Africa
South Africa Islamic group issues edict that condemns homosexuality
A group of queer Muslims criticized fatwa in open letter
A group of queer Muslims in South Africa have rejected the South African Muslim Judicial Council’s new edict that condemns homosexuality as sinful and unIslamic.
The fatwa the the South African Muslim Judicial Council issued earlier this month says any Muslims who are in same-sex relationships or engage in same-sex sexual relations will have taken themselves out of the Islamic faith. The South African Muslim Judicial Council has also called for excommunication or “takfir,” with the punishment being death for any Muslim found to be a member of the LGBTQ community.
“As queer Muslim South Africans and allies we resist the fatwa unequivocally. The MJC is a self-appointed, unelected and entirely male body, save for the head of their Women’s Forum, that does not represent the Muslim community on any democratic basis,” reads a letter that 20 queer South African Muslims signed. “We remind the MJC that Section 9 of the Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of sex, gender or sexual orientation, and applies to government and private parties. Section 15 provides for the recognition of religious legal systems and marriages that are not inconsistent with the Constitution. The rights of 2SLGBTQIA+ people under the South African constitution cannot be trumped by cultural or religious authority, especially the right to life.”
“The MJC’s fatwa amounts to hate in a context where the lives of 2SLGBTQIA+ people are already in danger. The fatwa is based on ignorance and reinforces oppression and injustice rather than supporting just, fair and equal rulings,” adds the letter. “Moreso, the MJC and associated bodies, such as the Jamiatul Ulama South Africa, have published other articles and statements which incite hate against 2SLGBTQIA+ persons. “
The letter further notes that “2SLGBTQIA+ persons in South Africa are clearly protected by the Constitution and other laws. It is possible to be 2SLGBTQIA+ and Muslim.”
As 2SLGBTQIA+ Muslims we live this combination daily. Our Islam is based on solidarity, critical love, care and kindness. For us, faith is about pursuing justice, fairness and equality. A discriminatory statement by the MJC does not and cannot invalidate our existence, or our right to life,” reads the letter. “All people deserve to enjoy a life free from oppression and discrimination. Together we can dismantle oppressive institutions and build safe, affirming and kind spaces for 2SLGBTQIA+ Muslims and all persons.”
The United Ulama Council of South Africa has since defended the MJC, citing that any demands for change in Quranic precepts go against the constitutionally-protected freedoms of beliefs and conscience.
“The Noble Quran recounts the story of the city of Sodom several times, condemning its inhabitants’ immorality and specifically criticizing its men for going to men out of desire instead of women. The Islamic position on same-sex relationships is clear and unambiguous as articulated by the MJC edict. The Islamic perspective is also consistent with Judaic and Biblical perspectives as stipulated in the relevant sacred scriptures,” said United Ulama Council of South Africa Secretary General MI Yusuf Patel.
“Moreover, the 2SLGBTQIA+ Muslims (queer Muslim South Africans) mischievously attempt to equate opposition to same-sex relationships with hate speech by stating that the MJC’s fatwa amounts to hate in a context where the lives of 2SLGBTQIA+ people are already in danger,” he added. “It surreptitiously attempts to augment its hate narrative by introducing its own presumption that if members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ are excommunicated from the Muslim community, the punishment for being excommunicated is death. This scare tactic is designed to equate repudiation of same sex relationships with hate incitement to cause harm. The clamorous and increasingly aggressive 2SLGBTQIA+ public discourse attempts to mute any voice of dissent and has become increasingly intolerant of those that are critical of same-sex relationships, as evidenced by both the responses to the MJC edict (fatwa).”
The MJC urged the Muslim community to display good conduct when dealing with non-Muslims belonging to the LGBTQ community, citing Islam teaches to hate the sin, not the sinner.
Daniel Itai is the Washington Blade’s Africa Correspondent.
Eswatini
Eswatini’s government ordered to allow LGBTQ group to legally register
Unanimous Supreme Court ruling caps off 7-year legal battle
Eswatini’s Supreme Court has ordered the government to allow an LGBTQ rights group to legally register.
The Registrar of Companies in 2019 denied Eswatini Sexual and Gender Minorities’ request to register.
The advocacy group in 2020 petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court initially ruled against Eswatini Sexual and Gender Minorities, but it appealed the decision.
The Eswatini Commerce, Industry, and Trade Ministry in 2023 said it would not allow the group to register. The Supreme Court on Tuesday in a unanimous ruling ordered the Swazi government to allow Eswatini Sexual and Gender Minorities to register.
“For seven years the Eswatini Sexual and Gender Minorities group has fought the Swazi government for its citizens to have the right to freedom of association,” said Eswatini Sexual and Gender Minorities on Tuesday in a Facebook post. “But this is a hard fight against a government and king who believe LGBTI people have no place in the kingdom and who are trying to restrict the power of civil society organizations.”
Eswatini is a small, landlocked country in southern Africa that borders South Africa and Mozambique.
Consensual same-sex sexual relations between men remain criminalized in the country.
Discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity is commonplace in Eswatini. The country’s first Pride parade took place against this backdrop in 2018.
South Africa
White House to end PEPFAR funding for South Africa
State Department says country failed to respond to 2025 executive order demands
The Trump-Vance administration will end PEPFAR funding for South Africa.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday told the Washington Blade the State Department “will begin a phased drawdown of PEPFAR programming in South Africa, with most programs ending by Sept. 30, 2026, and critical personnel support continuing through March 31, 2027.”
Semafor last week reported South Africa has received more than $8 billion in PEPFAR funding since President George W. Bush created the program to combat the global HIV/AIDS pandemic in 2003.
President Donald Trump on Feb. 7, 2025, issued an executive order that addressed what it described as “egregious actions of the Republic of South Africa.” The State Department spokesperson with whom the Blade spoke noted the directive included five specific requests:
• South African government provides exemptions or alternatives for U.S. companies to Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment laws and other race-based mandates.
• Senior government officials (e.g., president, deputy president, or minister of justice) unequivocally condemn all race-based incitement to violence, including the “Kill the Boer” song, more frequently.
• The South African government prevents the implementation of measures that would allow expropriation without fair compensation and due process under the Expropriation Act of 2024.
• South African Police Service designates rural crime a “priority crime” and increases resources dedicated to high-crime rural areas.
• South Africa refrains from actions that would significantly interfere with the implementation of the refugee program, within the confines of South African law.
“The United States communicated to the government of the Republic of South Africa multiple times at many levels that PEPFAR funding was likely to be terminated in the absence of progress on the five asks,” said the State Department spokesperson.
The State Department spokesperson further noted South Africa is “one of the largest economies in sub-Saharan Africa” and “has funded the vast majority of its own HIV response, estimated at 76 percent of the total, including procurement of all treatment commodities.”
“South Africa will continue to be supported by the Global Fund, including for the introduction and scale up of lenacapavir through Global Fund Resources,” the spokesperson told the Blade.
Lenacapavir is groundbreaking HIV prevention drug that users inject twice a year. Eswatini, which borders South Africa, is among the African countries that have received doses of the drug through PEPFAR.
HIV/AIDS service organizations in the U.S. and around the world have sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over plans to not fully fund PEPFAR and to cut domestic HIV/AIDS funding.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio shortly after the current White House took office issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
Africa
African leaders once again trade African family values for American family values
Anti-LGBTQ conference backed by US-based groups took place this month in Ghana
At the moment, some religious and political leaders in Africa are pushing for a charter on family values, lobbying lawmakers, African state institutions, and the African Union to formally adopt it. In the past number of years, they have been holding conferences across Africa with the support and funding of Western religious donors who, in their own countries, are definitely perceived as racist, hateful, and against women. Most recently, they convened the African Regional Interparliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty in Accra, Ghana. All this raises critical questions about foreign influence and agendas. At this critical time, when Africa faces so many problems, why do people insist on pushing an agenda that is neither ours nor relevant to our prosperity?
The African leaders who claim to protect African family values and sovereignty, unsurprisingly, exhibit traits similar to those of the historical enslavers and similar collaborators. Contrary to what they claim as “pushing back against foreign influence on the African family” and the infamous sovereignty claims, it has been proven that these leaders are directly linked and backed by the conservative “foreign” groups, including the U.S.-based hate organization, Family Watch International, which is closely linked to the anti-rights authors of Trump’s Project 2025, Heritage Foundation; and the Netherlands-based Christian nationalist organization, Christian Council International, another group closely linked to organizations supporting the Trump administration and its continued hate-based policies and atrocities. One might even argue that they serve these groups, their mandates, and their Western agenda, instead of what they want African people to believe: that they are doing this for the good and prosperity of Africa and its sovereignty. The truth, however, is that their so-called African values, culture, traditions, etcetera, could not be further removed from true African cultural values but instead mimic those outlined in America’s Project 2025. Meanwhile, the very same people who are pushing for these family values under Project 2025 are the very same people pushing for the exploitation of Africa’s natural resources, without any care for the impact their actions have on African people and their livelihoods. Adopting their policies verbatim in Africa and claiming them as our own could easily be seen as counterintuitive and self-betrayal.
Africa’s rich history of family, diversity, womanhood, and matriarchy is too beautiful to erase. Africans, especially women and girls, deserve to know about the likes of Queen Modjadji of the Balobedu people, a fierce leader who is traditionally believed to have rainmaking abilities and notably a distinctively matriarchal dynasty where the reign is passed down from woman to woman, from mother to daughter; or Queen Nzinga of modern-day Angola, who led an army that resisted and fought against the Portuguese colonizers. Queer folks and African spiritualists alike deserve to know how women and gender diverse persons held some of the highest spiritual positions in society, like Mbuya Nehanda of Zimbabwe, who was a deeply respected spirit medium and a leader of the resistance against early colonial rule in Zimbabwe, and the transgender priests, the respected agule and okule, female-to-male and male-to-female shamans of the Lugbara, now the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, who led spiritual ceremonies. Even though the mudoko dako of the Langi people in Uganda were known to have been assigned male at birth, they were recognized as a distinct gender that was allowed to marry men. Africans must also know about woman-to-woman marriages that existed in pre-colonial Africa, which, according to research and oral histories, were recognised and served various purposes, from economic and social functions to lineage preservation. Similar practices include those from the Bapedi and Balobedu cultures, ngwetsi ya lapa, which still exists today, where a woman is married into a family or household to raise an heir for the family or to continue the family name, not necessarily the lineage.
As well-intentioned as it may appear, evidence suggests that the African leaders’ draft charter, because of its existing ties to Western ultraconservative partnerships, is neither original nor in good faith. The pace at which they have been moving and their true subsequent agenda should indisputably be questioned and criticised. Regardless of the inclusion of desirable language and terms such as minerals sovereignty and the Ubuntu philosophy, beneath the surface, the charter does not truly reflect these concepts. The charter, instead, does a disservice to African people by misrepresenting Africa’s diversity and disregarding its history as it relates to the diversity of families. The West has no business drafting or helping draft African legislation, especially if the whole of Africa is at risk of their negative impact. One would think the common goal would be to address bread-and-butter issues, such as poverty, unemployment, diseases, and health, to name but a few, instead of pushing the distractive agenda of those responsible for robbing Africa in the first place. No single group is the sole custodian of African knowledge. Africa belongs to all of us, with our diverse families and values, which cannot be defined through a single, narrow lens and are instead very individual issues that will differ from family to family.
Daniel Digashu is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center (SALC). SALC promotes and advances human rights and the rule of law in Southern Africa, primarily through strategic litigation and capacity-strengthening support to lawyers and grassroots organizations.
