There are many principled liberals and leftists, and I respect them especially on freedom of religion issues and opposition to wars.

But a lot of the so-called support from the Democratic Party for Muslims has been purely to acquire a solid voting bloc to add to their base. That's why they emphasize the "Islamophobia is racism" message. They want Muslims to fit into their plan to use identity politics to fashion a new base, and since Islam is not an identity, they have to treat it like it is one. They do *not* like any teachings of Islam.

Do you think people are going to come out and say, "We need to undermine Islam and turn observant Muslims into cultural Muslims who live and talk the way we want to." Do you think people will say that out loud? Of course not. When Lord Cromer was in charge of Egypt for the British over a century ago, he was VERY concerned about the plight of those poor Muslim women. So caring.

In Britain he was in charge of the movement AGAINST women's suffrage.

It's not a new game.

The chapters of my forthcoming book (Metaphysical Institutions: Islam and the Modern Project) each end with an aphoristic synopsis, and I decided to add those to the excerpt I shared already. medium.com/@ckdagli/metap…
I also thought they might be interesting as a thread here: Part I: Institutions

1. Chapter 1: What Kind of Thing is Islam?

Muslim analysis of Islamophobia has been completely overtaken by race theory. The discourse from our side is racism, racism, racism as *the* explantation for anti-Muslim hostility. This tunnel vision is going to hurt us in the long run. Racism is only one factor among several. We've become exceedingly good at identifying the mechanics of Islamophobia: the funders, activists, media, politicians. But then we gesture at that huge complex machine and say, "Racism!" or "Hate!" You have to know the motives, not just the mechanics.