The Mohammunist Manifest—Trojan-Horsing Society’s Institutions

When they are weak, communists and Muslims create seemingly durable pluralist partnerships that they then ruthlessly destroy once they achieve power.

Milli Sands | August 14, 2026

In revealing the commonalities of the Reds and the Greens in the Red-Green Axis, we have elucidated their shared goals of violence, wealth redistribution, inequality before the law, a binary world, monopoly rule by the elites, controlling the totality of society, and transitional-phase slaughter. Here we explore the game plan to infiltrate society and co-opt its machinery.

Islamic political systems and Marxist-Leninist communism both construct power through organizational methods designed for times when they are still too weak to take over a society. These organizations and alliances present the illusion of pluralism and non-partisanship, building parallel institutions, cadre formation, ideological training, cells, and tactical alliances while the movement lacks the strength to dispense with partners or legal cover.

These methods are not secondary to the ideologies’ goals of acquiring total power. Instead, they are the practical means by which a totalizing doctrine accumulates force independent of the surrounding order’s permission structure.

The founding Islamic case is Medina. Before Muhammad held territory, he built the community through da’wa—invitation and conversion—and by pairing each Meccan emigrant with a Medinan host in bonds of brotherhood that cut across existing tribal lines. The mosque was the organizing center: worship, political assembly, arbitration, and coordination binding recruits to the community before it controlled anyone. In 622, he arrived as an invited arbiter with a small band of refugees, no army, and no economic base.

The Constitution of Medina, preserved in Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah as transmitted by Ibn Hisham, organized the believers as a single community (umma wāḥida) apart from other people and included Medina’s three Jewish tribes—Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza—under collective obligations for blood-money, ransom, mutual defense, and referral of disputes to God and Muhammad, while stating that the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs. The document created a bounded political body whose internal norms took priority.

Once strength arrived, the provisional Jewish partners were discarded, though not uniformly. In 624, the poet Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf of Banu Nadir, who had incited against Muhammad in verse, was assassinated on his order. The Banu Qaynuqa were expelled that same year, and the Banu Nadir followed in 625. Then, after the Battle of the Trench in 627, the Banu Qurayza were executed according to the traditional account.

Abdullah ibn Ubayy, the Khazraj chief who led Medina’s hypocrites and whose defection of three hundred men cost Muslim lives at Uhud, posed a far graver threat, yet Muhammad declined to kill him, citing the risk of alienating the whole Khazraj tribe. Ibn Ubayy died naturally in 631.

The sources report these outcomes without stating a general rule behind them, but the pattern across the four cases is nonetheless consistent with an instrumental calculation rather than a doctrinal one. That is, eliminate an isolated target and use restraint when the political cost is too high. Within five years, every organized power center in Medina that had not converted was gone.

Lenin’s theory was also written for a time when the movement was weak. In What Is to Be Done? he insists that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of professional revolutionaries that........

© American Thinker