When Mahmood Mamdani wrote his seminal book Good Muslim, Bad Muslim in the aftermath of 9/11, he had no idea that the political binaries he critiqued would one day inhabit his own family. Two decades later, his son Zohran Mamdani’s landslide electoral victory in New York seems to have reshaped the meaning of “good” Muslims.
For the senior Mamdani, being a “good Muslim” never meant being morally upright. Power was at the centre of his enquiry. It was about “culture talk,” a term he came up with to illustrate how Muslims are divided into categories of loyalty and threat by the West itself. The “good” were those who adhered to the logic and rationality framework of the West, seemingly compromising on many grounds. Those who resisted or refused to be domesticated were considered “bad.” However, his son is now living what he had hypothesised.
According to the senior Mamdani, as the West desired Islam without politics, religion itself became an apolitical issue. Religion loses its subversive edge as soon as it becomes apolitical. Resistance is easily labelled as fanaticism. When absorbed into consumerist culture, the “good Muslim” is exalted. Probably this is why the West developed a hierarchy of Muslim acceptability during the years of the US invasion of Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Qatar**,** and the United Arab Emirates were portrayed as the “good Muslims,” dependable oil and security allies. And the politically inconvenient were portrayed as “bad Muslims.”
The terms “good” and “bad” merely characterise geopolitical interests. Once, Tehran was an ally, but now it is a pariah. The same goes with Iraq. Even Osama bin Laden, once hailed as a Cold War asset, was later branded as the ultimate symbol of evil.
The same rationale rings true closer to home. This long-standing dichotomy is given an interesting twist by India’s covert cooperation with the Taliban. The Taliban must be the “good” Muslims**, then,** if Pakistan is the “bad” one.
Zohran Mamdani is also the subject of a litmus test: What kind of Muslim is he? His religious identity is difficult to ascertain unless he claims it. His paternal ancestors were mercantile Khoja Shia Muslims who migrated to Tanzania and Uganda as part of the Indian diaspora. In orthodox interpretations of Islam, the Khojas (Nizari Ismailis) were often seen as pariahs within the fold of “good” Islam.
The senior Mamdani, one of the most influential postcolonial thinkers of our time, was born in Bombay, raised in Kampala and identifies himself as an agnostic. His mother, Mira Nair, a globally acclaimed filmmaker, practices yoga and moves fluidly across cultural boundaries. Born to a Hindu mother and an agnostic father, Zohran’s identity complicates inherited classifications. Does this mean that the West is happy with this identification? The Republicans categorically labelled him a “Jihadist” candidate for mayor.
From a geographical optic, the contradiction becomes even more complex. Many people in India consider Zohran to be part of the Indian diaspora, but his roots are actually in East Africa.
Now that his electoral triumph in New York brings a new grammar of politics, the old division between “good” and “bad” Muslims is losing ground, at least in the US. New York, once the epitome of the imperial gaze, today faces an unnerving paradox: a Muslim who succeeds within its democratic system and refuses to comply with its normative framework.
Zohran means “radiance” or “Venus” in Arabic — a living paradox that shines and burns in equal measure. In the imperial imagination, he is a sign of inclusivity and a shudder of uneasiness. However, the West doesn’t like his luminosity, though it places its faith in him. His take on the genocide of Palestinians is what they detest the most. The empire likes the light that bends to its medium, not the light that dares to pass through it.
The writer teaches at Central University of Jammu
