The West's war on Islam
No matter the political leanings, right or left, the west always has been, and will remain opposed to Islam
When the United States were founded, and created the first liberal republic, and when France overthrew the monarchic order to implement the first European Republic in a millennium, they both implemented the idea of a “constitutional” democracy. That is, while the power is (at least in theory) by the people, of the people and for the people, and thus only determined by majority votes (whether direct or indirect), this “popular agora” does not have all powers and cannot pass certain laws.
Many political issues were diagnosed with direct democracy, since antiquity, most notably by Plato who harshly criticized the Athenian democracy which had executed his teacher Socrates. The idea of “unalienable rights”, or “human and citizen rights” as the french would name them, Is there to guide the law, to put limits on what the vox populi can decide for individuals within this population.
While in theory this means that laws cannot be passed if they are opposed to these rights, this has, as history has shown, been purely theoretic since the very beginnings of these new forms of republics.
The most important right, is the first in both the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Human Rights: The right to your own beliefs.
This means any belief, including being against the very idea of human rights, or liberal democracy. And ironically this right is the one which has been the most attacked in history within these democracies. From the hunt for communists in the US, to the incessant affront to religion that France has historically exhibited.
Today this means that while Muslims live in the West, and are guaranteed the right to believe and practice their religion in theory, this doesn’t stop them from being snatched that right by Left and Right alike.
A racialist Left…
Historically, Muslims have been protected by left-wing movements within the West. This however is not at all, as they say, caused by a belief in a human fraternity which transcends borders (the “Internationale”) for such a belief would also accept the idea that other people can have different views, namely on ethics and religion. The Left has always been opposed to religion, Marx called religion the “opium of the people” after all, and this has been for a long time the reason some on the Left (the most honest among them) are fiercely opposed to Islam.
The Left however has a selective blindness with respect to Islam, forgetting the fact that much of what they criticize from the people on the right (religiosity, conservatism, opposition to LGBT rights, etc.) is present and often more prevalent in Muslim communities. Instead they focus on their racialist view of these communities (with a “white savior” mentality) as uneducated indigenous people (to not use the classical term of “savages”) whose conservatism, religiosity, and (perceived) obscurantism is not their fault, but due to them being stuck in the past along the natural moral evolution of humanity which according to them all societies follow (this is again an idiocy inherited from Marxists’ historic materialism), and this position in the past is not their fault1, because they are victims of colonialism and imperialism.
Today what this entails is that their aid is little by little conditional. The contract they are attempting to enforce is the following: we will defend you, if you agree to forgo your religion and moral beliefs. (Of course you can still be “Muslim” as they see it, that is the same way a white person doing yoga is “Buddhist”: they only appreciate the cultural beauty (art, architecture, language), and have an orientalist fascination which today is called “diversity”).
…and a racist Right
Contrary to the Left, the Right has almost always been opposed to Muslims. Today some are trying to “build bridges”, as they see how far in degeneracy and anti-conservatism the Left has gone, they only see the Muslims as bastions of faith (unlike most Christians in the West).
Historically the right has been opposed to Muslims purely on the basis of race or xenophobia. The most evident recent example of this is the inherent association between Islam and terrorism which was bred by the Right. This was so recent that their sudden approval of Muslims makes it difficult to trust them, lets take a more concrete example, that of the Daily Wire:
The Jordan B Peterson has recently made efforts to “build bridges”2 with the Muslim community (The fact he did this after calling Muhammad (PBUH) a warlord3, and that after this bridge building made his laughably condescending and insulting “Message to Muslims”4 is enough to show how difficult it is to find sincerity in these attempts at “bridge-building”), similarly Knowles, whilst commenting on Muslims protesting the indoctrination of children in schools with LGBT propaganda, said he expected and hoped to see more “Muslims and Christians allying for this cause”5. The fact that the Daily Wire is openly Zionist is already a point of contention for many Muslims, but one doesn’t have to look far into their past to see videos of Shapiro equating “wanting Sharia law” with being a radical extremist6, or saying “Arabs live in open sewage”7.
What to do about it
The position of Islam is clear on this issue, the prophet (PBUH) said not to take allies among the disbelievers. This hadith which is often misinterpreted to either mean you cannot have disbelieving friends, or cannot ever have agreements and alliances with disbelievers actually means that you should never think of them as your allies in defending God. While we have historically as a community had alliances long and short with Christians, Jews, and Atheists, the issue is to stay attached to these alliances, as long as there is no contract between us, they don’t owe us anything and we don’t owe them anything.
If we have converging goals (typically being anti-racism with the Left, or anti-LGBT with the Right) we make alliances solely on these issues, however if these are conditional (like for the Left), or are traps (like for the Right) we must tread lightly, and avoid them. Better to stand alone than among enemies.
God entrusted the Islamic community with the responsibility of spreading Truth, Faith, and Justice in the world and we must always be proactive in this goal, whether help comes from friends or enemies, from the Right or the Left, from Believers or Atheists.
This explains even more how radical the difference in treatment is regarding the same beliefs whether they are held by their close brothers (i.e. whites) or their cousins (i.e. browns). Indeed unlike them, their white brethren have no excuse as they have lived in western society and thus should have already experienced this moral evolution. (This shows their racialism even more given the fact that they treat whites this way, but not 2nd generation, or 3rd generation immigrants, which makes their claims that there is no link between “white” and the “west” laughable)