A chilling scene unfolded at City College of New York, revealing a stark display of animosity during what was intended to be a multifaith dialogue. A student, identifying himself as an “imam,” ignited a walkout after vehemently objecting to being seated near a Jewish speaker.
The incident, meticulously documented by constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley, began with a furious outburst. Abdullah Mady, the student, publicly refused to share space with Ilya Bratman, an adjunct lecturer and director of Hillel at Baruch College, citing the ongoing conflict in Gaza and launching into a tirade against Zionism.
“I came here not knowing I would be sitting next to a Zionist, and this is something I am not going to accept,” Mady declared, his voice resonating with anger. He then issued a direct call to action, urging any Muslims present to leave the room as a demonstration of “strength and dignity.”
Approximately one hundred students immediately obeyed, abandoning the event in a coordinated exodus. The act wasn’t simply a protest; it was a forceful rejection of interfaith engagement, fueled by deeply held prejudice.
Mady’s rhetoric extended beyond the immediate situation, delving into the tenets of Shariah law. He advocated for punishments traditionally associated with Islamic social law, specifically calling for the amputation of the “tips of the hands” of those he deemed thieves.
He chillingly defined his targets: “the elite, the filthy rich, the ones that continue to steal from people.” This wasn’t a call for justice, but a demand for brutal, religiously-motivated retribution against those he perceived as economically unjust.
Turley observed a disturbing convergence of ideologies, noting how Mady’s extremist views intertwined with increasingly prevalent socialist rhetoric in New York City. This combination, he warned, presents a complex and potentially dangerous dynamic.
Mady’s vision of a Shariah-based system paints a stark picture of societal transformation. He envisions a world devoid of pornography, alcohol, gambling, and interest – but also, implicitly, one lacking fundamental freedoms like free speech, religious pluralism, and a separation of church and state.
The university has responded with an investigation, stating a “zero tolerance” policy for hate and bigotry. Officials pledged to take “all necessary and appropriate actions” to address the discrimination and its consequences, but the damage to the campus climate is already evident.
The incident has been widely described as a “Jew-hating tirade,” a stark reminder of the persistent undercurrents of antisemitism and extremism that continue to surface even within institutions of higher learning.
