In America, a particular form of hatred continues to speak out boldly and publicly, showing little concern for repercussions. It doesn’t mask itself with vague language or hidden meanings. Instead, it openly mocks and maligns, thriving in plain sight. This persistent animosity is Islamophobia, which still stands as one of the last socially and publicly permissible forms of prejudice.

Muslims remain a group that prominent political figures can defame on live television, that reporters can depict as inherently suspicious, and that political candidates can exploit as part of their cultural battles without facing significant backlash or risking their professional futures.

Recently, Andrew Cuomo, a candidate for New York City mayor and former governor of New York, appeared on a conservative radio show and remarked, “God forbid, another 9/11, can you imagine Mamdani in the seat?” This was in reference to Zohran Mamdani, an assembly member and fellow mayoral candidate. The host, Sid Rosenberg, replied, “He’d be cheering.” Cuomo laughed and added, “That’s another problem.”

Here, two seasoned figures in New York’s media and political scene casually and publicly speculated that a Muslim lawmaker might “cheer” during a devastating terrorist attack, solely due to his religion, as if it were a trivial conversation. Such a suggestion is deeply offensive and dehumanizing — implying that an elected official would celebrate the tragic loss of New Yorkers simply because of his Muslim faith.

Even CNN’s Dana Bash reportedly couldn’t resist portraying Mamdani as a “controversial candidate,” noting that if elected, he would be New York City’s first Muslim mayor “on the 25th anniversary of 9/11” — thus creating a provocative and unnecessary link between his religious identity and the terrorist attacks.

These are not isolated lapses and misspeaks. They are symptomatic of a society and culture that has normalized exploiting religious identity for political clout and currency. They are fodder for talk radio, a rallying cry for bigots and extremists, and cheap shots by pundits and politicians desperate to maintain fading relevance.

In Georgia, far-right Islamophobe Laura Loomer recently declared on X that “our entire country is being Islamified,” claiming that the “Islamic takeover of America” is underway simply because Muslim Americans are running for local office. The targets of this dramatized hysteria are candidates for public office like Georgia state Rep. Ruwa Roman and Johns Creek Councilmember Shafiq Jadavji who happened to be invited to a “Candidate Meet & Greet” — public servants who spend their days improving schools, infrastructure and services, rather than plotting “sharia takeovers” as implied by these attacks.

The reality is that when Muslims seek public office, their patriotism is questioned. When they speak out against genocide and war crimes, they’re labeled anti-Semites and extremists. When they rise in polls, they’re smeared as infiltrators. 

Imagine, for a moment, if Cuomo had said the same thing about a Jewish, Black, or gay elected official, suggesting they would “cheer” during a tragedy. The backlash would be instantaneous, the apologies swift, the condemnations bipartisan. But when the target is Muslim, silence reigns.

Why? Because Islamophobia has been institutionalized. It has been reinforced through more than two decades of “War on Terror” narratives, sensationalist headlines, and the political calculus that fear wins votes and helps control the masses. Even when Muslims are praised, it’s often through the “good Muslim, bad Muslim” lens, where only those who mute their faith or condemn their fellow Muslims on demand are deemed acceptable.

That conditional inclusion is a quiet cruelty of Islamophobia. It paints a story of American Muslims that no matter how many elections we win, how many patients we heal, how many children we mentor, how many communities we feed, how many ways we serve our country, we will always be seen as potential threats rather than equal citizens. The insinuation is that Muslims can serve America, but can never represent it.

Words like Cuomo’s or Loomer’s don’t exist in a vacuum. Every time this rhetoric goes unchallenged, it trickles downward — into classrooms where Muslim students are bullied, into workplaces where Muslims face discrimination or are sidelined for promotions, and into neighborhoods where mosques face opposition.

When politicians and pundits classify Muslims as threatening and dangerous, they are not just insulting individuals — they’re building the cultural scaffolding that allows violence and injustice to feel justified. That is, after all, one of the end goals of Islamophobes.

The attacks on Mamdani and other Muslim candidates are not just smears; they are stress tests for the soul of American democracy. If participation by American Muslims is automatically equated to national security, then our democracy is not pluralistic — it is conditional.

Mamdani’s composed response at Friday’s press conference outside a New York City mosque in response to these smear attacks captures what’s truly at stake: “This isn’t about me,” he said. “It’s about whether Muslim kids growing up in this city can believe they belong here.”

That is the question up for debate for every American. Do we still believe that faith can disqualify someone from serving their country? How long will we quietly accept that some forms of bigotry — so long as they’re aimed at Muslims — are politically expedient, good for ratings, and even entertaining?

Islamophobia thrives because too few Americans find it offensive enough to confront. Until it becomes socially unacceptable, America will continue to betray its own ideals — one smear, one slur, one “joke” at a time.

Zainab Chaudry is CAIR Action Maryland advisory member.