As anyone who has criticised Zionism, we’ve been accused of being anti-Semitic, and now we are likely to be called homophobic too, for not conceding that homosexuality is a normal condition and simply a matter of choice. However, as our guest writer Alexander Baron points out in his article in this issue, these are smear terms coined to discredit and bereft of any real meaning. People who disagree with homosexuality are not afraid of homosexuals, as the term homophobia would imply, they are disgusted by them. Nor is there anything gay about the unhealthy and unstable lifestyles of members of the vociferous GLBT (Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transsexual) movement.  

So why do we concern ourselves with them in this issue of Common Sense? All too often have Muslims in the West closed their eyes and buried their heads in the sand vis-à-vis the civilisational diseases surrounding us, hoping and praying that they were somehow immune to them. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away, and the problem of homosexual propaganda and intimidation must be addressed rather than ignored or laughed off. Young people especially are vulnerable and more susceptible to propaganda. The Muslim youth are confused and unsure of their identity, they have dabbled into rap music and drug culture, they are experimenting with relationships, whilst their elders pretend that all is fine as long as they continue flattering each other at the mosque about the great services they render to the community. Our youth are a welcome prey to ill-meaning people with an agenda.  

In the past “gay rights” campaigners limited themselves to trying to make Muslims feel bad for not understanding and for “victimising” them. Muslim speakers at universities were asked to give an undertaking that they would not say anything considered prejudicial to people with a different “sexual orientation”. In the old one rule for one, another rule for another tradition, non-Muslim speakers were never asked not to offend Muslim sensitivities during their lectures. Muslim bashing remains the acceptable face of anti-Semitism.  

On an international level a similar approach brought repeated attempts to have an unnatural sexual orientation enshrined as a human right. Once this concept were accepted, UN support programmes or any other assistance could then be tied to the condition placed upon the recipient party to safeguard this “human right”. Thus, bullying and bribery remain the most potent means of changing the minds of people who refuse to be convinced by a spurious argument.  

Meanwhile, the movement feels confident enough to target the Muslim community more directly, very much in the same way as they have already broken the resistance of the Catholic Church, for example. The high-profile reporting of homosexual priests portrays Christian opposition to such unnatural practices as hypocritical. If Muslims could be made to “come out”, or be exposed, as homosexuals, the persistent opposition of Muslims as a whole might equally be broken.  

A cursory search of the internet, this hotchpotch of truths, half-truths, and the bizarre shows a growing presence of such attempts. It also shows the increased confidence of those who want to undermine and pervert Islamic teachings. There is, for example, a group called “Queer Jihad”, which used to be run by a Sulaiman X, a self-styled admirer of Malcolm X with Buddhist leanings. His approach was one of pleading for “tolerance” for Muslims who “discovered” that they were gay or lesbian, advocating a non-physical “love” relationship between Muslim members of the same sex attracted to each other whilst acknowledging the opposition of Islamic teachings to such a relationship. He obviously realised that a religion which does not even condone heterosexual casual relationships and insists on marriage as a precondition for intimacy would hardly be lenient towards members of the same sex living in sin together.  

This “pioneer” of the Muslim branch of the homosexual movement has now been replaced by a former Baptist convert to homosexual Islam who has come with his own agenda. From the plea for tolerance of his predecessor this advocate of the homosexual lifestyle has moved to dabbling into the interpretation of Qur’an and Hadith and trying to make the case that homosexuality is Islamically acceptable per se. The people of Lot were not destroyed simply because they were homosexual, but because they tried to force themselves with lust upon others who were not, he argues. It’s the public rape they were guilty of, not the same sex activity amongst each other. He goes further trying to construe from a selection of Hadith that homosexuality was an accepted practice at the time of the prophet, provided that those engaged in it did not intend to marry a member of the opposite sex at a later stage.  

Absurd as all this may sound, it is a poison administered at a time where the new generation of Muslims are no longer well versed in the teachings and source texts of Islam and obtain much of their information from the world wide web. Unless one understands that this is a concerted propagandistic effort by a well-organised and funded movement, not just the “queer” ramblings of a few eccentric and deranged people, there is a real danger that the certainties of faith will be eroded as has happened in the case of other religions.  

The “gay” lobby in this country is powerful enough to force a leadership debate in the Conservative Party. Public sympathy for homosexuals is not as common as the propaganda suggests, but neither is there much sympathy for Muslims. Just as the British National Party joined the convenient bandwagon of anti-Muslim sentiment to pursue its racist agenda, the homosexual movement will find this an opportune time for attacking Islam’s “homophobia”. To withstand this onslaught, we must address the issues in an informed way and avoid being apologetic.