As the United States approaches its November midterm elections, anti-Muslim rhetoric is increasingly being deployed by Republican politicians against Muslim candidates and elected officials. From public accusations of extremism to warnings about Islamic law taking hold in America, the political discourse has raised concerns about the use of Islamophobia as an electoral strategy.
The controversy reflects a wider struggle over religious freedom, political representation and the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups in American politics. It also raises questions about why Muslim politicians face scrutiny over their religious identity while criticism of Israel and its supporters can provoke serious political and institutional consequences.
Calls for Violence at Republican Convention Expose Growing Hostility
During the Republican Party’s midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, on 10 September, Republican Senator Ted Cruz delivered a speech attacking prominent Democratic politicians, including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed.
As Cruz named the politicians, a person in the audience repeatedly shouted, “He should be shot.”
The outbursts were audible during the speech, but Cruz continued without publicly acknowledging or condemning them. It remains unclear whether the senator heard the remarks from the stage.
The incident raised serious concerns about the normalisation of violent rhetoric directed at political figures, particularly when their religious identity has become a central feature of attacks against them.
Calls for political violence cannot be dismissed as ordinary electoral disagreements. They represent a disturbing escalation in an environment where Muslim candidates are increasingly portrayed as threats to American society rather than political representatives whose policies should be assessed on their merits.
The contrast becomes particularly pronounced when considering how American authorities respond to pro-Palestinian activism.
On 15 September, prominent Palestinian-American lawyer and academic Noura Erakat was handcuffed and arrested during a protest at a public budget hearing in Palm Beach County, Florida.
Erakat was among approximately 100 people opposing the expansion of county investments in Israeli bonds to more than $1 billion.
The protest concerned the allocation of public funds, an issue that citizens have a legitimate interest in questioning. Erakat was subsequently charged with misdemeanour trespassing following her removal from the hearing.
The episode highlighted concerns over the treatment of peaceful protesters challenging financial support for Israel, particularly when compared with the public tolerance sometimes afforded to inflammatory rhetoric against Muslim political figures.
Trump Targets Muslim Politicians by Name and Religion
President Donald Trump has contributed to the hostile political environment through repeated remarks directed at Muslim politicians.
Among those targeted is Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan, whom Trump has labelled a “jihadist” without substantiating the accusation.
Trump has also mocked the candidate’s name by referring to him as “Mohammad”, invoking the widespread use of the name among Muslims and throughout the Middle East.
The attacks seek to associate a Muslim candidate’s religious background with extremism, rather than engage with his political programme.
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has faced similar treatment, including deliberate distortions of his surname by Trump and other Republican figures.
These repeated mispronunciations and alterations have become part of a broader political performance in which Muslim identity is presented as something foreign, suspicious or incompatible with American public life.
Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has also faced an escalating confrontation with the Trump administration.
On 12 October, federal agents searched Omar’s Washington residence as part of an investigation concerning immigration documents dating back to her family’s arrival in the United States.
The search was conducted under a judicially authorised warrant. Omar has denied wrongdoing and described the investigation as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent.
The administration’s examination of her immigration history has raised the possibility of proceedings aimed at revoking her citizenship, although no such outcome has been established.
The treatment of Omar, a naturalised American citizen and elected member of Congress, has become another prominent example of the political pressures facing Muslim representatives.
Why Islamophobia Is Becoming an Electoral Strategy
The targeting of Muslim political figures is occurring at a time when Republican candidates face difficult questions about the direction of American domestic and foreign policy.
Among the most contentious issues is the continuing war against Iran, which has generated opposition among Americans who question its necessity and its relationship to US national security interests.
Critics of the war argue that Iran does not pose a threat sufficient to justify the scale of the military confrontation. Others believe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played a decisive role in drawing Trump into a conflict that has consumed billions of dollars in American resources.
The war has also intensified debate about Washington’s dependence on Israel and the consequences of American military involvement in the Middle East.
Alongside foreign policy, Republican candidates face public concern over rising oil prices, the cost of living, unemployment, inadequate healthcare coverage, mounting national debt and deteriorating relations with important US allies.
Rather than confronting these questions directly, critics argue that sections of the Republican Party have increasingly turned to the politics of fear, particularly against Muslims, immigrants and other minorities.
Islamophobia has consequently emerged as a prominent feature of the party’s electoral messaging.
Warnings that the election of a handful of Muslim representatives could lead to the introduction of Sharia law or the establishment of Islamic courts have become recurring themes in political advertising and campaign speeches.
Such claims exaggerate the political influence of a small religious minority and conflate participation in democratic institutions with an alleged intention to replace the American constitutional system.
The suggestion that electing several Muslim members of Congress could fundamentally transform the country’s legal structure overlooks the institutional limitations facing any small group of legislators.
American Muslims remain a minority of the national population. Even a hypothetical bloc of 15 Muslim legislators across the Senate and House of Representatives would represent only a small fraction of Congress.
The alarm surrounding Muslim political representation therefore cannot be explained simply by the number of Muslims seeking public office.
A Changing Democratic Party Challenges the Political Establishment
A more consequential development may be taking place within the Democratic Party itself.
A younger generation of political candidates is increasingly challenging traditional party positions on racial discrimination, economic inequality, political representation and American support for Israel.
For these emerging political figures and their supporters, a candidate’s religious affiliation, ethnicity or ideological background does not necessarily determine their political legitimacy.
The growing willingness of some Democratic candidates to reject campaign contributions associated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is particularly significant.
For decades, pro-Israel political networks have played an influential role in congressional elections and debates over American Middle East policy.
The victories of candidates who have declined support from AIPAC-linked political funding structures suggest that those established relationships are facing increasing scrutiny among sections of the Democratic electorate.
Abdul El-Sayed’s victory in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary is an example.
His campaign prevailed despite millions of dollars in political spending aimed at defeating his candidacy.
The result sent a message not only to Republicans but also to Democratic Party leaders who have historically regarded strong alignment with pro-Israel lobbying organisations as a political necessity.
For critics of the established political order, the significance of these developments extends beyond the religious identity of individual candidates.
They represent a challenge to longstanding assumptions about who can hold political power, how campaigns are financed and whether criticism of Israel should be treated as a disqualifying position in American electoral politics.
Discrimination Against American Muslims Extends Beyond Elections
The consequences of anti-Muslim hostility are not confined to political campaigns.
Discrimination can include physical violence, threats, verbal harassment, workplace exclusion, dismissal from employment and the termination of professional contracts.
Arab and Muslim Americans have also reported discriminatory treatment in immigration proceedings, educational institutions and encounters with law enforcement.
Two major civil rights organisations document and challenge these practices.
The first is the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), one of the largest Arab-American civil rights organisations in the United States.
ADC describes its mission as defending civil and human rights, combating discrimination, promoting understanding of Arab history and culture, and working with other communities to advance social justice.
The second is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a longstanding Muslim civil rights organisation that campaigns against discrimination and advocates freedom of expression, equal treatment and justice.
According to CAIR’s 2026 Civil Rights Report, the organisation received 8,683 complaints nationwide in 2025, compared with 8,658 in 2024, an increase of 25 complaints.
The 2025 figure was the highest annual total recorded by the organisation since it began publishing its civil rights reports in 1996.
Complaints covered employment discrimination, immigration and asylum matters, hate incidents, the treatment of people in detention and restrictions relating to travel or government watchlists.
Such records provide insight into forms of discrimination that do not necessarily become visible through criminal prosecutions or conventional law enforcement statistics.
Civil rights advocates have also raised concerns that some incidents involving Arabs and Muslims are treated as ordinary criminal matters rather than being investigated as potentially motivated by religious or ethnic prejudice.
This distinction is important because the classification of a crime can influence how discrimination is documented, investigated and understood by the wider public.
Pew Research Reveals Persistent Anti-Muslim Discrimination
Research by the Pew Research Center provides further evidence of the challenges facing American Muslims.
In a 2026 study, 59 per cent of Muslim Americans surveyed said there was a great deal of discrimination against Muslims in the United States.
Separate Pew surveys of the wider American adult population found that 74 per cent in 2025 and 82 per cent in 2024 believed Muslims faced at least some discrimination.
The surveys used different populations and measures, meaning the percentages cannot be treated as a directly comparable annual trend.
Nevertheless, the findings reveal that discrimination against Muslims continues to be recognised both within the Muslim community and across broader American society.
A reduction in the percentage of respondents identifying discrimination would not, by itself, establish that the number of discriminatory incidents had declined.
Changes in public attitudes, the recognition of discriminatory behaviour and the classification of incidents must be considered separately from the actual prevalence of violence and harassment.
Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes and the Legacy of September 11
The history of anti-Muslim violence in the United States reveals how political and international developments can influence hostility towards religious minorities.
Before the attacks of 11 September 2001, the FBI recorded approximately 25 to 32 anti-Muslim hate-crime incidents annually.
That figure rose sharply to 481 incidents in 2001, following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Between 2002 and 2013, reported anti-Muslim incidents generally remained above pre-September 11 levels, averaging approximately 138 cases annually.
The number of incidents subsequently fluctuated, with renewed increases during periods of intense political debate surrounding Islam, immigration and national security.
According to FBI data compiled by Pew Research Center, there were 236 reported anti-Muslim incidents in 2023 and 228 in 2024.
Across all categories, the FBI recorded 11,679 hate-crime incidents in 2024, including 137 incidents targeting Arabs and 228 targeting Muslims.
The distinction between anti-Arab and anti-Muslim incidents is significant because ethnicity and religion are recorded as separate bias categories, even though individuals may experience overlapping forms of hostility.
These official figures also do not capture every act of discrimination experienced by Muslim communities.
Workplace exclusion, verbal intimidation and incidents never reported to law enforcement can fall outside criminal hate-crime statistics.
Consequently, the recorded totals represent only one measure of the broader climate confronting Arab and Muslim Americans.
Anti-Sharia Campaigns and AI-Generated Disinformation
Anti-Muslim campaign rhetoric has also moved beyond speeches and political advertisements into online disinformation.
At the Republican convention, one political figure used the familiar demand that people dissatisfied with the United States should leave the country.
Meanwhile, supporters of anti-Muslim political campaigns have circulated manipulated videos, including AI-generated footage purporting to show demonstrations demanding the introduction of Sharia law.
Such material can be used to portray ordinary Muslim political participation as evidence of an organised effort to undermine American institutions.
The deliberate distortion of Muslim names has reinforced the same message.
Trump has repeatedly mispronounced Mamdani’s surname, while El-Sayed has also been subjected to alterations of his name.
These practices are presented by critics as attempts to turn Muslim identity into an object of ridicule and public suspicion.
The rhetoric has extended to senior Republican lawmakers.
Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville described Abdul El-Sayed as a “terrorist” following his Democratic primary victory.
Tuberville also portrayed El-Sayed as an extremist who would seek to destroy America.
Such allegations carry serious consequences when directed at a Muslim political candidate without evidence establishing involvement in terrorism.
They can reinforce the perception that Muslim identity is inherently connected with violence or disloyalty.
Political advertising in states where Muslim candidates are contesting congressional or state legislative seats has similarly featured warnings such as:
- “No to Sharia law in America.”
- “Extremist Islamist movements have gained a foothold in America.”
- “Radical Islam must be resisted.”
The concern is no longer limited to criticism of organisations described as extremist.
Some political figures have increasingly questioned Islam itself, presenting the religion as a potential threat to American national security.
Others have advanced sweeping claims portraying Muslims generally as a danger to the country.
This shift from criticism of particular political organisations to suspicion directed at an entire religious community has become a central concern for Muslim civil rights advocates.
The Battle Over Muslim Representation and US Support for Israel
The political confrontation surrounding Muslim candidates is likely to remain prominent as the midterm elections approach.
Candidates who challenge longstanding policies towards Israel, reject pro-Israel political funding or prioritise the economic concerns of ordinary Americans are increasingly confronting well-funded opposition campaigns.
Those campaigns draw on financial resources, media influence and political messaging that critics regard as disproportionately focused on portraying Muslim candidates as religious or national security threats.
The underlying contest is not simply about whether Muslim Americans can win elected office.
It concerns whether their participation in democratic politics can be assessed according to the same standards applied to other candidates, without religious identity becoming grounds for suspicion or exclusion.
It also raises the question of whether elected representatives can openly challenge American support for Israel without facing accusations that their positions are incompatible with loyalty to the United States.
For the emerging generation of candidates challenging established political interests, the priorities of working- and middle-class Americans, including healthcare, employment, affordability and public investment, are being placed in direct competition with the influence of wealthy political donors and foreign policy lobbying networks.
The continued rise of Muslim candidates who refuse to abandon their religious identity or political convictions has therefore become significant beyond the immediate electoral contests.
The original commentary concludes with a conviction rooted in Islamic faith: that truth, justice and righteousness will ultimately prevail over hostility and discrimination.
As Allah says in the Qur’an:
“They wish to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light.”
Surah At-Tawbah, 9:32
