On June 24, 2025, Zohran Mamdani won the most votes of any candidate in NYC primary history for the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City. Mamdani ran a confident, creative, and populist campaign, wherein he was refreshingly plainspoken about his democratic socialist commitments, his unwavering focus on the working class, his unequivocal support for the equality and dignity of the Palestinian people, and his focus on New York City alone.
Mamdani’s message clearly resonated with New York City voters, who delivered him a stunning victory across all demographics. Voters under 50 favored him by a 2:1 margin. He won the Asian American vote by 15 points. He won the White vote by 5 points. He won the Hispanic/Latino vote by 5 points. Overall, he won 56% of the vote over Cuomo, the favorite’s, 44%. Mamdani also won a significant share of the American Jewish vote (20%), and was cross endorsed by Brad Lander, New York City’s Controller and the highest ranking Jewish politician in New York.
Though New York City can get a bad rap in the rest of the United States, those of us who live here know that there is a version of it that is a beautiful and successful social experiment. New York City does not have a majority ethnic or religious population, but is instead made up of a series of pluralities. In the face of this incredible diversity, everyone gets along rather well. At New York City’s best, the ethos is not so much “live and let live” as it is “we are all in this together.” This is the heart of New York City—perhaps not appreciable from the outside—but a core that was manifested in the results of this election.
Crusader Logic
Despite this inspiring on the ground reality, since his election, we have seen a wider Islamophobic backlash to Mamdani’s win that exposes deeply entrenched media and elite narratives, as well as forms of social control that are threatened by his ascendancy and what it might represent. Simply put, his election unearthed a Crusader logic that exists under the surface of a western civilization that sees itself as defined against “Islam” and Muslims. This logic was repackaged from its medieval origins in the twentieth century through an ideology most famously articulated by Samuel Huntington in his “Clash of Civilization” thesis, which argues that “Islam has bloody borders,” and that while the world temporarily was occupied by a bilateral struggle between Communism and Capitalism, once Capitalism “won,” the deeper structure of world enmity became, once again, Islam vs. Christendom. In the United States and Europe, particularly after the creation of the State of Israel by combined Zionist and European powers after the Holocaust, the idea of Christendom was amended, and a new concept called the “Judeo-Christian” was born, wherein European Jews joined with Christians in the old, Crusader-era struggle (ironies here, of course, abound) as long as, the deal implicitly goes, European Jews would stand on the front lines of the confrontation with “Islam.” It is also worth noting that there is a version of this conception of a clash of civilizations that is mirrored in the Muslim-majority world, though with slightly different contours. In any case, it is an inherently base and simplistic way of thinking, but one that nonetheless inspires fear, irrationality, and suspicion.
This substructure is of course not the only one animating western Civilization and has been admirably challenged through the tradition of liberalism, with its concepts of equal human rights and citizenship. But liberalism itself is often grafted onto this older Clash of Civilizations/Crusader mentality, which largely explains, in my view, “liberal Islamophobia.” In this version of Islamophobia, Muslims are assumed incapable of respecting liberal values that uphold difference and dissent. This might all sound too weighty a historical buttress for the election of one young Assemblyman as the Democratic nominee for mayor in New York City, but the extremity of the rhetoric against him suggests otherwise. His election has been described as an “invasion.” A Congressman who tweeted that Palestinians should “eat rockets” with the hashtags #BombsAway and #StarveAway, and who told one of his Palestinian constituents “go blow yourself up,” declared that Mamdani would install a “caliphate” in New York City. Far-right activists declared him a “jihadist Muslim,” and a Republican representative wrote a letter to the Department of Justice calling for Mamdani’s citizenship to be revoked and for him to be deported. A partner in a prominent Silicon Valley firm declared that Mamdani, “comes from a culture that lies,” and a Senator from New York falsely claimed Mamdani had “made references to Global Jihad.”
The Islamophobic Backlash
To explain this vociferous response to Mamdani’s win, I would offer this striking assertion: Islamophobia is one of the ideological currents that significantly undergirds our current world order, which is a product of the history I laid out above, and Zohran Mamdani’s election disrupts the flow of that ideological current.
It bears mentioning, of course, that Islamophobia is not the only reason people object to Mamdani. Concern about his economic policies, for example, are real, and can and are articulated without coming close to Islamophobia. I focus here, however, on the Islamophobic response, and what is at stake in it.
I believe Mamdani’s unusually courageous support of Palestinian human rights and justice has triggered a particularly acute Islamophobic response. In an address to the UJA-Federation of New York, a prominent American Jewish organization in June of 2025, he said, “My support for BDS is consistent with the core of my politics, which is nonviolence. And I think that it is a legitimate movement when you are seeking to find compliance with international law.” On X, on July 9, 2025, he wrote, “Can any pro-Israel voice explain why baby formula is being blocked from entering Gaza?” Mamdani’s first statement about the attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, which he issued the day after, expressed mourning for “the hundreds of people killed across Israel and Palestine in the last 36 hours.” He then added that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “declaration of war” will “undoubtedly lead to more violence and suffering… The path toward a just and lasting peace can only begin by ending the occupation and dismantling apartheid.”
Islamophobia is one of the ideological currents that significantly undergirds our current world order . . . and Zohran Mamdani’s election disrupts the flow of that ideological current
I would argue that if Mamdani did not articulate a political vision and set of stances that stood up for the dignity and equality of the Palestinian people (who are both Muslim and Christian), and if he did not ground that in the norms of international law, and if he did not explicitly criticize Israeli policies, he would be facing far less, if any, Islamophobia.
Take the reaction to figures such as Fareed Zakaria or Mehmet Oz—prominent media figures in America who one might not have even realized are Muslims. These figures either never comment on the question of Palestine or take positions in support of Israel. They face little to no Islamophobia and are embraced by the political and media establishment. It is clear that perhaps the most contentious issue that critics have with Mamdani is his stance on Palestine, and that Islamophobia is a tool used to attack Mamdani on that issue.
The current world order—which seems to be steadily changing—is one in which the United States continues to exist as the strongest military and economic power in the world, with much of Europe dependent on it for its security and hence often in lock step with it politically. There are at least nineteen U.S. military bases in the Middle East (especially in the Arabian Gulf) and at least 50,000 troops stationed in the region. Israel is the US’s closest ally and sits in a strategic location in the region where it has a calculated military and intelligence edge against all of its neighbors. It has launched offensives against surrounding countries on several occasions and illegally occupies land in the region. (Israel does not have declared permanent borders.) The US is interested in asserting control of this region because of its oil resources, and because of a sense of “Judeo-Christian” affiliation with the European population of Israel.
Though the destabilization of the Middle East has been unfolding for almost eighty years, the current manifestation of conflict in Israel/Palestine has become perhaps the most contentious in the world today. The genocide in Gaza and increasing governmentally sanctioned settler violence and ethnic cleansing on the West Bank are largely condemned by civilian populations and human rights organizations around the world, including Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, while allowed to continue or actively supported by the governments of world powers, especially the United States. This state of affairs has created outrage across the world. American Muslims (and Christians from the region) make up the subset of the American population that have the most exposure to this conflict and can speak to it most poignantly from an intimate and humane perspective. Hence their voices—voices like Mamdani’s—must be silenced. The liberal “Judeo-Christian” civilizational logic that I argue often functions as the contemporary version of Crusader logic—“us against Islam”—requires that the Muslim, especially in in western politics, not be able to speak for themselves. They must be contained, spoken for, and marginalized. Contemporary Islamophobia is focused on creating a narrative about Muslims and Islam from the outside. This is a strategic Islamophobia that aims to prevent Muslims from assimilating as equals into western populations. The narrative about Islam and Muslims fashioned by this strategic Islamophobia turns Muslims into objects to be constantly demonized as figures of suspicion who are assumed to want to “dominate,” and thus are labeled as “supremacists,” and much more. Mamdani refuses this; he claims a Muslim identity and asserts his pro-Palestinian politics, which challenges an important current of the existing world order —and hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers of all races and religions agree with him. It becomes easy to see why this is such a large threat to modern-day Crusader logic.
Geopolitical positions are not the only threat to this Crusader form of liberalism—one’s stance on social issues are also scrutinized. Here again the figure of Zohran Mamdani presents a dangerous disruption to the stereotypes about Muslims upon which the Judeo-Christian modern Crusader logic depends. He is American, well spoken, attractive, empathetic, sincerely championing policies that benefit all New Yorkers, especially the working class of any race or religion. Here is a Muslim with significant Jewish American support, a Muslim who marched in NYC’s pride parade and carried a trans flag, a Muslim who smiles and laughs easily. In short: a normal, amicable, well-meaning person.
Mamdani’s Challenge to Strategic Islamophobia
Simultaneously—and dangerously, for the neo-Crusaders—Mamdani made a few brilliant rhetorical choices during the primary campaign that challenged long-held orthodoxies regarding the question of Palestine. During one of the primary debates, all of the candidates were asked which foreign country they would visit first as mayor. Many of the candidates answered, “the Holy Land” or “Israel.” Mamdani was the only candidate to say he would stay in New York City, where he will meet extensively with Jewish New Yorkers: “I would stay in New York City. I’ll be meeting Jewish New Yorkers at their synagogues, temples, or at their subway stations.” Not satisfied with this answer, the establishment media followed up with a seeming non-sequitur, asking if he believed Israel had the “right to exist” as a “Jewish state.” His response once again struck at the heart of elite American political orthodoxy while echoing the sentiments of the majority of Americans: “I am not comfortable supporting any state that has a hierarchy of citizenship on the basis of religion or anything else.” It is widely speculated that rather than derail his campaign, this answer bolstered it and earned him more votes. This in and of itself is a political earthquake.
To uphold the strategic project of Islamophobia, the complex reality of who Zohran Mamdani is as an individual—emblematic, I think, of the majority of American Muslims—must be obscured by stereotypes and slander that have nothing to do with him. The reality is that Muslims function like any other religious community. There are people that are more observant, and people that are less observant. There are people that identify with the right politically and people who identify with the left. But obscuring the banality and normality of Muslims—keeping them in a permanent state of exception and stifling their authentic and complex voices—is essential to manufacturing the consent to continue to militarily dominate and subjugate Muslim-majority lands. American Muslims, many of whom have ties and/or deep knowledge of the countries, people, and life-worlds that have been demonized and attacked in the “War on Terror,” are the western demographic most likely to speak up for those oppressed people. Thus, modern Crusader logic wants to silence those voices.
To uphold the strategic project of Islamophobia, the complex reality of who Zohran Mamdani is as an individual . . . must be obscured by stereotypes and slander that have nothing to do with him
Mamdani also threatens another important rhetorical tool of strategic Islamophobia—the idea that all Muslims are inherently antisemitic. He has made his opposition to Israeli policies clear and made his unwavering support for the Palestinian people clear, and it turns out that most people agree with him. This has nothing to do with his, or certainly “Muslims’” feelings en masse about all Jewish people—and this seems obvious to most people observing Mamdani, including many Jewish people in New York. The relationship between Mamdani and Lander threatens the narrative of constant, ancient immutable strife between Muslims and Jews—an ahistorical narrative that is again needed to manufacture consent for present-day conflicts—instead modeling the reality: centuries of friendship, mutual respect, and future possibility for collaboration between Muslims and Jews (and everyone else) toward the common good, right here in New York City.
Conclusion: Beyond the Conflict Framework
Islamophobia is a latent phenomena that can be fanned and flamed, but we do not have to think of it inflexibly as an inevitable or intrinsic feature of western civilization. As a professor of Islamic Studies, I have seen how histories of strife and conflict appear to be more exciting objects of study—if you want to study the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, for instance, you will have to study revolts and conflict between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. It is, for some reason, more mundane to produce research on histories of friendship, breaking bread, mutual aid, solidarity in the face of natural disasters or other external threats, or the millions of everyday instantiations of common humanity that make our world turn. And this is what I think explains the cognitive dissonance of Mamdani’s Islamophobic detractors, who cannot understand the gap between the real affective and political expressions of a vastly diverse population living together peacefully in New York City, and the metanarratives and stereotypes that are operationalized to fuel and sustain conflict. The former reality is quiet, every day, unassuming, and frequently under theorized; the latter is loud, brash, designed to frighten and create binaries that make populations easier to control. New York City is poised to offer a much-needed injection of this logic of the everyday and the normal into the public consciousness that, added together, is the stuff that injects peace and humanity into our political discourse.
