In politics, we often talk about “flip-flops.” But what happens when it isn’t just a shift in position, but a deliberate, duplicitous strategy of dissimulation — a kind of “live cover” for hidden intent? That is what we must call out when it arises. And in Zohran Mamdani’s recent maneuvering, we have a case study in how to localize the taqiyya — to bring that age-old tactic of concealment into our American political bloodstream.
Let’s start with his own words. During a mayoral debate, Mamdani was asked: Does he believe Hamas should lay down arms? To that, he responded forcefully, “Of course, I believe that they should lay down their arms.” Yet just one day earlier — in a Fox News interview — he declined to clearly endorse disarmament, saying he “doesn’t really have opinions about the future of Hamas and Israel beyond the question of justice and safety.”
That’s not mere ambiguity. That’s purposeful opacity. That’s how someone hides a more radical allegiance behind a mask of “neutrality” until the moment is ripe. Isn’t this exactly how an Islamist would practice taqiyya in the American system?
“Taqiyya,” in classical Islamic jurisprudence, is the doctrine by which a Muslim may conceal or deny true beliefs under threat or for strategic purposes. Historically, it served as a survival mechanism in hostile environments. But what happens when that principle is repurposed in politics? When stealth and deception become tools not to preserve life — but to seize power?
And make no mistake — the idea of “localizing the taqiyya” fits neatly into the broader campaign to “globalize the intifada.” One works from the inside out; the other, from the outside in. The first softens the culture, infiltrates the rhetoric, and blurs moral boundaries. The second mobilizes anger, chaos, and activism under the banner of “resistance.” Together they create a pipeline: deceit at home, destruction abroad. It’s the same ideology, just wearing different faces depending on which audience it needs to fool.
By “localize the taqiyya,” I mean importing that culture of concealment — of telling Americans only what they can hear — into the everyday political playbook. Craft your image, denounce violence, decry extremism, but leave open your back channels, your sympathies, your true intentions. Ensure that when pressed, you can pivot, blur, or “clarify” your stance — whichever is most advantageous at the moment.
Mamdani’s pattern fits this script. When openly asked on Fox whether Hamas should disarm, he withheld clarity. When cornered in a live debate, he delivered the “safe” answer. Is it a coincidence, or precisely how a practitioner of taqiyya would operate in a free society that prizes tolerance?
Ask yourself: when someone refuses to take a clear stand on disarming a terrorist organization, is that neutrality — or calculated concealment? When a candidate shifts from ambiguity to certainty overnight, is it honest evolution — or strategic unveiling? And when a public figure gives both answers in two days, which version should voters believe?
In Mamdani’s case, Americans got both versions: first the evasive posture, then the bold declaration. But which is the real one? Which is the mask — and which is the face? This isn’t about religion, ethnicity, or identity. It’s about tactics. The danger lies not in someone’s faith, but in their manipulation of faith as cover. We should fear not the radical who shouts his intentions, but the one who whispers one thing in public while believing another in private.
When a political strategy is built on concealment, it doesn’t risk votes — it risks the truth. It builds power not through persuasion, but deception. And that deception poisons democracy itself. So again — isn’t this exactly how an Islamist would practice taqiyya in the American system? Use ambiguity as armor. Use moderation as bait. Use moral confusion as camouflage — until the moment power no longer requires pretense.
The danger before us isn’t mere flip-flopping. Flip-flops can show growth. But the practice of taqiyya isn’t about growth — it’s about guile. It’s the act of looking you in the eye while hiding a dagger behind the back. It’s deception as doctrine, manipulation as method, and duplicity as the price of entry into power. Voters beware: what looks like moderation may, in time, reveal something venomous. When a candidate conceals his real convictions, you’re not watching a leader evolve — you’re watching a snake shed its skin.
“Localize the taqiyya”? No. Expose it. Don’t let deceit slither beneath your ballot.
© 2025 Kevin McCullough. Kevin McCullough is a syndicated columnist, broadcaster, and host of “That KEVIN Show” on Salem News Channel and the Salem Radio Network. Read more at Townhall.com and ThatKEVINShow.com.