Various Muslim public figures, particularly North American Islamic Scholars and Imams, issued a widely circulated statement on gender and sexual ethics in Islam. They did not seem to address how much at odds they are with Muslim nonprofit institutions, especially “Zakat-eligible” organizations.
For example:
The liberation of the American Muslim community is profoundly linked to the liberation of other minority groups; blacks, Latinos, gay, Jewish, trans, and every other community that has faced discrimination and oppression in this country
-Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR National (source)
I also note that while many Muslim scholars signed the document, scholars, leaders, and public figures of “Islamic Mental Health” organizations were largely absent. I saw at least one person with a marriage and family counseling degree who is not part of one of those organizations. If you see other signatories relevant to that field, point it out.
I don’t have a fully articulated view on this subject yet. Still, it seems like it may be useful to know where they stand on these ethical issues as these organizations (both in the mental health field and political nonprofits") both claim to be “Islamic” and are usually “zakat-eligible” because their work is “fi sabilillah.” To what extent is it important they have the “correct” view of these matters if they are raising money from the public as an Islamic institution?
What, if anything, should Islamic scholars and Imams demand of these institutions?
Do you believe the statement was beneficial? If so, why?
Please do chime in! It would be great to hear your perspective.
Today we live in a world where you can be anything you want just because you feel like it. Part of that means that a lot of us think we can be Muslim just by feeling like it. That's not the case -- there are beliefs and actions that go into being a Muslim. It's not a identity, the way race or gender is. It's a conscious act that entails subscribing to a set of beliefs.
Now, I'm not trying to kick anyone out of the "club", and I don't think that's the point of this statement, either. But, we cannot continue pretending like anyone who shows up with their misguided value systems and who tries to push fundamentally incompatible worldviews into the Muslim community is acting innocuously.
The point of this statement is to make it clear what the limits of God are, and thus Islam. If someone comes to you saying that alcohol is actually halal, this would be incompatible with Islam. So, too, for sexual ethics -- it's just that, for whatever reason, Muslims seem to have a harder time keeping the boundaries straight for LGBT issues than we do for alcohol. One of the reasons for this is lack of education, so here you go -- a statement educating the seeker on the normative position of this issue, along with sources that you can investigate yourself in case you think these are just scholars preaching down to the masses.
I find it interesting that a lot of people are reacting to this as some sort of political statement -- it's not. LGBT issues may be politicized, but ultimately this statement is addressing an ideology, not a policy. Ideologies inform policies adopted by politicians and political parties. We as Muslims cannot adopt an ideology that fundamentally contradicts that of Islam, and this statement is meant to delineate the boundaries of Islam's relationship with this ideology. How that informs your political actions is up to you, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that LGBT values are compatible with Qur'anic values or say that this is all just a political debate.
I would also add, addressing your comment that "They did not seem to address how much at odds they are with Muslim nonprofit institutions, especially “Zakat-eligible” organizations" -- I don't think this was within the scope of the statement, but I have little doubt that part of the intent behind the statement is to provide normative guidelines to redirect Muslim nonprofits who conduct their often well-intentioned and noble work in a way not fully consistent with these guidelines. This statement wasn't meant to address every problem every community and organization has, but to put the message out there that this is what traditional Islam has to say on the matter and perhaps Muslims will begin to pressure these organizations to fall more in line with these norms.
Jun 1, 2023·edited Jun 1, 2023Liked by Ahmed Shaikh
By limits I mean حد as used in the Qur'an, حدود الله. Of course I don't mean physical/temporal limits I mean the boundaries of acceptable behavior (law).
This is an incredibly boring debate and a testament to just how irrelevant and detached Muslim Americans are from politics. Set aside how one feels about LGBT issues and Islam. For a decade a culture war has been centered around trans people, and Muslim traditionalists have tried to latch on this debate from the sidelines because they want to keep their community pure. Their ONLY concern is making sure they and their vision of the Muslim community is not "contaminated" by what they see as an outside ideology (liberalism) trying to force their way in. They have no clue how any of this works, no interest in understanding why any particular individual (say, a young Muslim) might be sympathetic to LGBT causes or why someone might be gay or trans themselves. They don't even talk to kids or to progressives, they only talk to each other. If they were actually interested in power, the first thing they'd do is understand who their supposed "competition" is for the mindshare of young people (hint: it's not the liberal schoolteachers). But they're not interested in power, they're only interested in broadcasting their identity of sagely Muslim "scholar." "There is no room for this in Islam," they say. Great! No one cares because no one is trying to join your room.
We have a problem in that many Muslims are starting to see a conflict between Islam and being a decent and tolerant person. Do you agree with that? Do you think these scholars addressed that?
To some degree there's always a tug between what one sees as God's values and what one sees as one's own values (even the Prophets had this dilemma, which I wrote about: https://sleeper.substack.com/p/how-to-relate-to-the-quran).
This conflict isn't ever resolved but I think everyone eventually works out a balance between modernity and tradition for themselves, provided they're open to new ideas and ways of seeing things.
However what these thought-leaders (and many others besides) are often hyper-focused on isn't really that. They see themselves as representatives of the community standing on one side, and the progressives/secularists standing on the other side, and it's terribly important for them that everyone stays in place so that they can have their story of the incorruptible Muslim ummah.
Part of the problem is the document is fairly poorly-written and overly-broad. Definitely written by committee. Maybe that was the underlying intent - be a Rorschach test - but leaves the reader somewhat confused imo. I mentioned in another forum that it would have been better to have two separate documents, an educational/theological one and a political one.
In what way was it poorly-written? In what way does it leave the reader confused? It's quite succinct and I don't think the message is that complicated: "This is what Islam says about sexual ethics. This is how we arrive at this conclusion. Islam's moral code conflicts with LGBT's. Please, Muslim community, don't be confused about this." Is it broad? Only so far as Islam is broad, and as it's addressing Muslims on a matter of Islam, I would say you can't narrow it a whole lot more.
I am confused by how much people are reading into it a political message. It's not a political statement, I think we're projecting here. It's an ideological and ethical statement, which sure inform politics but it's not saying don't vote democrat. If that's the implication you take away from the incompatibility of the two ideologies, then that's your decision as to how to incorporate your ideology in your political activities.
Yes, I asked them directly at info@navigatingdifferences.com and they responded by stating that it is a "a theological statement intending to clarify Islam's position on sexual ethics."
The fact that how much people are reading into it a political message, as you mention, is evidence that it's poorly-written. Half of the many Muslims I've spoken to think its supposed to be political; the other half educational, leaving readers confused. More than half of the statement itself addresses political issues. It's overly broad because it seemingly tries to address both theological and political issues at the same time.
I think what the Muslim traditionalists (I'm going to count myself as one I suppose) are trying to do is keep their kids in the room, by first defining the room itself. No point in trying to get others to join a faultily-made room that will just fall down with the first strong wind.
Agreed with Hasan here. If American Muslim scholars (and to be fair, some of them tried) had ever successfully offered a strong, revolutionary vision of social responsibility as a Muslim then they wouldn’t be sitting here trying to bandaid whatever idea of Islamic ethics there is left in the American Muslim mind. Lots of “we’re not X” but never any “we collectively stand for Y”. Scholars weren’t even able to get together against police brutality, or national healthcare, or literally any liberating cause aligned with Islam . So many missed opportunities.
Here's the original tweet from Hamza Tzortsis. There have been subsequent clarifications, but I have to say I agree with most of the criticism therein.
Hamza A. Tzortzis
@HATzortzis
Habibi, here are my reflections. I express them with a dedication to everyone's wellbeing. It comes from a place of brotherly love.
Notwithstanding the perceived positives of the recent statement, we also need to be honest.
Many of the Muslim leaders, imams, scholars and preachers in the West, particularly in the US, sided with the liberal left.
They made terrible, weak, short-term and uninformed decisions. There was hardly any direct da'wah to these ideologues and any attempt to show the ideological, intellectual and moral superiority of Islam was not prioritised.
In an ideological context, if you are not giving da'wah, they are giving "da'wah" to you. Unfortunately, due to relative silence and a passive strategy, they succeeded.
The recent statement is not a huge success. It is damage limitation. It is an attempt to pick up the broken pieces created by a failed strategy that has been implemented for over a decade. The very fact that it was needed is a huge sign of strategic and da'wah leadership failure.
It also has a lacuna. There is no direct da'wah and it does not challenge the false, incoherent assumptions of their worldview. It lacks ideological rigour. It is morally and intellectually subservient to a dominant evil worldview. This is not Prophet leadership.
We just have to look at the backlash from many fans and supporters. We need to ask: why are many of the fans and supporters of the signatories upset? What does it say about what they thought the signatories actually believed in?
Self-reflection is very important.
We have to admit failures and strategic mistakes. This is a blatant case of "reap what you sow".
A sign of good leadership is to accept responsibility and take ownership over the awful moral and intellectual state that many young Muslims are in. There was a failure to take moral and intellectual leadership, and it was done in the name of maslaha.
Frankly speaking it was a deviation from key Quranic and Prophetic values. It was unprincipled and weak.
I pray the lessons have been learned and I pray it is not too late.
As always, I am at anyone's service. We are brothers and we need to help each other.
I stand in the possibility I am wrong and I am happy to engage and be advised on any errors I have made.
There are at least 2 major areas of weakness in this document. The first is its failure to address in an honest way the issues raised by gays and lesbians regarding their human and civil rights and the medical issue of gender dysphoria. The second is its failure to address how differences are navigated in a pluralistic society with a constitution which includes both an Establishment Clause and a Free Exercise Clause.
#1, I don't believe the "party line" that gay and lesbian Muslims are essentially sinners, and, if they actually openly practice their sexual identity, are disbelievers, corrupting influences, etc - choose whatever ephithet you prefer. The book "Islamic law and Muslim same-sex unions" by Junaid Jahangir & Hussein Abdullatif (https://worldcat.org/en/title/1052587964), among other things, examines the historical circumstances which led to the "consensus" that same-sex marriages/relationships are impermissible. So I think there is space to discuss within the so-called "tradition" what accommodations should be made for same-sex unions. I personally, however, don't feel bound by any person's interpetation of Islam when I have actual human beings in front of me who tell me that an interpretation is causing them harm. https://aymplaying.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/my-journey-from-homophobe-to-less-bad-of-a-human/
I know that this is a big discussion, and most Muslims disagree with me. But frankly I'm no longer an immature teenager who needs "scholars" to tell me what right and wrong are.
#2, which I hope more people will think about, is that this statement doesn't actually address how "straight" Muslims should live in society. Are we to join the crazy Christian white supremacists at school board meetings trying to make sure curricula & even school libraries don't contain materials which imply that gays and lesbians are human beings deserving of human and civil rights?
In our businesses, are we supposed to discriminate against gays and lesbians and transgendered people? See Masterpiece Cake Shop case. This statement doesn't address public accommodation laws.
A person needs to rewrite this statement as a group of "Christian scholars" explaining why they deserve the right to protect their children from the government and liberal society's impositions of Muslim ideology on their children. Because I can assure you that, just as you don't want civil and human rights for gays, lesbians and transgendered people, there are many people who don't civil and human rights for Muslims. Read here if you don't think the issue of "positive" portrayal of Muslims in public shools hasn't already come up.
So if the people sigining the "Navigating Our Differences" document really believe what they are saying, let's add an addendum to that document that we only rely on Allah subhanahu wa ta3ala for our protection, and we will no longer resort to kaafir concepts of religious freedom and equal protection under the kaafir USA constitution. Therefore, we call on all Muslims to stop asking for legal protections from workplace discrimination and we will stop asking the kaafir authorities at the public schools to protect Muslim children from being bullied.
I don't know who they are seeking liberation from. I know USA foreign policy has it's flaws in many countries in middle east and also Latin America.
But a US citizen has freedoms that are non-existent in much of Asia and Africa. CAIR does fight for excesses of the system against muslims. But, I would not like to align with groups that are rooted in immorality and delusions.
No freedom is absolute and with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. So, we all need to carefully choose our battles and alliances. 1st question is are we morally/ethically aligned on any common grounds? Opposing/protesting just for the numbers should not be the approach. Just my humble viewpoint
The Awad statement after the Pulse shooting? That appears to be an acceptance of “intersectionality”- that a disparate group of “oppression” are interconnected.
Frankly, I'm surprised at the backlash to the statement. If anything, the document is long overdue. It provides a simple, straightforward reference for Muslim parents and those with legal concerns (employment, school, etc). The 'clueless Imams' narrative - the assumption that these individuals, in their irrelevant Imam-bubbles, remain oblivious to social dynamics and trends or to the personal struggles of young, modern individuals - is an unfair characterization. These people exist in the same world as the rest of us. Many of them obtained higher education degrees in the same institutions where LGBT issues and advocacy are ubiquitous. They send their children to the same public schools. But they walk a tightrope, as do Muslim activists and all Muslim public figures. As representatives of a tiny (heterogeneous, multi-ethnic) religious minority, perhaps one percent of the population, in post-9/11 America, how much influence do the leaders of our community actually wield?
Yes, I do feel that the statement was beneficial. But I also know that there are many Muslims who are in a tight situation due to their particular position and are unable to say anything for fear of being vilified and even losing their jobs, so they remain silent. I think the statement from the scholars was a response to those Muslims who call themselves progressives and who are stating that it is okay to be gay and even to marry someone from the same sex. This is obviously against the clear teachings of the Islamic faith as the scholars have pointed out. I think it is important that we not water down the message of Islam and it's moral code in order to satisfy the demands of the wider society. This is indeed a slippery slope. The other point is that scholars look at issues from a particular vantage point while activists and various organizations see things from a political point of view in which self-preservation and safety are the major concerns.
I still haven't gotten my George Soros check. There's a lot more $ on the side of the oligarchs who use so-called culture war issues to keep people divided and distract them away from the injustice & inequality & violence global capitalism is perpetrating. My guess is that a lot of Muslims parroting the Christian nationalist language of "parental control" & "religious freedom" are receiving grants from what Americans United for Separation of Church and State calls the "billion-dollar shadow network." https://www.au.org/the-latest/articles/top-10-2022-shadow-network-religious-extremists/
I would be surprised if Muslim clerical types were getting funded by Christian groups.
Ford Foundation, yes the Soros Foundations and others with explicit agendas on the issue are funders of Muslim groups. Oligarchs support both major political parties. There is an effort to include Muslims in this constellation of “marginalized” groups who work together on priorities that are, at the very least, not at cross purposes, but mostly aligned.
Why is “religious freedom” Christian nationalist language? That is religion neutral and is part of the universal declaration of human rights and pretty basic constitutional and international law no?
I've sent you a private message on the funding ...
"Religious freedom" shouldn't be Christian nationalist language, but the way Christian nationlists have abused the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, cases like the Bremerton high school football coach who insisted that prayer was only possible in the middle of the field at the 50-yard line after home games, the various claims that public accomodation laws violate religious freedoms and that my service agency's discriminatory practices mandated by my religion shouldn't preclude me from receiving public money, etc. have given "religious freedom" a bad name.
I have not seen your PM (looked for it). I have seen is that progressive Muslims paint Shuyukh, Imams, or anyone who takes a view offensive to those supporting the LGBTQ+ agenda as "alt-right" or "Christian Nationalist" or other epitaphs and because we live in a country with blue team vs red team dynamics is that it can shut down discussion. It's a kind of tactic that is meant to caricature the other side to encourage tribal dynamics around American politics. I would rather we not did that.
I don't think you should seed "religious freedom" as a Christian nationalist term any more than you would acquiesce to "freedom of speech" being code for pornography.
I do think that it is important to require organizations that call themselves "Islamic" to be "Islamic" as well. And this also applies to politically sensitive issues when the normative is as evident as in this case. It cannot depend on the religious understanding or self-image of the organizations, since they use self-designations to create certain expectations among donors, customers and the community. A person who offers a car cannot claim that his understanding of "car" does not include an engine.
What always surprises me is that American Muslims in particular believe they are facing a civically unique phenomenon that justifies their polarization. Yet political or philosophical programs, social change, and value decay are quite normal. Musims have always faced these processes and developed strategies. Likewise, they have always experienced the classic polarization in the face of these challenges: assimilation vs. isolation.
I am unsure whether the statement is ultimately beneficial. There is an interesting exchange between Sh. Yasir Qadhi and Sh. Yasir Nadeem (from Chicago), where Nadeem argues the statement normalizes the lbgt from an Islamic perspective, for the sake of political "allyship".
What seems clear to me is that the underlying assumption of CAIR's Nahid Awad, Yasir Qadhi and other - that expanding gay/trans freedoms equates to expanding Muslim freedoms - is blatantly false. The more lgbt lifestyles and families are normalized in elementary schools, the LESS freedom we have to assert there are only two genders, not only in the public sphere but increasingly in the private sphere.
We need to question the political acumen of Muslim community leaders desiring to lead the community in the public/political sphere. I think they've shown themselves to be naive at best. They remind me of early Muslim immigrants and imams in the 70's, who swallowed every Hollywood myth about America they watched on their TVs growing up back in the old country.
Dr. Maher Hathout for one. Hopelessly naive guy back then. He changed his views, some of them anyway, with decades of experience, so "hopelessly" shouldn't be taken too literally. There are several others that I spoke to and educated about American history in those early days (80's, 90's), but I don't want to name names publicly.
I will say that Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi was by far the most politically astute, though I disagreed with him multiple times.
It's crucial to clarify that the Ahl-e-Sunnah wal Jammah, the Muslim majority, doesn't necessarily support the full liberation of sexual and gender minorities, as implied by Nihad Awad of CAIR. His perspective may be based on beliefs that fall outside traditional Islamic jurisprudence. In any complex issue with varying viewpoints, the authoritative interpretations of the four mujtahids are paramount and unbeatable in providing the Islamic stance in line with the Qur'an and Sunnah.
My stance is clear, and within it, there are nuanced aspects. For instance, I find it puzzling and misleading when public figures, while purporting to represent the majority of Muslims, challenge the fundamental rulings of the mujtahid.
Moreover, it's unacceptable to endorse an alliance between Muslims and minority groups whose beliefs directly contradict or oppose Islamic jurisprudence, all in the name of "liberation." This could be perceived as dishonoring the Sahab-e-Karam, who endured immense suffering for these beliefs that we easily compromise.
As for CAIR's Zakat collection, I don't see it as a significant issue here. To my knowledge, their zakat eligibility isn't tied to formal accountability, so they can collect zakat from anyone who aligns with their views. Therefore, the article's emphasis on this point seems misplaced.
Regarding "Islamic Mental Health," I understand its formal foundation lies in Tibb. No traditional organizations advocate and regulate this aspect of medicine in the US.
Finally, your article hints at the question of whether CAIR falls within the Islamic fold, without providing a clear answer. I believe this is a question that not only organizations but also each individual should reflect upon daily: "Am I a Muslim?"
Thank you for your reply. No I am 100% not questioning if CAIR’s employees, board members or volunteers fall within the Islamic fold. I noted in another comment that one CAIR ED actually signed the statement (not that this is a condition of being in the Islamic fold).
You state:
“ To my knowledge, their zakat eligibility isn't tied to formal accountability, so they can collect zakat from anyone who aligns with their views. Therefore, the article's emphasis on this point seems misplaced.”.
CAIR has a zakat policy that is vetted by scholars who have signed the Navigating Differences statement. If you believe “fi sabilillah” is a free for all that may include advocacy for things diametrically opposed to the statement, then I would like to understand why the statement matters at all. Accountability would be pulling the endorsement of “Zakat eligible” status by scholars who have anointed it with such no?
Mental health is in issue because this is where actual societal change is happening. What is the Islamic perspective on gender affirming or confirming treatment? Professional associations have taken a stand here. Curious if Muslims need to do the same.
Again, appreciate your perspective. I myself don’t have a fully developed perspective on this subject (definitely not going around accusing people of being non-Muslim), though I have certainly expressed that Zakat is mostly broken. Much of my discussion of Muslim organizations and leadership goes to that.
Thanks for shedding light on the zakat aspect. I admit my knowledge of CAIR - its mission, supporters, and the parameters of its endorsement - is limited. I don't see 'fi sabilillah' as a carte blanche; there's considerable confusion around its implementation and evidence, which could lead to outcomes contradictory to the doctrines of ahl-e-sunnah wal jamaah. So, I agree that those who endorse such practices bear responsibility for the consequences and are accountable for their intentions.
The issue of mental health is intriguing. Despite having family and friends in the medical field, my understanding of the specifics is lacking. Thus, I refrain from further comment.
I appreciate your response and kind words, as well as your recognition. As for Zakat being flawed, I respectfully disagree. The situation is complex, no doubt, due to the widespread adoption of a nationalistic approach to governing Muslim communities under secular democracies. However, I firmly believe that the order established by Allah (SWT) through His Messenger cannot be shattered. Even if it appears strange, I'd instead embrace the strangeness.
Perhaps NGO, academia leaders, including the mental health community, weren't invited to sign? Trying to have husn-ad-dhann, as the vast majoirty of signatories are Shayks, Imams and Ustadhs. Some other prominent members of the Muslim community, but not much.
Looks like an open invitation for public figures (there is a form below), and several in nonprofits and mental health use the titles Sheykh, Sheykha, Ustadh and Imam, many give khutbas and speak extensively on religious topics. I should point out, one CAIR ED from a local chapter did sign. The list seems to be growing,
Wow, this post has generated some really interesting discussion!
I just checked the latest signatures (last updated May 30th, I assume signature requests have plummeted now); the vast majority are still Shayks, Imams and Ustadhs.
I'm not sure this matters, though, as the statement says: "We are Muslim scholars and preachers representing a diverse range of theological schools" and the top of the signatures, it states: "For religious scholars and Imams who wish to sign this statement, please fill out the form at the bottom of this page."
The form below requests a webpage with biography, etc, so I'm guessing its vetted.
To summarize, my reading is that signatories are asked to be scholars/Imams; ie, those with a knowledge of the Deen, and not just Muslims (including NGO leaders, mental health activists, etc) who happen to agree with the statement.
I emailed info@navigatingdifferences.com asking for clarification on this issue. I'll update with any responses I may get.
They responded back, and quickly, too! May Allah reward them.
They stated: "Thank you for your question. The "Navigating Differences" statement is a theological statement intending to clarify Islam's position on sexual ethics. As such, those signing the document include those trained in Islamic sciences and theology. I hope this answers your question.
Today we live in a world where you can be anything you want just because you feel like it. Part of that means that a lot of us think we can be Muslim just by feeling like it. That's not the case -- there are beliefs and actions that go into being a Muslim. It's not a identity, the way race or gender is. It's a conscious act that entails subscribing to a set of beliefs.
Now, I'm not trying to kick anyone out of the "club", and I don't think that's the point of this statement, either. But, we cannot continue pretending like anyone who shows up with their misguided value systems and who tries to push fundamentally incompatible worldviews into the Muslim community is acting innocuously.
The point of this statement is to make it clear what the limits of God are, and thus Islam. If someone comes to you saying that alcohol is actually halal, this would be incompatible with Islam. So, too, for sexual ethics -- it's just that, for whatever reason, Muslims seem to have a harder time keeping the boundaries straight for LGBT issues than we do for alcohol. One of the reasons for this is lack of education, so here you go -- a statement educating the seeker on the normative position of this issue, along with sources that you can investigate yourself in case you think these are just scholars preaching down to the masses.
I find it interesting that a lot of people are reacting to this as some sort of political statement -- it's not. LGBT issues may be politicized, but ultimately this statement is addressing an ideology, not a policy. Ideologies inform policies adopted by politicians and political parties. We as Muslims cannot adopt an ideology that fundamentally contradicts that of Islam, and this statement is meant to delineate the boundaries of Islam's relationship with this ideology. How that informs your political actions is up to you, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that LGBT values are compatible with Qur'anic values or say that this is all just a political debate.
I would also add, addressing your comment that "They did not seem to address how much at odds they are with Muslim nonprofit institutions, especially “Zakat-eligible” organizations" -- I don't think this was within the scope of the statement, but I have little doubt that part of the intent behind the statement is to provide normative guidelines to redirect Muslim nonprofits who conduct their often well-intentioned and noble work in a way not fully consistent with these guidelines. This statement wasn't meant to address every problem every community and organization has, but to put the message out there that this is what traditional Islam has to say on the matter and perhaps Muslims will begin to pressure these organizations to fall more in line with these norms.
“The point of this statement is to make it clear what the limits of God are...”
سُبْحَٰنَهُۥ وَتَعَٰلَىٰ ٱلْبَاقِيىٰ
no beginning no end
By limits I mean حد as used in the Qur'an, حدود الله. Of course I don't mean physical/temporal limits I mean the boundaries of acceptable behavior (law).
Tmm, thanks for clarifying; those limits, I think, are for mankind, no? And yes, I agree with you that mankind is exceeding its limits.
This is an incredibly boring debate and a testament to just how irrelevant and detached Muslim Americans are from politics. Set aside how one feels about LGBT issues and Islam. For a decade a culture war has been centered around trans people, and Muslim traditionalists have tried to latch on this debate from the sidelines because they want to keep their community pure. Their ONLY concern is making sure they and their vision of the Muslim community is not "contaminated" by what they see as an outside ideology (liberalism) trying to force their way in. They have no clue how any of this works, no interest in understanding why any particular individual (say, a young Muslim) might be sympathetic to LGBT causes or why someone might be gay or trans themselves. They don't even talk to kids or to progressives, they only talk to each other. If they were actually interested in power, the first thing they'd do is understand who their supposed "competition" is for the mindshare of young people (hint: it's not the liberal schoolteachers). But they're not interested in power, they're only interested in broadcasting their identity of sagely Muslim "scholar." "There is no room for this in Islam," they say. Great! No one cares because no one is trying to join your room.
We have a problem in that many Muslims are starting to see a conflict between Islam and being a decent and tolerant person. Do you agree with that? Do you think these scholars addressed that?
To some degree there's always a tug between what one sees as God's values and what one sees as one's own values (even the Prophets had this dilemma, which I wrote about: https://sleeper.substack.com/p/how-to-relate-to-the-quran).
This conflict isn't ever resolved but I think everyone eventually works out a balance between modernity and tradition for themselves, provided they're open to new ideas and ways of seeing things.
However what these thought-leaders (and many others besides) are often hyper-focused on isn't really that. They see themselves as representatives of the community standing on one side, and the progressives/secularists standing on the other side, and it's terribly important for them that everyone stays in place so that they can have their story of the incorruptible Muslim ummah.
Are progressives on the other side? I saw one Muslim progressive scholar say the document was political and not theological. Do you agree with that?
Part of the problem is the document is fairly poorly-written and overly-broad. Definitely written by committee. Maybe that was the underlying intent - be a Rorschach test - but leaves the reader somewhat confused imo. I mentioned in another forum that it would have been better to have two separate documents, an educational/theological one and a political one.
In what way was it poorly-written? In what way does it leave the reader confused? It's quite succinct and I don't think the message is that complicated: "This is what Islam says about sexual ethics. This is how we arrive at this conclusion. Islam's moral code conflicts with LGBT's. Please, Muslim community, don't be confused about this." Is it broad? Only so far as Islam is broad, and as it's addressing Muslims on a matter of Islam, I would say you can't narrow it a whole lot more.
I am confused by how much people are reading into it a political message. It's not a political statement, I think we're projecting here. It's an ideological and ethical statement, which sure inform politics but it's not saying don't vote democrat. If that's the implication you take away from the incompatibility of the two ideologies, then that's your decision as to how to incorporate your ideology in your political activities.
Yes, I asked them directly at info@navigatingdifferences.com and they responded by stating that it is a "a theological statement intending to clarify Islam's position on sexual ethics."
The fact that how much people are reading into it a political message, as you mention, is evidence that it's poorly-written. Half of the many Muslims I've spoken to think its supposed to be political; the other half educational, leaving readers confused. More than half of the statement itself addresses political issues. It's overly broad because it seemingly tries to address both theological and political issues at the same time.
The term "Muslim progressive scholar" is an oxymoron. In my opinion, they have nothing of value to contribute.
I did not mean scholar of Islam.
I think what the Muslim traditionalists (I'm going to count myself as one I suppose) are trying to do is keep their kids in the room, by first defining the room itself. No point in trying to get others to join a faultily-made room that will just fall down with the first strong wind.
Agreed with Hasan here. If American Muslim scholars (and to be fair, some of them tried) had ever successfully offered a strong, revolutionary vision of social responsibility as a Muslim then they wouldn’t be sitting here trying to bandaid whatever idea of Islamic ethics there is left in the American Muslim mind. Lots of “we’re not X” but never any “we collectively stand for Y”. Scholars weren’t even able to get together against police brutality, or national healthcare, or literally any liberating cause aligned with Islam . So many missed opportunities.
Is that because Muslim scholars are in general more politically conservative? Or because they would generally stay out of politics?
Here's the original tweet from Hamza Tzortsis. There have been subsequent clarifications, but I have to say I agree with most of the criticism therein.
Hamza A. Tzortzis
@HATzortzis
Habibi, here are my reflections. I express them with a dedication to everyone's wellbeing. It comes from a place of brotherly love.
Notwithstanding the perceived positives of the recent statement, we also need to be honest.
Many of the Muslim leaders, imams, scholars and preachers in the West, particularly in the US, sided with the liberal left.
They made terrible, weak, short-term and uninformed decisions. There was hardly any direct da'wah to these ideologues and any attempt to show the ideological, intellectual and moral superiority of Islam was not prioritised.
In an ideological context, if you are not giving da'wah, they are giving "da'wah" to you. Unfortunately, due to relative silence and a passive strategy, they succeeded.
The recent statement is not a huge success. It is damage limitation. It is an attempt to pick up the broken pieces created by a failed strategy that has been implemented for over a decade. The very fact that it was needed is a huge sign of strategic and da'wah leadership failure.
It also has a lacuna. There is no direct da'wah and it does not challenge the false, incoherent assumptions of their worldview. It lacks ideological rigour. It is morally and intellectually subservient to a dominant evil worldview. This is not Prophet leadership.
We just have to look at the backlash from many fans and supporters. We need to ask: why are many of the fans and supporters of the signatories upset? What does it say about what they thought the signatories actually believed in?
Self-reflection is very important.
We have to admit failures and strategic mistakes. This is a blatant case of "reap what you sow".
A sign of good leadership is to accept responsibility and take ownership over the awful moral and intellectual state that many young Muslims are in. There was a failure to take moral and intellectual leadership, and it was done in the name of maslaha.
Frankly speaking it was a deviation from key Quranic and Prophetic values. It was unprincipled and weak.
I pray the lessons have been learned and I pray it is not too late.
As always, I am at anyone's service. We are brothers and we need to help each other.
I stand in the possibility I am wrong and I am happy to engage and be advised on any errors I have made.
9:12 AM · Jun 5, 2023
·
153.4K
Views
There are at least 2 major areas of weakness in this document. The first is its failure to address in an honest way the issues raised by gays and lesbians regarding their human and civil rights and the medical issue of gender dysphoria. The second is its failure to address how differences are navigated in a pluralistic society with a constitution which includes both an Establishment Clause and a Free Exercise Clause.
#1, I don't believe the "party line" that gay and lesbian Muslims are essentially sinners, and, if they actually openly practice their sexual identity, are disbelievers, corrupting influences, etc - choose whatever ephithet you prefer. The book "Islamic law and Muslim same-sex unions" by Junaid Jahangir & Hussein Abdullatif (https://worldcat.org/en/title/1052587964), among other things, examines the historical circumstances which led to the "consensus" that same-sex marriages/relationships are impermissible. So I think there is space to discuss within the so-called "tradition" what accommodations should be made for same-sex unions. I personally, however, don't feel bound by any person's interpetation of Islam when I have actual human beings in front of me who tell me that an interpretation is causing them harm. https://aymplaying.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/my-journey-from-homophobe-to-less-bad-of-a-human/
I know that this is a big discussion, and most Muslims disagree with me. But frankly I'm no longer an immature teenager who needs "scholars" to tell me what right and wrong are.
#2, which I hope more people will think about, is that this statement doesn't actually address how "straight" Muslims should live in society. Are we to join the crazy Christian white supremacists at school board meetings trying to make sure curricula & even school libraries don't contain materials which imply that gays and lesbians are human beings deserving of human and civil rights?
https://muslimmediareview.blogspot.com/2021/07/are-muslims-going-to-join-calls-for.html
Are we to ask public libraries to remove books which portray transgender people as "normal?"
https://aymplaying.wordpress.com/2023/03/17/the-only-reason-to-ban-it-feels-good-to-be-yourself-by-theresa-thorn-is-that-noah-grigni-the-illustrator-made-the-children-look-too-happy/
In our businesses, are we supposed to discriminate against gays and lesbians and transgendered people? See Masterpiece Cake Shop case. This statement doesn't address public accommodation laws.
A person needs to rewrite this statement as a group of "Christian scholars" explaining why they deserve the right to protect their children from the government and liberal society's impositions of Muslim ideology on their children. Because I can assure you that, just as you don't want civil and human rights for gays, lesbians and transgendered people, there are many people who don't civil and human rights for Muslims. Read here if you don't think the issue of "positive" portrayal of Muslims in public shools hasn't already come up.
https://aymplaying.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/georgia-dept-of-education-withdraws-teachers-social-studies-guide-to-please-anti-muslim-bigots/
So if the people sigining the "Navigating Our Differences" document really believe what they are saying, let's add an addendum to that document that we only rely on Allah subhanahu wa ta3ala for our protection, and we will no longer resort to kaafir concepts of religious freedom and equal protection under the kaafir USA constitution. Therefore, we call on all Muslims to stop asking for legal protections from workplace discrimination and we will stop asking the kaafir authorities at the public schools to protect Muslim children from being bullied.
I don't know who they are seeking liberation from. I know USA foreign policy has it's flaws in many countries in middle east and also Latin America.
But a US citizen has freedoms that are non-existent in much of Asia and Africa. CAIR does fight for excesses of the system against muslims. But, I would not like to align with groups that are rooted in immorality and delusions.
No freedom is absolute and with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. So, we all need to carefully choose our battles and alliances. 1st question is are we morally/ethically aligned on any common grounds? Opposing/protesting just for the numbers should not be the approach. Just my humble viewpoint
The Awad statement after the Pulse shooting? That appears to be an acceptance of “intersectionality”- that a disparate group of “oppression” are interconnected.
Frankly, I'm surprised at the backlash to the statement. If anything, the document is long overdue. It provides a simple, straightforward reference for Muslim parents and those with legal concerns (employment, school, etc). The 'clueless Imams' narrative - the assumption that these individuals, in their irrelevant Imam-bubbles, remain oblivious to social dynamics and trends or to the personal struggles of young, modern individuals - is an unfair characterization. These people exist in the same world as the rest of us. Many of them obtained higher education degrees in the same institutions where LGBT issues and advocacy are ubiquitous. They send their children to the same public schools. But they walk a tightrope, as do Muslim activists and all Muslim public figures. As representatives of a tiny (heterogeneous, multi-ethnic) religious minority, perhaps one percent of the population, in post-9/11 America, how much influence do the leaders of our community actually wield?
Yes, I do feel that the statement was beneficial. But I also know that there are many Muslims who are in a tight situation due to their particular position and are unable to say anything for fear of being vilified and even losing their jobs, so they remain silent. I think the statement from the scholars was a response to those Muslims who call themselves progressives and who are stating that it is okay to be gay and even to marry someone from the same sex. This is obviously against the clear teachings of the Islamic faith as the scholars have pointed out. I think it is important that we not water down the message of Islam and it's moral code in order to satisfy the demands of the wider society. This is indeed a slippery slope. The other point is that scholars look at issues from a particular vantage point while activists and various organizations see things from a political point of view in which self-preservation and safety are the major concerns.
Funding should not be ignored. Many political Muslim nonprofits get funding from outside the Muslim community. So priorities can reflect that.
I still haven't gotten my George Soros check. There's a lot more $ on the side of the oligarchs who use so-called culture war issues to keep people divided and distract them away from the injustice & inequality & violence global capitalism is perpetrating. My guess is that a lot of Muslims parroting the Christian nationalist language of "parental control" & "religious freedom" are receiving grants from what Americans United for Separation of Church and State calls the "billion-dollar shadow network." https://www.au.org/the-latest/articles/top-10-2022-shadow-network-religious-extremists/
I would be surprised if Muslim clerical types were getting funded by Christian groups.
Ford Foundation, yes the Soros Foundations and others with explicit agendas on the issue are funders of Muslim groups. Oligarchs support both major political parties. There is an effort to include Muslims in this constellation of “marginalized” groups who work together on priorities that are, at the very least, not at cross purposes, but mostly aligned.
Why is “religious freedom” Christian nationalist language? That is religion neutral and is part of the universal declaration of human rights and pretty basic constitutional and international law no?
I've sent you a private message on the funding ...
"Religious freedom" shouldn't be Christian nationalist language, but the way Christian nationlists have abused the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, cases like the Bremerton high school football coach who insisted that prayer was only possible in the middle of the field at the 50-yard line after home games, the various claims that public accomodation laws violate religious freedoms and that my service agency's discriminatory practices mandated by my religion shouldn't preclude me from receiving public money, etc. have given "religious freedom" a bad name.
I have not seen your PM (looked for it). I have seen is that progressive Muslims paint Shuyukh, Imams, or anyone who takes a view offensive to those supporting the LGBTQ+ agenda as "alt-right" or "Christian Nationalist" or other epitaphs and because we live in a country with blue team vs red team dynamics is that it can shut down discussion. It's a kind of tactic that is meant to caricature the other side to encourage tribal dynamics around American politics. I would rather we not did that.
I don't think you should seed "religious freedom" as a Christian nationalist term any more than you would acquiesce to "freedom of speech" being code for pornography.
I do think that it is important to require organizations that call themselves "Islamic" to be "Islamic" as well. And this also applies to politically sensitive issues when the normative is as evident as in this case. It cannot depend on the religious understanding or self-image of the organizations, since they use self-designations to create certain expectations among donors, customers and the community. A person who offers a car cannot claim that his understanding of "car" does not include an engine.
What always surprises me is that American Muslims in particular believe they are facing a civically unique phenomenon that justifies their polarization. Yet political or philosophical programs, social change, and value decay are quite normal. Musims have always faced these processes and developed strategies. Likewise, they have always experienced the classic polarization in the face of these challenges: assimilation vs. isolation.
I am unsure whether the statement is ultimately beneficial. There is an interesting exchange between Sh. Yasir Qadhi and Sh. Yasir Nadeem (from Chicago), where Nadeem argues the statement normalizes the lbgt from an Islamic perspective, for the sake of political "allyship".
What seems clear to me is that the underlying assumption of CAIR's Nahid Awad, Yasir Qadhi and other - that expanding gay/trans freedoms equates to expanding Muslim freedoms - is blatantly false. The more lgbt lifestyles and families are normalized in elementary schools, the LESS freedom we have to assert there are only two genders, not only in the public sphere but increasingly in the private sphere.
We need to question the political acumen of Muslim community leaders desiring to lead the community in the public/political sphere. I think they've shown themselves to be naive at best. They remind me of early Muslim immigrants and imams in the 70's, who swallowed every Hollywood myth about America they watched on their TVs growing up back in the old country.
Interesting. What examples do you have about Muslim Imams in the 70s doing that?
Dr. Maher Hathout for one. Hopelessly naive guy back then. He changed his views, some of them anyway, with decades of experience, so "hopelessly" shouldn't be taken too literally. There are several others that I spoke to and educated about American history in those early days (80's, 90's), but I don't want to name names publicly.
I will say that Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi was by far the most politically astute, though I disagreed with him multiple times.
As you are SoCal centric names are now popping in my head too 😂
This is an interesting discussion and I want to pipe in soon. But first I want to share an article and video about the Christian father of a transgender girl and his and his wife's decision after years of denying their daughter's truth to finally support her fully. Here it is: https://www.today.com/parents/missouri-dad-gives-moving-speech-about-transgender-daughter-t211945
𝗕𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗥𝗮𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗿𝗥𝗮𝗵𝗶𝗺
It's crucial to clarify that the Ahl-e-Sunnah wal Jammah, the Muslim majority, doesn't necessarily support the full liberation of sexual and gender minorities, as implied by Nihad Awad of CAIR. His perspective may be based on beliefs that fall outside traditional Islamic jurisprudence. In any complex issue with varying viewpoints, the authoritative interpretations of the four mujtahids are paramount and unbeatable in providing the Islamic stance in line with the Qur'an and Sunnah.
My stance is clear, and within it, there are nuanced aspects. For instance, I find it puzzling and misleading when public figures, while purporting to represent the majority of Muslims, challenge the fundamental rulings of the mujtahid.
Moreover, it's unacceptable to endorse an alliance between Muslims and minority groups whose beliefs directly contradict or oppose Islamic jurisprudence, all in the name of "liberation." This could be perceived as dishonoring the Sahab-e-Karam, who endured immense suffering for these beliefs that we easily compromise.
As for CAIR's Zakat collection, I don't see it as a significant issue here. To my knowledge, their zakat eligibility isn't tied to formal accountability, so they can collect zakat from anyone who aligns with their views. Therefore, the article's emphasis on this point seems misplaced.
Regarding "Islamic Mental Health," I understand its formal foundation lies in Tibb. No traditional organizations advocate and regulate this aspect of medicine in the US.
Finally, your article hints at the question of whether CAIR falls within the Islamic fold, without providing a clear answer. I believe this is a question that not only organizations but also each individual should reflect upon daily: "Am I a Muslim?"
Thank you for your reply. No I am 100% not questioning if CAIR’s employees, board members or volunteers fall within the Islamic fold. I noted in another comment that one CAIR ED actually signed the statement (not that this is a condition of being in the Islamic fold).
You state:
“ To my knowledge, their zakat eligibility isn't tied to formal accountability, so they can collect zakat from anyone who aligns with their views. Therefore, the article's emphasis on this point seems misplaced.”.
CAIR has a zakat policy that is vetted by scholars who have signed the Navigating Differences statement. If you believe “fi sabilillah” is a free for all that may include advocacy for things diametrically opposed to the statement, then I would like to understand why the statement matters at all. Accountability would be pulling the endorsement of “Zakat eligible” status by scholars who have anointed it with such no?
Mental health is in issue because this is where actual societal change is happening. What is the Islamic perspective on gender affirming or confirming treatment? Professional associations have taken a stand here. Curious if Muslims need to do the same.
Again, appreciate your perspective. I myself don’t have a fully developed perspective on this subject (definitely not going around accusing people of being non-Muslim), though I have certainly expressed that Zakat is mostly broken. Much of my discussion of Muslim organizations and leadership goes to that.
Thanks for shedding light on the zakat aspect. I admit my knowledge of CAIR - its mission, supporters, and the parameters of its endorsement - is limited. I don't see 'fi sabilillah' as a carte blanche; there's considerable confusion around its implementation and evidence, which could lead to outcomes contradictory to the doctrines of ahl-e-sunnah wal jamaah. So, I agree that those who endorse such practices bear responsibility for the consequences and are accountable for their intentions.
The issue of mental health is intriguing. Despite having family and friends in the medical field, my understanding of the specifics is lacking. Thus, I refrain from further comment.
I appreciate your response and kind words, as well as your recognition. As for Zakat being flawed, I respectfully disagree. The situation is complex, no doubt, due to the widespread adoption of a nationalistic approach to governing Muslim communities under secular democracies. However, I firmly believe that the order established by Allah (SWT) through His Messenger cannot be shattered. Even if it appears strange, I'd instead embrace the strangeness.
Perhaps NGO, academia leaders, including the mental health community, weren't invited to sign? Trying to have husn-ad-dhann, as the vast majoirty of signatories are Shayks, Imams and Ustadhs. Some other prominent members of the Muslim community, but not much.
Looks like an open invitation for public figures (there is a form below), and several in nonprofits and mental health use the titles Sheykh, Sheykha, Ustadh and Imam, many give khutbas and speak extensively on religious topics. I should point out, one CAIR ED from a local chapter did sign. The list seems to be growing,
Wow, this post has generated some really interesting discussion!
I just checked the latest signatures (last updated May 30th, I assume signature requests have plummeted now); the vast majority are still Shayks, Imams and Ustadhs.
I'm not sure this matters, though, as the statement says: "We are Muslim scholars and preachers representing a diverse range of theological schools" and the top of the signatures, it states: "For religious scholars and Imams who wish to sign this statement, please fill out the form at the bottom of this page."
The form below requests a webpage with biography, etc, so I'm guessing its vetted.
To summarize, my reading is that signatories are asked to be scholars/Imams; ie, those with a knowledge of the Deen, and not just Muslims (including NGO leaders, mental health activists, etc) who happen to agree with the statement.
I emailed info@navigatingdifferences.com asking for clarification on this issue. I'll update with any responses I may get.
And Allah knows best!
They responded back, and quickly, too! May Allah reward them.
They stated: "Thank you for your question. The "Navigating Differences" statement is a theological statement intending to clarify Islam's position on sexual ethics. As such, those signing the document include those trained in Islamic sciences and theology. I hope this answers your question.
Jazakum Allahu khayran,
Admin"