The Imams Who Are "Navigating Differences" with Qawm Lut


Islam recognizes minorities on the bases of religion and race. We can certainly have a healthy dialogue with such minorities. The verse لكم دينكم ولي دين that you cited responding to me applies here. However, Muslims recognizing a grave-sin-based minority is unprecedented in Islamic literature and history. According to you, does Islam recognize this growing coalition of grave-sin-based groups as a minority?

The document clearly recognizes the right of the alphabetic community to live free from abuse. Do you acknowledge their right to be referred with their preferred pronouns? Refusal to use someone's 'correct' pronoun is an action that this group is trying to legally establish as a form of harassment and abuse these days.

Once some Muslims recognize them as a minority group as this document advocates by acknowledging their constitutional rights (though the alphabets don't exist in the constitution anywhere and there are attempts to make amendments to include them), they open the door for Muslims to actively seek allyships and coalitions within the name of coexistence and pluralism. Some of the signatories have called for that in writing and in speech, including in your masjid. Is their action in line with Islamic ethics?

All practicing Muslims know that the act of Qaum Lot is sin and that it can't be celebrated. The Muslim community expects proper advice from you on how to respond to this evil, not your advice on how to simply declare it a sin and be silent.

The document should have also covered the Islamic position regarding those guidelines and frameworks for political support some of your peers provide to this lettered community in the name of rights.

In the statement's current form, a signatory of the document can say that Islamically I don't believe in same-sex marriage, but I believe in their political right to get married and I will extend my support to them if they are denied their right. This document doesn't only leave the door open for such contradictory thinking and action, it also has some signatories who actually have such beliefs.

It would have been a monumental document if it had advised the Imams and scholars to stand up against the Qaum Lot and save humanity. It would have been a great effort if it guided the community on how to deal with those pro Qaum Lot politicians whose identity happens to be Islam. We Muslims are waiting for you and your peers to come out and set the example of Lot peace be upon him when he said: Verily, I am, towards your doings, of those who detest. (26:168)

What is new here for Muslims? We all know that a sin cannot be celebrated.


"Peaceful coexistence" is decriminalization rhetoric, and antithetical to Islam.

Lut (AS) was the minority, and still forbade the evils.

Muslims in non Islamic lands are obligated advocates for criminalization.

It's haraam to enable these criminal acts and harams to increase around you by calling for "peaceful coexistence" with crimes going rampant everywhere.

It's fard on all Muslims to regard these acts as criminal, and not be backfooted by saying it's only religiously condemned.

There is no 'peaceful coexistence' in your house while it's on fire. You look for ways to put out the fire. You call out that it's evil, that it must be stopped, that it's criminal.
Here is a list of @Haqiqatjou main points in the controversial video. I think many will agree that some (or all) points are reasonable. His main points against the document were that it:

•Concedes to the cultural, institutional, and legal framework of the Western system itself (parents’ consent rather than considering G culture outright wrong for adults and children) Appealing for constitutional rights and freedom of religion.

•Playing the minority card rather than conceiving this position as natural and normative. Appeal to Western morality which is flawed. Instead, must critique reengineering society, calling this wrong,

•It seeks only exemption from G-supporting policies and advocates only for Muslims, not all other groups which oppose this.

•The same constitution which is appealed to recognizes LGBTQ and thus cannot be the reference.

•This is tantamount to normalization and expansion of G rights (co-exist peacefully with them, rather than oppose and object to them). We do not coexist with criminals. We obey the law and do not commit violence, but we are not peaceful with G culture, and we do not accept it as a legitimate form of difference. G people are not like the people of the book and are not a community recognized by Islam and do not have the elements of the community (false analogy).

•The moral imperatives of Islam are not restricted only to Muslims (in particular, we believe that our morality is universal and not based on choice which is a Western idea).

•The Qur’an does not only excuse Muslims to be different but condemns and attacks G ideas and people as wrongdoers and dooms. It does not endorse coexisting peacefully with them. This is advocated now just to seem politically correct.

•God does not take us to account for what the self whispers as long as we do not act on it (but not what we think or believe which are different categories). This is a mistranslation. Also, there are environmental reasons for these thoughts which are not natural in Islam. Islam stands against these societal influences and does not keep silent about them.

•Actions do define the person’s identity in Islam (wrongdoers). This is against the modernist Muslim view that alternative sexuality is not a source of identity in reality but marks the person negatively morally.

•Muslims cannot and should not support Muslim politicians who advocate G people. Muslim cannot support them politically but not morally.

•For Muslims sexual immorality is destructive to society and brings punishment to all. It cannot be tolerated by Muslims or non-Muslims. Islam recognizes only true Christians. We need to condemn G people and not live with them and be silent. This is Islam’s sexual ethics. We do not support the right of others to engage in immorality.

•It is not لكم دينكم و لي ديني / “live and let others live”, based on the constitutional rights of all including Muslims. Islam condemns disbelievers and does not live with them in peace at least permanently but conceives the relationship as a struggle. G people are clear in their anti-heterosexual beliefs and that they are against family while Muslims want only to be passively let alone.

•The constitution itself positively affirms G people so Muslims are indirectly excluded as their religious rights are considered of lesser status in the constitution and are subject to restriction (hate speech).

•Appealing to harmonious coexistence according to constitutional rights with the right of Muslims to be different is not enough. Rather one has to protest and resist G people. This is already a compromise.

•Must reject other Muslims making compromising statements on behalf of Islam and reject their positions, not only urge them not to do so.

•The consequences of compromise are not restricted to Muslims and to Islam but to all humanity (Islam is universal).

•Object to the statement of “loving submission” since belief is based on fear of Allah swt. God is absolute and does anything He wants. It is not a restricted contract with God even though everything God does is good.

Last edited:
I did a 3+ hour live reaction to the "Navigating Differences" pro-Qawm Lut psy-op yesterday. Here is the core takeaway.

This statement is nothing other than a rewording of Yaqeen, Yasir Qadhi, and Jonathan Brown's infamous claim: Muslims should affirm and advocate many LGBT rights.

This is what Navigating Differences says, except it uses the term "constitutional rights" instead of "LGBT rights" in order to deceive Muslims.

The document's primary message: live and let live. Muslims will acknowledge the constitutional rights of LGBT (e.g., gay marriage, anti-discrimination, equal treatment regardless of orientation or gender identity, etc.). In return, Muslims beg for their purported constitutional right to religious freedom to be respected, i.e., the right to teach children gay sex is haram and there are 2 genders.

This mutual acknowledgment of rights will allow Muslims to live "peacefully" and "harmoniously" with Qawm Lut. This is what they mean by "Navigating Differences."

This document commits Muslims to not objecting to the entrenchment and expansion of LGBT rights. Why? Because those rights are increasingly being established as constitutional rights by the Supreme Court.

How is this any different from the trash these sell-outs have been saying for years? There is no difference. They have just reworded it in a deceptive way.

Rather than oppose the proliferation of LGBT rights, as all Muslims should do in following the Sunnah and Dawah of Lut, this document tells Muslims they must respect the constitutional rights of LGBT.

Readers of the letter who don't know that gay marriage, anti-discrimination, equal treatment on basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and other LGBT rights are already constitutional rights will miss this deception.

Of course, it is no surprise that Jonathan Brown is a signatory of the letter and is loudly promoting it. He must feel vindicated that his passionate call for Muslims to affirm and advocate LGBT rights is now being publicly backed by his Dawah Mafia friends.

May Allah open our eyes to the truth.

Quran 26:168 - [Prophet Lut] said, "I am truly one of those who abhor/hate your practice."

The noble prophet directly addressed these wretched people to their faces and condemned them for their behavior in the strongest terms.

Compassionate Imams never come close to this. They seek to hold hands with Qawm Lut, ally with them, March with them as friends, defend their "rights," etc.

And then when Muslims criticize these Compassionate Imams for their betrayal of Islam, do they apologize or retract? No!

All they can do is write pages and pages of convoluted drivel that contains no condemnation, no moral clarity, no nothing. Just politically correct appeals to a secular constitution and humiliating pleas for "peaceful harmony."

Only those Muslims who have been brainwashed by liberal secularism would consider this anything less than a full and cowardly capitulation to Qawm Lut.

These are the results of al-wahn.
Condeming LGBTQ+ in Muslim spaces isn’t enough for Daniel Haqiqatjou, it seems like he’s desperately arguing for the sake of arguing at this point and trying to convince his (most likely teenage) fans that Yasir Qadhi, Omar Suleiman etc want to destroy Islam from within. He constantly complains but doesn’t give viable alternatives.

As a religious minority living in the United States, apart from condemnation and making sure LGBTQ+ doesn’t enter Muslim spaces, what more do you want American Muslims to do?

Omar del Sur

الدُّنْيَا سِجْنُ الْمُؤْمِنِ وَجَنَّةُ الْكَافِرِ
honestly I think pretty much anything involving Yasir Qadhi is likely to have some sort of liberal agenda.... I personally would want even to shake his hand if I met him.... I don't support him at all, I don't want to hear a word he has to say and no way would I be in favor of signing any document that he has to do with......

but I think what happens with Haqiqatjou is Haqiqatjou makes this big thing of being anti.... lgbt, liberalism, etc.....

and it gets construed in this sort of implicit way.... Haqiqatjou is loudly saying stuff against lgbt..... therefore we need to support Haqiqatjou or we're not opposed to lgbt and we're sellouts.....

but in reality.... every Muslim scholar ever is against lgbt... if Haqiqatjou is against it, great.... but I'm not supporting him regardless....

he makes this big thing of being against it- okay.... if some Christian preacher is against it, I have to support Christianity as well?

only in today's messed up world is it even really this big issue.... for most places and times throughout history it was pretty much agreed that it wasn't acceptable

if Haqiqatjou is against it, he's right to be against it and I don't oppose him on that issue... but he has all kinds of other deviations and so I'm against him regardless... it's not like he has some kind of monopoly on having that stance....

if I have a book or some product- and I'm the only one with this product.... I can charge you a fortune and make all kinds of big demands.... but if I have a used copy of the first Harry Potter and there's 400 million other copies available, I'm no position to charge you any crazy price