Yasir Qadhi’s Hypocrisy, Adnan Rashid Loses The Plot Over Orlando


Not long after the massacre at Orlando gay nightclub Pulse, reports surfaced to suggest that the shooter, Omar Mateen, may well have been gay himself. It was interesting to watch the ways in which this particular detail was then spun by certain groups.

Before this information came to light, you may have heard people arguing that there is no conflict between Islam and homosexuality – despite the data to the contrary.

Then lo an behold, the killer was ‘outed’ as gay himself. Many jumped with joy at this revelation. The shooter couldn’t have been a Muslim you see, because he was gay. It shouldn’t take much brain power to recognise the inconvenient contradictions and hypocrisy here.

When Yasir Qadhi, a popular ‘Muslim Scholar’ isn’t getting all dewy-eyed over the good old days when rampant homophobia was the ‘mainstream’, he releases a statement to his 845,000 strong Facebook audience implying that a gay person cannot also be a Muslim.

This was released in response to reports about Mateen’s sexuality. The tone is more in anger at the view that Islam may have played apart in this atrocity, rather than sorrow for the fallen patrons of Pulse.

As I’ve previously noted, you do wonder why Qadhi doesn’t just point to the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents as his best case for “nothing to do with Islam”. It’s darkly amusing that Qadhi thinks that drinking alcohol and being gay are the strongest arguments for Omar Mateen’s excommunication – rather than say, the 49 corpses he left in his wake.

Adnan Rashid of Sunday morning British TV fame also had the same bright ‘idea’:

Of course, you don’t have to stretch the boundaries of logic to make the case that being raised in a religious culture of homophobia (Mateen’s dad: “God will punish homosexuality”) could forge a self-hating, conflicted gay Muslim. The ‘gay cure’ industry is testament to this tragic process.

However, all may not be what it seems. After initial investigations the FBI have stated there is in fact ‘no evidence’ to suggest Omar Mateen had gay lovers or used popular gay dating apps as had previously been reported.

Which begs the question, what will be the next “nothing to do with Islam” card played by characters such as Adnan and Yasir now that gay appears to be off the table?

I’m yet to hear from Yasir, but Adnan Rashid kindly stepped forward to shift the goalposts:

To my polite suggestion that Adnan reveal just how he is able (or qualified) to diagnose psychopathy, I received this bizarre accusation:

Yes, that’s right – asking inconvenient, yet civil questions on Twitter is the same as gunning down a room full of people.

It’s clear to me that the “nothing to do with Islam” position is an unfalsifiable one. It’s a commitment to a narrative rather than a desire to understand motives, or acknowledge the facts.

If I’m wrong about this, perhaps Yasir and Adnan could do us all the favour of outlining a set of parameters which would qualify someone for the title of “Islamic extremist”. What would a genuine act of Islamic terror look like? Can they point to any examples?

Of course, if they can’t, they are essentially trying to propagate the view that not a single Muslim on this planet is motivated to behave badly by what they believe to be true about their scriptures.

This is to say that what people believe to be true about reality and other people has no bearing whatsoever on the way they behave. I look forward to receiving Yasir’s and Adnan’s tick sheet of items that would permit someone to reasonably claim that an act of terror has at least ‘something’ to do with Islam.

Stephen Knight is host of The #GSPodcast. You can listen to The Godless Spellchecker Podcast here, and support it by becoming a patron here.


  • Suggesting the ideology of Islam has nothing to do with Islamic atrocities and bigotry caused by practicing Muslims, is as ludicrous as suggesting white supremacism has nothing to do with the atrocities and bigotry caused by the KKK.

  • All Adnan Rashid and his ilk say is that to be a devout Muslim means you are “perfect”. They have so many ways to counter all of the violence. For instance, if a lady became a terrorist, but she didn’t cover her hair, that would be another excuse. It all comes down to the ridiculous “proper Muslim” which is problematic for those who actually do wish to ditch hair coverings etc.
    There is no such thing as “perfect” anywhere, and there is no such thing as a “proper Muslim”.
    Either these people do not know how religions work, or they are making excuses. It is of course, the latter.

  • I would like to respectfully request that the name for the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy be changed to ‘nothing to do with Islam’.

What do you think? Leave some comments!