South Africa, Durban
Hamza Tzortzis – Reclaiming the Rainbow Islam & LGBTQ+ Ideology’s False & Immoral Assumptions
AI: Summary ©
The segment discusses the assumptions made in the LGBTQ plus ideology, including the belief that sex and gender are not immoral, the use of "vesical" and "immoral" emotions, and the "verbal" and "immoral" emotions. The speakers explore various political and religious beliefs and the theory of "verbal" and "immoral" emotions, as well as the concept of "oppressed language" and "oppressed men." They also discuss the misunderstandings of theering of people's genetic and political attributes and the "has been there" concept. The segment concludes with a discussion of the art of Dawa and the "has been there" concept.
AI: Summary ©
So my initial presentation is going to be on the LGBTQ plus ideology is called reclaiming the rainbow.
And is evident My dear brothers and Michelle if that society has waged a full on attack against the family,
against the gender, and moral, unnecessary social hierarchies that have existed for millennia, and obviously, are expressed best and optimally through the Islamic tradition.
And the weapon that has been used is this ideology.
So the main objective, my dear brothers and Musharraf is to unpack five major assumptions of this ideology. So you can empower you to understand why it is actually false. But before I get into that, I just want to remind everybody about the ethical position that we take with regards to
our ideological enemies. It doesn't necessarily follow that just because someone's an ideological enemy, that now you have to assert yourself physically, in a way that discriminates in a way that is violent. And the Quran has these nuanced positions. In surah, Montana, chapter 60, verse eight, Allah subhanho wa taala, Allah says, Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair. And interestingly, Allah uses the form of the word beer, which we know means righteousness. And it's used in the context of the Quran in chapter 19, verse 32, with regards to piety and intense
goodness, to one's mother. So it's very important for us to understand that, yes, we are ideologically poles apart, but I'm going to be fair to you, I'm going to be righteous towards you. And this is why we shouldn't fall for the kind of neoliberal Neo postmodern trap. That just because you disagree with someone, you may disagree with a conception of rights. It doesn't mean that now I want to be violent against you, or discriminate in a way that actually harms you. Because our main role as Muslims, is to do what is to be what is to be beacons of light, to show the Mercy of Allah subhanho wa Taala and the mercy of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam manifested in a form of
guidance. We want to awaken the truth within, we want people to be guided to the truth. So they have an optimal and pure life in this world, and they have eternal bliss in the hereafter. Is that clear?
So the first thing I want to say is this. Every truth claim has assumptions, every truth claim,
every postulation every idea has a set of assumptions. Now, these assumptions can be grounded in truth, and they could be coherent, or they could be incoherent and not grounded in any truth. Let me give you an example. The secularist mantra,
slogan,
church and state must be separate.
What are the assumptions behind this? There are a few assumptions based on PAC, one of them. This essentially argues that
God and religion is unable to govern societies. That's the assumption here. Essentially, it's articulating that secularism has its own epistemological and metaphysical biases, meaning how they see the world. The nature of political discourse, the nature of governing people,
can only be understood by referring to secularism itself.
And essentially saying that religion, including Islam, does not have the principles the framework, the moral and legal reasoning to actually govern societies that include people who are described as the other and this is totally false.
Another assumption is that this mantra secularism itself assumes the distinct and mutually exclusive categories of the political and the religion. Secularism has this metaphysical narcissism. It projects itself onto real
ality. And he's basically saying, I'm going to strip away
the political, I'm going to strip away the ability to govern from anything other than myself. Which is also false. because it assumes that secularism is is the only thing able to govern societies with a different people with a distinct groups. And religion is can only be reduced to the private affairs and I would argue humbly, I blame our Christian brothers and friends and humanity with regards to this, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render on to God's What is God's,
which is basically saying God does not have the ability to guide human beings to govern the affairs of all human beings. What kind of god is this? Limited, contingent unable, this is not the Islamic tradition.
So let's go to the LGBTQ plus assumptions. So the ideology maintains this in a broad sense, same * *, and gender fluidity is not immoral. And it is a right that this claim has a range of assumptions. Assumption number one, human beings ultimately own their own bodies. And I'm going to unpack these assumptions for you. Number two, same * *. And gender fluidity is a fundamental individual, right. Number three, same * * and gender fluidity does not have any wrong making features. It's not MRO.
Number four,
sexuality and desires form one's identity.
Finally, sexuality, gender, is a social construct. There are no biological markers. Now within the LGBTQ plus ideologies advocates, there's disagreement amongst these assumptions, some would adopt maybe the last two assumptions, some may adopt all of them, even though some of them may contradict the point is in the broad School of the LGBTQ plus ideology. And as advocates, you're going to find that they follow some of these assumptions, a few of them, if not all of them.
So let's unpack the first assumption. Humans own the own bodies. Now fundamentally, and generally speaking, they would argue there is no creator, which is an atheistic assumption, although there are religious people who believe in a creator that adopt this assumption too, but we're going to have a side note for that in a moment, inshallah God willing, they argue there is no creator. And we don't owe anything to that creator. We're not duty bound.
And we live in a materialistic universe and the human being emerged from a lengthy biological process.
We've been reduced
to the primordial soup,
carbon just rearranged in different ways. Electrons whizzing around,
which doesn't give any man and your honor with all due respect. But nevertheless, we haven't been created according to them. And therefore we own our own bodies is my body, my body? My choice, you hear that a lot amongst the pro abortion advocates,
which is a slogan, it's a rhetorical trap. And we should basically say, Where is your proof for such a claim? Where is your proof?
Because our understanding is based on truth, this is not your body at all. It is fundamentally owned by Allah subhanho wa taala. So when they say their own bodies, they say we have every right to do whatever we want with our bodies, as long as it doesn't harm anyone. And obviously, they have a particular definition of harm. Now, some religious people may believe in God, and therefore they may believe ultimately, God owns our bodies, but they will make the argument. Well, God allows us to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, which is a kind of liberal assumption with his own normative ethical theories that are away from any Abrahamic discourse.
The second assumption is an individual right?
It's an individual right? Forget owning a body forget this than the other. We live in a liberal society in a secular society. And the law has said that it is your right. Same * *. It's something that you're allowed to do. It's with the law, it's legal. gender fluidity is totally fine and acceptable. This is part of what
We call individual rights. Now we don't reject individual rights. We have this notion in our tradition code who cook and eat bad, the rights of the individual. But we would say, why are you assuming your conception of rights is universal and absolute? Who gave you that right? To play god? Are you external to the universe, you can make the universal moral claim? Who are you? Are you limited contingent creature
with limited cognitive faculties that has been infected and molested by your own shadow works? Your own blameworthy desires, you made yourself into a god my friend, unacceptable?
Unacceptable.
And therefore what we say is, well, who has the right to give us our rights? You are Allah subhana wa Tada.
The other assumption is that there are normal wrong making features. It's not wrong to have same * *. It's not wrong to have gender fluidity.
And we would say,
Where's your proof?
And they would say, Well,
we know that good and bad is based upon the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people, which is a normative ethical theory called utilitarianism. It's a consequentialist theory, it looks at the
consequences of the impact of a more action. And they use the limited understanding the limited understanding of the future if you like, the moral Domino,
the moral dominoes falling, and they make an assessment.
And they say, well, there's nothing wrong with same * *. There's nothing wrong with gender fluidity because we believe things are wrong or right based on what
the maximum number of pleasure and happiness for the maximum number of people.
So if we reduce his happiness, or increase his suffering, then that is evil.
And this is based on a particular assumption and moral assumption is a normative ethical theory called consequentialism. Now, we don't have to unpack this in too much detail. But generally speaking, the Western civilization bases its moral truth, if you like, on two main normative ethical theories, utilitarianism, the maximum number of happiness for the maximum number of people, the maximum pleasure for the maximum number of people, that's what's good. And if you reduce that happiness, or you increase suffering,
for people, then that is evil, then you have another thing called deontological ethics. deontological ethics is not really about the consequences of your moral action, it's using your intellect to form certain criteria to understand moral duties that we have a duty to do x, and we have a duty to do Y, irrespective of the consequences. And we don't need to go too much into this because I'm gonna leave this for Muhammad hijab to unpack. But it's an idea that you need to understand that when they make a moral claim is based on a particular moral theory. And in the western discourse is usually to utilitarianism, or deontological. Ethics, and one would argue also
have ethical egoism, which is also consequences theory. It talks about the consequences of more action, but not based on the maximum number of people it doesn't say, maximum pleasure for the maximum number of people what it says is maximum pleasure for you as an individual ethical egoism. But the thing that you need to understand is this. We don't need to unpack this too much philosophically, just understand when they make a claim that there is nothing immoral about same * *. There's nothing immoral about the LGBT, LGBT, LGBTQ plus ideology, they making it difficult as for us,
and there's nothing wrong with gender fluidity. It's based upon a certain ethical theory, utilitarianism, maybe ethical egoism, deontological ethics. And we would ask, Why else do you think those are true? I don't want to have to adopt your normative ethical theory. We have our own ethical theory, Divine Command Theory, Allah's commands are the best for us, which will impact in a few moments.
So the other assumption is, my dear brothers and sisters. Sorry, there's no sisters. I do apologize, my dear. Oh, there are sisters. Okay. Sorry. I do apologize. I see my shuffle
By lowering your gaze, yeah, annoying gaze, you know in both senses of the phonetic term, the gaze and the gaze
The other assumption is that
sexuality and gender
is a social construct is not based on any biological markers. Now, this is based on something called queer theory, okay? Know this down queer theory. Now queer theory is basically an extension of post modernism, which I'm going to discuss very briefly. But queer theory was motivated by the uncontroversial and justified point that says, Who we are is not just biology. This is called biological essentialism, that our biological traits or DNA or physical makeup dictate who we are, this has been refuted. And this is well known even in the Sunnah of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam. But the mainstream view is that there is a combination of biological traits DNA, physical
makeup, and society, or some kind of socialization or nurturing. It's a combination. What Crieff queer theory does, it literally cuts the umbilical cord between the physical makeup DNA biology and socialization says it's just socialization. It's all a social construct. And queer theory is essentially based on postmodern principles. So post modernism is very hard to define, but you could reduce it to certain principles, there are few, but we can only we only need to talk about two in this context. The first one is radical skepticism. post modernism argues that there is no method to obtain objective truths about reality. And this is like a commitment to cultural construction of
constructivism. Meaning is just a cultural construct.
Were radically skeptical about truth claims.
And this was based on an Foucault's kind of understanding of power. Foucault who was the beef, nasty piece of work, who's the he's referred to. He's a, he is seen as like one of the modern founders of queer theory and postmodern discourse. He's seen as an intellectual giant amongst those circles, but he was * young Algerian boys in graveyards trust me, you could trace these ideas to people who are fundamentally
they're not even human. They're like the bottom you know, the bottom of a dustbin, you scrape that muck. That's what they are. They're that muck. I'm not trying to dehumanize them. I'm just saying from the character point of view, how can you * boys in graveyards? What's the matter with you?
And he was so obsessed with sexuality. He actually wrote many volumes on the history of Western sexuality.
He fantasized sexuality,
honestly, and they respect him. Look who he was.
Look who we follow. The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa salam, the highest moral character, the best human being to have walked this earth. Look who they follow someone who raised young Algerian boys in graveyards Come on, you don't need to be a philosopher or sophisticated to find out how dumb stupid incoherent
unhuman these ideas are. So how do we apply radical skepticism to create theory. So they say biology therefore gender is a social construct that is producing through the power structures of society and language is got nothing to do with biological markers, any form of biological truth. Any truth about gender that we know that's normative is just a form of socialization.
The second postmodern principle is about social hierarchies, which I briefly mentioned about Foucault, they say that society is based on systems of social hierarchies and power, these decide what is known and how knowledge can be obtained.
And that's why Foucault had this idea of discourses, you power is not like something on top of you. It's like a grid power is accessible everywhere. And people who hold the power structures or the social hierarchies and the discourses, the language that you use,
is the one that's going to shape what is known and what is not to be known what is true and what is not true. And they say because truth, because what can be known or not known is is socialized and
propagated if you like and constructed through language, which Foucault co discourses, then they're radically skeptical about this, all of this stuff. And they also are skeptical or they believe social hierarchies are unjust forms of power, or they could be sources of oppression and queer theorists argue violence. So how do we apply this socialization of social constructionist constructivism to queer theory? Well, queer theory argues that fixed categories of heterosexual or male, female and
normative terms concerning sexuality are forms of oppression, because you put them in categories,
there is a power structure that develops that language and puts it in categories. And that power structure itself is using that language to dictate what can be known and not known. This is a source of oppression, they argue. And therefore they say that this is built by social narratives, perpetuated by language and queer theory argues this is violence. And before we go to the next assumption, there are some key thinkers of post modernism and queer theory. You don't have to know them in detail. We already spoke about Michel Foucault who was a French philosopher. Why can you reduce nasty ideas to French thinkers don't know what's going on.
He wrote the order of things discipline and punishment, the birth of the prison madness and civilizations and the history of sexuality, which is a multivolume History of Western sexuality and some of his key ideas we've mentioned, but he says that he his ideas centered on power, and what we know to be true, are just constructions of language which he called discourses, and his work has become canonical for queer theorists. You have Jacques Derrida, a French philosopher. He wrote of Grammatology writing and difference and speech and phenomena. And his idea is simply this, because a Derridean understanding of language is quite important for post modernists and queer theorists,
because they say that language can be a source of oppression and power, and it's used unjustly and they also say language from a Derridean perspective, language doesn't represent reality. Language is just relational. The words you use don't represent reality. They just make sense within themselves. So they say they inherently biased and oppressive, for example, a directional understanding of language would say, when you say what is the opposite of male, we say, female Ah, man, females opposite of male, there's the hierarchy. So these two terms are relational ones on top ones in the bottom, generally speaking, and that's why he developed this term called felgo centrism. falgu
centrism was the argument that in Western language and discourse, it's inherently pro male. It favors the masculine hierarchy, therefore, it is oppressive.
And you have the works of Simone de Beauvoir, she was a feminist philosopher, but she was also an existential philosopher her great work not great in terms of praising it, but in terms of popularity is called the Second *. And she essentially argues that someone is not born a woman, they become a woman. And what it means to be a woman is not just a biological fact, she facilitate the idea that the sexual sign is not the same as the * that you can become. And although she wasn't a queer theorist, but she delivered the initial ideas for queer theory to develop, you have girl Rubin, who is an anthropologist, she wrote the traffic in women note on the political economy of * and
thinking six notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. And basically, she argues that family is just there, the family structure, the normative understanding of what it means to be a family, and that hierarchy is just there just to reproduce gender, and to make heterosexuality seem normal. And she allowed the idea that gender could be reproduced and there are systems in place to control that gender norms, male and female are repressive, she argues. And she says that we conform to them. Judith Butler, who's alive, she's a philosophy. Her famous work was gender trouble, feminism and the subversion of identity. She prevents, presents the idea of gender performativity,
which is really the key philosophy, if you like, what's happening now with the transgender movement, she argues that there are no biological traits that dictate your gender, or your sexuality, and she calls this gender performativity. Now, it's not a performance that you act like a like an actor, but rather, it's like the social hierarchy and the language that you use allows you to become that thing. So she would argue, for example, in a legal context, in a Christian context, when the priest says and you
He has the legal authority, I know and now to man and wife, by virtue of his authority, the social hierarchy, by virtue of the language that he's using, they become man and wife automatically five seconds ago, they will not man and wife. So by virtue of the structure, hierarchy and the language used, you can perform a gender or perform a role. So she argues, disturb the social hierarchies, agitate them, break them down, disturb the language, change the language, therefore, you have more freedom, and you can make up any gender you want.
So, we know. And the other assumption which we need to quickly talk about is that your identity is formed with by your desires, that's the key key aspect here. That's a key assumption of the LGBTQ plus philosophy, that my desires are going to form my identity.
So let's quickly unpack them. I should just be another five minutes inshallah.
From an Islamic perspective, do humans fundamentally own their own bodies? Who owns our bodies? Allah? So we disagree with that assumption.
We disagree with the assumption that humans ultimately own the own bodies. Allah created us, Allah owns us is an aspect of his creative agency and power and aspect of his Ruby. Yeah.
And therefore, he has every right to tell us what to do with our bodies because it belongs to him. And we have a duty to Allah subhanho wa taala. Is this clear?
Let's unpack the second assumption from his own perspective, same * * and gender fluidity is a fundamental individual right. Now, according to whose conception of rights, your rights on a universal they come from a liberal individualistic paradigm.
We say that the true universal rights is the one who is from the One who created the whole universe whose commands are based on his goodness, he's above the source of goodness, he's alive, man, the intensity merciful, he's allowed to do the loving, he is external to the universe, He can make the universal moral claim, he can make the claim about rights. He's an ally in Albuquerque, and he is the knowing the wise, he has the picture, we just got the pixel. So when our command something or says something gives our rights, he has every right to do so because he owns us, he has every right to do so because He's the source of all goodness, and the ultimate authority, as Allah says in the
Quran in chapter seven, verse 28. Indeed, Allah does not audit your morality, do you say about Allah that which you do not know.
The other assumption that we want to mention is that they claim that desires form your identity. This is so not true. You may have a desire to be maybe homosexual.
But that could be unpacked and you could have some mentoring and you could change that desire, which is well known in the psychological discourse. That's why we're trying to they're trying to ban that type of therapy. But notwithstanding, in the Islamic tradition, desires do not form our identity, what forms our identities that we are worshipers of Allah subhanho wa taala, Allah. Allah says in the Quran in chapter two verses one through eight, this is the natural way the fitrah This is the natural way of Allah, and who is better than Allah then and then Allah in ordaining away, sorry, the word fitrah is using chapter 30, verse 30, not in this context, and we worship non by him. So our
primary identity is not our desires. It's the fact that we've been created by Allah, we're here to worship Him, which means to love Him, to know Him, to obey Him, to submit to Him, to glorify Him, and to direct to direct all internal and external acts of worship to Allah Allah. Also, we know that following your desires that are not guided by Allah, they're not in line with Islam, actually bleh with us, Allah says in the Quran in chapter 20, verse 50, and who is more stray than the one who follows His desire without guidance from Allah. Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing, people.
And so this is very, very important for us to understand my dear brothers and sisters, the other assumption, gender, sexuality, just a social construct. Yes, we don't agree with biological essentialism. That's just biology. There's a combination of both socialization, nurturing, social nurturing, guidance, and biology.
And we know this from the son of the province of Allah who it who has syndrome, but we totally and categorically reject, that is just socialization. There is something within us biologically that Allah has created and from a federal perspective, that actually dictates our gender and sexuality and Allah makes it clear. It's a binary world
Men in the female and the male is not like the female. And this is supported by psychological, anthropological and biological evidence. And the way to disturb this assumption is to produce its absurdities. If we follow through the queer theory, postmodern discourse, I could just say this, if biological markers do not dictate who I am with regards to sexuality, gender, even my identity, so then from now on, I announce, I am a bushy tailed cat. Yeah.
Yeah.
You couldn't. If you're consistent with post modernism, if you're consistent with queer theory, then I'm a bushy tailed cat. One minute, gender performativity. If you follow that narrative, all of a sudden, now I am a six foot seven Egyptian, handsome, articulate eloquent man.
Right.
My features don't count my biological traits don't count. Or to be a little bit more controversial. Since color biology doesn't dictate who I am, I can say this. Brothers and sisters and friends. Henceforth, I want to be called
Sabina.
My name is Sabina. I am a black lesbian.
I am a black lesbian, a crusader, right? According to the theory, I don't want to offend anyone, show the absurdity of the discourse. What makes even worse My dear brothers and sisters is that they claim that social hierarchy and language are forms of oppression that must be fought and disturbed. They believe oppression, injustice is objective, but they follow the postmodern principle that there is no method to come to an objective truth. That should also include the so called notion of objective justice and objective oppression is a contradiction.
Finally, brothers and sisters and friends, they argue that sexual sexual * of the same gender and gender fluidity does not have any wrong making physical features. And we will just argue something very simple. Yes, they do. We don't adopt utilitarianism ethical egoism or ontological ethics. We adopt Divine Command Theory what Allah and His Messenger have said, and we would explain that Allah can make the universal moral claim Allah is not limited. His knowledge and wisdom are maximally perfect without any deficiency and flaw. He is a source of goodness. He is a man, a Rahim his al Bara is an ally in his al Hakim. And when he command is in line with who he is, therefore,
it's always going to be good for us, and society from the individual social and political perspective. Also, Allah has the complete more picture. By virtue of of Allah's nature with regards to his names and attributes. Allah has the picture, we got the pixel, he knows everything we don't. He knows the full moral consequences of everything. Also, he is the ultimate judge and we have the duty towards Allah subhanho wa taala. He is the ultimate authority, he is the source of all goodness. And he's the only being worthy of worship and power of worship that we obey Allah, we are duty bound to Allah to obey his commands. Now, obviously, and this is a key point for you, you want
to give dower All of this depends on the fact that we believe in Allah and His revelation. So when you show the Islamic take on these assumptions, tell them and this is true, because the Quran the Sunnah, Allah's existence is one this revelation of Prophet are true. And what they say about these things are also true, because they come from the ultimate authority.
Now, they would respond to us and say, well, there is a dilemma here, you three false dilemma. Why are you obeying divine commands? It doesn't make any sense. Like recently in the debate that we had in Johannesburg, this open Heimer, who basically was intellectually nuclear bombed by this beloved gentleman, and I had a little bit of sprinkling, as well. I supported that. I facilitated that insight to some degree, but he was totally annihilated when he said, Why should I follow the essentially the religion of the white man the ethics of the white man? Was John rock Nigerian? Why where's your proof that these things are objective and true, oh, morality. Right. And then he shot
for the whole the whole debate, he was quiet like a mouse, like quiet like a mouse, maybe I should identify as that cat and eat him alive now.
Open Homer the mouse.
So they say you see from that place, and this is the dilemma. Is it good because Allah commanded it, or is it good because the commands of Allah are good? Now if it's good because Allah commanded it, and then they says, arbitrary Allah commands
used to kill everyone over the age of 60 and therefore be morally good. So it doesn't work. Then they would say, if you choose is it good because the commands of Allah are good that good is an external reference point that a good is external to God Himself. We reject this is a false dilemma is pathetic originalist dilemma. You people's dilemma was about polytheism. Anyway, why is it a false dilemma? Because we accept the first horn which is it's good because Allah commanded it. But we reject that assumption. We reject that assumption. Allah's commands are dislocated away from his nature.
Because we could deal with in the following way, which is an argument that came from shall wali Allah and definitely in his conclusive argument for God's existence. And basically, I'm just summarizing in a modern context. And the argument is as follows. Allah's commands manifested in the Islamic moral and legal and legal, Islamic moral legal principles and theory addresses the moral needs of human beings on a personal social and political level. The commands of Allah are like a key that perfectly fit into a lock that opens the door to the functioning and well being for individuals and society. A key is designed for a lock. And just like the keys designed for unlock the commands
of Allah designed for our well being. Therefore it's completely irrational and absurd to claim that Allah's commands are arbitrary. To argue such a thing is equivalent of claiming that a specific key that opens a specific door was not designed. So I know I've gone a little bit too much, but let me just literally three minutes and you hold me to account on these three minutes or Shoba. They would argue and say, Look, don't force your assumption on us. Congratulations. This is where we want you. You're the one who has been pushing this ideology across the world behind money and power and even violence.
You've been pushing this ideology down our throats, leave our children alone. Leave us alone. Do what you want in your bedroom. I'm not saying he's right, you still gonna go to * for it. If you don't believe in Allah. But leave us alone, stopping such disgusting shape and human beings that you want to change our children. gender affirming care, what does that mean? I'm going to cut off your genitalia. I'm going to make it to a * with all due respect, I apologize sisters, that's what happens. You'll see some of the pictures you will faint
gender affirming care. And they were complaining about circumcision, this little small piece of skin. But what they do is they get the * they make it to a phallus that doesn't even work. And when they doesn't work, sometimes they take it from the *. Yes. And then he grows has an instinct and they can't do anything and they want to commit suicide. We should feel sorry for these people out of love and genuine care for humanity. These people have gender dysphoria, it's an medical problem. And we should be caring enough to help them. This LGBTQ person, he doesn't care for them. They don't care for them, they will destroy them.
So yes, we agree don't force assumption on us. And since you understood that you have assumptions to then maybe you should stand in the possibility that our assumptions that are coherent come from the truth. Let me give TAO to you. Allah is true. His Oneness is true. His revelation is true. prophethood is true and what they say is true.
They also say love is love. This is a nonsensical rhetorical trap, trying to make us feel that we're not loving. Muslims are the most loving human beings to buy Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa salam to love for humanity will be love for ourselves in Tariq al Kabir narrated by Bukhari, also in the Hadith or by Ainlay you lay up never had to come back to you heavily you're human you're human enough to eat you won't truly believe unless you love for your brother we enough for yourself. And now he says this means humanity as well. They want good for them and guidance for them. Obviously we don't love disbelief on one good for them and guidance for them. says that this is a nonsensical
trap because love is intentional and directionally you want people's well being the LGBTQ plus philosophy especially the transgender movement does not want your well being they want to destroy a mutilate you.
And also we could just agitate them as they find love is love than water is water drink from the toilet.
And we can say okay, 66 make love to a corpse. Food is food. Okay, eat my vomit.
Right? They've been having intellectual vomit all this time, in coherent intellectual, postulations and musings, which is equivalent of intellectual vomit that we need to clean up.
So my dear brothers and sisters, this is the end of the presentation. When you know how to unpack the assumptions, you know, the Islamic take on those assumptions. Don't stop there. Bring them to Allah. Our assumptions are true. They're coherent. They come from Allah. And let me explain to you who Allah is He wants good for you. He wants you to be guided he doesn't wait to go to *. That's why He sent down revelation.
And we could prove the Quran prove Allah's existence, his oneness, his revelation and prophethood and what comes from this truth is true.
And obviously you're not going to articulate like me with passion and a sense of maybe bordering arrogance. I'm doing this to get you to think. But but the art of Dawa is to do what to call people to Allah chapter 16 Verse one to five to call people to Allah, to the Seville of Allah, with Heckman and Hassanal wisdom, you're applying your enemy in a particular context, you're applying knowledge in a particular context. For an Allah centric goals. We want to awaken the truth within people want good for humanity. And we do with Hassan I was impolitely with implies, goodness, righteousness, a sense of love. So if you do in that way you deal with calmness. And I think everything's gonna be
okay, but now is the time to start doing it. In the next five years, South Africa would be a different place. We don't want it to be there. We will goodness for humanity, and that is our job as Muslims. Salaam aleikum wa rahmatullah.