Why Muslims and Liberals Unite

Many have pondered why the Left has been so much in agreement with the Islamists when it comes to the issue of Christianity and its place in public life. Many have pointed out that the Islamic faith and Leftist thought are so foreign, that it is a marvel as to why it is so easy for them to work together. It must be understood, that the reasons for this alliance is no enigma, but is actually too obvious to figure out: the Left and the Islamist are in agreement not because they are ignorant of their differences, but because they are connected by a common goal and ideology. We find in the Left a utopian vision in which all men will live in a collectivist society where the ‘have-nots’ take from the rich ‘haves.’ Similarly, in the Islamic utopia, called the Ummah or Muslim community, Jewish communities and Christian nations are demanded to be taxed with Jizya by the Muslim-have-nots. In the West Bank today, Hamas has already been establishing Sharia, and Hassam El Masalmeh, who heads the Hamas contingent at the municipal council of Bethlehem, few years ago made known that there will be a “prohibition of church bells; and restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches.” We find in analogous spirit in what took place in Russia after it was taken by the Leninists, in which church property was seized “for the benefit of the community” and was “to be distributed in equal shares.” The private ownership of land was to be “abolished forever.” (1)


We find today that this is the same antagonistic spirit which proscribes Christians from being outspoken about his God and his faith. This leftist antagonism is similar in its demand for prohibitions to the Islamist who espouses the edicts of Sharia. The Leftists use the words of our Founders to justify their call for prohibition, and their inquisition, against the faithful. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” is a common quotation they use from the First Amendments to our US Constitution calling for the end of religious talk in public. Yet a perusal of the amendment affirms that the state shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise; or abridging the freedom of speech”. This would mean that for one to reject a honorable soldier from making a speech on the importance of God in his life, would be foreign to the ideas of America and its founders.

Such was the case of General William Boykin, who was amongst the first members of the Delta Force, and an honorable hero in numerous missions, in which he endured efficiently with the utmost of valiancy. The general was planned to give a speech at West Point but CAIR, or Council of American Islamic Relations, had pressured with success that the General be prevented from speaking. “We welcome Mr. Boykin’s withdrawal from this event and hope that the speaker who replaces him will offer cadets a spiritual message that promotes tolerance and mutual understanding,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad in a statement. 

Tolerance should not be made a focal point at the cost of freedom; as soon as a people place diversity above liberty, then the society shall become tolerant toward everything and everybody, even the greatest lovers of tyranny, and the greatest enemy of liberty shall be accepted. But, in such a utopian vision, Christianity is the greatest of foes; for it is a faith which upholds the individual over the collective. It was for this reason why God scattered the dreamers of Babel, and held that man was created in the image of God–and thus each human being is special. It is the enemies of Christianity which uphold the idea that all men must be held tightly in a community. It was Rousseau, a beloved idealist of the Left, who held enmity toward Christ since it was He who wished his church not to be apart of a state. “It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom,” says Rousseau, “which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples.” It was for this reason that Rousseau saw in Christianity “nothing more contrary to the social spirit”, while at the same time he affirmed that “Mahomet [Muhammad] held very sane views, and linked his political system well together;” (2) we thus find here that the alliance between the enemies of the church go back farther than what most think, and that this war between light and darkness has been occurring since time immemorial.

The rejection of General William Boykin to speak at West Point is an indication of this war between good and evil which has been occurring so conspicuously in front of our eyes. It is also significant to point out that the groups which had caused the contention against the general were Muslims and progressives united together. It is why CAIR (Muslim) joined along with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (progressives) in protesting Boykin’s speech.

It is no coincidence that both leftists and Islamists have united together in this inquisition against general Boykin simply for the reason of his Christian faith, and his fearlessness in speaking of the Almighty; it is actually a shame that only a remnant like him are left in this country. The words of Christ speak volumes, when observing a moment such as this, when he proclaimed that “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12: 25-26)

The side of the left and the Islamist have one common goal, and that is the obliteration of Christianity. And why should these two sides fight against each other, when they are such a perfect match, and their enemy, Christianity, poses such a threat?


For more, read For God or For Tyranny by Theodore Shoebat

(1) See THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF LAND SOCIALIZATION, Decree of the Central Executive Committee, February 19, 1918.
(2) Quotes founded in Theodore Shoebat, For God or For Tyranny, sect. 1, ch. 2, p. 38, ch. 4, pp. 53, 54