n the wake of 9/11, a narrative emerged that continues to haunt global politics—a narrative that divides Muslims into two categories: the “good” and the “bad.” But what if this binary is not only false, but deliberately constructed?

That is the bold argument presented by Mahmood Mamdani in his landmark book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. More than a critique of media stereotypes or foreign policy missteps, Mamdani’s work is a piercing examination of how the West has manufactured cultural divisions to justify geopolitical ambitions.

Published in 2004 but still deeply relevant today, the book challenges readers to ask uncomfortable questions about how terrorism is framed, how violence is explained, and who gets to define morality on the global stage.

“The distinction between ‘good Muslim’ and ‘bad Muslim’ is not grounded in faith,” Mamdani writes. “It is rooted in politics.”

A Convenient Distinction with Deadly Consequences

In the post-9/11 world, the “good Muslim” is someone who condemns violence, embraces secular values, and aligns with Western interests. The “bad Muslim” is anyone who resists, critiques, or opposes this order—whether violently or peacefully.

This binary, Mamdani argues, is deeply misleading. It functions less as a reflection of religious belief and more as a political litmus test.

“The good Muslim is a Muslim who is silent, submissive, and obedient,” he writes. “The bad Muslim is defiant—even if he’s peaceful.”

This distinction, he notes, allows governments and media to treat political dissent as cultural deviance. It transforms complex struggles for justice into simplified tales of religious extremism. It also provides ideological cover for wars, invasions, and surveillance programs that have devastated entire regions.

The Cold War Roots of Modern Terror

Mamdani doesn’t begin with Osama bin Laden or 9/11. Instead, he goes back to the Cold War—particularly to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

During the 1980s, the United States, along with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Saudi Arabia, funded and armed the Afghan Mujahideen to fight the Soviet Union. These fighters, often motivated by Islamist ideologies, were celebrated in the West as heroes of freedom.

By the 1990s, many of those same fighters had morphed into the Taliban and other militant groups. The West’s former allies became its enemies—but without acknowledgment of the role played in their rise.

“Terrorism did not descend upon the world like a storm,” Mamdani writes. “It was manufactured—in part by American foreign policy.”

This, he argues, is the missing historical context in mainstream discussions of political Islam. When Muslim violence is presented as timeless and cultural, it erases the strategic decisions that enabled and empowered it.

Culture Talk vs Political Thinking

One of the central concepts Mamdani introduces is what he calls “culture talk.” This is the tendency to explain political violence in Muslim societies through cultural or religious terms, while explaining Western violence as strategic or unfortunate necessity.

For example, when a suicide bombing occurs in a Muslim-majority country, it is often attributed to religious fanaticism. When a drone strike kills civilians, it is explained as a tragic but rational error.

“The West’s violence is political; the Muslim’s violence is cultural,” Mamdani observes. “This is the double standard that shapes our world.”

This framing, he warns, not only distorts reality—it dehumanizes. It paints entire populations as threats, obscures legitimate grievances, and legitimizes endless cycles of war.

Colonial Shadows in Modern Policies

Mamdani draws a direct line from the colonial past to the present. Just as colonial rulers once divided subjects into “loyal” and “disloyal,” today’s global order divides Muslims into “good” and “bad.”

Both divisions serve the same purpose: control.

This logic underpins many modern policies, from travel bans and surveillance to military interventions and drone warfare. The presumption is that Muslim behavior must be monitored, managed, and—if necessary—corrected by force.

Even in Western democracies, Muslims are subjected to loyalty tests. They are expected to publicly denounce terrorism, to explain the actions of strangers, and to constantly prove their worth as citizens.

“The war on terror has become a war on political agency,” Mamdani argues.

What We’re Still Not Willing to Face

Despite its publication over two decades ago, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim remains chillingly prescient. The same tropes and policies it criticizes are still in operation—from Gaza and Afghanistan to Europe and North America.

And while public debates about Islam and terrorism have evolved, Mamdani’s core warning still resonates: we have not truly reckoned with the political roots of the crisis.

“Until we begin to think politically about political violence,” he writes, “we will remain trapped in a false moral drama.”

That false drama continues to play out on our screens and in our policies. But as Mamdani reminds us, there is an alternative: honest history, moral consistency, and a politics that treats Muslims as citizens, not caricatures.