Evangelical Abhorrence of Muslim Politicians Contradicts Christian Values
By Dennis P. Allan
Jan/Feb 26
In the days after New York City Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic Primary, a predictable form of opposition emerged from white, conservative evangelical Christians. The criticism didn’t focus on Mamdani’s policy positions or leadership qualifications, exclusively. Instead, it centered on his Muslim faith and evangelicals’ self-generated distrust of Muslims holding political office in the United States.
“The canary in the coal mine is Democrats are going to double and triple down on an anti-civilizational agenda if we do not maintain Republican majorities and win in the future,” said Charlie Kirk, the late right-wing evangelical political commentator and leader of Turning Point USA. For Kirk, and other evangelical leaders, Mamdani’s victory signaled the beginning of the collapse of Western civilization despite Christianty’s non-Western origins. Little did they realize their own religion is Eastern, and that Jesus (‘alayhi as salam) was born in Bethlehem, which was not in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, or North Carolina, but the Bethlehem in Palestine.
Kirk’s reaction demonstrated a troubling contradiction at the heart of modern evangelicalism: the same Christians who celebrate stories of believers serving in pagan governments now insist that Muslim Americans cannot be trusted to serve in Western, democratic ones.
Diversity in Leadership in the Christian Bible
The Book of Daniel in the Old Testament directly confronts this idea. Daniel (Danyal; ‘alayhi as salam) was an Israelite exiled in Babylon who “so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom” (Daniel 2:48-49). Daniel didn’t share King Darius’ Persian cultural values. But it was because of Daniel’s integrity and effectiveness as a leader that Darius sought to appoint him to such an influential political position. Later, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and King Cyrus of Persia appointed Daniel to the highest levels of governmental leadership even though Daniel worshipped a different God.
When evangelicals read Daniel’s story today, no one thinks, “He shouldn’t have been allowed to lead because he didn’t properly worship Babylonian or Persian gods.” Yet, many evangelical Christians today look at Muslim political leaders like Mamdani, Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D. Mich.), all of whom have been duly elected by their constituents, insisting that they cannot be trusted because they’re not “properly” American.
This evangelical distrust of Muslim political leaders didn’t emerge out of nowhere. As historian Jonathan Tran wrote in his book, Asian Americans and the Spirit of Racial Capital (Oxford University Press, 2021), fears of foreign religious and racial infiltration have long plagued the U.S.. Writing about Chinese immigrants in the late 19th century, Tran noted, “Chinese infiltrators, many worried, could take advantage of the 14th Amendment to become citizens and use the 15th Amendment as a trojan horse in order to invade America from the inside, the two legitimating through enfranchisement what many feared could be a yellow invasion.”
The language has changed, but the fear remains. Many evangelicals believe that non-white, non-Christian citizens are seeking to use democratic processes to fundamentally transform the U.S. from within. On separate occasions, Kirk said, “We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the [Charlie Kirk] show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with Western civilization.” Then, more pointedly, “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.”
This kind of rhetoric legitimized anti-Muslim sentiment within conservative and evangelical Americans. But this fear is rooted in a foundational myth: that the U.S. was formed as a Christian nation and, to survive, it must remain one. This belief is historically and theologically flawed.
It can be argued that the U.S. is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values, but it was neither founded as a Christian nation nor intended to be one. The Constitution contains no reference to God, Jesus, or Christianity. The First Amendment explicitly prohibits the establishment of religion. And the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously ratified by the Senate, unequivocally states, “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
Neither is there a biblical mandate for Christians to create or maintain a Christian nation. God didn’t expect Daniel to create a theocracy in Babylon or Persia, and Jesus never instructed His disciples or followers to seek political power within the Roman empire. Instead, the biblical witness presents a different vision.
Honesty and Integrity in Political Leaders
The prophet Jeremiah (Irmiyā, or sometimes Armiya; ‘alayhi as salam) instructed Jewish exiles in Babylon, a pagan empire marked by idolatry and injustice, to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile” (Jeremiah 29:7). They were to participate fully in Babylon’s civic life, working alongside Babylonians for the common good, despite being religious outsiders. God didn’t tell His people to wait until Babylon became Jewish to participate in the nation’s governance. He told them to work for everyone in the city, right away and without conditions. And Joseph (Yusuf; ‘alayhi as salam) – who consistently maintained his Abrahamic faith – was put in charge of the food supply in Egypt by Pharaoh – who worshipped the diverse pantheon of ancient Egyptian gods – after interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams which predicted a severe famine (Quran Chap. 12 [Surah Yusuf]; Book of Genesis).
Similarly, Daniel served at the highest levels of government in both Babylon and Persia. He didn’t serve at those levels because he shared the empire’s religion, but because he was an effective political leader. The text emphasizes that other officials “could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent” (Daniel 6:4). Daniel’s religious difference wasn’t a liability to be overcome, and his character and competence made him invaluable.
If evangelical Christians take Daniel and Jeremiah’s examples seriously, which they claim to, then their response to Muslim political leaders should be clear. Christians should support any candidate, regardless of their religion, who demonstrates a commitment to the flourishing of all people, exhibits integrity in representing constituents, and pursues excellence in their work.
This isn’t a novel or progressive reinterpretation of the biblical stories. It’s a straightforward reading of them. Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus didn’t require Daniel to renounce his faith to be a trusted leader. Instead, they recognized his religious convictions strengthened his moral character and effectiveness.
It’s a profound irony. Evangelical Christians readily accept God used pagan kings like Cyrus, whom the prophet Isaiah refers to as God’s “anointed one” to accomplish God’s divine purposes for His people, yet these same Christians today cannot imagine God working through a Muslim American political leader elected by their fellow citizens. This inconsistency reveals that the objection isn’t about religious differences affecting governance. It’s about a racialized fear embedded in a false theological principle.
Jesus himself modeled a radically inclusive approach to evaluating people. When a Roman centurion, a military officer representing an occupying force, came to Him for help, Jesus didn’t demand the centurion renounce Roman power or convert to Judaism. Instead, He marveled at the centurion’s faith and declared, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith” (Matthew 8:10). It’s notable that Jesus praised the character and faith of someone many of His followers would have considered their enemy.
This is the ethic evangelical Christians are invited by Jesus to embody. They should evaluate leaders, regardless of religious background or affiliation, based on the same criteria the biblical authors use. Are the candidates people of integrity? Do they seek the welfare of all their constituents? Do they do their work with excellence and without corruption?
The idea that Muslim political leaders inherently threaten American democracy is not only historically ignorant, but also theologically bankrupt. It contradicts the very biblical narratives evangelicals claim to revere and seek to uphold.
Diverse Representation for a Diverse Country
For everyday citizens to flourish in a diverse democratic society, we need leaders of integrity from multiple religious traditions. As such, Christians should support and advocate for political candidates who demonstrate a commitment to justice, exhibit personal integrity, and pursue the common good. And it should not matter if these leaders are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or practitioners of any other faith.
Evangelical Christians who oppose Muslim political leaders simply because of their religion aren’t protecting the U.S. or defending the faith. Instead, they’re abandoning the biblical witness in favor of racism and fear. They’re choosing to exclude instead of embracing the biblical invitation to seek the welfare of the city alongside neighbors of all backgrounds.
The challenge before evangelicals in the U. S. is whether they will trust the Bible’s own examples or continue clinging to a Christian nationalist mythology that Jesus himself would almost certainly reject. Will they recognize that, as Daniel’s story demonstrates, religious difference doesn’t disqualify someone from excellent public service? Will they acknowledge that the same God who worked through Persian kings can work through Muslim city council members, state representatives, members of Congress, and even New York City mayors?
Evangelical Christians claim to follow Jesus and submit to the Bible’s authority. If that’s true, they must reject fear-driven opposition to Muslim political leaders and instead champion the Bible’s own standard that any leader who serves with integrity, works for the common good, and pursues justice for all people is worthy of support.
Anything less betrays both the biblical witness and the democratic ideals many evangelicals claim to cherish.
Dennis P. Allan is a pastor at Garden City Church in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He studied theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and is a 2025 Public Life Fellow at the Center for Christianity and Public Life in Washington D.C.
Want more like this? Subscribe to the Islamic Horizons magazine and support authentic journalism by Muslims for Muslims.