(Blog) Islamic Rise & Rainbow Wave - Ep. 1012 - November 10, 2026

Political alliances can bring groups together without resolving their religious and moral disagreements. That tension drives Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland's discussion of Muslim and LGBTQ representation in American government.

In our November 10, 2026, episode of The Smith and Rowland Show, Alan and Jeff examine elected-office figures, religious liberty, and the influence of personal convictions on public decisions. Their starting point is local government, where school boards, councils, and other offices shape daily life beyond the national headlines.

Muslim Representation in Local and State Government

Jeff begins with figures he attributes to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. He cites 255 Muslim elected officials serving across 26 states before the November elections, a total included in CAIR's 2026 elected-officials directory announcement.

The conversation gives the following breakdown.

Jeff's emphasis is on where these officials serve. Nearly two-thirds of the positions he lists are in local government or education, rather than Congress.

Although these offices attract less national attention, he argues that they influence school policies, community regulations, and decisions families encounter every day. He describes this concentration of local offices as evidence of grassroots political organization.

Alan initially asks whether the officials were hired. Jeff clarifies that the discussion concerns elected positions, making voter participation central to his argument.

November's Results and Questions About Abdul El-Sayed

Jeff next cites 97 Muslim candidates elected in November, a figure also reported in CAIR's post-election results announcement.

During the exchange, Alan and Jeff discuss a rough total of about 350. However, Jeff also cautions that the 97 victories cannot simply be added to the earlier directory count. His broader point is that the results show increasing electoral organization and success among Muslim Americans.

The discussion then turns to Michigan's Abdul El-Sayed, whom Jeff identifies as the first Muslim elected to the United States Senate. Jeff raises allegations about connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and asks why the organization would celebrate El-Sayed's political rise.

He also alleges that El-Sayed wants to promote Sharia law. Those comments are Jeff's accusations and concerns about the candidate, rather than an account of a policy statement or official action examined during the discussion.

The "Rainbow Wave" in Congress and Nationwide

Alongside the Muslim representation figures, Alan and Jeff discuss what the episode calls a "rainbow wave."

They quote the Congressional Equality Caucus's post-election celebration of what it calls the "gayest Congress in American history." The episode describes that incoming body as the 120th Congress.

Alan reads an Equality PAC projection of 17 openly LGBTQ lawmakers, including two senators and 15 House members. He also names New Hampshire Democrat Chris Pappas, whose election would make him the first openly gay man in the Senate.

The conversation extends beyond Washington. Alan cites 1,359 openly LGBTQ elected officials nationwide as of May 2026, the total in the LGBTQ Victory Institute's Out for America report. He describes the increase since 2017 as more than 200%.

For Alan and Jeff, these figures matter because elected representation can influence legislation involving sexual orientation, gender identity, and discrimination protections. As with the Muslim elected-official figures, they emphasize the reach of political activity outside Congress.

The Equality Act and Religious-Liberty Concerns

The Equality Act is the main legislative example raised during the discussion. Its proposed protections address discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, as described in the Equality Act bill summary.

Alan reads the argument that supporters consider such legislation necessary to prevent discrimination. He then contrasts that position with religious-liberty concerns involving Christian schools, ministries, employers, and individuals who hold traditional biblical convictions.

Jeff applies that concern to a local independent Baptist church. He argues that advocates want legislation that could require a church to hire an openly gay employee despite the church's beliefs.

That hiring scenario is Jeff's interpretation of the political goal. The conversation doesn't examine a particular court decision or provision establishing that requirement.

The larger disagreement concerns the relationship between civil-rights protections and religious practice. Alan and Jeff worry that legislation presented as protection against discrimination could place Christian institutions under pressure to act against their convictions.

Shared Political Coalitions, Conflicting Moral Beliefs

Alan and Jeff repeatedly return to the contrast between traditional Islamic teachings and LGBTQ advocacy.

As they describe it, traditional Islamic teaching condemns homosexual conduct and maintains distinctions between male and female. Alan also reads that some Muslim-majority countries criminalize same-sex sexual activity, with severe penalties, including death in some jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, LGBTQ advocacy organizations seek recognition of same-sex relationships, transgender identities, and legal protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The question they raise is how groups with such different convictions can support the same candidates and political coalitions, particularly within the Democratic Party.

Their answer is that shared electoral goals don't settle moral disagreements. Groups may cooperate politically while retaining conflicting views about sexuality, religious authority, and civil law.

Alan and Jeff then give that cooperation a spiritual interpretation. They describe the coalitions as evil and argue that shared opposition to Christianity and capitalism explains the political agreement they perceive. These are their judgments about the movements, rather than positions established for every Muslim voter or LGBTQ person.

Montgomery County's School Curriculum Dispute

Public education gives the discussion a concrete example of religious groups cooperating across theological differences.

Alan reads about Muslim and Christian families in Montgomery County, Maryland, who challenged restrictions on parental opt-outs from certain LGBTQ-themed elementary school materials. Jeff sees this as an example of political alliances becoming complicated when curriculum decisions touch religious convictions.

Their concern has two parts. First, they object to the presence of these materials in elementary schools. Second, they note that conservative Muslim and Christian parents can oppose the same policy despite disagreements between their religions.

Jeff stresses the age of the children involved. He distinguishes elementary education from high school or college and questions why parents must organize against the materials at that level.

For Alan and Jeff, the dispute illustrates a distinction between agreement on a public-school policy and agreement about religious truth. Cooperation on one issue doesn't resolve the theological differences they discuss elsewhere.

Faith, Judges, and Public Decision-Making

The conversation also addresses whether officials can separate their beliefs from their public responsibilities.

Jeff argues that faith influences decisions in every area of life. Alan agrees and expresses concern about appearing before a Muslim judge who approaches a case through what Alan calls a "Sharia law mindset."

Their concern draws on the 18 Muslim judges listed earlier. However, they don't examine a ruling by any of those judges. Their argument centers on the possibility that religious convictions could influence legal decisions.

Alan also recounts hearing a Muslim speaker claim that Islamic teaching permits deception to gain influence over non-Muslims. He initially says he doesn't know whether the claim is true, but then repeats the interpretation as a concern about political power.

Jeff asks him to restate it because he considers it important. The claim rests on Alan's account of an unnamed speaker, rather than a Quran passage examined in the conversation.

Together, these exchanges show how Alan and Jeff connect religious belief with questions about trust, authority, and the exercise of government power.

Grassroots Organization and the Church's Local Role

Jeff interprets both Muslim political organization and LGBTQ advocacy as efforts to gain governing influence. In his view, school boards, small-town offices, and other local institutions are central to that effort.

He describes LGBTQ advocacy as a political movement concerned with control and legislation. Similarly, he characterizes Islam as a governing system that seeks to organize society around Islamic principles.

Against that picture, Jeff argues that churches should function as local networks. His criticism is that Christians can understand themselves as members of the body of Christ while remaining disconnected from organized community life.

Alan responds with a joke that there may be little "root" left in the grass. Jeff follows with the scriptural language, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth."

Beneath the exchange is a concern about organization. They believe other movements have worked systematically at the local level while churches have failed to maintain comparable connections.

Scripture, Party Politics, and Christian Conviction

Jeff repeats an argument he says he made before Joe Biden's election: he believes Christian faith cannot be reconciled with the Democratic Party's platform and policies.

Alan recalls the reaction that earlier statement received. Jeff maintains the position and connects it to the changes in elected representation discussed throughout the episode.

He then reads scriptural language describing denial of the Father and the Son as antichrist. Later, he reads another passage about deceivers who don't confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

These passages establish the theological standard Jeff applies to public life: confession of Jesus Christ.

He also contrasts the present discussion with the controversy surrounding John F. Kennedy's Catholicism in the 1960 presidential election. In Jeff's account, Christian concerns about religious identity in national leadership have changed considerably since that period.

Alan and Jeff interpret those changes through their understanding of biblical prophecy. Their references to antichrist, deception, and judgment are religious interpretations of political developments.

Predictions About Interfaith Cooperation

Jeff predicts that Muslim leaders and Christian institutions will appear together more often in religious settings. He expects events featuring Muslim clerics in Christian pulpits to receive public celebration as examples of unity.

He places that prediction within his criticism of what he calls the "apostate church." In his view, churches that have accepted LGBTQ clergy or LGBTQ-themed worship practices may also pursue religious cooperation that compromises Christian teaching.

Alan says such events may already have occurred without their knowledge. Jeff's prediction is that these gatherings will become more visible during the following two years and receive favorable media coverage.

The distinction matters within their argument: the Montgomery County example concerns cooperation over school policy, while Jeff's prediction concerns cooperation in worship and church leadership.

He believes the second kind of cooperation would cross a theological boundary. His objection rests on his conviction that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father.

Jeff's Teaching on "Three Great Delusions"

Jeff connects his predictions to an earlier teaching series in which he identified what he calls "three great delusions": Islam, Judaism, and apostate Christianity.

In that framework, he associates Islam with Iran and Judaism with Israel. He describes apostate Christianity as institutional religion that no longer preaches the exclusive role of Jesus Christ in salvation.

His account includes broad accusations about religious coercion, hostility toward Christians, and the desire to govern or control. He also attributes influence over governments, economies, and wars to these three religious categories.

Jeff interprets their relationship through the book of Revelation. Alan then suggests that the political developments they are discussing reflect a spiritual power beyond the movements themselves.

Jeff calls that power a principality and refers to the "prince of Persia." Their exchange about Iran and Minnesota continues this spiritual-war interpretation, with Alan describing the country as having suffered a spiritual attack.

Both men conclude that the Christian voice they consider faithful has become a minority voice. Jeff adds that, in his view, it often isn't being raised at all.

Trump's "Reprieve" and the Military Discussion

Jeff says he believes God placed Donald Trump in office to give the country a temporary reprieve. He then declares that the reprieve is over.

The discussion turns to what Jeff describes as articles of impeachment filed against Pete Hegseth by a departing Republican member of Congress. Jeff interprets that reported action as the first move against the military following the elections.

He connects the issue to the conflict with Iran. In his view, political opponents would try to restrict the military after the new Congress took office in January.

Jeff therefore argues that Trump should finish the war with Iran before Congress is seated. He calls for the administration to complete the operation rather than leave it exposed to the political conflict he expects.

These remarks extend his larger interpretation of the election: he sees the results as affecting both domestic policy and the government's ability to conduct military operations.

AI-Generated Sermons and the Question of Anointing

The conversation then turns to preaching.

Alan recounts meeting with two other preachers and discussing a minister who reads his sermons. Alan says he believed those sermons came from artificial intelligence because he couldn't sense what he calls the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

When challenged on that assessment, Alan says spiritual discernment is the basis for his judgment. He makes the same argument about AI-generated worship music: a song may have strong lyrics and a pleasing tune without carrying the spiritual presence he associates with worship.

"AI cannot duplicate Holy Spirit."

Jeff agrees. Both men argue that polished language alone can't supply the spiritual power they believe preaching requires.

Alan worries that AI-generated sermons can sound convincing while failing to move listeners toward conversion. Jeff broadens the concern to any sermon built mainly through intellectual preparation without an encounter with God.

Their distinction is between the quality of the words and the spiritual source of the message. They believe a sermon can succeed as a presentation while lacking the anointing they consider essential.

How Jeff Describes Preparing a Message

Jeff explains his own understanding of sermon preparation through prayer, worship, Scripture, and seeking God's presence.

He says the thoughts a preacher delivers should grow out of that encounter with Christ. In his account, this is what gives the preacher a message with spiritual authority.

An intellectually organized sermon may contain accurate information, he argues, but information alone doesn't provide the power of the Holy Spirit. He believes preaching must confront listeners with truth about their actual condition.

Alan connects that point to belief itself. He describes anointing as the power that enables someone to believe what they otherwise couldn't accept.

For both men, preparation involves more than assembling material. They place the preacher's spiritual life at the center of the work and regard prayerful engagement with God as the source of what reaches the congregation.

Full Services at an Atlanta Church

Alan closes this part of the discussion with an account of an Atlanta church he recalls as "28:19," which he associates with Matthew 28:19.

He says he saw a social-media report showing the parking lot already full around 8 a.m. According to the account he describes, people had begun arriving around 3 a.m., and several Sunday services filled.

Alan also recalls that the preacher had spoken at a large venue in Texas and delivered a warning that included comments about Talarico. He doesn't remember the preacher's name during the conversation.

For Alan, the turnout supports his belief that people still seek direct, Bible-based preaching. He attributes the congregation's response to anointing rather than an AI-written message or a polished production.

Jeff welcomes the account. After a discussion dominated by political and religious concerns, both men express gratitude for what they regard as evidence of continuing spiritual hunger.

Conviction in Government and the Pulpit

The central thread in our Episode 1012 discussion is the relationship between conviction and authority. Alan and Jeff believe religious and moral commitments shape decisions in public office, even when political allies disagree about those commitments.

They apply a related standard to preaching: polished words don't replace the spiritual preparation they consider necessary. The episode ends with concern about political direction, but also with hope that people continue to seek preaching rooted in Scripture and the presence of God.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), Islamic Rise & Rainbow Wave - Ep. 1012 - November 10, 2026"