The Left, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Rainbow!

How can a radical leftist in Europe, who struggles against church interference in politics and defends women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and individual freedoms, stand in solidarity with a conservative Islamic group like the Muslim Brotherhood, which pursues a political project based on religious authority? This contradiction is not merely a fleeting political paradox, but a profound shift in the way of thinking among certain currents of contemporary Western leftism. Historically, the left was founded on the idea of liberation from various forms of domination, whether economic, class-based, or religious. Critique of religious authority was an essential part of its struggle in defense of human freedom and autonomy. However, segments of the radical left have gradually shifted their focus from class struggle to identity politics, anti-colonialism, and opposition to Western dominance, due to numerous reasons that need not be elaborated upon here given space constraints. The question for the left has become: What principles does this movement defend? No longer: Against whom does this movement stand? And here lies the problem: the Muslim Brotherhood and the radical left do not share a common vision of freedom, equality, or the nature of the state. In fact, there are fundamental differences between them that are difficult to overcome. Yet they may converge in their opposition to American and Israeli policies and Western influence. Thus, the common enemy has become stronger than intellectual contradiction, and politics has shifted from a struggle over principles to alignment between camps. Due to an obsession with identity politics, some leftists have begun to treat political Islam as a natural extension of oppressed or marginalized Muslim societies. Here, a confusion has occurred between the legitimate defense of Muslims against racism and the defense of political organizations that claim to represent them, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Criticizing the Muslim Brotherhood is not necessarily a criticism of Islam, just as rejecting their political project does not imply hostility toward Muslims. On the other hand, the position of Islamists is not devoid of pragmatic calculations. Conservative Islamic movements seek cooperation with secular and leftist forces in the West, and have indeed done so, despite their differences with them on fundamental social issues. What appears to be an intellectual contradiction has actually become a political opportunity: the left gains allies in its protest struggles, while Islamists gain additional space for presence and political legitimacy. In my view, the true test of this alliance emerges when discussing rights and freedoms. If a leftist rejects imposing conservative Christian values on European society, why does he not apply the same standard to a conservative Islamic project? Do women’s rights, equality, and minority rights become secondary issues when the party threatening them is counted among the anti-imperialist camp? Of course, not every leftist who stands in solidarity with Palestinians supports the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas, and not every defense of Muslims constitutes an alliance with political Islam. But this necessary distinction does not negate the existence of actual political alliances that deserve criticism and accountability. The problem, ultimately, is not that the left allies with those who differ from it; politics is familiar with temporary alliances. The problem begins when political alliance turns into intellectual silence and opportunism. The recourse of the European and American Muslim Brotherhood to ally with leftist forces that defend values they themselves fight against in their original societies is blatant opportunism; an opportunism in which principles become mere tools for interest: demanding freedoms when needed, and restricting them when they become an obstacle to their political project. Dr. Mohammed Al-Wahab