OPINION & EDITORIAL
Muslim representation vital for Congress
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Andy Granias:
- Masculinity ideal in need of review (December 6, 2007)
- Legal prostitution: Logically sound, ultimately amoral (December 4, 2007)
- Merry 'Santa-mas' to you (November 29, 2007)
- Discovery highlights moral, scientific boundaries (November 27, 2007)
- Does race matter in sports world? (November 12, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Everyone deserves to unite (September 18, 2001)
- Reflections on a tragedy: Where are we after 9/11? (September 11, 2003)
- Bush U.N. nominee religiously unique, has same old ideas (January 18, 2007)
- Kavanah seeks dialogue (November 17, 2006)
by Andy Granias
Thursday, January 18, 2007
If you were to pick three words to capture the political zeitgeist of the post-Sept. 11, 2001 era, what would they be? I would go with something like “Muslim,” “American” and “conflict.”
Now, if you were to pick three words that capture the mood of the conservative response Jan. 4, when Keith Ellison, D-Minn., became the first Muslim to be sworn in to the House of Representatives — doing so with the Quran nonetheless — what would those words be? I would go with something like “Muslim,” “American” and “conflict.”
You see, the significance of Ellison becoming the first Muslim to be elected to the House of Representatives is monumental along two different fronts in American society. The first is that Ellison’s election is quite possibly the most significant symbol of American democracy at work since the 1916 election of Jeanette Rankin, R-Mont., when she became the first woman to serve in Congress. With nearly 5 million Muslims in the U.S., a population greater than that of Jews or any other religious group other than Christians, the moderate majority voice of Islam finally has a significant representative in the Western world, and it couldn’t have come at a more vital time.
But the second and more socially exposing aspect of Ellison’s monumental position is the underscored misunderstanding of said moderate Muslim voice that prevails among many in the conservative coalition of this country. And the frontrunner, the commander of this fleet of false impression, is U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va.
When it became clear that Ellison would be sworn in using the Quran, the first to do so in American history, Goode sent out a public letter that stated that Ellison’s taking oath under the Quran was a dangerous threat to “the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America.” But nothing could be further from the truth. Except maybe what conservative columnist Dennis Prager said when he wrote: “If American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran.” Close, but no cigar, Mr. Prager. Try if American citizens don’t wake up and realize the importance of electing more Muslims to Congress, then we will have lost a fundamental aspect of our democracy: that of representation.
What Mr. Prager and Rep. Goode have highlighted is a common misconception that Islam and its followers are more prone to fundamentalist tendencies than those who follow more “traditional values and beliefs in the U.S.” (We call these people Christians.)
The funny thing is that the terminology of religious fundamentalism was born from Protestant Christianity. It arose in this country when Protestants aimed to halt the seeming monopoly that science was claiming on truth by reverting to the fundamentals of the religion, which manifested itself in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Religious fundamentalism was therefore born, and remains still, as a reactionary position. It is a position no more prone to one faith over the other. You must understand, Commander Goode, that Islam is fully American.
The most glaring evidence of this reality conveniently arose during the swearing-in ceremony of Ellison — also Minnesota’s first African-American representative — when he used Thomas Jefferson’s 1764 copy of the Quran that had been translated into English. This was not only a savvy political move but also a meaningful reminder to all those who may have lingering confusion about the place of religious freedom in American society. After all, Jefferson did originate from Albemarle county of Virginia’s 5th Congressional District, currently represented by none other than Mr. Goode.
When commenting on the use of Jefferson’s Quran, Ellison accurately relayed a fundamental truth — not a fundamentalist truth — that has so often eluded a conservative faction of this country for far too long. When swearing in with Jefferson’s copy he said, “It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran.”
Andy Granias (agranias@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies.
Anonymous (January 19, 2007 @ 12:03pm):
Might want to do a little more research. The American Jewish community numbers are around 6 million.
Anonymous (January 19, 2007 @ 3:31pm):
Excellent article Andy Granias!!!
Laiq Chughtai
BSEE Class of 1998
Anonymous (January 19, 2007 @ 4:22pm):
not after we start electing muslims into office
Anonymous (January 19, 2007 @ 4:30pm):
United States' future is bright when Andy Granias' are born and raised. Generations to come will regret that we did not nip in the bud the evil of bigotry & hate. A shame that the civil rights movement, and the reparations for the internment of Japanese Americans was so easily forgotten. Hope it is a wake up call to not be ruled by fear and hate mongerers; to return to respecting human rights & values, the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, and the charter of the United Nations. Syed Khan.
Anonymous (January 19, 2007 @ 4:55pm):
"Thomas Jefferson's 1764 copy of the Quran"
You mean the copy he studied to understand our Muslim enemies at that time? Ever heard of the "shores of Tripoli"?
I wonder what old Tom would think of the use of his book to swear in a traitor who yearns to destroy the republic and replace it with a Caliphate?
Anonymous (January 19, 2007 @ 7:03pm):
The muslim community numbers around 10 million in this country. Otherwise, great article.
Anonymous (January 19, 2007 @ 7:39pm):
The Muslims STILL extort money and they STILL take slaves.
It didn't start with Bush - it won't end when he's gone.
***
They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
Anonymous (January 20, 2007 @ 1:22am):
That was refreshingly practical. Thanks
Anonymous (January 20, 2007 @ 6:36pm):
I wonder if Muslim pirates will start to raid Europe again. There won't be many ships afloat to stop them if they try.
Reversing Lepanto would be a goal, I presume. At least they won't need galley slaves. On the other hand, I understand blondes go for high prices in the Middle East slave markets. I wish I were making that up.
Anonymous (January 22, 2007 @ 11:12am):
Letting a Muslim swear in on the Koran? By that right, we should let a Nazi swear in on Mein Kompf.
Anonymous (January 22, 2007 @ 12:28pm):
By the way, why are we swearing on Bibles? Isn't this a secular country? Perhaps we should 1) swear on the Constitution and 2) actually read the Bibles instead of using them in ceremonies or 3) not swear at all.
"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." James 5:12
Anonymous (January 22, 2007 @ 4:02pm):
"Letting a Muslim swear in on the Koran? By that right, we should let a Nazi swear in on Mein Kompf."
Yeah, not really. Besides, a Nazi would still swear on the Bible, since they're all about the pure white Christian "race."
"I wonder what old Tom would think of the use of his book to swear in a traitor who yearns to destroy the republic and replace it with a Caliphate?"
Nice dude. Because Muslim automatically = traitor. And because his whole platform was based on turning the country into a Caliphate. Remember, democracy survives on the ability of the people to elect leaders, and any American "caliphate" would require the consent of 51% of us. That wouldn't even pass in Madison. Idiot.
Anonymous (January 22, 2007 @ 4:12pm):
I'm confused. A few people here are either great at satire or just plain creepy.
Anonymous (January 22, 2007 @ 5:38pm):
Nobody swears in on anything. Congressmen and women are sworn in en masse where they all raise their right hands together and take their oaths. The Quran, Bibles, etc., are only for photo ops.
Anonymous (January 22, 2007 @ 11:23pm):
Regardless, muslims are not needed in Congress at all
Anonymous (January 29, 2007 @ 7:45am):
As one who has a degree in political science with many international law courses thrown in during my course of study, I would hope that you also plan on taking some history courses to not only learn what happened, but why it happened.
Your last paragraph indicates that you might have a future as a speech writer - one who writes statements for people to say, but there is no opportunity to question their true knowledge and understanding of what they say. This is what Ellison did.
Has anybody had the opportunity to ask him about his knowledge of events between the late 1700's and the early 1800's?
Has anybody had the opportunity to ask him of his thoughts on why Jefferson studied the Quran after a Muslim ambassador told him their religion allowed them to kill and enslave non-Muslims?
As a pure fact, Jefferson did have a Quran that he studied.
Why did he study the Quran?
With Jefferson as president, 200 years ago our nation was in the midst of it's first war with Muslim nations - the Barbary Coast consisting of Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco and Tunis. Before he became president, Jefferson called for war with these nations to stop their piracy and slave trading. Using their religion as an excuse, the nations of the Barbary Coast viewed all non-Muslims as sinners and, therefore, to be sought out and either killed or enslaved, explaining that their conduct was founded on the Laws of their Prophet. Jefferson, and John Adams, heard this first hand from a meeting with the ambassador of the Muslim nations and reported it to John Jay, secretary of foreign affairs in 1786.
Not until Jefferson became president was he able to enforce his policy against paying tribute (i.e. extortion and ransoms) to the Muslims. When he stopped the payments, they declared war on the United States. During this time is when the slogan "Millions for defense but not one cent in tribute" was first used.
Reading the many documents and papers in the Library of Congress will give an insight into Jefferson's reasons. It will also give an insight into the actions and reactions of his political opponents, some in his own party, who were against the war.
Surprisingly, it sounds very much like the current political situation.
Many students, fresh into their higher education, view the world as if everything can work the way it should. This is not a real life fact. Lack of life's experiences can be tempered with a good of knowledge of history because, yes, it does repeat itself.
This response has nothing to do with the issue of whether Ellison had the right to use the Quran during his ceremony. What I want to point out is that inferring that Jefferson only studied the Quran because he was religiously tolerant is disingenuous at best. And, yes, Jefferson did gain knowledge and wisdom from reading the Quran - after he learned it was the basis for attacks on non-Muslims. He viewed them as an enemy.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
