Sami Hamdi: “Muslims Must Abandon Harris” | Transcript and Summary

The Political Power of American Muslims: A Game-Changer in U.S. Elections?

As the 2024 U.S. presidential election looms, one question dominates the conversation: will American Muslims continue supporting the Democratic Party, or will they use their voting power to challenge pro-Zionist policies? This post dives into the dynamics surrounding American Muslim voters and their potential impact on the upcoming election.

Can Muslims Break the Two-Party System?

One of the central themes of the conversation between Sami Hamdi and Muhammad Jalal is the potential for American Muslims to break the two-party system. Both major parties, Democrats and Republicans, have historically backed Zionist policies. Yet, for the first time, there’s a real chance that minority voters, particularly Muslims, can use their influence to challenge the status quo.

Hamdi highlights how tightly contested swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin could be decided by Muslim voters. If third-party candidates like Jill Stein or Cornel West manage to get 5% of the national vote, it could break the two-party dominance and create a new path for U.S. politics.

The Role of Gaza and Palestine in the Election

Another key factor is the ongoing genocide in Gaza, which has sparked outrage across Muslim communities. American Muslims are questioning whether they can continue supporting a Democratic Party that, under Biden and Harris, has unequivocally backed Israel. The choice facing voters is whether to forgive these policies in the hopes of avoiding a worse alternative or to take a stand, even if it means temporary political pain.

For the first time, supporting Zionism may be a political liability rather than an advantage. Grassroots movements, amplified by social media, have brought global attention to Palestine. Non-Muslim Americans, especially Gen Z, are increasingly aligning with pro-Palestinian causes, which puts pressure on U.S. politicians who have traditionally relied on Zionist support.

Will Third-Party Candidates Be the Answer?

While some Muslim leaders still advocate voting for Harris as the “lesser of two evils,” third-party candidates like Jill Stein and Cornel West offer a different choice. Though neither is a perfect candidate, both have made strong pro-Palestinian statements and are willing to listen to the concerns of the Muslim community. If these candidates can mobilize even a small percentage of voters, they could tip the balance in swing states or, at the very least, send a strong message to the major parties.

Muslims and Political Power: Are We Ready?

The real question isn’t just about which candidate to support. It’s about whether American Muslims realize the power they already have. For too long, Muslims have felt politically defeated, assuming that their votes don’t matter. But as Hamdi explains, the tide is turning. Muslims, through grassroots organizing and the amplification of Palestinian voices, are beginning to challenge the invincibility of Zionist influence in American politics.

The opportunity is clear: by mobilizing and voting strategically, American Muslims could not only sway the election but also break the two-party system. The question is whether they are ready to bear the temporary pain of political consequences in the name of long-term change.

Conclusion: Don’t Rescue Zionism in November

As the election approaches, Muslims have a crucial decision to make. Will they continue to support a system that has ignored their calls for justice, or will they take a stand, using their voting power to challenge pro-Zionist policies and possibly break the two-party system? The stakes have never been higher, and the opportunity for change has never been clearer.

Opening Remarks and Introduction to the Political Landscape

Sami Hamdi: The Democrats are saying it’s better to offend Muslims since they are likely to forgive the crime of committing genocide.

Muhammad Jalal: That’s clear. It seems if Harris wins, Zionism wins.

Sami Hamdi: The Zionists are panicking and scrambling. The reason why this power suddenly exists is precisely because the elections are tight.

Muhammad Jalal: Sami, are you calling on Muslims to vote for Donald Trump in the next election?

Sami Hamdi: There is a real chance that the two-party system in America will be broken in November. We are on the brink of breaking the two-party system. Gaza is breaking the two-party system. Gaza is breaking the invincibility of Zionism. It’s not about whether Jill Stein is a perfect candidate or not. We’re talking about limbs being collected in garbage bags. We’re talking about Biden giving Israel every single weapon they’ve demanded. Explain how Trump is worse. Explain this further. When you walk to the ballot box, you walk over bodies—piles and piles of bodies.

The Moral Dilemma of Voting in the U.S. Elections

Muhammad Jalal: Are Muslims in America ready to bear the pain? Are they ready to vote for their Palestinian brothers and sisters during this ongoing slaughter in Gaza, with the carpet bombing of Lebanon as its backdrop in the elections? Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have clearly stated their intentions to back Israel, and sometimes, you can’t even place a cigarette paper between them. Some have characterized Harris as a better candidate, suggesting that she is ready to restrain Israel, although there’s little evidence for this. Others have conceded that her stance is not dissimilar to Biden’s, but argue that Trump is worse. They evoke the lesser of two evils argument, suggesting that Muslims holding their noses and voting for Harris is better than voting for Trump. Notwithstanding the fact that using the lesser of two evils argument has previously caused Muslims to vote for Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden—each of whom seem to compete with Shaitan in evil dispensation. At the height of evilness, we are witnessing genocide under the Democrats.

So how will American Muslims respond to this genocide? Will they abandon Harris? I’m planning to visit the United States soon, inshallah, meeting with American Muslim leaders and others to attempt to piece together an answer to these crucial questions. This conversation is the first part of a discussion on the topic. Sami, assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah, and welcome back.

Sami Hamdi: Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Thank you for having me, Jazakallah khair. Every time I come onto this podcast, it seems we court controversy, so let’s not shy away from this difficult conversation, even though it’s a tough subject for American Muslims. I’ve had conversations with many American Muslims who genuinely feel they don’t have an answer to these questions. But let’s try to find at least some form of answer today, inshallah.

Polling and Election Dynamics: The Role of Gaza

Muhammad Jalal: We’ve seen a bounce for Kamala Harris in the polls, and it seems that Biden’s nomination is clinched—at least, apparently, for the Democrats. What’s taking place at this moment?

Sami Hamdi: I think, when we look at where the polls stand, the reality is that it’s neck and neck. Nate Silver has described it as the tightest election in the past 16 years. I think swing states are up for grabs. We’re hearing leaks from within the Democratic Party that suggest they believe it’s a knife’s edge, and they’re desperately pouring money into swing states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Michigan.

There are rumors that Democrats, given recent polls, suggest there’s a slight bounce for Kamala Harris, but I think the initial bounce we saw has dampened a bit, and we’re seeing it neck and neck again. Democrats versus Donald Trump—it’s incredibly close. And the issue is not just whether Kamala Harris clinched it or not; I think it’s clear that Gaza will decide the election. Gaza will decide the election. Because when the elections are on a knife’s edge, it means that minority populations, like Muslims, who are concentrated in swing states—Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Florida, though Florida in recent years is not as much of a swing state as it once was—are the ones who can swing the vote.

Minority Voting Power in Swing States

As a result of the tightness of the elections, the Muslim votes will certainly have an outsized impact in deciding who wins these particular states. That’s why it’s not just about Kamala’s nomineeship—it’s about whether Muslims choose to punish the Biden-Harris administration for the genocide or whether they choose to forgive the Biden-Harris genocide because they believe the other side is worse. In other words, it’s whether Muslims will deliver a victory for the Democrats, or whether they will not.

Some suggest that Muslim power is over-exaggerated. And in normal times, perhaps Muslims don’t have influence. But it’s precisely because it’s such a tight election, decided by 10, 20, or 30 thousand votes in areas with at least 100,000 Muslims, that we see the reason why, when we look at the elections as they’re unfolding, particularly with regards to Muslims, the Gaza debate has become so prominent.

This is not just my analysis. Nate Silver, the pollster for the New York Times, says Gaza is likely to be the deciding factor in swing states. John Hudson, the White House correspondent for the Washington Post, reports that 13% of Democrat voters are thinking about abandoning the Democrats because of their support for Zionism. Democrat donors are demanding that Democrats maintain support for Zionism, but at the same time, Democrats fear that without this support, they’ll lose the elections.

Zionist Lobby and the Threat of Losing Elections

So, the point, Jalal, is that the risk is not the future of Gaza or Palestine as we like to think of it. What’s at risk is the future of Zionism. For the first time, Zionism has proven to be a political liability that could lose the Democrats the swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In other words, for the first time in American history, support for Israel could lose a candidate the elections. This is a huge threat to the Zionist lobby in the U.S.

Muhammad Jalal: Let me ask you about that. In your introduction, you said that the Zionists support both sides—both political parties, Democrats and Republicans—the red and the blue are both pro-Zionist parties. So, if Kamala loses, and Zionism loses, why would that be a big deal when Donald Trump is a Zionist anyway?

Sami Hamdi: I think it’s easier to answer that question if you put yourself in the position of a Zionist, and let’s consider their argument. The argument is often that Kamala and Donald Trump are both pro-Israel, pro-Zionist. Kamala is pro-Zionist, and we know Trump is pro-Zionist too. There’s no debate about that—she’s on record as supporting Zionism. So, Muslims may argue that it doesn’t make a difference who wins.

The question, therefore, is why the Israelis are willing to spend unprecedented amounts of money on this election. Why are they spending 24 million dollars to unseat Jamal Bowman? Why are they making the Zionist lobby spend this unprecedented amount of money on an election that is supposed to produce a pro-Israel outcome? What is the threat that Muslims are failing to see?

Grassroots Movements and the Power of Social Media

The point is this: when Muslims raised their voices, when Palestinians started recording the genocide taking place, Muslims responded to the call. They retweeted, shared, and amplified. The algorithm elevated Palestinian content. Palestinian content ended up reaching new corners it hadn’t been able to before, simply by virtue of the fact that there are 1.9 billion Muslims sympathetic to Palestinians who started tweeting.

The algorithm went crazy, and it said, ‘This is more popular than the Kardashians, more popular than Cristiano Ronaldo, more popular than Lionel Messi.’ Do we need this? When it reached the phones of Samantha, George, Jeffrey, and Margaret, they were shaken and shocked. They began to share it, they began to pay attention, and even someone like Candace Owens began to notice. Candace Owens, in a Piers Morgan interview, said on October 7th that she believed Israel was a firm ally and friend and needed support.

But then, on October 7th, the Zionists demanded that Candace Owens pay attention to what was happening. When she started paying attention, she realized she didn’t like what Israel was doing. She didn’t realize what Israel was actually doing. Candace Owens started asking the question, ‘Why on earth are we supporting the Israelis? A Christian cannot support the slaughter of babies.’

Impact of Dawah and Grassroots Movements on Public Opinion

We saw Megan Rice convert to Islam. We saw Sean King convert to Islam. This was a result of dawah. The voice of the Muslims was spreading to new corners it hadn’t reached before. The result of dawah, of ordinary Muslims tweeting, sharing, raising their voices, and protesting, was that Biden began to fall in the polls. When Biden began to fall in the polls, it caused unease and concern among the Democrats. Blinken, instead of ceding to that concern, went to Tel Aviv to try and negotiate humanitarian troops in order to contain the potential rebellion taking place in America and change public opinion.

Not only that, but ordinary Muslims were encouraging people to boycott. We saw Moody’s downgrade Israel. We saw AXA leave Israel. We saw Itochu, a Japanese billion-dollar company, cancel its memorandums of understanding with the Israelis. We saw the Eilat port start to declare bankruptcy. Democrats began to feel, ‘Hang on a second, AIPAC is giving us money, but there’s a movement happening here. Something is changing. There’s a tide growing, fueled by scenes coming from Gaza and Palestine. This could potentially translate into an electoral matter that needs to be addressed.’

Zionist Lobby’s Calculated Gamble

What ended up happening was that people who voted for the Iron Dome and voted for weapons for the Israelis found themselves in the midst of a shift in public opinion, in the midst of a wave of Generation Z Americans—non-Muslim Americans—going from pro-Israel to pro-Palestine. We saw representatives adapt, saying, ‘I’m going to hold the stick in the middle. Israel has the right to self-defense, but maybe we need a ceasefire. Israel has the right to self-defense, but maybe we need to support UNRWA.’ Israel has the right to self-defense, but maybe…”

Zionists began to ask themselves the question: ‘Does power mean we can no longer tow the line of lobbying money?’ The power we are seeing means that politicians no longer feel secure in the money we are investing in them. The power we are seeing is making Jamal Bowman start to shake. It’s making Cori Bush become flaky. It’s making them shake despite the fact that AIPAC is a powerful lobbying group.

Zionists concluded that the money they are spending is not enough. Their concern among Democrats is no longer simply to ignore the voice of the people, but to prevent electoral losses. They are worried that if they don’t deliver, they will lose. They fear that people who vote against them will be the ones to decide elections, and that it’s better to preempt by calling for a ceasefire. Zionists took the challenge seriously because their lobbying power was being tested. When Jamal Bowman ran in the primary, Zionists needed to show the Democrats that when it comes to Israel, bending will not be tolerated. Power is emerging that cannot be taken lightly.

Zionist Lobby’s Fear of Losing Influence

Muhammad Jalal: Why should they worry? In terms of their track record, what makes them so powerful?

Sami Hamdi: Zionists believe that in every election, everyone they have supported has won, and everyone who stood against them has lost. But now, suddenly, people believe there is power to beat the Zionists. It’s no longer safe to hold the stick in the middle, to support Israelis while calling for a ceasefire. The Zionist lobby is spending 24 million dollars to topple Jamal Bowman, not because they particularly dislike Jamal Bowman, but to send a message to Democrats that even the word “ceasefire” is not tolerated. Anything that suggests you are against the Israelis is not tolerated.

We know that “ceasefire” is the word Muslims are moving on, that non-Muslim Americans are moving on, and that Gen Z is moving on. In the words of the ADL and the Israeli lobby, ‘We’ve lost an entire generation, and you’re worried Gen Z will punish you?’ Well, let me show you: Gen Z doesn’t vote, Muslims don’t vote, and angry people don’t move. What you need to be worried about is us. We’re the ones with the money to show that we can topple you.

They toppled Jamal Bowman. They toppled Cori Bush. When they toppled Cori Bush, AIPAC put out a tweet that said, “99 races run, 99 races won.” The message is one of betrayal and insecurity. They’re saying that the suggestion that anger results in people losing their seats is an exaggerated fear. It’s us you need to fear. Zionists know how to use the system to punish you. You guys are just shouting and screaming. You won’t organize. You shouldn’t be scared of them.

As a result, when Kamala Harris ended up winning the nomination, it was because the Zionists sent a message to the Democratic Party: Listen, you need to worry about us. You better not be scared of those guys who might punish you. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. But we will. The Democrats made a calculated gamble, and it was a simple one. The gamble was this: Do we support genocide, or do we risk offending the Zionists?

The Democrats turned towards the Zionists and found people of principle. They found Zionists saying, ‘If you dare waver in your support for genocide, we will punish you. We will topple Jamal Bowman. We will topple Cori Bush.’ Zionists don’t say, ‘Deliver an ally.’ They don’t say, ‘Bring someone else instead.’ They say, ‘Topple them. Punish them, and send a message to the new winner that if they dare betray Zionism, they will face the same fate as Jamal Bowman.’

The Democrats don’t have a policy. They are punishing Jamal Bowman, and the Democrats decided that offending the Zionists, who have shown they can punish, is a mistake. The Zionists have shown that they are willing to mobilize, protect their interests, and support a foreign land thousands of kilometers away. Muslims are saying, ‘Why mobilize over something that’s thousands of kilometers away?’ The Zionists are willing to mobilize over a land thousands of kilometers away. Are we?

They decided to offend people with principles rather than offend Muslims, whose community leaders were, just last year, siding with Trump and saying they wouldn’t abandon the Democrats. These are the Muslim leaders, and the Muslim community is the group that Democrats believe they can offend without consequence. They’re saying that Muslims are likely to forgive genocide, while Zionists will never forgive the cessation of genocide. Zionists will punish the Democrats, but Muslims will forgive them and say that the other side is worse.

Harris Wins, Zionism Wins?

Muhammad Jalal: That’s clear. It seems if Harris wins, Zionism wins.

Sami Hamdi: The conclusion for the Zionists is this: Will the Democrats offend them? The reason why Zionists are spending so much money is that Zionists are saying, ‘Hang on a second, the grassroots movement is shifting American public opinion. The grassroots movement is convincing elected representatives that Zionism is a political liability. How? A group organizes, registers, and then starts toppling candidates who supported genocide. The conclusion among representatives is: I lost my seat because I supported Israel.’

Muhammad Jalal: The Gaza vote.

Sami Hamdi: Yes, the Gaza vote. I lost my seat because I supported Zionism. Right. I lost my seat because I supported the Israelis. I gave them millions. I gave them funding. AIPAC supported me, but I lost to an unfunded movement, a grassroots movement where Muslims don’t normally vote, but this time, they voted. These are people who normally don’t vote, but they came out in large numbers, and they made sure that anyone who supported genocide would lose.

This makes a representative, the next time they sit down with AIPAC, say, ‘Hang on a second. The guy who held this seat last year in 2024 supported genocide. He took funding from you, thousands of dollars from you. He took your support, your lobbying power, but he lost to a grassroots movement. I’m sorry. I want to stay in power, but I can’t give you everything you ask for.’ This is what Zionists are worried about. They’re not worried about whether Kamala or Trump comes to power. They’re worried about the manner in which they lose.

They’re worried about the manner in which incumbents lose. They are convinced that Kamala and Trump are pro-Israel, but they are worried that Harris loses because she supported Zionism, and incumbents like Greg Landsman in Cincinnati, Ohio, or Adam Smith in Seattle will lose because they supported Zionism. The mantra in American politics has always been that until you support Zionism, you can’t win. Now, the equation is flipping completely on its head. It’s becoming: if you support Zionism, you lose because you provoke people who come out specifically to topple you.

Zionists are spending money on this. This is why they’re spending unprecedented money. Muslims are saying, ‘What’s the point?’ while Zionists are saying, ‘This is an existential crisis for our lobbying power. Our lobbying power rests on the belief that we are invincible.’ Zionists don’t challenge Rashida in her state. They don’t challenge Ilhan in her state. Why? Because they fear losing. They know that if they lose, they lose their 100% track record. They rely on a 100% track record, and for the first time in American history, their 100% track record is under threat.

Tight Elections and Minority Voting Power

Precisely because the election is tight, precisely because the election is going to be decided by one or two percentage points, it’s the Muslim populations in swing states and non-Muslims who have become pro-Palestinian through dawah by Muslims elevating Palestinian content. When you’re talking about 100,000 people or less having the ability to swing Michigan one way or the other, it doesn’t mean they have to vote for Trump. They could even vote third-party, which we’ll probably get into later on. That’s the crux of the issue.

I’ll finish this point, Jalal. It’s not just about who comes to power in November. It’s also about which people lose in the presidential election and subsequent congressional elections. Zionists are worried about whether Trump or Harris wins, but they’re even more worried about incumbents losing because they supported Zionism. Zionists are backing Harris. But if an incumbent loses because they supported Zionism, it doesn’t matter how much support they give to Israel in the next four years. In two years’ time, when it’s time for congressional elections, representatives will sit down with AIPAC and say, ‘I’m sorry, I can’t give you everything you ask for because supporting Israel made the guy last year lose.’

That’s what Zionists are terrified of: the idea that supporting Israel might lead to electoral defeat.

Muhammad Jalal: I’d like to echo, at least question, the point of argument about whether Muslims really have the power in swing states. I mean, Muslims on paper, I think, make up a maximum of three or four percent of the population in, say, Michigan or Pennsylvania. It’s around two percent. As you go down the list—Arizona, it’s half a percent. I mean, these are small numbers in comparison to, say, constituencies in the UK, like Bradford, where you have 50 percent of the voters being Muslims. Do they really have a disproportionate impact, as you say, here?

Sami Hamdi: When you look at the polls, you see Harris with 48%, and Trump with 47%. Or Harris with 51%, and Trump with 49%. Or Trump with 51%, and Harris with 49%. We’re talking about one or two or three percentage points. The margin of difference is one, two, or three percent.

The Critical Role of a Tight Election

The reason why the power suddenly exists is precisely because the elections are tight. In Nate Silver’s words, it’s unpredictable. It’s unclear who’s going to win. That’s how tight these elections actually are.

In 2016, the reason Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump was that a third-party candidate called Jill Stein secured 1.07 percent of the vote. That’s just one percent. Someone might ask, ‘What’s the point of one percent?’ But in that tightly contested Trump-Hillary election in 2016, that one percent taken away from the Democrats made Hillary Clinton lose. She blamed Jill Stein and the Green Party for making her lose against Donald Trump.

When we’re looking at the numbers, we might think, ‘What’s one percent? What’s two percent? What’s three percent?’ It’s precisely because it’s such a tight race that outside influences matter. It’s precisely because it’s a knife-edge election. You see, when you look at the Muslim community, and I’m not talking about the community itself, but Muslim influencers—journalists, let’s call them—we won’t mention names out of respect. When I see them respond on Twitter, they say, ‘Muslims, Muslims, vote Harris. The other side is going to be worse.’

Ask yourself this question: What is their concern? Why are they speaking in panic mode, trying to convince Muslims to vote Harris? It’s because they themselves acknowledge that, despite being a small group, with two or three percent of the population—two percent, 1.7 percent, or whatever—they believe that these people are able to swing the election.

When Kamala Harris appoints an Egyptian American to win back the Muslim vote, it shows that Kamala Harris is aware that every vote counts in this election. Every single vote counts when the election is decided by a knife’s edge in swing states.

Donald Trump vs. Kamala Harris: A Strategic Debate

Muhammad Jalal: You mentioned the mayor of Hamtramck, Michigan, who is out. He’s the first Muslim mayor in the country, if I’m not mistaken. He supports Donald Trump. Sami, are you calling on Muslims to vote for Donald Trump in the next election?

Sami Hamdi: Put simply, no. I’m aware of the debate within the Republican Party and how it’s changing. I’m aware that Tucker Carlson, who is considered by the New York Times to be an influential right-wing pundit, has made statements against Israel. I’m aware that Candace Owens, almost overnight, has been attacking Israel, which she wasn’t doing before. I’m aware of Thomas Massie, who’s increasingly brave in calling out Israel. I’m aware of this change in the Republican Party, and I believe Muslims should engage with it in the spirit of dawah.

Now, when I say “dawah,” I don’t mean the Dajjalic version of dawah, but spiritual dawah. I mean dawah in terms of conveying the message of Muslims to the Republican Party. The issue of a Yemeni-American endorsing Donald Trump is unique to the Yemenis for a number of reasons. First of all, the Yemenis are bitterly upset that Biden took the Houthis off the terrorist list. I know people are celebrating the Houthis because they say, “Sami, avoid controversy.” But let’s face it: Yemenis are upset because the Houthis keep marching from Saada in the north toward Sana’a, claiming the land belongs to Abd al-Malik al-Houthi and Badr al-Din al-Houthi. The Houthi family believes they have the right to rule Yemen, and that’s their doctrine. That’s what the Yemenis are upset about.

Yemeni Perspective on Trump and the Republican Party

Secondly, Trump’s administration was hard against the Iranians. Trump put the Houthis on the terrorist list, which was essentially a bullying tactic against the Iranians, who Yemenis believe are maligning their country by supporting the Houthis. Yemenis saw Iran’s influence in Yemen as malign, and they saw Iranian influence supporting the Houthis, especially when Iran sent its first ambassador to the Houthis after they took Sana’a. Yemenis feel that the Democrats betrayed them, betrayed Yemen, and betrayed their country. So, there is already an affinity with the Republican Party.

The second point worth noting is that Republicans have been doing outreach to Muslim communities privately over the past year. In contrast, the Democrats have alienated Muslims in Michigan with their stance on LGBT issues. The mayor in particular caught their anger when the LGBT movement wanted to force schools to teach LGBT issues. Muslim parents protested against this back in July, before the genocide began in Gaza. The parents said, ‘We don’t want this taught to our kids in schools. Our kids don’t need to be taught this.’ You’ll remember that Fox News gave positive coverage to Muslim parents protesting against this. The mayor got caught up in this well. He was upset by the imposition of the LGBT agenda.

The Democrats went hard against the Muslims on this issue, alienating them. Thirdly, if you listen to a video on Facebook, the mayor describes an interaction with Donald Trump. Trump invited him to speak on stage to endorse him. The mayor narrates the story, saying Trump’s team was upset about the donors. The donors were upset about people who support Trump, but Trump said, “No, it doesn’t matter. Let him speak. Let him speak.” The mayor says this gave him the indication that Trump was influenced by donors, not by ideological inclination.

Now, I’m not saying I believe that. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that this endorsement of Donald Trump and the Republican Party is not strange when it comes from a Yemeni. It’s not strange when it comes from someone who is aware of Iran’s malign influence in the region itself.

The second reason for Republican outreach is that the Democrats have alienated Muslims on the LGBT issue, ramming their agenda down the throats of Muslim parents, with no protection from the Democrats. Democrats are saying to Muslims, “Your vote doesn’t matter to us.” And Muslim parents are heartbroken over Gaza and are asking for the genocide to stop, but Democrats have said, “You have nowhere else to go.”

Muslim leaders are saying they won’t abandon the Democrats. But Republicans, unlike the Democrats, have done outreach. This country is burning, and Yemen is burning because of the Iranians. The Democrats are trying to go easy on the Iranians by going easy on the Houthis.

Comparing Biden and Trump: Who is Worse for Muslims?

People say the Americans are bombing the Houthis, but it’s not like that. And here’s the point. When Amir Ghalib, the mayor of Hamtramck, was asked, ‘Is Trump going to be worse?’ he made an interesting point. He said, “Say Trump is going to crack down on so-called anti-Semitism and pro-Palestinian sentiment.” But what is Biden doing today on campuses?

People say Trump is going to crack down on Palestinian voices in the media. But what are the New York Times and CNN doing today under Joe Biden? They say Biden or Trump is not going to allow voices in the White House from Muslims or Palestinians. But what voice has Biden allowed in the White House in regard to Palestine that has been taken seriously in any capacity whatsoever?

People say we’ll lose access if Trump comes to power, but what access have the Democrats offered us? What access have we had under the Democrats?

What benefit have they given to the 240,000 people who have been slaughtered? Slaughtered. The Wall Street Journal reports the Democrats’ conclusion, and Harris’s conclusion, is that there’s no hope for a ceasefire before the elections. We’ve given up on it. We’ve sent two aircraft carriers and troops to the Middle East to make sure Israel is able to conduct its operations in Lebanon as it wishes.

So, when people say it’s going to be worse, explain how Trump is going to be worse than what Biden is already doing. Again, I’m not saying to vote for Trump. I actually don’t believe that’s the best course of action. But let’s analyze the situation politically.

The Case for Third-Party Candidates: Jill Stein and Cornel West

Muhammad Jalal: Let’s talk options. There are probably two third-party candidates: Jill Stein and Cornel West. They’ve both supported the Palestinian cause and are strongly against Israel. Both of them, I believe, have Muslim vice presidents.

You’ve strongly supported the free Syrians in Syria, but Jill Stein was caught in controversy when Mehdi Hassan, during an interview, took her to task for comments made by a Green Party official that seemed to endorse Assad. In the interview, she looked fairly uncomfortable. She seemed caught up in a big issue that Muslims feel quite deeply about: the impact of the Syrian civil war that has killed large numbers of Muslims in the country. So, where does Jill Stein fit in? Is she imperfect? Is voting for someone like her—who does apparently have a problematic track record on Syria—weighing Syria versus Palestine?

Sami Hamdi: First of all, you’re correct. It’s not the case that I supported the Free Syrian Army. I supported the Syrians’ right to freedom and dignity, and I’m bitterly upset by what happened. I felt it was tragic that their right to freedom was denied by international powers who set a number of conditions. They said, ‘Syrians don’t fulfill these conditions, so we’d rather let the Russians bomb Syria into oblivion.’ That’s the context.

Regarding Jill Stein’s interview, it certainly appeared to be a car crash when Mehdi Hassan attacked her. But the issue here is that, while she may have looked uncomfortable, what was impressive is that Jill Stein responded the next day. Again, I’m not endorsing anyone, but when community leaders expressed their upset with her, she issued a statement calling Bashar al-Assad a criminal and Putin a criminal, and she even added Bush and Obama to the list.

The point is this: while the Democrats are not listening to the community on genocide, no matter how much you shout or protest, they’re ignoring you. They won’t even allow pro-Harris Arab representatives to speak on the DNC stage about what’s happening in Palestine. They’re shutting the doors. Jill Stein, on the other hand, opened the door. She was willing to clarify her position. She may have been misunderstood before, but the fact is she’s willing to listen to the community and adapt accordingly.

That’s why, when you mentioned the point about Cornel West and Jill Stein appointing Muslim vice presidents, it shows that these parties are willing to listen. That’s the issue here: parties willing to listen and believe in the power of the community.

Breaking the Two-Party System

The Democrats don’t believe in the power of the community. They’re not willing to listen. They’re not willing to use the power that Muslims have because they think there’s nowhere else for Muslims to go.

Secondly, let’s discuss the concept of voting for Jill Stein or Cornel West. It’s not about endorsing a particular candidate. For me, it’s about this: the reason why Zionists are worried—aside from the fact that the invincibility of the Zionist lobby is under threat—is because the two-party system in America could be broken in November. Let me explain what I mean. By law, if a party gets five percent of the popular vote nationwide, they are entitled to federal funding and state funding for future subsequent races.

One of the reasons the Democrats sued Jill Stein in different states to get her off the ballot is precisely because of this reason. The Democrats are concerned. They’re not worried that Jill Stein will win. They’re not worried she’ll beat Kamala Harris. They’re worried that she’ll take votes away from the Democrats, which would help Trump. But they’re also worried that Jill Stein will pass the five percent threshold and become the second liberal party, a second Democratic Party. That breaks the two-party system.

It creates a third way. It’s not always beneficial for Muslims, but it does break the duopoly that exists in the United States. When we calculate, there’s a real possibility here. Assume Muslims are two percent of the population. I read an article about Sheikh Omar Suleiman, where he was pictured with Obama, Bush, and others. That suggests the community is starting to recognize its influence.

Now, let’s assume the remaining one percent of Muslims vote for Jill Stein. Let’s suppose Cornel West withdraws and gives his one percent to Jill Stein. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s possible. Now we’re talking about a potential five percent of the vote going to Jill Stein.

If Jill Stein gets five percent, it doesn’t matter if Trump or Harris wins. The news will be that the two-party system has been broken, and Zionism broke the two-party system. The AIPAC lobby, in trying to push its maximum limits and forcing people out, broke the system that was supposed to work for them.

If Jill Stein passes the five percent threshold, she becomes a recognized party entitled to federal funding, allowing her to seriously compete with the Democrats in the future. That’s the point.

Why the Democrats Fear a Third-Party Rise

The reason the Democrats sued Jill Stein in New Hampshire and in different places is not that they thought Jill Stein would win. They were worried a third party would emerge. It’s irrelevant whether the party supports Muslims or not. What’s clear is that Muslims, along with their non-Muslim allies, have the ability to break the two-party system by creating a third way.

Let’s say it’s a fifty percent chance that Jill Stein passes the five percent threshold. I’m not endorsing anyone. I’m analyzing. If Jill Stein gets five percent, we’ve broken the two-party system. If Harris loses because she supported Zionism, the support for Zionism breaks the two-party system.

Jill Stein passes the five percent threshold. It’s not federal funding that matters; it’s the fact that state law grants access to state funding for parties that achieve two to five percent of the vote, varying by individual state. That’s why Democrats sued Jill Stein. They weren’t worried she would win; they were worried she would break the system and create a third-party alternative. And whether or not that party supports Muslims isn’t the immediate issue.

What’s clear is that Muslims, along with their non-Muslim allies, can change the dynamics of American politics. They can, by strategic voting, break the two-party system, and there is real potential for this. We don’t need 10 or 15 percent of the vote—at least 50 percent of the popular vote for Jill Stein would be enough to break the two-party system and create opportunities we’ve never had before.

That’s why Zionists are terrified. Their worst-case scenario is that Harris loses because she supported Zionism, and the incumbents lose because they supported Zionism. Even if they support Israel with everything they’ve got for the next four years, representatives will say, “Look at the president who lost because of Zionism. Do you want to lose like her?”

That’s why Muslims have an opportunity to break Zionist invincibility. They have the chance to prove that supporting genocide can’t guarantee success anymore, and they have the chance to help Jill Stein or other third-party candidates reach that critical five percent.

Muslims can break the duopoly in America, and that’s why we’re at a crucial juncture. Zionists are trying to scramble, trying to hope that minority groups don’t move. And that’s why I say: don’t rescue Zionism in November. Zionists are terrified. The worst-case scenario for them is that Harris loses because she supported Zionism. If incumbents lose because they supported Zionism, even if they give everything to Israel for the next four years, that doesn’t matter.

The Impact of Breaking Zionism’s Invincibility

Sami Hamdi: What matters is the message that supporting Zionism will cost you your seat. That’s why Zionists are terrified about this election. They know that this could break their 100 percent track record, and they’re pouring money into the election to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Muhammad Jalal: You’ve made the argument that Muslims really have the power to swing these elections in swing states. But you’re also calling on them to possibly bear some temporary pain if the worst-case scenario happens. What if Trump turns out to be worse for Muslims domestically? Are Muslims in America ready to bear pain for their Palestinian brothers and sisters?

Muslims’ Perception of Power and Inferiority Complex

Sami Hamdi: I think it’s less about whether they’re ready to bear pain and more about whether they believe they have power. There is an incredulous disbelief among Muslims that they actually have power. We have been raised with an inferiority complex. The Ummah feels defeated because the caliphate fell, and that’s where we begin our history. We look at the fall of the caliphate and say, “It’s a disaster.” But we don’t tell people that the British couldn’t capitalize on their victory in Egypt and were kicked out 30 years later. We don’t tell them that the Italians couldn’t stay in Libya and were kicked out after 40 years.

We tell the Ummah that it’s losing, but we don’t tell them that colonial powers were kicked out, and that the Ummah never lost. In reality, the Ummah fought back and kicked out these powers. Islam is the fastest-growing religion, and that’s the reason for Islamophobia. It’s not because of Hinduism or Buddhism; it’s because Islam is entering homes and flipping hearts. And when people see the truth, they embrace it.

The problem is that we’ve developed a mentality of inferiority. It’s not about whether Muslims are willing to bear pain; it’s about whether Muslims are willing to embrace the power that Allah has given them.

Jalal, the entire point of this podcast is to show why opportunities are available now and why suddenly it’s possible for Harris to lose because she supported Zionism. Why is it possible for Zionism to be defeated suddenly? It’s because the Ummah moved. When the Ummah moved, raised its voice, and elevated the voices of Palestinians, it showed Americans what was happening in Palestine. When ordinary Muslims went out and spoke about the horrors, shared images, and gave dawah, the algorithm picked up Palestinian content and delivered it.

Dawah and Its Impact on Non-Muslims

The dawah touched the hearts of Americans, and people flipped. This is the fulfillment of the verse:

فَإِذَا الَّذِي بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَهُ عَدَاوَةٌ كَأَنَّهُ وَلِيٌّ حَمِيمٌ

(“But when you treat your enemy with kindness, they will become like your close friend.”)

Allah says, push back with what is better, and those who are enemies today will become like close friends. People who were pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian became pro-Palestine after hearing dawah. And we’ve seen non-Muslim Americans start to advocate for Palestinians, and that’s a result of the Ummah moving.

The Ummah moved, and it created an opportunity to break the two-party system and the invincibility of Zionism. But the issue is, the battle isn’t over yet. That’s why the Zionists spent $24 million to topple Jamal Bowman. They’re reacting to pressure, and the Zionists are panicking. They believe that neither Harris nor Trump can reverse the breaking of their invincibility.

Muslims are feeling tired, but they don’t realize that it’s the Zionists who are truly panicking. It’s the Zionists who believe that they’re in an existential crisis. The Ummah has moved, and that’s why we approach November in this crunch time. We need to keep pushing, keep moving, keep mobilizing, and keep planning.

That’s why, when people ask me, ‘Who do I endorse?’ I’m not endorsing anyone. I’m saying, look at what the Zionists fear. They fear breaking the two-party system and Jill Stein getting five percent. So, let’s give her five percent. They fear breaking Zionism’s invincibility, so let’s break it. They’re worried about an existential crisis for their lobby because they see the tide turning. Let’s not rescue them.

Final Thoughts on the Future of Muslim Voting Power

Muhammad Jalal: Jazakallah khair, Sami. Thank you for your time today.

Sami Hamdi: Wa iyakum, Jalal.