I've been thinking about something lately, and the more I look into it, the more I believe it's a conversation we need to be having in America. That is, if we're willing to set aside our political loyalties long enough to listen, consider the facts, and try to understand something that might challenge what we already believe.
My concern is that we've become so consumed with winning elections and gaining political power that we sometimes fail to ask what the organizations seeking influence actually want to accomplish.
And that brings me to a question I've been wrestling with.
Is the Democrat Party, in its efforts to build political coalitions, paying enough attention to the ideological objectives of organizations associated with political Islam? And could some of those organizations view their relationships with American politicians as opportunities to advance political goals that go beyond the interests of the party itself?
I don't think those are unreasonable questions. But I also believe that if we're going to have this conversation, we need to understand what we're actually talking about.
Islam and Islamism are not interchangeable terms. Islam is a religion practiced by people with a wide range of beliefs and political perspectives. Islamism refers to political movements that seek to shape government and society according to particular interpretations of Islamic principles. Some of these movements work within democratic systems, while others reject secular government and advocate forms of religious rule that conflict with individual liberty.
The Muslim Brotherhood is one historical example. Founded in Egypt in 1928, it became an influential movement advocating a greater role for Islamic principles in political and social life. Its history demonstrates that political Islam is not merely a modern talking point invented for American elections.
But recognizing the existence of Islamist political movements is different from assuming that Muslim Americans collectively share their objectives. They do not.
That distinction matters if we want a serious discussion rather than another argument built on assumptions.
So where does the Democrat Party fit into this?
For years, Muslim Americans have generally leaned toward the Democrat Party, although that relationship has become more politically divided.
Pew Research Center reported in 2025 that 53% of Muslim American adults identified with or leaned toward the Democrat Party, while 42% identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party.
There's nothing suspicious about those numbers. Muslim Americans have the same right to participate in politics as everyone else.
What interests me is the broader relationship between political parties and organizations seeking influence over public policy.
A party may pursue a relationship because it wants votes or support for its agenda. An organization may pursue that same relationship because it wants access to policymakers and an opportunity to advance its own priorities.
Both can believe they're benefiting from the arrangement, even when their long-term objectives are different.
That's not unique to Islam or the Democrat Party. It's a reality of politics.
But when an organization's political philosophy involves giving religious authority a governing role, I believe elected officials have a responsibility to understand exactly what that means.
Does the organization support freedom of conscience, including the freedom to leave a religion? Does it recognize equal civil rights for people who reject its religious teachings? Does it accept that constitutional law, rather than religious authority, governs everyone?
Those aren't questions intended to single out Muslims. They're standards I believe should apply to any religious or ideological organization seeking political influence.
And there's a reason I take those questions seriously.
We have seen what happens when governments enforce religious conformity.
Consider Iran.
Iran has elections, but its political system places enormous authority in the hands of religious leadership. Freedom House gave the country a score of just 10 out of 100 for political rights and civil liberties in its 2026 assessment.
Women have faced punishment for violating compulsory hijab laws. Religious minorities experience discrimination, and citizens who challenge the government can face serious consequences.
Now consider Afghanistan, where the Taliban returned to power in 2021.
UNICEF reported in August 2026 that more than 2.6 million Afghan girls had been denied secondary education since the Taliban takeover.
I have a hard time reading that statistic without thinking about the individual lives behind it.
Imagine being a young girl who wants nothing more than to continue her education, only to be told that the government will not allow it. Imagine watching opportunities disappear, not because of anything you've done, but because those holding political power have decided what your future should look like.
And when the government itself is responsible for those restrictions, where do you turn?
Saudi Arabia presents another example of restrictions on religious freedom. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's 2026 report documents continuing limitations on public non-Muslim worship and religious expression, despite reforms in other areas.
These countries have different political systems and histories. Their circumstances should not be treated as identical, nor should they be presented as representative of Muslims everywhere.
What they do show is how vulnerable individual liberty becomes when those governing a society can use state power to enforce religious conformity.
And that brings me to something about America that I find especially troubling.
We seem convinced that what happens elsewhere could never happen here.
I hear that attitude whenever people discuss the loss of freedom in other countries. We look at authoritarian governments and assume America is somehow protected from experiencing anything similar.
After all, we have a Constitution.
And I am grateful that we do.
But a Constitution doesn't enforce itself. Its protections depend on courts, elected officials, public institutions, and ordinary citizens who understand the importance of constitutional limits.
The existence of a right on paper does not mean that right can never be violated.
Freedom House reported in 2026 that global freedom had declined for the twentieth consecutive year. That's two decades of documented deterioration in political rights and civil liberties around the world.
I think that deserves more attention than it receives.
We often imagine the loss of freedom as some dramatic event that everyone would immediately recognize. But history gives us examples of democratic institutions being weakened gradually, with restrictions introduced over time and justified as necessary or temporary.
People can become accustomed to changes they once would have rejected.
And sometimes they don't fully appreciate what they've lost until the institutions that protected their rights are no longer functioning as they should.
What concerns me even more is how difficult it can be to recover those freedoms once they're gone.
We talk about liberty as though it can simply be restored whenever people decide they've had enough.
But what happens when the government controls the institutions through which citizens would ordinarily challenge it?
How do people organize meaningful opposition when speaking against those in power can result in imprisonment? How do citizens change their government when elections no longer provide a genuine opportunity to do so?
And how do people defend their constitutional rights when the courts responsible for protecting those rights are no longer independent?
These aren't abstract questions for people living under authoritarian governments.
They're part of everyday life.
History does give us examples of societies recovering their freedoms, but that process can take decades and involve enormous sacrifice. Some people spend their entire lives waiting for political changes they never get to see.
That's why I believe preserving liberty is far better than assuming we can easily reclaim it after losing it.
Abraham Lincoln understood something about the danger of complacency.
In his 1838 Lyceum Address, Lincoln warned:
"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher."
I've thought about those words quite a bit.
Lincoln was warning that America's political institutions could be destroyed from within, particularly when respect for law and constitutional government breaks down.
He wasn't talking about political Islam or the circumstances we're discussing today. But the broader warning about the fragility of a republic remains relevant.
America doesn't have to be conquered by a foreign army for its constitutional principles to be weakened.
That can happen when citizens become indifferent to abuses of power, when political leaders treat constitutional limits as obstacles, or when loyalty to a party becomes more important than loyalty to the principles that allow a free society to function.
And I think that's something both political parties, and all of us as citizens, should consider.
Which brings me back to the question of political Islam and the Democrat Party.
I want to know whether elected officials are adequately examining the political objectives of organizations they engage with.
I want to know whether they understand the difference between organizations advocating religious liberty and movements seeking to make religious authority the basis of government.
And I want to know whether they're prepared to challenge any organization whose political objectives conflict with the constitutional freedoms they're responsible for protecting.
At the same time, I don't believe we should make accusations that go beyond the available evidence.
The existence of authoritarian governments overseas doesn't prove that Islamist organizations are secretly using the Democrat Party to establish religious government in America. Establishing that would require documented evidence involving specific organizations, their objectives, and their political relationships.
But the absence of proof for such a coordinated effort doesn't mean political ideologies should escape examination.
It means we need to ask better questions and do the work of finding reliable answers.
As a Christian, I value the freedom to worship according to my beliefs. I also recognize that the same constitutional protections allowing me to practice my faith protect my Muslim neighbor, my Jewish neighbor, and the person who chooses not to practice any religion.
I don't see that as a weakness of America. I see it as one of the principles that makes religious freedom meaningful.
But there's a fundamental difference between having the freedom to practice your religion and possessing the governmental authority to require others to live according to it.
That's a distinction worth protecting, regardless of which religion or political movement we're discussing.
So when I ask, "Who is really using whom?" I'm asking about the relationship between political ambition and ideological influence.
Political parties want votes. Organizations want their interests represented. Those relationships are a normal part of democratic life, but they also deserve transparency and accountability.
I don't believe Americans should become suspicious of their neighbors because of their religious beliefs. Nor do I believe we should automatically trust every organization simply because it presents itself as a representative of a religious community.
We should examine what organizations actually advocate, what their leaders say, and what policies they seek to advance.
That's how we distinguish legitimate participation in a free society from efforts to undermine the principles that sustain it.
And perhaps that's where my greatest concern lies.
We have enjoyed constitutional freedoms for so long that it's easy to assume they'll always be here.
But history doesn't give us that guarantee.
Once the institutions protecting our liberties are seriously weakened, rebuilding them may prove far more difficult than we imagine. And for the people living through that loss, the consequences are not simply political. They affect their families, their opportunities, their faith, and their everyday lives.
I would much rather have difficult conversations now than look back someday and wonder why we weren't paying attention.
Because the time to defend our freedoms is while we still possess the freedom to defend them.
And perhaps one of the most dangerous assumptions a free people can make is that what has happened elsewhere could never happen to them.
"That could never happen here."
I'd genuinely like to hear what others think. Are we doing enough to understand the political ideologies and organizations seeking influence in America? And are we willing to examine those questions fairly, even when the answers challenge our own political loyalties?
Sources and further reading
Pew Research Center, Muslim Americans Share Political Attitudes With Both the Democratic and Republican Parties (July 21, 2025).
Pew Research Center, Muslim Networks and Movements in Western Europe (2010).
Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2026: Iran.
UNICEF, More Than 2.6 Million Girls in Afghanistan Have Been Denied Secondary Education Since 2021 (August 14, 2026).
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2026 Annual Report: Saudi Arabia.
Freedom House, Global Freedom Declined for 20th Consecutive Year in 2025 (2026).
Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address (January 27, 1838).
