May 122014

Why must I share my love for the Divine?
Don’t they see He’s my warm sunshine?
Shall I then forsake His light, alone,
Cold, bereft, only darkness, unknown!
For death in His cause, I longingly yearn
A chance for me to, unto Him return.
And when all this noise is gone one day,
In His noble company shall I forever stay.

 Posted by on May 12, 2014 at 10:50 am  Comments Off on Love of God means love for Humanity and Hatred of Oppressors
Oct 022016

isis crucification

Explaining Chapter 5 verse 33 of the Holy Quran
The verse appears to call for extreme and cruel punishment for those who wage war against God and His messenger.
The verse goes as follows, according to Yusuf Ali’s translation:
5|33|The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
This verse should however be considered in the light of other verses in the Holy Book which attribute these forms of punishments to the greatest enemy of God, namely Pharaoh.  Look at the next three verses, where these cruel punishments are threatened to God’s Prophet and the believers:
7|124|”Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides, and I will cause you all to die on the cross.”
20|71|(Pharaoh) said: “Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! be sure I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have you crucified on trunks of palm-trees: so shall ye know for certain, which of us can give the more severe and the more lasting punishment”
26|49|”Said (Pharaoh): ‘Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? surely he is your leader, who has taught you sorcery! but soon shall ye know! Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will cause you all to die on the cross!”

This creates a better context within which to reach a proper understanding of chapter 5 verse 33.  A more correct translation would then be:
5|33|If anyone deserved being massacred, crucified, having their hands and feet cut on opposite sides, or removed from the face of the earth, then it would be those who wage war against God and His messenger, frantically spreading corruption on earth. To them would such humiliation be fit, and for them would there be a severe punishment in the hereafter.

Now let’s apply a modern day context to increase our understanding  of this verse.
Israel has declared that its enemies are fair game for assassination.  The US has declared that its enemies are fair game for drone strikes.  Both of these countries are also known to summarily incarcerate their enemies for lengthy periods.  America and Israel have furthermore been exposed for subjecting their enemies to severe humiliation and torture.
If that verse was to be applied to this modern context, and the language slightly adapted to our times, it would render a meaning such as the following:
”If anyone deserved being blown up by missiles, tortured or locked up indefinitely, it would be those who wage war against God and His messenger whilst vigorously promoting corruption and evil on earth… “
As you can see, the Quran repeats the cruelty of Pharaoh’s unjust punishment on the righteous and projects it back on the perpetrator of such cruelty.
It is useful to note that the Arabic of verse 33 is written in the passive mood.  It nowhere calls for Believers to mete out such punishment, only that such punishment would have been fit for those who spread corruption and engage in aggressive war.  It in fact implies that the same may happen to those who practice such cruelty, in which case they would have brought it upon themselves.

 Posted by on May 12, 2014 at 10:50 am  Comments Off on Love of God means love for Humanity and Hatred of Oppressors
May 152016


The owners and controllers of the mass media are the high priests of our time. Their claims of truth dominate our behavior.  Their grand narrative serves as the intellectual cage within which every free citizen is held captive intellectually.  The corporate owned mass media represent the high priests of our time; the devil priests, the Pharisees; the traders in fear and dread and the soul enslavers.   They are those who are forever making and enforcing absolute truth claims that are riddled with inconsistencies.  They are those who locate sectional interests in glorious golden holy frames.  They are those who claim that the best interests of the elite few are also the best interests of society.

The grand priests have been the bane of society at many a time in human history.  The high priests peddle in fear; fear of the punishment for disobeying them and fear of the consequences for society should their narrative be abandoned by society.  They harness that most powerful instinct in every human being, namely to flee in the face of mortal danger.

They use fear firstly to keep us obedient to their lies.  Those high priests of the dark and middle ages used torture and excommunication.  The Pharisees of the time of Jesus Christ used the cross and delivery to the wrath of the Roman authorities.  The high priests of Islam used and still use “takfeer” (declaring of apostacy), followed by the “fatwa” as judicial murder.  In our enlightened world, the mass media have acquired new tools of submission through fear, namely social stigmatization, social exclusion, career destruction, economic annihilation and finally, when all else fails, legitimating targeted airstrikes and regime change.

Then there is the dread they instill in society for the apocalyptic consequences should society deviate from their narrative.  The devil priest promises an apocalypse of biblical proportions to those who question their truth claims.  Unlike the apocalypse of the medieval and Saudi priests, who peddle in an apocalypse and eternal damnation in the afterlife, the secular priest promises damnation and apocalypse in this world. They caution against subverting the elite as an act of endangering the balance and stability of the entire world.  .  The secular satanic order promises nuclear apocalypse from Iran, mass slaughter and mayhem of the middle class from the poor and downtrodden and economic collapse and mass suffering should the global banking system be challenged or overthrown.  That is the damnation that the secular priests wield as the consequence of challenging their truth.

A small bit of critical reflection reveals the falsehood of the modern secular priestly order.  Their narrative is a false narrative because of its many clear irrationalities and internal contradictions.   Freedom of choice is holy and untouchable, but the state legislates to control the legitimate personal choices of every individual.  The state should serve as a defender of the weak, but the strong own the state. Freedom is sacred, but people spend a lifetime in employment and debt bondage.  Upward social mobility is used to motivate us, but the economy demands a race to the bottom.  Justice, personal well-being, education and security are guaranteed, but only to those who can afford it.  Question anything, except that which has been declared as unspoken truths by those who control the grand narrative.

You know it’s wrong when it contradicts itself.  That’s a simple rule of thumb.  Now let me present you with the most profound contradictions of our time.

Contradiction number one:  A secular western world, with a religious devotion to the pirate criminal entity called Israel, founded on biblical justifications.  A secular democratic western world with a deep commitment to standing with and defending a medieval barbaric absolutist hereditary monarchy called Saudi Arabia.  The high priest global media narrative skirts around this colossal contradiction every day and makes it seem as normal as the sun coming up in the morning.  The shapers of social convention make it a taboo to preach religion, yet make it an article of faith to accept Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Contradiction number two:   A Western World that preaches freedom of speech and personal choice, which has on its legal statutes a banning of any questioning of certain sacred topics.  In Europe, hundreds of peaceful people, including academics have been sent to jail, or ruined financially for daring to revise aspects of the grand narrative around Jewish deaths during World War 2.  In America it is offensive to the point inviting social damnation to present any claim that Jewish power control’s America, and yet the same dealers in damnation use every opportunity to denounce minorities that exercise inordinate control in any other contexts.

The secular priestly order, as a means of ensuring that such damnation is never visited upon humanity, establishes, in all of our minds, its justification for the most gruesome punishment of vengeance against those who question their truth.  The slaying of the innocent in Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan and in Syria is all perfectly justified as a means of defending the global order from collapse.  The simple, but false message is: if Israel suffers, we all suffer; a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia and therefore a threat to all of us; fulfilling to the social needs of the masses will endanger the national economy, and therefore will endanger all of us; and also, the global economic and banking system is virtue incarnate.

The warping of the human sense of morality has reached its zenith under the satanic order.  Only in our times has the killing of animals become a cause of greater anguish than the killing of infants and children.  Only in our time has sexual perversion become a pursuit more desirable than personal dignity.   Only in our time has the liberation and empowerment of the female gender of our species become synonymous with the sexual manipulation and objectification of that part of the species.   Only in our time have wars of plunder, dispossession and slaughter become cloaked in humanitarian terms.   Only in our time has procreation, motherhood and the family been declared as retrogressive and backward, whilst same-sex unions, mass abortions and prostitution are declared as noble causes.

To save our world, and to save our very humanity, the global mass media that serves as the satanic priestly order of our time must be eradicated.  By the global mass media I mean every script that is written and delivered via a corporate news bulletin, movie or other mass broadcast, aimed at reinforcing the false grand narrative. I also mean every voice that seeks to subvert the real rights of humanity in favor of the false needs of the global elite.   That includes every comedy that turns good human values into objects of ridicule;  every movie that turns the female into a sex object and the pervert into a hero; every news item that forwards justification for the slaughter of innocents; every commentator that preaches that meeting social survival needs of all the people is unrealistic economically and every attractive male or female actor or public personality that uses an animated voice and fake sincerity to try to pacify us into accepting that the powerful in society only mean us well.

We must all become apostates of the satanic order.  We must all embrace their excommunication and their economic persecution and return them their favor.   The brave will lead the way and suffer the consequences of stigmatization, economic ruin, incarceration and even martyrdom.  But the martyrs, the economically ruined and the stigmatized will hopefully light the way for the rest of us with less courage to follow. Let us become proud targets of their attack, and target them back.  Let us become proud of being objects of controversy and, in return, drown them in controversy.  Let us bravely expose the order of Satan and become tools for its eradicating, with the hope that we are clearing the way for true humanity to be reborn.

 Posted by on May 12, 2014 at 10:50 am  Comments Off on Love of God means love for Humanity and Hatred of Oppressors
Mar 042016

How many times have you seen praises heaped on ancient priests, crediting them with an enormous contribution to the development of Islam. There are thousands of books written over centuries that, according to the misguided, constitute the corpus of Islamic knowledge. Books on law, books on Prophetic sayings and books on Quranic exegesis are all claimed to be representing the essence of Islam, in addition to the Holy Quran. The Salafists in fact describe themselves as the followers of the pious predecessors.

The reality is that man did not develop Islam. Islam is the gift from God. Islam is the social and personal manifestation of virtue. Islam is the gift of the Creator to every child, at the very moment that they are born, before they ever meet any scholar or priest. The Holy Quran says, in the second chapter: “This is the book, in which there is no doubt; A guide to those that are pious / conscientious”. How do we explain that the Quran, as a precondition, assumes the presence of piety or conscientiousness in its reader? Does that not mean that our natural instincts, with which we are born, are already wholesome and pure? After all, it would be unjust for the Creator to promise guidance to every person evenly, if we do not accept the premise that we are all born with piety / conscientiousness (Taqwa). How can God hold people to account if they were not given this piety or good nature to begin with? Would it not then be a suitable defense on judgment day to claim that one was deprived of piety and conscientiousness?

The fact is that we are all born with a core set of positive and noble traits. Telling the truth, having compassion for one’s fellow human, respecting the other’s property and person are all traits that we are all born with. In our early living years, provided that we have not been mis-educated or corrupted by an evil parent, we do not need to be taught these. Even a child, who takes a toy away from his little sister does so, knowing innately that it’s wrong. That’s why they will rather do it while their mom looks away!

The problem is that, as we go through our lives, we find our good nature compromised by various factors. When we experience hardship materially, we start entertaining thoughts of unjustly taking what is not due to us. When we experience abundance, we start entertaining the idea not to be compassionate or sharing. When we face danger, we start entertaining the thought of telling a lie, or even disrespecting another person’s property or his person.

As we grow older and start the process of social conformity, we compromise further. We then adopt the erroneous practices of our society for the sake of fitting in. The idolatrous society will seek to cultivate and perpetuate idolatry. Similarly, the society that is based on plunder and theft will cultivate plunder and theft. It takes much courage and possible isolation to attempt to abandon the corrupt practices of your society.

We are all born pure, and then start the process of contamination almost immediately; contamination caused by our own weaknesses and failures as well as contamination caused by our society. The mission of the scholar is not a mission of building something new, but rather a mission of undoing contamination. Our mission as agents for Truth is not to convolute or to complicate it, but rather to UNcomplicate it and to extract it . We need to undo the mesh that covers the truth for our society. The process of knowledge construction is actually a process of revealing truth and exposing error. The true act of devotion to God is the act of exposing first and then abandoning falsehood.

Let me use the metaphor of gold mining. Gold is not produced. It is pre-existent. The job of the gold miner is to identify it, crystallize it, purify it and then polish it to make it as radiant as possible. That, my dear reader, is the role of the scholar. The true scholar is a Truth activist. Scholars have the mission of seeking the truth from where-ever it is buried from sight, and to uncover, purify and illuminate it. The true scholar also has the mission of debunking falsehood, and then to bravely raise caution against it.

Now, let us apply this to the tradition of scholarship presently and over the centuries. Before I can do so, I have to add a further important aspect on the process of truth seeking and knowledge generation.

There exists a category of human knowledge that deals with the unique and idiosyncratic aspects of specific individuals and communities. Let me illustrate this type of knowledge via a practical example. It is Truth (capital T) to refrain from consuming certain harmful categories of food. Food becomes lawful if it is not usurped, not filthy, not poisonous or not harmful in any other way. To state that “Food should be clean, lawfully earned, non-toxic and beneficial” is a statement of absolute Truth that is universally valid. That is the Truth we are referring to as the pre-existent axiomatic Truth. Axiomatic Truths are objectively valid across time and space. It represents a standard by which all people should subscribe, in their own best interest. What is relative, subjective knowledge then when it comes to food?

Food preparation represents a mundane category of knowledge that is subjective instead of objective. To say “We prefer spicy food” may be true in one context, but false in another. Producing rice may be the right way to proceed in a water-rich place, while it may be a wrong to try to cultivate in a water-poor environment. The entire realm of gastronomy and the culinary arts fall within the realm of subjective and relative knowledge. The flavour and type of food that is consumed is unique to a person or a people, based on their preferences, their environment and their physiological needs amongst other factors.

It is useful to note at this point that eternal objective Truths in the realm of voluntary decisions of humans are few, while subjective relativist “truths” or knowledge is wide-ranging and numerous.

Eternal Truths are the pegs and the poles that provide integrity to the grand structure of human society, while the visible everyday practices of human society are the canvas. We are free to choose the fabric, the colour and the shape of the canvas cover. We cannot however have a meaningful structure without set of firm pegs and supports. This essay is not denying the existence of a category of knowledge that is subjective, pluralistic, relative and socially situated. It is a very necessary category of knowledge. It may in fact represent what is sometimes the most exciting and interesting part of everyday life.

The scholars of Islam and of Modernity have sadly confused these two categories of knowledge completely.

Muslim scholars have incorporated vast categories of relativist, subjective knowledge and practices under the category of absolute subjective Truth. Let me take some examples. Muslim priests have written endless treatises in which they split hairs about the mode of institutional worship (Salaah). This even though the core Truth proclaimed in the Holy Quran around institutional worship is very simple. The Quran merely call for worship to become institutionalized daily, done with sincerity, done in a social fashion and done in a state of cleanliness. The exact details are left as subjective details to be operationalised as and how it matches our particular needs. When we try to universalize subjective practices, we end up in trouble. How, for example does a person implement prayer at sunset, when the sun will not set for several months, as is the case in some countries. That is why the Holy Quran calls for a prayer cycle relative to “the two ends of the day.” The “two ends of the day” is a concept that resonates at any place on earth. We all start a daily cycle and end it. Now we simply have to structure institutional worship around that cycle.

Another example: Breaking the fast with dates is a subjective truth, relevant to places where dates are the staple food. Calling for people to eat dates, as a universally sanctified truth, in a place where maze is the staple food is stupid. Dress code is another example. The Holy Quran calls for a dress code that promotes modesty and public decency. The colour, shape and texture of clothing could be highly flexible, as long as it complies with modesty and decency. Yet, even here we find the silly call by scholars to universalize the colour and the shape of people’s clothing, and claiming Divine sanction for their imposition.

This act of inventing an extended realm of Universal Truth represents the corruption of pure Islam. It represents the act of usurping the authority of God, and imposing a parallel human authority along His Divine authority, claiming that they all represent His divine will. You then get the case where a particular practice becomes divinely ordained by one group while its opposite is also divinely ordained by another group. There are countless examples of this, if you consult the books of laws invented by the scholars. Some say a woman’s face should be covered, while others say its not necessary. Some say shell fish is forbidden by God, others say God has sanctioned its consumption. I can list hundreds of these examples from their books.

The role of a true scholar of Islam should be to rediscover unadulterated core divine Truth, and to expose relativist, subjective truths that are paraded as the Divine will. These are the practices that are meant to be formulated by people as and how their circumstances demand.

Where has the West gone wrong on the other hand? Modern western sociology has taken the opposite extreme of declaring all knowledge as subjective and relative, thereby denying the existence of eternal universal Truths. Its impact on society has been devastating. Post-positivists (as they are known) reject any notion of an objective truth. The result is a fractured society which lacks a transcendent set of values and principles. The neo-liberal global economy is the Frankenstein monster of post-positivism and post-modernism. It abandons universal values such as respect for property, compassion and justice. The end result is a world left to its own mercy. A world where the strong thrive and the weak are abandoned to misery and neglect.

 Posted by on May 12, 2014 at 10:50 am  Comments Off on Love of God means love for Humanity and Hatred of Oppressors
Feb 202016


The band “Pussy Riot” invade a Christian Cathedral in Moscow


The term LGBT was invented to refer jointly to lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals. It connotes both a lifestyle and sexual preference. It is important to note that the term Gay has evolved to refer to a “preference” instead of an inborn trait. At an earlier stages of Gay discourse, it would appear that the term “Gay” was coined more in reference to those that showed an inborn drive for same-sex relationships, whether sexual or not. Today, the LGBT community will be critical of anyone trying to limit the phenomenon to only those who have a natural tendency, choosing instead to view it as a lifestyle choice.

LGBT has developed in six phases as a phenomenon over the past four decades.
• Being gay as a personal condition,
• being gay as a personal choice,
• being gay as a social choice,
• celebrating being gay,
• actively advocating for the mainstreaming of gay discourse and lastly,
• actively sitting in judgement those in opposition to the phenomenon.

I wish to approach the discussion on LGBT along four perspectives.
1. LGBT as a lifestyle choice
2. LGBT as a topic within a broader human rights discussion
3. LGBT as manifested in society
4. LGBT within Islamic and religious discourse.

1. LGBT as a lifestyle choice

LGBT is an emblem rather than a fully substantive lifestyle in my view. If LGBT is at its root a sexually referenced choice, then I cannot see how it can represent a complete or comprehensive comment on sexual discourse. LGBT does not provide an exhaustive frame for discussing sexuality. After all, it omits bestiality, incest and polygamy as some examples. Neither does LGBT provide a complete or comprehensive framework for any meaningful lifestyle discourse. The human experience is frightfully complex, and, reducing it to the sexual is limiting in the extreme.

What is LGBT emblematic of? Same-sex attraction and relationships have always been there. What makes it different in our times? My humble submission is that LGBT represent the most profound attack on the normative. It represents the highest form of rejection of any positivist or objectivist world view. It represents the most visible (and colourful) celebration of the break with modernity and pre-modernity. The gay movement takes the archetypal traditional human taboo topic, namely sex, and celebrates the break with traditional approaches to it. It is therefore not enough for the LGBT activist to recognize sexual deviation from the norms, but instead, chooses to celebrate it. It represents a sort of shock treatment to normative systems, with the goal of unfreezing existing attitudes. It makes a mockery of the dominant normative social paradigm, to the point of de-legitimizing it.

LGBT has grown out of post-modernity. As an activism, it can perhaps be seen as a natural outgrowth from a society where pleasure-seeking and nihilism constitute the foundation. A society un-anchored in a set of transcendent norms, where a unique personal identity becomes more and more contested, provides the compost from which the activism has grown. LGBT provides more than an identity to its proponents. It redefines a moral and ethical discourse within which the LGBT identity is not only shaped, but in fact heroically adopted as an emblem of that new ethical and moral framework. It presents moral, naturalistic and social relativism to humanity as a new code of existence, placing the LGBT community in its vanguard.

There are many other bases from which identity has been shaped; Economic status, dietary preference, mode of worship or appearance being some examples. The problem with any of these becoming emblematic of the new moral relativism is the absence of any substantive and real currency that these would have in society. If the vegans of the world were to launch a movement to make veganism the emblem for moral relativism it would simply not have enough impact. Choosing to make an economically defined category the basis has been done before within Marxist analysis, which places the human, as the worker at the heart of its discourse. In a neo-liberal, market dominated society; the money masters would simply not allow this. Variant modes of worship or non-worship, such as the neo-atheist movement and other post-modern new-age ideas have had some good impact, but not nearly as successful as the LGBT discourse. The element that these phenomena lack, and which is probably the key to the success of LGBT activism is the element of victimhood. As with Zionism, which really only received mass global sympathy after the Holocaust, LGBT enjoys a wave of popular sympathy due to the perceived victim status of gays throughout history.

A final word on the LGBT lifestyle is that it does appear to be a middle class phenomenon. The LGBT agenda is not being visibly directed by the poor, but rather driven by the wealthy middle class.

2. LGBT within broader human rights

The post-modern condition has created an obsession with individual identities. These Individual identities have had to be forged from whatever source possible. Religion, nationality, race and culture provided some useful sources where people could create for themselves an individual identity, in the new confusing pluralistic society. Nowhere was this more relevant than in societies such as in the “melting pot” USA or the “rainbow nation” South Africa. The “rainbow nation”, where each color manifests separately is a very effective metaphor of the new identity-obsessed society. In an attempt to subscribe to a human rights culture and individual rights, the new pluralistic society has virtually sanctified individual or sectional identities. LGBT, as a newly emerged social choice, has joined other sectional identities as being sanctified by law.

The problem is that the human rights emphasis on sectional and individual identities has come at a cost of an emphasis on core human and social and economic rights. Why do we hear of “Gay Rights” as human rights, “Freedom of Religion” as a human right, but never, ever, is it legitimate to express a “Living Wage” as a human right, or “Proper Shelter” as a human right or “Sound Health Care” as a human right, enshrined by constitutions and guaranteed by the state? Society has been trained to tolerate the worst forms of degradation of its citizens due to poverty and inequality, yet seems to react hysterically when individual freedoms or rights are contravened.

The reality is clear. Sectional bourgeois identities have taken over, nay hijacked the grand narrative within the new post modern plural society. The subjugation of the grand narrative by sectional narratives is a bane and not a boon. It represents a type of fascism that denies human rights to the masses, while sanctifying them for the minority. In the wake of this subjugation, popular truisms and values have been remolded to reflect this focus on the bourgeois identity. Human rights are now the rights of bourgeois to choose their sectional pursuits and frolics. Injustice, as a universal value has been eclipsed by terms such as non-sexism, gender equality, non-racialism and freedom-of-sexual-preference. The new political correctness reflects and enforces this. The grand narrative of poverty and inequality within South Africa, coincidentally the most unequal society in the world, is not regarded at the same level of urgency and hysteria for example as the narrative around gay rights protection, and other sectional identity rights. Why?

It is time that a call for a broadly just society is revived. The poor, the humiliated and the degraded need to be placed at the centre space of liberation politics, a space that is currently being squatted on by LGBT and other sectional bourgeois interest groups. The real and urgent needs of the people cannot go on being subordinated by the agendas of bourgeois identity interests. Why would LGBT (or any other sectional agenda) feel uncomfortable in a society where justice is guaranteed to all collectively and not articulated separately for the different sections? My humble opinion is that the stratification of society into sanctified sectional agenda groupings has become the biggest tool in the broad neo-liberal assault on general human dignity. Human dignity is no longer the common collective pursuit of all people, but has become the narrow prize for the interest or lobby group. The neo-liberal project guarantees freedom to pursue one’s own agenda, but not the freedom for society to pursue the greater good. It is time to re-sanctify the call for “justice for all”, and to curtail and de-sanctify the call for “justice for the interest group”. LGBT, the nation, the culture, mode of worship and any other mode by which people shape their identity needs to seek its own justice within this broad call.

3. LGBT as manifested in society

The various components of the LGBT phenomenon seem to be the following: Legitimating, Celebrating, and Challenging.

The legitimating component has been very effectively co-opted within the broader gender discourse. It is strange to see how gender activists initially grabbed hold of the LGBT agenda. In this new merged discourse, the lesbian seems to represent the pinnacle of feminist parity with the male gender, and male homosexuality the pinnacle of the liberated male, freed from all chauvinist masculinity. The merging of these agendas has reached a point where critical gender theory has become fully instrumentalised and harnessed by the LGBT agenda. A discussion on gender equality no longer seems complete without a discussion on sexual preference rights. The LGBT agenda has therefore benefitted from both these two revisionists and critical theories.

The celebrative component of the movement is manifested in the gay parade and the omnipresent public tokens of obeisance to the agenda found in popular culture, popular media and even official communications. Gay sex is no longer regarded as an exceptional, non-normative and private preference, but is mainstreamed into movies and other popular cultural expressions. The gay parade serves to galvanize general public attitudes in favour of it, while other public expressions serve to normalize it. All of these find protection and legitimacy within a human rights discourse that places it on a par with the highest aspirations of justice in society.

Finally, the challenging component refers to the activist side of the movement. This is the LGBT attempt to stifle or silence any challenges to its claim to being a valid and even valued identity within society. By effectively merging and even hijacking the gender agenda and the broader human rights agenda, the LGBT movement has in its possession the tools to fend off any challenge. With these tools, it has managed to advance its cause to dizzy heights. In the 1970s, the movement could count as its greatest achievement, the coming out of the closet of gays and lesbians. Presently, the achievements have shifted very far beyond that. After winning the battle to sanctify gay marriage in Western societies, the new pursuit now seem be gay child adoption. Under cover of its wielding of human rights, the legitimizing of the trade in children is the latest pursuit. Society, being subdued morally, intellectually and legally to the agenda seems to stand willing to negotiate away the rights of the child in the onward gay march. In a court case in the Louisana, USA for example, an adopted child of gay parents expressed the view that she was “was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk.” If this does not constitute child abuse, then what does? There have been scary reports of the sexual abuse of children by non-biological male gay parents, but even these seem to be insufficient to check the onward march.

4. LGBT within Religious and Islamic Discourse

Western religions have by-and-large succumbed to the LGBT agenda. The Christian church, with its traditional dichotomizing of church and state found it most easy to let the LGBT agenda slide in under broad secular justifications. When the Christian Church decided to take a stand on the LGBT agenda encroaching and invading the Church itself, it found itself outsmarted and overcome. The Church has subsequently had to succumb to the agenda within its own order. The phenomenon of the gay priest and church-hosted gay marriages are the result. The biblical counter-narrative would seem to have been simply conceded in the process.

It is more difficult to achieve the same within Islam. There is common consensus in Islam is that homosexuality to the point of sodomy is condemned in the Quran as the practice of the People of Lot. This has not prevented certain contemporary Muslim gender activists from attempting to sneak the agenda in under cover of the broader gender rights agenda. A thinker like Amina Wadud is in the forefront of this. Other Muslim thinkers such as Tareq Ramadan seem unable and powerless to mount a proper response. Instead, they choose to frame their response within a larger secular pluralistic discourse. The result is that a view is being advanced by Ramadan that homosexuality is not supported in Islam, but is left to the private conscience of the individual. This view represents a cowardly cop-out and act of appeasement. It also reveals a measure of insecurity of a thinker like Ramadan. His approach is perhaps best understood within the context of his own need to defend the broader project of legitimating his own sectional group interest agenda, in his case that of being Muslim in the West.

This brings Muslim scholars to their biggest challenge. Do they trade off the broader gains of the sectional Muslim interest agenda by confronting the LGBT agenda? Only if Islam is seen as a sectional identity can this be the case. When Islamic scholarship is on the other hand redefined as the vanguard of the human project, then this is not possible. When Islamic scholarship defines itself as the defender of all human dignity and emancipation, then this trade-off does not present itself. It therefore is required of Muslim scholarship to redefine their own mission as being key protagonists for broader truth, spirituality and social justice, instead of being defenders and champions of the Muslim identity.


A day or so ago the world experienced its latest display of homofascism with the public disciplining and humiliation of the world renowned boxer from the Phillipines, Manny Pacquiao. Within the context of his Christian religious affiliation and upbringing, he remarked that sex between the same genders was not to be found within the animal world, and that animals therefore found themselves at a higher level than humans who engage in the practice. His views sparked an outrage, which hit global headlines. It also led to his corporate sponsor Nike, withdrawing their sponsorship to the boxer. He was forced to make a public apology. The public humiliation of world figures represents an important element in the greater LGBT agenda as it serves as a lesson for any other person that their livelihood (which often means their life) can be taken away from them should they question the mighty unchallengeable LGBT colossus. The crime here is clearly not his negative views on homosexuality but rather the excessive and overwhelming response to these views.

In 2015, the University of Cape Town SRC, suspended a student leader, Zizipho Pae, as acting President of the SRC for uttering the words “We are institutionalising and normalising sin! May God have mercy on us.” in a Facebook post. The suspension took place after a group of LGBT activists staged a sit-in and pressured the SRC to suspend the student leader. What is telling about this act of homofascism is the recalling of an elected student leader that again expressed a personal sentiment borne from a committed religious belief. Personal conscience or even legitimacy by election is clearly no longer seen as a mitigating circumstances, spelling a clear move to fascism by LGBT. The expulsion also marks the subordination of religious norms and values and the will of students who elected the leader, to the LGBT agenda.

In 2012, the Russian LGBT activist band called “Pussy Riot” invaded the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow and proceeded to desecrate the place of worship, including urinating in it. They were arrested later and understandably sentenced to jail for hooliganism. The response in the Western media was telling in this case. It was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the band’s outlandish act of desecration to an institution with a long established tradition in Russia. Their actions fit in with the broader LGBT agenda to mock and to desecrate any established value system in favor of the hedonistic and nihilistic LGBT agenda. The abuse of “freedom of speech” was also very effectively employed here to provide moral cover for their reprehensible actions. (retrieved 2016) lists 300 (three hundred) additional examples in the US of homofascism. The examples they site seem to indicate of pattern that ranges from robbing ordinary people of their livelihood by lobbying for their dismissal from work, to outright death threats by the LGBT lobby.


It is time to clear the human rights, social justice and intellectual public central spaces of the LGBT squatters. The war against poverty and inequality needs to be refocused on the masses of people who are suffering homelessness, disease and degradation. The grand social justice narrative must be wrested from the sticky neo-liberal hands of the LGBT lobby movement. I sincerely hope that a party in South Africa like the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) under Julius Malema will not be lured into diverting its agenda to the agenda of these petit bourgeois intellectual squatters.


Wikipedia. Pussy Riot. (2016) Retrieved February 20, 2016, from

RDMRdm Newswire. (2016) Student leader in hot water over public attack on homosexuality – Sowetan LIVE. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from

Chris Murphy. (2016) Manny Pacquiao sparks fury after homophobic remark. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from (Retrieved 2016) acts of homo fascism – Google Search. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from

Wadud, Amina. (2016) Women Imams – Amina Wadud. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from

Ramadan, Tariq. (2016) Tariq Ramadan about homosexuality. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from

Andy Marso, Jim Mclean. (2016) Topeka Child Abuse Case Raises Questions About Kansas Policy On Gay Adoptions. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from

Last, First. (2016) Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from

 Posted by on May 12, 2014 at 10:50 am  Comments Off on Love of God means love for Humanity and Hatred of Oppressors