Shahid Bolsen on the new stance of Liberal Muslims regarding the LGBT

Yeah. SubhanAllah. It's kind of interesting, isn't it? I mean, it's like a school of fish all suddenly pivoting together at the same time, you know, changing direction suddenly. You have all of these people like Yasr Qadi, like, of this sort of Yakini type people, the Yakin Institute people, you know, the liberal types, Muslims, liberal type Muslims, who developed a reputation over the last several years of being liberal and and supporting liberal parties, liberal movements on the basis of supposedly the liberals support Muslims.

So we should align with them and have an alliance with them. And again, if not directly support also their issues like LGBT, if not directly support their issues, then avoid saying anything that would alienate them. This is the reputation that they got. And now, like a school of fish, they're all switching directions, like, simultaneously. Omar Suleiman just a few hours ago put out a video where he's answering questions about the LGBT and whether he supports it or not and whether it's okay to form alliances with pro LGBT groups because of them supporting Muslims, you know, or supposedly supporting Muslims.

And saying, no. You can't do that, and it's morally wrong, and you you can't you know, anything that promotes the haram is haram, and so you can't support it and and participate in it, and so on. And, I mean, this is a complete change of direction. I mean, I don't know if they think no one's gonna notice that this is a complete change of direction. I would respect it more if they just said, you know, we were wrong to advocate that.

We were wrong to be injecting ambiguity into this issue, and, you know, we made for that, and it was a mistake. We shouldn't have done it. Instead, they're all kind of acting like, well, were misunderstood, you know. Our words were taken out of context and, you know, people people just misunderstood our stance and so on. I mean, at this point, if if Amr Sulaiman is having to answer questions about whether or not he supports LGBT, it means that you have been ambiguous on the issue.

Most Muslims don't have to clarify their position on that. After one time they make a statement, it's clear what their position is because it's a very clear and easy issue to take a, decisive and conclusive stance on. So if you're still now in 2023 having to clarify what your position is, then it means that you have never clarified it until today. But now they're changing tack. You know, that's good that now they're all sort of coming back to sound a sound position in the deen on this issue.

They have responsibility and they should take responsibility for the negative impact that their previous stances have had on the Muslim community in the West and confusion among especially young people in the West because a lot of that's on them. I mean, in the in the last speech that gave, I'm not really sure exactly how recent it was, but it was a where he was talking about this issue and saying, you know, he said, like, you know, some people have said that we can, ally with them in a reciprocal manner because they they support Muslim rights and and so on. So on that basis, we can some people some people say that we can form alliances with them politically for the good of the Muslims. Some people is you. Some people is you and Yapin and Amos Soleiman and and AC Brown and the the the lot of you.

You all took that position. So so just, you know, admit it that that was you. And and now you've you've, made for that, and you've corrected your position. I mean, like, AC Brown, as I recall, did actually come out and say directly, I was wrong. I made a mistake.

That was not well thought out, and I didn't, I didn't properly anticipate the the negative consequences of that. And it took it took his child going to school and coming and telling him that another child in in the class is is a little boy in the class is now going to be referred to as a little girl because he decided. And AC Brown was like, This is too much. And that made him change. You know, having a personal experience with the lunacy helped him to change his position on that.

And he publicly said, yeah, I was wrong. As I recall, my opinion on this and again, I don't actually mean to pick on these brothers and sisters, and these the people who in the recent past aligned with the liberals. I don't mean to pick on them. I I don't think that they're bad people. I don't think that they're, you know, ignorant in the dean or, you know, any of those types of things.

They they're all trying to do their best and and and have good intentions, I think. I think, politically, maybe a little naive. But I have to talk about them because, you know, they're the ones who did it. So what to do? My my opinion about this pivot is that there's an election coming up.

And maybe they have developed at least that level of of political sophistication to understand the power of being nonpartisan, the power of being nonaligned between the two political parties in the in The US. And this is something you know, if they've learned that, then they've learned it rather quickly as a minority group in The US because, for example, African Americans have just historically been completely in line with the Democrats for decades. And they've never had to, the Democrats have never had to court the African American community for support. And they just now, in like, in 2020, in the in the twenty twenty election and after, over the last three years, I've noticed that there has really been a movement in the African American community to say we should be independent. We our support shouldn't be taken for granted and just be an automatic thing for the Democratic party.

They should have to woo us for support. That they shouldn't just think they've got our support in the bank and count on it. And, you know, that isn't going to give any minority group, greater power politically than if they if they just, you know, without asking for anything, just automatically align with with this party or that party. And so I think, you know, I think that probably these these folks have recognized that there is power in non alignment, in being nonpartisan, and being independent, and saying, if you want Muslim vote, if you want us to advocate for you, then you have to give us something in return. You know, that gives you some kind of leverage.

Whereas if you just if they've just got your support in the bank, then you have no leverage, and you will be leveraged. So, you know, I think I think that this is what's happening because, frankly, I don't I I find it very difficult to believe that people who have very publicly exhibited their instinct for expedient pragmatism, which is what they did, that they've given up that instinct and just suddenly overnight become principled purists who are just taking a moral stance on this now and, consequences be damned. You know? You you cared a lot about the consequences a couple of years ago. You cared a lot about what you thought were going to be the consequences in terms of, Muslim social power, social credit, which as I said, actually, all you were doing was accruing social debt.

You thought that you were accruing social credit, and you thought that the consequences of taking a principled stance on the LGBT issue would lose you social credit. And those were the consequences that you wanted to avoid. Now you're acting like consequences be damned. We don't care. But that's because you know that there's another party, and there is a backlash among the core constituency of that party, meaning the Republican Party and meaning fundamentalist evangelical Christians who oppose the LGBT agenda.

And so you're thinking now it's expedient pragmatism again, but just a smarter version, a more experienced maybe version than what you had four or five years ago. So I still think it's they're being pragmatic. I don't think it's it's a principled position. Now I'm not saying that they're unprincipled. I'm just saying that this that that this change of direction, I think, is a pragmatic change of direction on their part.

Everyone needs to understand something, in my opinion, about the LGBT issue. And that is that look at when did, for example, same sex marriage get passed in the in The US. It was in 2012, I think, or 2013. And there was a whole raft of, laws, regulations, and, for lack of a better word, achievements since 2012. So just in the last ten years, they've seen more advancement in their agenda than they saw in the previous forty.

It would be foolish to not identify the significance of the, approval for the mass production and distribution and sales of PrEP, the cocktail of medications, to combat HIV. If you don't think that there's a connection, that was passed, believe, approved in 2012. As soon as Big Pharma had a way to make money off of this community, suddenly that community got promoted like never before. You're telling me that's a coincidence? Big Pharma was supporting LGBT organizations.

They're supporting, legislation on behalf of LGBT and so on and so on and so on. Now the LGBT movement is corporate sponsored. That's what made the difference for the LGBT. It's not that they were a great lobby in and of themselves. It's not that they had the power to change public opinion.

They didn't. They were getting nowhere. That's why same sex marriage even had to be had to be, approved through the court. That was court made law. That was court made legislation because they had tried to pass it in state legislatures here and there, and it very often, almost always, got rejected.

But it was through what you could call a democratic process by state legislatures. I mean, a state here and there passed it, but they tried it in many states, and it got rejected in most of the states that tried it through a democratic process. So they had to do it through the courts, which is undemocratic. They got corporate sponsorship. They got corporate money behind them.

And what big pharma wants they get. And they, you know, they're making money off of the promotion of an unarguably unhealthy and risky, dangerous lifestyle that is prone to all sorts of medical problems, not just HIV. All sorts of diseases, all sorts of infections, all sorts of illnesses, all sorts of sicknesses are related to this lifestyle, uniquely to this lifestyle, and not to others, not to even heterosexual, promiscuity. Promoting that lifestyle is creating lifelong customers. Because if you wanna be engaged in homosexual activity, you better take PrEP because otherwise you're gonna get HIV.

The truth is you probably still get it, but PrEP will just cloak it and you won't know. And then you can spread it even more and even more people will get it without knowing it, without it showing up in the tests because that's what PrEP does. It cloaks it. So they're spreading disease. They're spreading risky, dangerous lifestyles because it means business for them.

I mean, I've said before, declining birth rates in the West. The the the surest way that you could get a movement started to increase the birth rates and to promote people having children in the West is to just assure the pharmaceutical industry, assure big pharma that you're gonna have sick children. Make sure we need more sick babies. So if they can find a way to make you pass on an illness to an infant, to a newborn, that they will have their whole life, then there will suddenly be a huge movement to increase birth rates because it just means lifelong customers. And that's what this is that's what's actually going on here.

I don't know if a lot of Muslims who were taking a position on the LGBT issue understand the capitalist incentive behind the promotion of this lifestyle. And you should you should factor that in when you're thinking about it because the Republicans like money too. The Democrats like money and the Republicans like money, and big pharma funds both of them. So I don't know the extent to which this this this version of expedient pragmatism is gonna end up working for them. But I don't believe that they're actually just suddenly opened their eyes and said, oh, you know what?

It's it's haram, and we can't support it. It's haram. It's always been haram. We all we all knew that. Like I said before, the the the that Yasur Paddi gave couple of weeks ago was basically stating the position that everybody was taking twenty years ago, that all the Muslims were taking twenty years ago, that was in every on this issue twenty years ago, and got removed from the on the basis of the ambiguity that people like Yasurqa, the Enormous Salaman injected into the issue five, six, seven years ago.

So that they changed their position. But I still think they're just being pragmatic.