicit about being obedient to rulers as long as they give space to carry out your basic pillars of Islam essentially- something most American Muslims would fail miserably at if a khilafa returned as all they know what to do is publicly criticize rulers.