By Fareed Khan
If any public official in the United States (or Canada) said about Jews or Judaism what Rep. Nancy Mace, a rabid far right Republican Congresswoman from South Carolina, says about Muslims in the social media posts shown below, their career would end overnight. They would be denounced across the political spectrum, pressured to resign, and treated as a pariah. The fact that none of that happens when the target is Muslims or their faith exposes how deeply normalized anti‑Muslim bigotry and dehumanization have become in North American political culture, and especially in the United States.
This is not hyperbole. It is a sober assessment of a political climate in which elected officials in the US — from Congress to state legislatures — now routinely deploy rhetoric that portrays Muslims as foreign, dangerous, disloyal, or inherently incompatible with American life. And they do so with impunity, and with little regard about how their rhetoric puts Muslims in danger.
Consider the recent attacks on Zohran Mamdani, the newly elected mayor of New York City and the first Muslim to hold the office. Within hours of his victory last November, Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville posted a photo of Mamdani hosting a Ramadan meal next to an image of the 9/11 attacks, captioned: “The enemy is inside the gates.” Another Republican congressman, Andy Ogles, called Mamdani “little muhammad” and demanded he be “DEPORTED.” These are only two examples of a litany of American political figures who have made villainizing Muslims a key part of their political messaging, without consequence for their bigotry.
These are not fringe figures with platforms and large numbers of followers. They are elected officials who understand that promoting anti‑Muslim hate carries no political cost, and boosts their electoral support by catering to racists and bigots within their constituencies.
The same pattern emerged in Michigan after Dr. Abdul El‑Sayed won the Democratic nomination for the US Senate. Instead of engaging with his policy platform or record, Donald Trump and his Republican opponent immediately centered their attacks on his identity as a Muslim. Trump repeatedly suggested that El‑Sayed was “not one of us,” while Republican operatives circulated conspiracy‑laden attack ads portraying him as part of a supposed “Muslim takeover” of Michigan politics and falsely linking him to the Muslim Brotherhood — a familiar smear routinely deployed against Muslim candidates by the right wing. The hostility was not confined to the Republicans. Elements within the Democratic establishment also signaled discomfort with his candidacy, with his former primary opponent Rep. Haley Stevens choosing to attack him personally in a racist rant rather than challenge his ideas. Taken together, the message embedded in these attacks is unmistakable — a Muslim candidate is inherently suspect, inherently foreign, and completely unacceptable in American political culture.
This is not an isolated phenomenon. It is part of a broader and increasingly dangerous trend in American society, where rhetoric portraying Muslims as an existential threat has become routine in mainstream political discourse. What would once have been recognized instantly as overt bigotry is now politically repackaged as acceptable “concern,” “security talk,” or “cultural commentary.”
The boundaries of what can be said about Muslims have shifted dramatically, and they have shifted in only one direction — toward greater hostility, suspicion, hate, and dehumanization.
The Zionist and Israel lobby’s role in normalizing anti‑Muslim hate
It is impossible to understand the normalization of anti‑Muslim bigotry without acknowledging the role of the Zionist and pro‑Israel lobby in the Islamophobia industry. For years, these actors have advanced a narrative that Muslims constitute a civilizational threat to Jews and Christians — a narrative that is both historically false and morally poisonous. It is a narrative designed to manufacture fear, justify exclusion, and delegitimize Muslim political participation.
This narrative has been deployed aggressively against Muslim elected officials such as Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, who have been subjected to relentless attacks portraying them as anti‑Semitic, foreign, or disloyal — not because of their actions, but because of their Muslim identity, and their condemnation of Israeli brutality against Palestinians. It has been used to undermine Muslim candidates across the country, from school boards to Congress, often through whisper and smear campaigns funded by groups like AIPAC suggesting that Muslim political participation is inherently dangerous, and that Muslims in public office are incompatible with “American values.”
Additionally, it has been used to justify the vilification of Muslim communities more broadly, framing them as a demographic threat whose political empowerment must be resisted. This rhetoric mirrors the language used by far‑right movements in Europe and by authoritarian regimes.
The historical parallel we are afraid to confront
When you look at how this rhetoric operates — how it paints an entire religious minority as suspect, dangerous, and fundamentally incompatible with the American way of life — the historical parallel becomes unavoidable. The political treatment of Muslims in the United States today echoes the way Jews were portrayed in 1930s Germany.
No analogy is perfect, and the contexts between Nazi Germany and the US today differ. But the underlying mechanism is the same — dehumanization and delegitimization used as a political tool against a minority to set them apart from mainstream society, advance political agendas, and scapegoat targeted communities.
In 1930s Germany, Jews were depicted as foreign infiltrators, disloyal citizens, existential threats to national identity, and the cause of Germany’s woes after World War 1. Today, Muslims in America are subjected to the same narrative — portrayed as invaders, extremists, or agents of foreign powers. The rhetoric is similar and the logic is chillingly familiar.
The danger is not only in what is said, but in what becomes thinkable once such rhetoric becomes normalized, as it has across certain segments of American society. When a society accepts that one group can be spoken about as inherently suspect, inherently violent, or inherently incompatible with “our values,” it opens the door to policies that treat that group as disposable, and it energizes those elements that already have prejudices against the community to resort to violence, as happened against German Jews with incidents like Kristallnacht.
History has shown repeatedly that dehumanization is never merely rhetorical. It is a preparation for what is to come. It politically and morally clears the path for discrimination, surveillance, exclusion, and eventually violence.
Canada is not immune from this cancer
And Canadians should not be smug that it won’t happen here because it already has. The vilification of Muslims by right wing voices resulted in the 2017 Quebec City mosque massacre, the murder of a Muslim volunteer outside a Toronto mosque in September 2020, the murder of a Muslim family in London, Ontario in June 2021, and an 1,800% increase in hate incidents against Muslims from late 2023 to late 2024. The fact that Canada is the only G7 country where multiple hate-motivated murders have taken place against Muslims should be a signal that anti‑Muslim bigotry has taken root among segments of the Canadian population, and that should worry all of us.
To understand how deeply rooted Islamophobia is in Canada, one need look no further than the political reaction to House Motion M‑103 — a non‑binding resolution about Islamophobia that gained attention just days after the Quebec City mosque shooting. In the wake of that tragedy, Conservative and Bloc Québécois MPs voted against the motion under the banner of “free speech,” echoing right‑wing media voices who claimed it would restrict criticism of Islam or even usher in Sharia law, despite the fact that the motion carried no legal force whatsoever. In reality, M‑103 simply called on the government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination,” to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear,” and to direct the House of Commons Heritage Committee to study how Canada could develop a government‑wide approach to reducing systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia. The backlash revealed how reflexive and politically useful anti‑Muslim fear‑mongering had become — even in the immediate aftermath of a hate-motivated mass killing targeting Muslims. It is notable that a similar motion about antisemitism in 2015 was passed by the House of Commons without controversy.
Another example is the reaction in early 2023 to the federal government’s appointment of Amira Elghawaby as Canada’s first Special Representative to Combat Islamophobia. The ferocity of the political pushback made clear that anti‑Muslim prejudice was entrenched at the highest levels of Canadian politics. The announcement was met with Islamophobic attacks from the Quebec government, the Bloc Québécois, and the Conservative Party leadership, all of whom demanded she either resign or be fired because she had previously criticized Islamophobia in Quebec in a 2019 op‑ed about Bill 21, the province’s so‑called “secularism” law. The leader of the Bloc went even further, calling for the role itself to be abolished. This despite the fact that Bill 21 was understood by many, including respondents in a 2019 poll published in the Montreal Gazette, to be rooted in anti‑Muslim sentiment. The controversy surrounding Elghawaby’s appointment underscored a troubling reality in Canada, as in the United States, that efforts to confront Islamophobia are often met with hostility from those most invested in denying its existence.
These incidents — combined with years of right‑wing media figures and commentators portraying Islam as incompatible with Western society — helped legitimize the demonization of Muslim communities. That normalization is reflected clearly in an Angus Reid poll released on March 13, 2023, which showed that Canada faces a serious Islamophobia problem, with its epicenter in Quebec. According to the poll, more than one‑third of Canadians outside Quebec hold a negative view of Islam, but within Quebec that number jumps to 56%. These findings pointed to a profound and persistent issue of anti‑Muslim prejudice in Canada, and they should serve as a warning to the federal government that efforts to combat Islamophobia must be far more assertive and comprehensive in order to be effective. This is even more so since Mark Carney eliminated the Special Representative to Combat Islamophobia position in February of this year.
This climate of demonizing Islam and Muslims has real consequences for Muslim political participation in Canada. Muslim candidates have increasingly found themselves targeted by whisper and smear campaigns questioning their loyalty, their “values,” or their supposed ties to foreign governments — insinuations that mirror the Islamophobic tropes deployed so aggressively in the United States. What begins as coded language about “compatibility” or “cultural fit” often escalates into outright smears designed to cast Muslim candidates as risky, untrustworthy, dangerous, or somehow less Canadian.
These tactics rarely confront a candidate’s ideas or record. Instead, they rely on innuendo and fear‑mongering to suggest that Muslim political engagement is inherently suspect. Most often, this dynamic plays out during party nomination processes, where Muslim candidates are subjected to heightened scrutiny and targeted with manufactured controversies. In one case in Nova Scotia in the 2019 federal election, and another in 2024 Nova Scotia provincial election, nominated NDP candidates were removed because of past social‑media criticism of Israel — a decision driven not by any issue with their qualifications, but by pressure campaigns by the pro-Israel lobby that framed legitimate political criticism as disqualifying. In many such instances, Zionist and pro‑Israel organizations have spearheaded efforts to label Muslim and pro-Palestinian candidates as “antisemitic” and to pressure political parties into removing them, and those parties have frequently capitulated. Through these mechanisms, the same narrative that has taken hold in the United States — that Muslims are perpetual outsiders whose participation in public life must be scrutinized — has been imported into Canadian politics, albeit with more subtlety. Yet the underlying message remains unmistakable — Muslim candidates are treated as exceptions who must justify their right to participate, rather than as full citizens entitled to the same presumption of legitimacy as anyone else.
The permission structure
As Muslim communities engage politically, and as Muslim candidates seek public office, whether in the US or Canada, what we are witnessing is the creation of a permission structure — a political climate in which dehumanizing Muslims is not only tolerated but increasingly seen as politically useful. It gives politicians a ready‑made tool for mobilizing fear, signalling loyalty to particular ideological blocs, and casting Muslims as permanent outsiders whose rights, safety, and dignity can be treated as conditional.
This is bigotry dressed up as geopolitical concern, but its purpose mirrors every other form of racialized hatred that marks a community as less worthy of empathy, protection, and belonging, and it is not that different from what Jews faced in 1930s Germany.
Anti‑Muslim bigotry is not a fringe phenomenon, it is a structural and systemic one — embedded in political incentives, amplified by ideological alliances, and sustained by a broad public and political silence that would never be tolerated if the target such hate were Jews. And unless it is confronted directly, it will continue to grow and has the potential to shred the fabric of society.
The normalization of anti‑Muslim hate is not just a moral failure. It is a warning, with history telling us what happens when such warnings are ignored.
***********
Documented Anti‑Muslim Statements and Incidents by US Political Figures (2020–2026)
This addendum compiles a limited list of publicly reported anti‑Muslim statements, social‑media posts, and political actions by US federal and state officials since 2020. The incidents below are drawn from news coverage, public commentary, and civil‑rights reporting, including documentation by the Council on American‑Islamic Relations (CAIR). They illustrate the breadth and normalization of anti‑Muslim rhetoric in contemporary American politics.
Federal Officials
1. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R‑AL)
In January 2025, Tuberville posted an image of the 9/11 attacks alongside a photo of New York City’s newly elected Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani, hosting an iftar. He captioned the post: “The enemy is inside the gates.” CAIR designated Tuberville an anti‑Muslim extremist, citing repeated use of dehumanizing language targeting Muslims.
Ogles publicly referred to Mamdani as “little muhammad” and called for him to be “DEPORTED.” He has also posted that “Muslims don’t belong in American society” and that “they all have to go back.”
Fine posted: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” He also wrote: “Deport them ALL.” CAIR designated him an anti‑Muslim extremist.
Self has claimed: “Islam is a culture ov violence and domination.” He co‑founded the “Sharia‑Free America Caucus,” which CAIR describes as promoting anti‑Muslim conspiracy theories and Islamophobia.
Roy co‑founded the same caucus and has supported federal legislation aimed at restricting Islamic practice or Muslim immigration. CAIR designated him an anti‑Muslim extremist.
6. Donald Trump
Following Zohran Mamdani’s election, Trump amplified narratives portraying the mayor as foreign and dangerous. Trump has also repeatedly targeted Muslim elected officials, contributing to what CAIR describes as a political climate enabling “punitive actions” against Muslims.
7. Attacks on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D‑MN)
Omar has faced years of Islamophobic attacks from members of Congress and political commentators, including claims that she is disloyal or tied to extremist groups. CAIR has repeatedly condemned these attacks.
8. Attacks on Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D‑MI)
Tlaib has been subjected to similar rhetoric, including accusations that her Muslim identity makes her un‑American or dangerous.
9. Michigan Senate Candidate Abdul El‑Sayed
After winning the Democratic nomination, El‑Sayed was targeted with conspiracy‑theory‑driven attack ads claiming he was part of a “Muslim takeover” of Michigan politics and falsely linking him to the Muslim Brotherhood. Some Democratic establishment figures also expressed discomfort with his candidacy, focusing on his identity rather than his policy positions.
State‑Level Officials
10. Florida — extremist anti‑Muslim content
Florida produced 31% of all anti‑Muslim extremist content documented in a CAIR‑linked dataset. Statements included calls for mass deportation and rhetoric portraying Muslims as inherently violent.
11. Texas — “Muslim invasion” conspiracy rhetoric
Texas accounted for 40% of extremist anti‑Muslim posts in the same dataset. State legislators amplified conspiracy theories about a “Muslim invasion” and supported anti‑Islam caucuses.
12. Minnesota — 96% increase in anti‑Muslim complaints
CAIR‑MN reported a 96% increase in anti‑Muslim discrimination complaints in 2025, tied partly to rhetoric from state officials portraying Muslims as incompatible with American values.
13. Oklahoma — anti‑Muslim narratives
CAIR documented Oklahoma legislators promoting anti‑Muslim narratives and supporting discriminatory policies targeting Muslim‑majority immigrant communities.
14. Illinois — elevated anti‑Muslim discrimination
Illinois saw elevated levels of anti‑Muslim discrimination complaints linked to rhetoric from local and state officials.
15. California — “collective punishment” rhetoric
CAIR‑LA documented local officials promoting “collective punishment” of Afghans, Somalis, and Syrians, including calls for surveillance and restrictions on Muslim‑majority communities.
National Trends and Patterns
16. Federal Bills Targeting Muslims
Between 2024 and 2025, multiple federal bills were introduced seeking to restrict Islamic practice or block Muslim immigration. CAIR identified five such bills in 2025 alone.
17. 4.7 million Islamophobic posts (Equality Labs)
Equality Labs documented 4.7 million Islamophobic posts in 2025, many amplified by public officials. CAIR reported a 1,450% increase in anti‑Muslim extremist posts among 46 officials.
18. 1,450% increase in extremist posts
CAIR analysis of extremist content: Center for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH) conducted for CAIR found that the monthly volume of anti-Muslim extremist posts by a list of 46 public officials “increased by 1,450%” in a 15-month period.
19. Attacks on Muslim Elected Officials
Zohran Mamdani, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Abdul El‑Sayed have all been targeted with rhetoric portraying them as foreign, dangerous, or disloyal — often without reference to their policy positions.
While most incidents originate from Republican officials, CAIR and civil‑rights monitors have noted Islamophobic rhetoric from Democratic establishment figures, particularly in Michigan’s Senate race.
© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.
