With Democrat mayors and governors across the nation tripping over each other to condemn ICE and immigration enforcement, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani took his own approach to justify unfettered illegal immigration into the country. He quoted the Torah, the Quran, and the Bible at an interfaith breakfast, using religion as a source of policy. Not only does this contradict his leftism, but it also perverts what religious texts say about adherence to the law.
Mamdani himself is a contradiction. A member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), he embraces leftist secularism while also preaching Islam. Islam—and all religions, for that matter—is oil to leftist secularism’s water. Dearborn, Michigan, the Muslim capital of America, has no issues with boys in girls’ sports or LGBT curriculum in schools—the Muslim community simply doesn’t allow it. The same policies in Christian communities in Tennessee or North Carolina draw national condemnation, but Muslims get a pass from leftist censorship.
In a recent address at his first annual interfaith breakfast, Mamdani invoked Islamic teachings to bolster his defense of the city’s sanctuary status and his signing of Executive Order 13, which strengthens protections against federal immigration enforcement. Describing Islam as “a religion built upon a narrative of migration,” Mamdani highlighted the Prophet Muhammad’s Hijrah—the flight from persecution in Mecca to refuge in Medina—as a model for compassion toward “the stranger.” He quoted Surah An-Nahl (16:42): “As for those who emigrated in the cause of Allah after being persecuted, we will surely bless them with a good home in this world,” and referenced a Hadith: “Islam began as something strange and will go back to being strange, so glad tidings to the strangers.” Framing the Prophet himself as “a stranger too” who was welcomed,
Mamdani didn’t stop there. He argued that faith traditions across religions—including the Torah’s command in Exodus 23:9 not to oppress the stranger—call believers to stand against what he described as federal agents’ “terror upon our neighbors” and “cruelty that staggers the conscience,” such as families torn apart and lives shattered. He positioned government as a tool to provide resources for this moral imperative, stating, “If faith offers us the moral compass to stand alongside the stranger, government can provide the resources.”
Without going into how he distorted Judaism for his own political purposes (something he learned from the many Jews-in-name-only that he surrounds himself with), even within the bounds of his own faith, Mamdani’s argument for unchecked illegal immigration falters under scrutiny of Islamic sources. Not being a scholar of Muslim texts, AI sources provided a counterargument to Mamdani’s claims.
The Quran and Hadith do not endorse lawlessness or deception. The Hijrah itself was not an illegal border crossing; the Prophet Muhammad was invited to Medina by influential leaders and arrived with permission, establishing treaties and order. Surah An-Nisa (4:59) commands Muslims to “obey those in authority,” interpreting modern immigration laws as extensions of this authority. Illegal entry, often involving forgery or smuggling, violates prohibitions against lying (Surah An-Nahl 16:105) and self-harm (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:195: “Do not throw yourselves into destruction”).
Fatwas from bodies like the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) and Egypt’s Grand Mufti explicitly deem illegal immigration haram, citing risks to life and the erosion of trust. The Quran’s call for justice (Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:1) to honor agreements implies respecting borders and visas as modern treaties. Mamdani’s selective use overlooks these nuances, conflating compassionate asylum with unrestricted, unlawful influxes that could strain resources and foster “corruption in the land” (Surah Al-A’raf 7:56). In essence, his invocation twists Islamic ethics to fit a political narrative, ignoring scholarly consensus that migration must be lawful and ethical.
Twisting Islamic teaching to serve a leftist narrative is just as nonsensical as Christians or Jews doing the same. These ideologies are united politically because of common enemies. Conservative thinkers like David Horowitz in Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (2004) argue that this partnership is opportunistic, rooted in shared antipathy toward Western capitalism, imperialism, and Israel. Similarly, Andrew C. McCarthy’s The Grand Jihad (2010) likens Islamism to leftist totalitarianism, suggesting devout Muslims leverage progressive platforms to advance sharia-influenced goals, much like Cold War communists infiltrated liberal circles. British conservative Daniel Hannan warns such alliances are fragile, citing Iran’s 1979 revolution where leftists backed Islamists only to be sidelined. This “Islamo-Leftism,” as critics term it, prioritizes power over principle, eroding Western secularism.
Mamdani’s unapologetic use of religion to rationalize policy exposes a glaring double standard in American discourse. Imagine a Christian Republican mayor citing Exodus to justify anti-abortion laws or border walls as “protecting the promised land”—the left would erupt in accusations of theocracy, violating church-state separation. Evangelical politicians like Mike Pence or Ron DeSantis face relentless scrutiny for faith-influenced positions on marriage or education, often labeled as “Christian nationalism” threatening democracy. Yet Mamdani quotes the Quran and Hadith to defend sanctuary cities without similar backlash from progressives.
Media outlets like The Guardian praise his “Muslim creatives” imprint on New York, while NPR discusses Islamophobia against him, framing critiques as bigotry rather than concerns over secular governance. This hypocrisy stems from the left’s identity politics, where minority religions are romanticized as resistance tools, but majority ones are vilified as oppressive. As AEI notes, Mamdani’s approach signals radical Islam’s growing leftward acceptance, unchecked by the same standards applied to conservatives.
Mamdani can twist religion all he wants; it does not change the fact that illegal immigration is a detriment to NYC and the nation. It costs NYC upwards of $3 billion per year, contributes to the housing shortage and crime problems, and drains many resources. Fighting the Trump administration only serves to foment more insurrection activities like we see in Minneapolis, where they are clashing with federal officers and causing death and destruction to their city. Like Kathy Hochul, Mamdani embraces this violence because it gives them the opportunity to direct that anger into Democrat political gain.
Moshe Hill is a political analyst and columnist. His work can be found at www.aHillwithaView.com and on X at @HillWithView.