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.

