Mamdani for Jihad He supports the jihad against Israel and India. Where else? by Robert Spencer
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/mamdani-for-jihad/
Speaking at a mosque during his campaign, New York City’s likely next mayor Zohran Mamdani announced happily: “I am the first Muslim elected official to ever run for mayor in the history of our city.” An official of the mosque who was standing behind Mamdani immediately called out, “Takbir,” which is a prompt to which Muslims respond “Allahu akbar,” that is, Allah is greater, greater than the gods of the non-Muslims. The assembled believers responded dutifully, albeit unenthusiastically, but the candidate did not. He may have been aware that he was on video and suspected that him saying “Allahu akbar,” which so many jihad terrorists have called out as they committed murder and mayhem, would not be good campaign optics. Yet he really doesn’t make a secret of where he stands. He’s pro-jihad, at least against Israel and India.
Mamdani then went on to point out that most of the people in the room were migrants and delivered his standard stump speech about how he was running for mayor to make the city more affordable. He asserted that in his campaign, he was following the example of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, who taught that Muslims should strive to make things easy for people.
His only other references to Islam came once again in the context of victimhood. Mamdani told a story about how “a brother of mine, Asad” took a photo of him at a campaign event and posted it on social media with the caption, “Alhamdulillah [thanks be to Allah], the first Muslim elected official to run for mayor.” Mamdani went on to claim that “a member of the New York Post responded. He said, ‘Is it true that they did not allow pagers into the event?’”
Mamdani explained this as a reference to Israel’s blowing up of pagers belonging to the jihad terrorist group Hizballah, asserting that “scores of Lebanese civilians, including a young girl by the name of Fatima” had been killed in this operation. His hatred for Israel was as clear as when he famously refused to condemn the phrase “Globalize the Intifada.”
The candidate then claimed improbably: “And we know that to be Muslim in public life in this city and in this country, is to face these kinds of responses, and to be called a terrorist no matter where it is, where you go.” He emphasized that they had an opportunity “to prove that Muslims don’t just belong in New York City, we also belong in city hall.” Mamdani clearly thought this was a winning line, as he used it in at least one other mosque as well.
Yet in closing, he undercut any idea that he was running solely as a Muslim candidate for his Muslim constituency: “We have an opportunity to vote for not only one of us, but more importantly, a city that each one of us can afford.” On another occasion, Mamdani demonstrated that he was more of a politician than a fanatical believer when he spoke at a Gurduwara, a Sikh temple, and left wearing a bandanna with a Sikh emblem tied over his head.
It was unlikely that a doctrinaire Muslim would have worn any garment bearing a symbol of another faith, although Mamdani was just trying to get votes. Still, given that his wife didn’t wear hijab, it seemed that Mamdani was effectively more of a secular leftist than a Muslim hardliner.
Nevertheless, at least some Muslims took him to be a Muslim candidate, running to further the cause of Islam. In July 2025, video surfaced of Hadeeqa Malik, who served as Communications, Outreach, Policy, and Constituent Services intern at the State Assembly Office during the summer of 2024, encouraging Muslim activists who might be tempted to lose heart. “The true believer,” said Malik, “knows that none of this is in vain, that this is all jihad.”
Did Mamdani think “this is all jihad”? Whether he did or not, his support for the jihads against both Israel and the India was unmistakable and troubling. In May 2025, Mamdani told a town hall that his family was from the Indian state of Gujarat and that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had virtually wiped out the entire community of Gujarati Muslims. Modi, he claimed, “helped to orchestrate what was a mass slaughter of Muslims in Gujarat, to the extent that we don’t even believe that there are Gujarati Muslims anymore. When I tell someone that I am, it’s a shock to them that that’s even the case.”
Mamdani was referring to riots that erupted in Gujarat in 2002. A Hindu journalist recounted:
On February 27, 2002, the delayed Sabarmati Express carrying Hindu pilgrims returning from the holy city of Ayodhya was stopped by a massive mob of Muslims less than one kilometer from the Godhra station. The strength of this mob ranged between 500 to 2000. Baying for Hindu blood, the Muslims had chalked out a plan of setting this train ablaze. The jihadis were armed with swords, bombs and other explosives. After barging into the train’s coach (number S-6) by cutting the connecting vestibule, they doused the compartment with petrol and set it alight.
Fifty-nine Hindu pilgrims were killed in the blaze.
Hindus began to fight back, and ultimately 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed. Many were tried for murder, and the Indian government paid reparations to the victims’ relatives. But Modi, who was governor of Gujarat at the time, has received widespread criticism from Muslims for not acting quickly enough to restrain the Hindus.
This was the incident to which Mamdani was referring as a virtual wiping-out of the Muslims across the entire state of Gujarat. Nothing like that happened, and his hysterical posturing recalled nothing more than the same posturing that Mamdani and others have engaged in regarding the nonexistent genocide in Gaza.
Mamdani’s adherence to Islamic strictures may not be whole or exact, but he has clearly embraced the Muslim victimhood game wholeheartedly and plays it masterfully. And he is just as clearly pro-jihad.
Comments are closed.
