Shifting Alliances: Progressives and Islamists

Last month, we suggested that Alabama’s expected incoming governor, Tommy Tuberville, consider a bold political approach to address the growth of Islam in Alabama. But his concerns now extend beyond just this. Since the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, a previously subtle collaboration between Islamist activists and certain factions within American progressivism—particularly gender anarchists and racial idolators—has become increasingly visible.

It’s interesting to note how, in progressive discussions, Muslim scriptures and laws rarely receive the same level of scrutiny that Christian texts do.

Take, for example, the coalition formed around Columbia University’s Gaza encampment in April 2024. The Columbia University Apartheid Divest initiative united 116 student organizations, including groups such as the Muslim Students Association, Columbia Queer Alliance, Genderev, the Black Student Organization, and White Coats 4 Black Lives. They united under the fight against intertwined systems of oppression. Earlier that year, the American Muslim Task Force for Palestine, representing groups like CAIR and the Muslim American Society, collaborated with the left-leaning ANSWER Coalition to stage a massive demonstration in Washington.

Unlikely Bedfellows

This alliance is puzzling, to say the least. One side views sex as a social construct and prioritizes racial identity in politics, while their Islamist partners adhere to rigid religious principles which reject the progressive view on sexuality. Yet, they connect over a shared adversary: the Western political and cultural order, which, it must be noted, is deeply rooted in biblical values.

Classical liberalism didn’t just pop up out of nowhere or solely from secular thought. The Declaration of Independence’s claim of unalienable rights provided by a Creator aligns with biblical teachings that humans are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). Concepts like legal equality, checks on arbitrary power, and the separation of divine and human authority draw from the limitations Moses’ laws place on kings (Deuteronomy 17:14-20) and the New Testament’s assertion of the limits of Caesar’s power (Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1-7).

Ideas about conscience, fair justice, individual dignity, and the potential for ordered freedom under lawful governance stem, imperfectly, from Old and New Testament doctrines. Both progressive and Islamist groups contest this rich legacy, but they come from very different angles. Progressives largely dismiss biblical authority, while Islamists aim for a political framework based on their version of divine law. Both seem to have little appreciation for the classical liberal principles that developed in the Christian West.

Gender Ideology vs. The Quran

Gender ideology fundamentally rejects the established order referenced in Genesis. Male and female identities aren’t just social constructs; they are the defined binaries in scripture (Genesis 1:27; 2:18-24). The perspective that prioritizes personal identity over biological sex considers the biblical narrative as an oppressive narrative that should be dismantled.

In this context, traditional Islam shares more common ground with Christianity than either does with modern gender ideology. Both uphold a divinely-sanctioned sexual order and condemn homosexual acts. While their theological foundations diverge, their moral positions often align.

However, traditional Islamic law has stricter penalties. The Quran explicitly condemns the actions of Lot’s people (7:80-81; 26:165-166; 27:54-55; 29:28-29), and one hadith states: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” Countries like Iran still impose the death penalty for specific homosexual acts. Hamas’ oppressive measures in Gaza hardly offer solace to those who celebrate sexual freedom in progressive circles.

Still, this partnership persists. At New York City’s 2024 Pride parade, pro-Palestinian activists obstructed the way, bearing a banner stating, “No queer liberation without Palestinian liberation.” For these activists, unity against a common political foe clearly outweighs stark differences regarding sexual ethics.

Race and Conquest

Racial ideology parallels this dynamic. The New Testament’s declaration that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free (Galatians 3:28) provides crucial theological roots for classical liberalism’s rejection of inherited class as a basis for rights. Rights belong to individuals rather than to those assigned based on lineage or race.

Intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her 1989 essay “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,” examines the interconnected systems of discrimination concerning race, sex, and other categories. In modern progressive politics, this framework often sorts conflicts into a hierarchy of oppressor versus oppressed. Muslims, previously seen as outsiders within Western political discourse, have now secured a notable position in this progressive hierarchy of victimhood.

Progressive circles often overlook the scrutiny applied to Muslim texts, which do not face the same level of criticism as Christian teachings. History indicates that Islamic expansion and the dhimmi system are analyzed through the lens of Western imperialism, instead of encountering the same criticism typically directed at Christianity’s historical ties to political authority. This creates a selective framework for assessing harm and victimhood, offering deference to Islamic religious claims while dismissing biblical moral authority.

A Shared Adversary

The gender and racial factions, therefore, share a more nuanced enemy with Islamism rather than simply “conservatism.” Their ideologies may clash fundamentally, yet they confront the Western liberal paradigm, which limits claims of political and religious authority over the individual. Judith Butler’s characterization of the October 7 attacks on Israeli civilians as “armed resistance” highlights this perspective. While she acknowledged the violence was tragic, she insisted it should be understood as resistance to oppression, enabling the incorporation of Hamas into a progressive narrative of political struggle—even with its deeply unprogressive religious principles.

Anthropologist Philip Carl Salzman has traced a longer “red-green” pattern: leftist and Islamist groups joining forces against Western institutions and Israel while maintaining fundamentally discordant beliefs on issues such as sexuality, apostasy, and religious authority. Historical examples don’t inspire confidence; secular allies were sidelined in the aftermath of Iran’s Revolution, illustrating how quickly a revolutionary coalition can dismantle when the question of governance is settled. While history may not repeat, it does have a tendency to echo, and there’s no guarantee that future episodes will conclude differently.

American progressives seem to believe this alliance can continue indefinitely through shared language surrounding equity, anti-imperialism, and opposition to patriarchal systems. In turn, Islamists have adapted to employ this language within Western academic and media spaces, all while preserving their own religious views on women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and nonbelievers.

Ultimately, the classical liberal legacy, which is grounded in biblical principles promoting individual dignity and delineating the limits of coercive power, stands as a common barrier for these groups. Our assertion that Alabama open a constitutional discussion asserting that the state’s traditions should not overlap with Islamic tenets is a political tactic to uphold this legacy.

So long as progressives have constituents who perceive themselves as victims, they will likely ignore the obstacles they face. They seem to trust that a collective acknowledgment of grievances will be sufficient to maintain what is otherwise a fragile alliance. However, it may soon become evident to progressives that the ideologies they dismantled in the name of freedom and equity are what once protected them from a harsher reality. A bargaining hierarchy of victimization, they will learn too late, offers no protection when the victors decide to revise their list of priorities.