A column published this week in The Federalist argues that socialism and Islam function as twin “religions” united by a shared desire to destroy Western civilization after first looting its wealth. The piece, written by an unnamed author for the conservative outlet, tied its argument to the ongoing unrest in France and the rise of Muslim socialist politicians in the United States.
The article opens by describing France as “on fire — again,” noting that hundreds of French schools have closed and that rioting has spread to neighboring Belgium. What began as a faculty protest at Saint-Exupéry High School over budget cuts quickly expanded, with students joining in and demonstrations breaking out across the country. According to the column, activists co-opted the demonstrations and organized what it characterized as “fiery but not so peaceful” protests in the streets.
The Federalist noted that President Trump and others have observed that the rioters are largely Muslim immigrants and radical leftists. It cited figures of nearly 7,000 arrests, more than 1,000 injuries, and at least one teenager who lost a hand while another reportedly suffered partial vision loss in clashes with police.
Quoting writer John Daniel Davidson, the column described the situation as the “Red-Green alliance of the socialist/Antifa left and Muslim immigrants, operationalized to bring the country to its knees through widespread rioting ahead of national elections next year.” Despite their differences, Davidson argued, the two groups have united “to tear down western institutions and the Christian faith on which they were built.”
The Federalist acknowledged Davidson’s point that Islamists and radical leftists are not aligned on issues like women’s rights, transgenderism, gay marriage, and the sexual revolution. But it contended that these differences are “mere window dressing” compared to what it called their core similarities: spreading ideology through aggression and confiscating the wealth of others.
Historical and theological claims
The column argued that while communism is widely understood to feature these principles, Westerners have been conditioned not to associate them with Islam. It asserted that Western schools have obscured the fact that Islam was spread “by the sword as well as by theft.”
As evidence, the piece cited historian Raymond Ibrahim’s book Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War Between Islam and the West. According to the column’s reading of that history, starting with the Prophet Muhammad and continuing with his successors, Muslim armies would invade, pillage, terrorize, and enslave neighboring kingdoms, forcing populations to submit to Allah, face martyrdom, or live as second-class citizens known as dhimmis.
The Federalist also leaned on Rodney Stark’s God’s Battalions to argue that Muslim militaries held a logistical advantage over Christian forces during the Crusades despite technological inferiority. The column reasoned that while Christian kings and their vassals went bankrupt funding campaigns, Muslim generals could entice armies with promises of spoils. It claimed Christian knights had everything to lose by taking up the cross, while Muslim soldiers had everything to gain — and that some Christians converted voluntarily to seize property and women from those they considered infidels, viewing Christianity as being for “chumps.”
The piece argued that this model enabled rapid short-term expansion but kept Muslim societies backward and unproductive in the long run. It claimed that formerly wealthy Christian cities like Constantinople, Alexandria, Córdoba, and Antioch deteriorated into squalor after a few generations, sustaining themselves only through slavery, piracy, and large-scale raiding.
Contemporary political implications
Applying this framework to the present, the column asserted that Muslim migrants move to new countries intending to collect public entitlements while ignoring civic duties such as employment, taxpaying, assimilation, and obeying laws — and do so with a clear conscience because their faith largely sanctions it. It contrasted this with what it described as most Christians’ misgivings about taking from others.
The Federalist pointed to Muslim socialist politicians like Zohran Mamdani and Abdul El-Sayed as examples of the alliance it describes. It argued that both ideologies hate the West but also “hate working,” and that their conception of democracy allows a mob to vote for stealing from the wealthy while their idea of justice is to live off others indefinitely. The column predicted that without an autocrat to guard national wealth and impose order through “draconian measures,” both communist and Islamist republics would become impoverished, dysfunctional failed states in chronic need of foreign aid.
The piece concluded that even if the two factions of the Red-Green Alliance disagree on cultural and moral questions down the road, this should offer little comfort. Whatever their professed beliefs, it argued, both groups intend to destroy the West — after robbing it blind first.
The column is the latest in a series of Federalist pieces framing the unrest in France within a broader narrative of civilizational conflict. The outlet, which describes itself as dedicated to truth-seeking journalism on American politics, religion, and culture, has consistently covered immigration, socialism, and Islam through a conservative lens.
Source: thefederalist.com — https://thefederalist.com/2026/10/13/socialism-and-islam-are-both-religions-based-on-pillaging-the-west/