[this article was written for the Unz Review]
Introduction: a short survey of the cuckoo's nest
My initial idea was to begin with a definition of "Islamophobia" but after looking around for various definitions, I decided to use my own, very primitive definition. I will define Islamophobia as the belief that Islam (the religion) and/or Muslims (the adherents to this religion) represent some kind of more or less coherent whole which is a threat to the West. These are two distinct arguments rolled up into one: the first part claims that Islam (the religion) represents some kind of threat to the West while the second part claims that the people who embrace Islam (Muslims) also represent some kind of threat to the West. Furthermore, this argument makes two crucial assumptions:
- there is such thing out there as a (conceptually sufficient) unitary Islam
- there are such people with (conceptually sufficient) common characteristics due to their adherence to Islam
Next, let's summarize the "evidence" typically presented in support of this thesis:
- The god of Islam is not the same god as the God of Christianity
- The Muslim world was created by the sword
- The Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, was an evil person
- Islam is incompatible with western democracy and represents a threat to what are referred to as "values" in the modern day West
- Muslims have treated Christians horribly in many different historical instances
- Muslims often turn to terrorism and commit atrocities
- Islam is socially regressive and seeks to impose medieval values on a modern world
There are more such as these, but these, I believe, are the main ones.
What is crucial here is to point out that this evidence relies both on theological arguments (#1 #4 #7), and historical arguments (#2 #3 #5 #6).
Finally, there is a most interesting phenomenon which, for the time being, we shall note, but only discuss later: the legacy corporate Ziomedia on one hand denounces Islamophobia as a form of "racism" but yet, at the same time, the very same circles which denounce Islamophobia are also the ones which oppose all manifestations of real traditional Islam. This strongly suggests that the study of this apparent paradox can, if carefully analyzed, yield some most interesting results, but more about that later.
Of course, all of the above is sort of a "bird's eye" view of Islamophobia in the West. Once we go down to the average Joe Sixpack level, all of the above is fused into one "forceful" slogan as this one:
This kind of crude fearmongering is targeted at the folks who don't realize that the USA is not "America" and who, therefore, probably don't have the foggiest notion of what Sharia law is or how it is adjudicated by Islamic courts.
[I have lived in the USA for a total of 22 years and have observed something very interesting: there is a unique mix of ignorance and fear which, in the USA, is perceived as "patriotic". A good example of this kind of "patriotism through ignorance" is in the famous song " Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning" by Alan Jackson which includes the following words: "I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God". Truth be told, the same song also asked in reference to 9/11 "Did you burst out with pride for the red, white and blue?". Why exactly the massacre of 9/11 should elicit patriotic pride is explained as follows "And the heroes who died just doin' what they do?". Thus when the "United American Committee" declares that Sharia law is a threat to "America" the folks raised in this culture of fear and patriotism immediately "get it". David Rovics hilariously described this mindset in his song " Evening News" where he says: "Evil men are plotting, to blow up Washington, DC, 'cause they don't like freedom and democracy, they're fans of the Dark Ages, they are all around, they're marching from the desert sands, and coming to your town". I have had the fortune of visiting all the continents of our planet (except Oceania) and I can vouch that this blend of fear+patriotic fervor is something uniquely, well, not "American" but "USAnian"].
Having quickly surveyed the Islamophobic mental scenery, we can now turn to a logical analysis of the so-called arguments of the Islamophobes.
Deconstructing the phobia's assumptions: a unitary Islam
Let's take the arguments one by one beginning with the argument of a unitary Islam.
Most of us are at least vaguely aware that there are different Islamic movements/schools/traditions in different countries. We have heard of Shias and Sunni, some have also heard about Alawites or Sufism. Some will even go so far as remembering that Muslim countries can be at war with each other, and that some Muslims (the Takfiris) only dream about killing as many other Muslims (who, obviously, don't share the exact same beliefs) and that, in fact, movements like al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc have murdered other Muslims in huge numbers. So the empirical evidence strongly suggest that this notion of a Muslim or Islamic unity is factually simply wrong.
Furthermore, we need to ask the obvious question: what *is* Islam?
Now, contrary to the hallucinations of some especially dull individuals, I am not a Muslim. So what follows is my own, possibly mistaken, understanding of what "core Islam" is. It is the acceptance of the following formula "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God" or "lā ʾilāha ʾillā llāh muḥammadun rasūlu llā". Note that "Allah" is not a name, it is the word "God" and "rasul" can be translated as "prophet". There are also the so-called Five Pillars of Islam:
- The Shahada or profession of faith "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God"
- The Salat or a specific set of daily prayers
- The Zakat or alms giving
- The Sawm or fasting
- The Hadjj or pilgrimage to Mecca
That's it! A person who fully embraces these five pillars is considered a Muslim. Or at least, so it would appear. The reality is, of course, much more complex. For the time being, I will just note that in this "core Islam" there is absolutely nothing, nothing at all, which could serve as evidence for any of the Islamophobic theories. Yes, yes, I know, I can already hear the Islamophobes' objections: you are ignoring all the bad stuff in the Quran, you are ignoring all the bad stuff about spreading Islam by the sword, you are ignoring all the bad things Muhammad did in his life, you are ignoring the many local traditions and all the normative examples of the tradition (Sunnah and it's Hadiths). Yeah, except you can't have it both ways. You can't say:
- Islam is inherently evil/dangerous AND
- use local/idiosyncratic beliefs and actions to prove your point!
If Islam by itself is dangerous, then it has to be dangerous everywhere it shows up, irrespective of the region, people, time in history or anything else.
If we say that sometimes Islam is dangerous and sometimes it is not, then what we need to look into is not the core elements of the Islamic faith, but instead we need to identify those circumstances in which Islam was not a threat to anybody and those circumstances when Islam was a threat to others.
Furthermore, if your argument is really based on the thesis that Islam is evil always and everywhere, then to prove it wrong all I need to do is find one, just ONE, example where Muslims and non-Muslims have lived in peace together for some period of time.
[Sidebar: while I was working on my Master's Degree in Strategic Studies I had the fortune of having the possibility to take a couple of courses outside my field of specialization and I decided to take the most "exotic" course I could find in SAIS' curriculum and I chose a course on Sharia law. This was an excellent decision which I never regretted. Not only was the course fascinating, I had the chance of writing a term paper on the topic "The comparative status of Orthodox Christians in history under Muslim and Latin rule". My first, and extremely predictable, finding was that treatment of Orthodox Christians by Muslim rulers ranged from absolutely horrible and even genocidal to very peaceful and kind. Considering the long time period considered (14 centuries) and the immense geographical realm covered (our entire planet from Morocco to Indonesia and from Russia to South Africa), this is hardly surprising. The core beliefs of Islam might be simple, but humans are immensely complicated beings who always end up either adding a local tradition or, at least, defending one specific interpretation of Islam. My second finding was much more shocking: on average the status of Orthodox Christians under the Papacy was much worse than under Muslim rule. Again, I am not comparing the status of Orthodox Serbs under Ottoman rule with the status of Orthodox Christians in modern Italy. These are extreme examples. But I do claim that there is sort of a conceptual linear regression which strongly suggests to us that there is a predictive (linear) model which can be used to make predictions and that the most obvious lesson of history is that the absolute worst thing which can happen to Orthodox Christians is to fall under their so-called "Christian brothers" of the West. A few exceptions here and there do not significantly affect this model. I encourage everybody to take the time to really study the different types of Muslim rulers in history, if only to appreciate how much diversity you will find].
Deconstructing the phobia's assumptions: the "Muslim god" vs the "Christian God"
This is just about the silliest anti-Muslim argument I have ever heard and it come from folks inhabiting the far left side of a Bell Curve. It goes something like this:
We, Christians, have our true God as God, whereas the Muslims have Allah, which is not the God of the Christians. Thus, we worship different gods.
Of course, the existence of various gods or one, single, God does not depend on who believes in Him or who worships Him. If we can agree on the notion that God is He Who created all of Creation, and if we agree that both Christians (all denominations) and Muslims (all schools) believe that they are worshiping that God then, since there is only one real/existing God, we do worship the same God simply because there are not "other" gods.
I wonder what those who say that "Muslims worship another god" think when they read the following words of Saint Paul to the Athenian pagans: "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you" (Acts 17:23). What Saint Paul told them is that they ignorantly worship a god whom, in spite of that ignorant worship, Saint Paul declared to them. I submit that "ignorant worship" is not an insult, but a diagnosis of heterodoxy, and that such an "ignorant worship" can nonetheless be sincere.
The issue is not WHOM we worship, but HOW we worship (in terms of both praxis and doxa).
And yes, here the differences between Christians and Muslims are huge indeed.
In my 2013 article " Russia and Islam, part eight: working together, a basic "how-to"" I discussed the immense importance of these differences and how we ought to deal with them. I wrote:
The highest most sacred dogmatic formulation of Christianity is the so-called "Credo" or "Symbol of Faith" (full text here; more info here). Literally every letter down to the smallest 'i ' of this text is, from the Christian point of view, the most sacred and perfect dogmatic formulation, backed by the full authority of the two Ecumenical Councils which proclaimed it and all the subsequent Councils which upheld it. In simple terms - the Symbol of Faith is absolutely non-negotiable, non-re-definable, non-re-interpretable, you cannot take anything away from it, and you cannot add anything to it. You can either accept it as is, in toto, or reject it.
The fact is that Muslims would have many problems with this text, but one part in particular is absolutely unacceptable to any Muslim:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made
This part clearly and unambiguously affirms that Jesus-Christ was not only the Son of God but actually God Himself. This is expressed by the English formulation "of one essence with the Father" (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί in Greek with the key term homousios meaning "consubstantial"). This is *THE* core belief of Christianity: that Jesus was the the anthropos, the God-Man or God incarnate. This belief is categorically unacceptable to Islam which says that Christ was a prophet and by essence a 'normal' human being.
For Islam, the very definition of what it is to be a Muslim is found in the so-called " Shahada" or testimony/witness. This is the famous statement by which a Muslim attests and proclaims that "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God". One can often also hear this phrased as "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is His prophet".
Now without even going into the issue of whether Christians can agree or not that "Allah" is the appropriate name for God (some do, some don't - this is really irrelevant here), it's the second part which is crucial here: Christianity does not recognize Muhammad as a prophet at all. In fact, technically speaking, Christianity would most likely classify Muhammad as a heretic (if only because of his rejection of the "Symbol of Faith"). Saint John of Damascus even called him a 'false prophet'. Simply put: there is no way a Christian can accept the "Shahada" without giving up his Christianity just as there is no way for a Muslim to accept the "Symbol of Faith" without giving up his Islam.
So why bother?
Would it not make much more sense to accept that there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between Christianity and Islam and simply give up all that useless quest for points of theological agreement? Who cares if we agree on the secondary if we categorically disagree on the primary? I am all in favor of Christians studying Islam and for Muslims studying Christianity (in fact, I urge them both to do so!), and I think that it is important that the faithful of these religions talk to each other and explain their points of view as long as this is not presented as some kind of quest for a common theological stance. Differences should be studied and explained, not obfuscated, minimized or overlooked.
Bottom line is this: it is PRECISELY because Islam and Christianity are completely incompatible theologically (and even mutually exclusive!) that there is no natural enmity between these two religions unless, of course, some Christian or Muslim decides that he has to use force to promote this religion. And let's be honest, taken as a whole Christianity's record on forced conversions and assorted atrocities is at least as bad as Islam's, or even worse. Of course, if we remove the Papacy from the overall Christian record, things looks better. If then we also remove the kind of imperialism Reformed countries engaged in, it looks even better. But even Orthodox rulers have, on occasion, resorted to forceful conversions and mass murder of others.
And here, just as in Islam, we notice that Christians also did not always spread their faith by love and compassion, especially once Christian rulers came to power in powerful empires or nations.
Deconstructing the phobia's assumptions: Islam was spread by the sword
In reality the "Islam spread by the sword" is a total canard, at least when we hear it from folks who defend "democracy" but who stubbornly refuse to concede that 1) most democracies came to power by means of violent revolutions and that 2) just a look at a newspaper today (at least a non-western newspaper) will tell you that democracy is STILL spread by the sword. As for the USA as country, it was built on by far the biggest bloodbath in history. If anything, Sharia law and Islam could teach a great deal to the country which:
- spends more on aggression than the rest of the world combined
- has the highest percentage of people incarcerated (and most of these for non-violent crimes)
- whose entire economy is based on the military-industrial complex
- and who is engaged in more simultaneous wars of choice than any other country in history
So "Sharia Law Threatens America" is a lie. And this is the truth:
Was Islam really spread by the sword?
Maybe. But anybody making that claim better make darn sure that his/her religion, country or ideology has a much better record. If not, then this is pure hypocrisy!
Finally, I will also note that Christ said "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36). In contrast, the Prophet of Islam established the first Islamic state in Medina. So when we compare Muhammad's actions to Christ, a better comparison should be with the various Christian rulers (including Byzantine ones) and we will soon find out that the Christian Roman Empire also used the sword on many occasions.
Deconstructing the phobia's assumptions: the Prophet of Islam was a bad man
You must have all sorts of stories about how the Prophet Muhammad did things we would disapprove of. I won't list them here simply because the list of grievances is a little different in each case. I actually researched some of these accusations (about marrying young girls, or sentencing people to death for example) and in each case, there is a very solid Muslim defense of these incidents which is almost always ignored and which provides a crucial context to, at least, the better understanding of the incident discussed.
Since I am not a historian or a biographer of the Prophet Muhammad I don't have any personal opinion on these accusations other than stating the obvious: I am not a Muslim and I don't have to decide whether Muhammad was a sinful man or a infallible person (that is a purely theological argument). I will simply say that this ad hominem is only relevant to the degree that some Muslims would consider each action of their prophet as normative and not historical. Furthermore, even if they would consider each action of their prophet as normative, we need to recall here that we are dealing with a prophet, not a God-Man, and that therefore the comparison ought not to be made with Christ, whom Christians believe to be 100% sinless, but with a Christian prophet, say Moses, whom no real Christian will ever declare sinless or infallible. As for the Quran, let's not compare it to just the New Testament but to all the books of the Bible taken together, including those who were eventually re-interpreted by the new religion of (some) Jews after the fall of Jerusalem: rabbinical/Phariseic Talmudism which found plenty of passages in its (deliberately falsified) "Masoretic" text of the Old Testament "Tanakh" (please see here if you don't know what falsification I am referring to).
Finally, NO religious text worth anything is self-explanatory or "explains itself" by means of comparing passages. This is also why all major religions have a large corpus of texts which explain, interpret, expand upon and otherwise give the (deceptively simple looking) text its real, profound, meaning. Furthermore, most major religions also have a rich oral tradition which also sheds light on written religious documents. Whatever may be the case, simply declaring that "Islam is a threat" because we don't approve of the actions of the founder of Islam is simply silly. The next accusation is much more material:
Deconstructing the phobia's assumptions:Islam is incompatible with democracy
That is by far the most interesting argument and one which many Muslims would agree with! Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "democracy". Let me immediately concede that if by "democracy" you mean this:
Then, indeed, Islam is incompatible with modern western democracy. But so is (real) Christianity!
So the so-called "West" has to decide what its core values are. If Conchita Wurst is an embodiment of "democracy" then Islam and Christianity are both equally incompatible with it. Orthodox Christianity, for sure, has not caved in to the homo-lobby in the same way most western Christian denominations have.
But if by "democracy" we don't mean "gay pride" parades but rather true pluralism, true people-power, and the real sovereignty of the people, then what I call "core Islam" is not threat to democracy at all. None. However, there is also no doubt about two truisms:
- Some Muslim states are profoundly reactionary and freedom crushing
- Traditional Islam is incompatible with many modern "western values"
Still, it is also very easy to counter these truism with the following replies
- Some Muslim states are pluralistic, progressive and defend the oppressed (Muslim or not)
- Traditional Christianity is incompatible with modern "western values"
Again, Iran is, in my opinion, the perfect illustration of a pluralistic (truly diverse!), progressive and freedom defending Muslim state. I simply don't have the time and place to go into a detailed discussion of the polity of Iran (I might have to do that in a future article), and for the time being I will point you to the hyper-pro-Zionist Wikipedia article (which nobody will suspect of being pro-Muslim or pro-Iranian) about the " Politics of Iran" which will show you two things: Iran is an "Islamic Republic" meaning that it is a republic, yes, but one which has Islam as its supreme law. There is absolutely nothing inherently less democratic about a Islamic republic which has a religion as its supreme law than a atheistic/secular republic which has a constitution as its supreme law. In fact, some countries don't even have a constitution (the UK and Israel come to mind). As for the Iranian polity, it has a very interesting system of checks and balances which a lot of countries would do well to emulate (Russia for starters).
As for modern "western values", they are completely incompatible with Christianity (the real, original, unadulterated thing) even if they are very compatible with modern western (pseudo-) Christian denominations.
So, now the question becomes: is there something profoundly incompatible between the real, traditional, Islam and the real, traditional, Christianity? I am not talking about purely theological differences here, but social and political consequences which flow from theological differences. Two immediately come to my mind (but there are more, of course):
- The death penalty, especially for apostasy
- Specific customs (dress code, ban on alcohol, separation of genders in various settings, etc.)
The first one, this is really a non-issue because while traditional, Patristic, Christianity has a general, shall we say, "inclination" against the death penalty, this has not always been the case in all Orthodox countries. So while we can say that by and large Orthodox Christians are typically not supporters of the death penalty, this is not a theological imperative or any kind of dogma. In fact, modern Russia has implemented a moratorium on the death penalty (to join the Council of Europe - hardly a moral or ethical reason) but most of the Russian population favor its re-introduction. Note that Muslims in Russia are apparently living their lives in freedom and overall happiness and when they voice grievances (often legitimate ones), they don't have "reintroduce the death penalty" as a top priority demand.
The simple truth is that each country has to decide for itself whether it was the use the death penalty or not. Once a majority of voters have made that decision, members of each religion will have to accept that decision as a fact of law which can be criticized, but not one which can be overturned by any minority.
As for religious tribunals, they can be easily converted by the local legislature into a "mediation firm" which can settle conflicts, but only if both sides agree to recognize it's authority. So if two Muslims want their dispute to be settled by an Islamic Court, the latter can simply act as a mediator as long as its decision does not violate any local or national laws. Hardly something non-Muslims (who could always refuse to recognize the Islamic Court) need to consider a "threat" to their rights or lifestyles.
An "Islamic Matrioshka"?!
As for the social customs, here it is really a no-brainer: apply Islamic rules to those who chose to be Muslims and let the other people live their lives as they chose to. You know, "live and let live". Besides, in terms of dress code and gender differentiation, traditional Islam and traditional Christianity are very close.
Check out this typical Russian doll, and look at what she is wearing: this was the traditional Russian dress for women for centuries and this is still what Orthodox women (at least those who still follow ancient Christian customs) wear in Church.
Furthermore, if you go into a Latin parish in southern Europe or Latin America, you will often find women covering their heads, not only in church, but also during the day. The simple truth is that these clothes are not only modest and beautiful, they are also very comfortable and practical.
The thing which Islamophobes always miss is that they take examples of laws and rules passed by some Muslim states and assume that this is how all Muslim states will always act. But this is simply false. Let's take the example of Hezbollah (that name means "party of God", by the way) in Lebanon which has clearly stated on many occasions that it has no intention of transforming Lebanon into a Shia-only state. Not only did Hezbollah say that many times, but they acted on it and they always have had a policy of collaboration with truly patriotic Christians (of any denomination). Even in today's resistance (moqawama) there are Christians who are not members of Hezbollah as a party (and why would they when this is clearly and officially a Muslim party and not a Christian one?!), but they are part of the military resistance.
[Sidebar: by the way, the first female suicide bomber in Lebanon was not a Muslim. She was a 18 year old from an Orthodox family who joined Syrian Social Nationalist Party and blew herself up in her car on an Israeli checkpoint (inside Lebanon, thus a legitimate target under international law!), killing two Israeli invaders and injuring another twelve. Her name was Sana'a Mehaidli]
A Hezbollah fighter respectfully picks up an image of the Mother of God from the ruins of a church destroyed by US-backed Takfiris
Recent events in Syria were also very telling: when the AngloZionist Empire unleashed its aggression against Syria and the "good terrorists" of al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/ISIS/etc. embarked in a wholesale program of massacres and atrocities, everybody ran for their lives, including all the non-Takfiri Muslims. Then, when the plans of the Axis of Kindness (USA, KSA, Israel) were foiled by the combined actions of Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, something interesting happened: the Latin Christians left, whereas the Orthodox Christians stayed ( source). Keep in mind that Syria is *not* an Islamic state, yet the prospects of a Muslim majority was frightening enough for the Latins to flee even though the Orthodox felt comfortable staying. What do these Orthodox Christians know?
Could it be that elite traditionalist Shia soldiers represent no threat to Orthodox Christians?
Deconstructing the phobia's assumptions: Islam generates terrorism
In fact, there is some truth to that too. But I would re-phrase it as: the AngloZionists in their hatred for anything Russian, including Soviet Russian, identified a rather small and previously obscure branch of Islam in Saudi Arabia which they decided to unleash against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan. From the first day, these Takfiris were federated by the USA and financed by the House of Saud. The latter, in its fear of being overthrown by the Takfiris, decided to appease them by internationally supporting their terrorism (that is all Takfiris have to offer, their leaders are not respected scholars, to put it mildly). Since that time, the Takfiris have been the "boots on the ground" used by the West against all its enemies: Serbia, Russia first, but then also secular (Syria) or anti-Takfiri Muslim states (Iran).
So it is not "Islam" which generates terrorism: it is western (AngloZionist) imperialism.
The US and Israel are, by a wide margin, the biggest sponsors of terrorism (just as the West was always by far the biggest source of imperialism in history) and while they want to blame "Islam" for most terrorist attacks, the truth is that behind every such "Muslim" attack we find a western "deep state" agents acting, from the GIA in Algeria, to al-Qaeda in Iraq to al-Nusra in Syria to, most crucially, 9/11 in New York. These were all events created and executed by semi-literate Takfiri patsies who were run by agents of the western deep states.
As far as I know, all modern terrorist groups are, in reality, "operated by remote control" by state actors who alone can provide the training, know-how, finances, logistical support, etc needed by the terrorists.
And here is an interesting fact: the two countries which have done the most to crush Takfiri terrorism are Russia and Iran. But the collective West is still categorically refusing to work with these countries to crush the terrorism these western states claim to be fighting.
So, do you really believe that the West is fighting terrorism?
If yes, I got a few bridges to sell all over the planet.
Conclusion: cui bono? the so-called "liberals"
There are many more demonstratively false assumptions which are made by the AngloZionist propaganda machine. I have only listed a few. Now we can look to the apparent paradox in which we see the western "liberals" both denouncing Islamophobia and, at the same time, repeating all the worst cliches about Islam. In this category, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are the most egregious examples of this hypocrisy because while pretending to be friends of Muslims, they got more Muslims killed than anybody else. For western liberals, Islam is a perfect pretext to, on one hand, cater to minorities (ethnic or religious) while pretending to be extremely tolerant of others. Western liberals use Islam in the West, as a way to force the locals to give up their traditions and values. You could say that western liberals "love" Islam just like they "love" LGBTQIAPK+ "pride" parades: simply and only as a tool to crush the (still resisting) majority of the people in the West who have not been terminally brainwashed by the AngloZionist legacy corporate propaganda machine.
Conclusion: cui bono? the so-called "conservatives"
Western conservatism is dead. It died killed by two main causes: the abject failure of National-Socialism (which was an Anglo plan to defeat the USSR) and by its total lack of steadfastness of the western conservatives who abandoned pretty much any and all principles they were supposed to stand for. Before the 1990s, the conservative movements of the West were close to fizzling out into nothingness, but then the Neocons (for their own, separate, reasons) began pushing the "Islamic threat" canard and most conservatives jumped on it in the hope of using it to regain some relevance. Some of these conservatives even jumped on the "Christian revival in Russia" theory (which is not quite a canard, but which is also nothing like what the Alt-Righters imagine it to be) to try to revive their own, long dead, version of "Christianity". These are desperate attempts to find a source of power and relevance outside a conservative movement which is basically dead. Sadly, what took the place of the real conservative movement in the West is the abomination known as "National Zionism" (which I discussed here) and whose ideological cornerstone is a rabid, hysterical, Islamophobia.
Conclusion: cui bono? the US deep state
That one is easy and obvious: the US deep state needs the "Islamic threat" canard for two reasons: to unleash against its enemies and to terrify the people of the USA so that they accept the wholesale destruction of previously sacred civil rights. This is so obvious that there is nothing to add here. I will only add that I am convinced that the US deep state is also supporting both the Alt-Right phenomenon and the various "stings" against so-called "domestic terrorists" (only only Muslims, by the way). What the Neocons and their deep-state need above all is chaos and crises which they used to shape the US political landscape.
Finally, the real conclusion: rate the source! always rate the source...
Whom did we identify as the prime sources of Islamophobia? The liberals who want to seize power on behalf of a coalition of minorities, conservatives who have long ditched truly conservative values and deep state agents who want to terrify US Americans and kill the enemies of the AngloZionist Empire.
I submit to you that these folks are most definitely not your friends. In fact, they are your real enemy and, unlike various terrorists abroad who are thousands of miles away from the USA, these real enemies are not only here, they are already in power and rule over you! And they are using Islam just like a matador uses a red cape: to distract you from the real threat: National Zionism. This is true in the US as it is true in the EU.
Chechens in Novorussia
Most westerners are now conditioned to react with fear and horror when they hear "Allahu Akbar". This is very predictable since most of what is shown in the western media is Takfiris screaming "Allahu Akbar" before cutting the throats of their victims (or rejoicing at the suffering/death of "infidels").
Yet in the Donbass, the local Orthodox Christians knew that wherever that slogan (which simply means "God is greater" or "God is the greatest") was heard the Ukronazis are on the run. And now we see Russia sending mostly Muslim units to Syria to protect not only Muslims, but everybody who needs protection.
Having a sizable Muslim minority in Russia, far from being any kind of threat, as turned to be a huge advantage for Russia in her competition against the AngloZionist Empire.
There are, by the way, also Chechens fighting on the other side in this conflict: the very same Takfiris who were crushed and expelled from Chechnia by the joint efforts of the Chechen people and the Russian armed forces. So, again, we have Muslims on both sides, the Takfiris now happily united with the Nazis and the traditionalist Muslims of Kadyrov protecting the people of Novorussia.
That is one, amongst many more, nuances which the Islamophobic propaganda always carefully chooses to ignore.