“Do not elect him because he is a Muslim.” An analysis of Abdul Rahman Al-Sayyid’s situation and the attacks he faces in the congressional elections

Analysis by Ofoq News colleague, Stephen Collinson - The argument that Republicans are making against the election of Abdul Rahman Al-Sayyid to the Senate almost amounts - in a dangerous way - to saying: “Do not vote for him because he is a Muslim.” The vitriolic rhetoric directed against the Democratic candidate in Michigan is some of the most discriminatory - some call it intolerant - in any recent election.

The goal pursued by US President Donald Trump, Republican Party candidate Mike Rogers, and even Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno seems clear. Namely, the portrayal of Abd al-Rahman al-Sayyid as “un-American” and unfit to hold public office, in a pivotal electoral race that may determine which party will have the majority in the Senate. This strategy increases the intensity of polarization in an electoral race that is also affected by other factors, including: Trump’s low popularity, the high cost of living, and the trade war with Canada, which has severely harmed border states such as Michigan, as well as divisions within the Democratic Party between the moderate movement and the progressive movement.

However, the unpleasant nature of the competition for the Senate seat in Michigan is more than just a close election race with high stakes; It is consistent with the rhetoric and practices of a president who - in one of his first official steps during his first term - sought to impose a travel ban on Muslims, and when he refers to his predecessor in the presidency, Barack Obama, he always makes sure to mention his middle name, “Hussein.” Trump often resorts to escalating cultural, religious and racial rhetoric at the most critical political moments - as is the case now, with the possibility of Democrats winning a majority in Congress.

In essence, this approach aims to portray those who do not subscribe to the Make America Great Again movement's beliefs, or do not identify with its beliefs or the majority white race, as less "American" or lacking an authentic American identity. This method, as applied in the case of “Al-Sayyid,” is more than just an electoral tactic aimed at intimidation; It represents a challenge to constitutional principles, and reveals a deep gap between the Trump movement and those who adopt a more moderate and mainstream vision of religious and ethnic diversity, and its essential role in shaping American identity.

Trump's comments about Al-Sayed range from personal insults, mockery of the Islamic faith, and resorting to stereotypes about it. This implicitly affects every American who embraces this religion. Trump described Al-Sayed as a “jihadist,” claimed that his presence in the Senate - if elected - would require the use of metal detectors. He also deliberately distorted his name, sometimes calling him “Muhammad” and at other times “Abdul Ramadan.”

Trump seems to link being a Muslim with Islamist terrorism, and the president returned to one of his repeated sayings, which claims that minorities view politics through a unilateral racial or ideological lens. He said on Thursday: “If you are black or Jewish, and you vote for Abdul (Abdulrahman al-Sayyid), you are crazy.” Rogers is keen to avoid insulting Islam in general, noting that he wore the US Army uniform to protect the freedom of Muslims to practice their religious rituals as they wish.

In his discussions, he focused on Al-Sayyid’s political affiliations, without mocking his name or his belief. But in their last confrontation during an election debate, Rogers claimed that Mr. had links to the Muslim Brotherhood - an Egyptian Islamist group - and questioned his loyalty, asking him: “Are you with America, or with these terrorist groups abroad?”

Moreno abandoned any pretense of propriety; On Wednesday, he went beyond the false allegations that Al-Sayed might be a terrorist or sympathize with terrorists, going so far as to demand that he be banned from holding any public office simply because he converted to Islam. “This person, Abdul Rahman Al-Sayyed, should under no circumstances approach Washington, D.C.,” Moreno said during a campaign rally in support of Trump in Ohio.

He added, asking: “Do you think he realizes the fact that our rights are derived from God Almighty, and that Jesus came for our salvation?” Then he continued, saying: “He has no place in Washington, and Mike Rogers (the Republican Party candidate) will teach him a harsh lesson on Tuesday.”

Article VI of the Constitution states: “No religious test shall ever be required as a condition for holding any public office or employment in the United States.” The First Amendment states that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

Unlike El-Sayed, Moreno was not born in the United States; He is a citizen of the United States and is originally from Colombia. However, he implied that the Michigan Senate candidate does not deserve the same rights because he is not a Christian.

Such a proposal could also lead to the exclusion of Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists - all of whom are currently represented in Congress - from serving in government positions. The Constitution and Rejection of Religious Rule (Theocracy) Corey Brettschneider, a professor at Brown University and host of the “Oath and Office” podcast, believes that the rhetoric directed against Al-Sayyid carries troubling constitutional implications. “When you claim that we cannot trust Muslims, and you claim that El-Sayed, unlike others in Congress, must undergo a metal detector to enter the House, this is nothing more than imposing a religious test for public office,” he says.

Moreno sympathizers might point to the word “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, to claim that the Founding Fathers — many of whom were believers — viewed the emerging United States as an officially Christian nation. But Brettschneider points out that George Washington and other Founding Fathers took specific steps to ensure that the country would not adopt an official religion.

Bretschneider adds: “I do not believe that Jefferson, who was one of the main drafters of the Declaration of Independence, was a Christian nationalist. The framers of the Constitution and the Constitution itself explicitly reject Christian nationalism; it is a categorical rejection of religious rule (theocracy).”

It is appropriate to ask Al-Sayed questions about his position on the Muslim Brotherhood, and about his other positions related to foreign policy that many Americans oppose. Also, left-leaning parties - in the United States and abroad - sometimes did not recognize the concerns of voters who feared that their traditions would be exposed to pressures as a result of immigration or the diversity of their societies.

Such failures have created political space for populists like Trump. However, much of the Republican Party's rhetoric went beyond the usual limits of accountability in election campaigns, ignoring important contexts related to Al-Sayed's past.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a transnational Sunni Islamic organization, founded in Cairo, Egypt. Republicans seized on old social media posts, written by Al-Sayed's half-sister, indicating that their mother — who left the family early in Al-Sayed's childhood — had been active in the group during the 1970s.

In 2011, El-Sayed wrote an article for HuffPost in which he argued that the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in Egypt — rather than its harsh military rulers — might lead to better results than many had expected. This came in the context of the “Arab Spring” uprisings, when authoritarian regimes across the Middle East were crumbling, and long-persecuted opposition forces, such as the Brotherhood, emerged as potential alternatives.

After the overthrow of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during the Arab Spring uprisings, the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood won democratic elections, and Mohamed Morsi assumed the country's presidency. Then, there was a sudden hope that freedom would flourish in Egypt.

But Morsi's rule ended amid widespread protests that broke out over his economic reforms, and he was later removed. For its part, the Trump administration classified some branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations, based on their support for Hamas, among other reasons. But the complex context is often missing from the debate raging in Michigan.

Because many voters are unfamiliar with the history, Republicans could use the Brotherhood as a vague symbol for groups from the Middle East, in a way that appears threatening. Al-Sayyed smashes questions about dual loyalty During a public meeting earlier this month, Al-Sayyed rebuked one questioner for assuming that “by virtue of being a Muslim, I might be motivated by loyalty to something other than our Constitution.”

He added, "For me, this constitution is a beacon that lights the way." This heated controversy comes in light of the political turmoil that the American arena witnessed against the backdrop of Israel's response to the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of about 1,200 people in Israel.

Tens of thousands of Palestinians were killed, along with a large number of movement members, during military operations. At the same time, many Democrats and Republicans alike are concerned about El-Sayed's positions on Israel and his call for a change in US foreign policy toward the Jewish state.

However, a new opinion poll conducted by the Ofoq News Network, in cooperation with the SSRS Foundation, on Thursday, raises questions about the effectiveness of the attacks directed against him in a state that includes a large Muslim minority, especially in light of indications that the Democrats are lining up behind Al-Sayyid after primary elections that were characterized by intense competition. The poll showed him ahead of his rival, Rogers, by 49% versus 42% among potential voters.

Voters in the state of Michigan will decide, on Tuesday, whether Al-Sayed will win a seat in the Senate, at a time when American voters in general are deciding whether the Democrats will maintain control of the Senate. But the election race in Michigan will leave scars; It has turned into a deeper conflict than just the usual differences between Republicans and Democrats, becoming an arena for a dispute over religious diversity, pluralism, and the constitution.

Ultimately, this race opened a new front in an enduring political debate: What does it mean to be an American?