Can We Ally with Muslims against the Sexual Indoctrination of Children?

The Stream

Muslims are clearly resistant to the indoctrination of children in sexual deviancy—a phenomenon that goes under various euphemisms and acronyms I deign not employ (“pride,” “inclusivity,” lgb-whatever).

As such, are Muslims the long-awaited heroes who will save America’s children? Many conservatives seem to think so—and for good reason.

For example, last October, 2022, havoc broke out during a schoolboard meeting in Dearborn, when hundreds of mostly Muslim parents protested the circulation of sexually deviant books in the city’s school system.   Many protesters carried signs in both English and Arabic, some saying: “Keep Your Dirty Books in the Closet,” “Stop Grooming Our Kids,” and “Homosexuality Big Sin.”

More recently, in Ottawa, Canada, soon after it was revealed that a schoolteacher had berated a Muslim student for merely trying to skip classes dedicated to celebrating sexual deviancy (“pride activities”), a group of Muslim children, encouraged by a woman in hijab, appeared in a protest stomping on so-called “pride” flags.  When asked what message they wanted to send, the hijabed woman said, “Leave our kids alone!”  The shirt of one of the boys had an even more ominous warning: “Now or Never.”

On June 6, yet another Muslim-led protest of some 400 people took place in Montgomery County, Maryland, where schools recently decided that children can no longer opt out of sexual indoctrination.

Clearly, then, if most American—including Christian—parents are passively open to the sexual grooming of their children, Muslims are not.

That said, on June 6, the same day of the Montgomery protest, but on the other coast of America, the most dramatic of all protests—one that spiraled into an all-out brawl against Antifa—broke out in Glendale, California.  There, more parents—with more signs saying “Leave Our Children Alone!”—protested this same new law that prevents them from opting their children out of sexual indoctrination.

Those parents, however, were not Muslim—far from it—but rather Armenians, Orthodox Christians, who, due to their proximity to and experiences with Muslim neighbors, have little love for Islam.

What to make of all this?  Are Muslims, due to some “inherent” conservatism, the natural leaders of any U.S. resistance to state-sanctioned sexual indoctrination? Or is there more to all this than meets the eye?

As more fully discussed here, Muslims and Armenians are resistant to Western-sanctioned perversion less because of religion, and more because they are immigrant peoples—meaning they have not been in the West long enough to have their senses dulled and minds subverted by nonstop propaganda and indoctrination.  They still have a very healthy supply of common sense, a commodity that has been under assault for generations in America.

So when you tell them that there are countless genders, or that men can become pregnant, rather than do what most Americans do—roll their eyes but passively acquiesce nonetheless—immigrant peoples get very angry and disgusted.  Moreover, as immigrant peoples, both Armenians and Muslims really care about their children—more than they care about being “canceled” on social media.

But if Muslims are not required to lead the battle against sexual corruption, can they at least be allies, including for conservative Christians?  I think so, with some caveats.

Perhaps the best way to explain it all is by analogy: take two Americans from very different demographics, say, a Black man from the rough streets of Chicago, Illinois, and a White man from affluent Darien, Connecticut.  Put them at the same party, and it may not be surprising if they do not gravitate to or interact with one another, things reserved for others more aligned with their respective backgrounds.

Now, take these same two men and drop them off in a very foreign nation—say China—and watch them become fast friends and allies.  The reason behind this dramatic change is simple: whereas at the American party, they each found people much more akin to them, in China, they become remarkably akin, and not just due to language, but because they still share many cultural reference points from living in America.

Now apply this to, say, practicing Christians and Muslims: in a natural setting, they have little in common and see the world through different lens (despite all nonsensical claims otherwise).   Moreover, being against the sexual indoctrination and corruption of their children is no real commonality: historically, and till the present, that’s what every normal person outside the Western world believes.  It’s no more of a special commonality than generic facts, such as saying all humans need air and water to survive.

However, in the West, Christians, Muslims, and all normal minded people are no longer in a “natural setting.”  Rather, they are in a bizarro world, where up is down and wrong is right.  In such an environment, the onetime common and taken for granted belief that children should not be sexually groomed in public schools becomes a unique and socially binding belief, one that can be rallied around.

In other words, the so-called “Left” has so subverted and undermined reality, that peoples who under normal circumstances would have little in common now find themselves natural allies for a cause once taken for granted.

Two final observations—one pro, one con—concerning an alliance with Muslims:

Pro: The Left has traditionally catered to Muslims, and is constantly chiding the Right about the need to be more understanding of and acquiescent to Muslim sensibilities.  As such, having this “protected minority” go against it may be more challenging for the Left than simply more of “those pesky Christians.”

Con: As ever, Muslims—who live according to very tribalistic doctrines meant to keep them separate from and clean of infidels—are not protesting any of this because they care for the betterment of America, or because they care for American children.  They are in it for their Muslim children. Period.

During the Montgomery protests, for example, Kareem Monib, the Muslim leader of an organization called the Coalition of Virtue—which apparently is made up of people of all and no faiths—said, “Our first issue is to protect Muslim children in public schools from indoctrination to things that conflict with their beliefs.”  He further justified his position by citing the “Koran and sayings of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.”

Accordingly, if the Left ever creates a clause just to cater to Muslims and their children—and we are living in an age where such blatant discrimination is possible—expect Muslims to quickly drop out of the fight.  In other words, only and as long as Muslims continue to be equally impacted will they be reliable allies.

I have long maintained that, for the Left—which has little in common with and is hated by Muslims—one old adage has long explained its strategy: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  In other words, for the Left, the true and immediate enemy is conservative Christianity.  Thus it empowers and sponsors anything—in this case, Islam—that can be set against Christianity.

Now, however, as we enter this alternate universe, where an increasingly emboldened Left is alienating its onetime foot-soldiers, Muslims find themselves pushed into a corner with Christians where they can both say of each other, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

As such, perhaps the slogan of a coalition of conservative Christians, Muslims, and others can be “Working together for a saner here and now (and letting God sort out the hereafter).”