American elections: Islamophobia no longer wins

In an article published by Religion News Service (RNS), an independent American news agency specializing in religious issues, Omar Suleiman, well-known American imam and widely followed on social networksquestions the limits of electoral campaigns that target Muslims. The founder of the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research defends a simple idea: presenting Muslims as a threat is no longer enough to win votes.

Health and cost of living before fear

The author cites in particular the victory of Abdul El-Sayed in the Senate, in Michigan, reported in his article. Despite attacks on his religion and accusations questioning his loyalty to the United States, he reportedly convinced voters by talking about health and the cost of living.

Suleiman compares this example to Zohran Mamdani’s journey in New York. For him, being Muslim no longer necessarily represents the electoral handicap that some opponents would like to make it out to be.

In Texas, a strategy that shows its limits

Texas also holds an important place in its forum. Suleiman denounces advertisements hostile to Islam, but also political and educational decisions which present, according to him, Muslims as foreigners to American society.

The electoral defeats mentioned in the article illustrate the limits of this strategy. Targeting a community does not replace responses to the difficulties voters encounter in their daily lives.

Citizens who vote and mobilize

This is one of the strong points of the text: remembering that Muslims are not only subjected to speeches aimed at them. They vote, organize and can rally beyond their community. Attacks can therefore push those they seek to silence to participate more.

However, we must keep one reservation: a few victories or defeats are not enough to prove that Islamophobia earns fewer votes across the country. To know this, we would need to better understand the motivations of voters. Suleiman also recognizes that several factors come into play in an election.

A belonging that does not have to be justified

Basically, Omar Suleiman defends a conviction: Muslims do not have to constantly prove that they have their place in their country. This belonging depends neither on an electoral victory nor on the views of their adversaries.