As a Muslim woman, a doctor and a longstanding critic of Islamism, I have seen the damage that extremist readings of my faith can cause.
I have examined Jewish victims killed by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, documented accounts from Yazidi and Kurdish survivors of ISIS crimes in Iraq, and spoken with children recruited by ISIS and the Taliban. I have supported Christians targeted in Iraq and Pakistan, too, and visited Syria’s Al Hol detention camp before it was dismantled.
These experiences have made the consequences of Islamism, or political Islam, painfully clear to me. They have also shown me how often people mistake Islamism for Islam itself and assume that all Muslims are extremists.
Islamism and anti-Muslim prejudice became issues in the midterm elections, which saw Abdul El-Sayed, a Democrat from Michigan, become the nation’s first Muslim senator-elect.
Neither party has handled the distinction well. Republicans often blur the line between Muslims and Islamists; Democrats, in my view, are sometimes reluctant to discuss it. The frequent use of the word “Islamophobia,” alongside identity politics and debates about anti-racism, can make an already difficult conversation harder to have.
Anti-Muslim bigotry is real, but it is not the same as criticism of Islamism. Treating the two as interchangeable can silence Muslims who challenge Islamist influence while allowing the ideology itself to escape examination.
That distinction will matter as questions about El-Sayed’s record continue. During a television interview, he denied that his family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. After the election, he made light of the allegations and poked fun at those raising them.
Republican politicians have often responded in ways that are just as unhelpful. Vice President JD Vance called El-Sayed “very, very evil,” while President Donald Trump repeatedly described him as a “jihadist.” Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina made broad remarks questioning whether Muslims should hold public office. That kind of rhetoric risks pushing Muslim voters away and makes it harder to focus on reasonable questions about El-Sayed’s affiliations, statements and policies.
Republicans will struggle to discuss these issues responsibly unless they understand how Islamist movements can seek influence through democratic systems. Governments abroad have tried to examine that problem. A 2025 French government report, for example, discussed “Islamist entryism,” describing efforts by the Muslim Brotherhood to gain influence through community groups, local institutions and political structures.
Democrats also have difficulty separating Islamist political activity from ordinary religious and civic participation. Party leaders can be quick to label questions about Islamist ideology as Islamophobic, even as arguments over antisemitism, anti-Zionism and Israel’s war with Hamas intensify internal divisions.
After the midterms, former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was asked about rising antisemitism and anti-Israel activism in Democratic politics. His answers reflected how challenging it can be for party figures to address those tensions directly.
Another episode came three days after the election, when El-Sayed attended a national gathering organized by the Arab America Foundation. An event leader celebrated his win by saying, “You destroyed AIPAC twice,” then used the phrases “Free Palestine” and “From the river to the sea.” El-Sayed smiled and did not publicly object at the time.
Many Jewish people and Israelis hear “From the river to the sea” as a call to eliminate Israel. Some Palestinian advocates say they use it to express a demand for freedom and equal rights. Because the phrase carries such different meanings, elected officials should explain how they understand it and whether they support Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state.
As someone who studies Islamism, I find the celebration around El-Sayed’s victory raises fair questions about what some of his supporters expect from him. He should address those questions plainly.
Scrutiny should also apply to politicians’ views on antisemitism, anti-Zionism and U.S. policy toward Israel, Qatar, Turkey and Iran. These countries have different relationships with Islamist movements, but each is relevant to American security and foreign policy.
Rep.-elect Adam Hamawy, a Democrat from New Jersey, was asked in a CNN interview whether he viewed Iran as an adversary of the United States. His answer should be assessed on its own terms, alongside reporting about his past remarks and associations. But no politician should be judged by assumptions based on being Muslim. That line matters.
If Muslims are routinely treated as Islamists, meaningful examination of political ideology becomes more difficult. And if every challenge to political Islam is dismissed as bigotry, honest public discussion suffers.
El-Sayed’s campaign raised other questions. He appeared with left-wing commentator Hasan Piker, who once said the United States “deserved 9/11” and later called the remark inappropriate. Piker has also drawn criticism for comments about Hamas and the Oct. 7 attacks. El-Sayed later distanced himself from him.
Politicians cannot be held accountable for every comment made by people who support them. Still, they should reject extremist language clearly and consistently, especially when it comes from prominent figures in their political circles.
El-Sayed also faced criticism for saying “hurt people hurt people” after an attack on Temple Israel in Michigan. Federal authorities investigated the attack as terrorism inspired by Hezbollah. El-Sayed has said his words were taken out of context, but public officials have a duty to condemn antisemitic violence without phrasing that could be understood as excusing it.
During the campaign, questions also arose about alleged historical connections between members of El-Sayed’s family and Islamist organizations. These included claims about charities associated with his mother and old social media posts attributed to his half-sister concerning the Muslim Brotherhood. El-Sayed has denied that he or his family are affiliated with the group.
His own published views may be more directly relevant. Commentator Eitan Fischberger drew attention to columns El-Sayed co-wrote in 2012, after Mohamed Morsi won Egypt’s presidential election. Morsi, the country’s first democratically elected president, was removed from office in 2013 following mass protests against his government. El-Sayed’s writing called for recognizing the Brotherhood’s role in Egypt’s political uprising.
Those columns are fair subjects for discussion. Voters should be able to ask whether El-Sayed’s views of the Muslim Brotherhood have changed since then.
We need to distinguish Muslims who support democracy and religious pluralism from those who want political life governed by Islamist principles. We also need to separate anti-Muslim discrimination, hatred and violence from criticism of religiously based political movements. They are not the same thing.
When politicians blur those distinctions, they make ideological scrutiny harder and risk giving prejudice room to grow. Opposing Islamism is not inherently anti-Muslim. For Muslims who reject Islamism, it can be a defense of religious freedom, individual rights, democratic government and the separation of religious authority from the state.
A liberal democracy should protect Muslims’ right to worship, take part in politics and serve in public office. It should also protect everyone’s right to examine political ideologies, Islamism included.
El-Sayed should face searching questions about the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamist movements, antisemitism and Israel’s right to exist. His past writing, public appearances and political relationships are legitimate places to begin.
Politicians who excuse terrorism, defend antisemitic violence or seek to weaken constitutional democracy should not be empowered, whatever their faith or party. Both parties should support candidates, Muslim or otherwise, who uphold pluralism and reject political extremism.
The answer to Islamist efforts to gain influence is neither prejudice against Muslims nor silence about extremism. It is careful scrutiny, intellectual honesty and a firm commitment to constitutional principles.
