A Muslim elected to Congress? Many Muslim Americans have tried in vain to attain this elusive office, their efforts stymied for various reasons including weak campaign skills, lack of political experience, and continuing suspicion of Muslim American loyalties. But one Muslim politician has done it the hard (i.e. right) way - by working his way up the political ladder and building a wide constituency of supporters in his district - not just those in the Muslim community. With his endorsement last week by the Minnesota DFL (affiliated with the Democratic Party), two-term state legislator Keith Ellison is well positioned to succeed retiring Congressman Martin Sabo in Minnesota's heavily Democratic Fifth District and make history as America's first Muslim member of Congress. Running on a progressive platform that some liken to the late Senator Paul Wellstone, Ellison doesn't emphasize his Muslim faith, but he doesn't shy away from it either. "It's good for people to see a reasonable, moderate face of Islam," said Ellison, who has worked with the local Muslim community to promote civic participation. But despite the advantages of party endorsement and a favorable electoral demographic (the Fifth District is one of the most liberal districts in the US), Ellison still faces some obstacles in his road to Washington, DC. A few Democratic candidates who lost out on the DFL endorsement will run against Ellison in September's primary, and his Muslim faith coupled with his past participation in the Million Man March (along with, uh, a million other people) is already drawing attacks on right-wing websites. Ellison, however, remains unfazed while he hits the campaign trail. "I just started studying [Islam] and found it interesting," said Ellison of his conversion many years ago. "I lead my life in a way to not make religion a big deal."

Ellison's election to Congress would be one step in elevating the status of Muslims' political standing in the US.So that should be greatly encouraged and supported by broader Muslim minority.Yet, several other important issues remain, which call 2 attention implications regardg empwrmt of Muslims in particular, and more pluralism being expressd in the sharing of Amer political/decision-makg power in gen: 2 what extent would Ellison b scrutinized 4 any attempt or hint 2 identify w/his Muslim bckground as opposed 2 other politicians, candidates, & office-holders who more confidently do so?I would expect the scrutiny 2 b unfairly alot greater--& not just from extreme/far right-wing groups.Next,given the different characterstcs of various districts across US,2 what extent could Ellison's election, & actions while in pwr, provide 4 more momentum in gettg more Muslims representd in high office?I would imagine the pressure on Ellison 2 provide a good eg of Muslims 2 b great,and the stakes 4 the broader minority 2 b very high,even if he is seated in Congress.Still,im keepg my fingers crossed,& good luck 2 him.

Note: Im not suggestg that Ellison is not confident about his identity.What I meant 2 say was "more outwardly publicize or relate 2 his identity as others have done."

Also, basd on what im seeing so far, he appears 2 b makg impressive achievemts, but im still concernd about the other q's.

I 'm not sure that his identity is based soley on him being Muslim. Itspossible he sees his own identity as being American or Black American and that Islam is his religion, not necessarily his identity. That's why I don't believe Muslims should seek to become a political block like Jewish Americans have: its too narrow and even many American Jews refuse to take part in the identity politics that some members of thier communities try to foster and good on them for it.

Hmmm, maybe we should ask him? Shahed: do I hear and interview coming on :-) ?

I wouldnt vote for a candidate simply because he or she is Muslim. Congress is full of crooks, I wouldnt mind a couple of hundred Cynthia McKinneys in there. Just checked his positions on a number of issues, and he's spot on concerning Iraq and immigration but a little too left on cultural issues. But if right wing scum are after him, he must have something worth voting for.
Its going to be a tough balancing act, Ellison should most fear the Dems who are notorious for screwing over their own members (remember what Gephart did to the Maryati because of pressure from the ADL?).
I'm all for Muslim block voting as long as its for the right person. And no, Kamal Nawash does not count.

I think the best way a Muslim member of Congress could be of use to the Muslim community is to simply be a good and honest politician that works for the people. No need for special favors, etc. for Muslims. If Americans can see a Muslim doing his/her part to make life better for everyone, that will pay off in spades for the rest of us. That's all I hope for in the case of Ellison.

I definitely see ur pt, Shahed. I think there may b a contradiction in Amer pub opinon here,b/c many Congressmem do more actively emphasize their particularizd (political & other) id's & r rewarded as being 'good' 4 that in PR or campaign contrib, etc &(@least by constituents, supporters, and special interest groups & specializd PACs, esp this last catog,who dependg upon their strengths,may successfully reproject this on mainstream media which can amplify this greatly,as in the case of groups like AIPAC),while the scruntiny 4 any sense of being Muslim may b unfairly higher.4 eg, Im concernd about any mere attempt 2 reach out 2 Muslims would b interpretd as indicative of special favors.

I definitely dont doubt the ability of a constituency 2 put in Congress any person who demonstrates a good eg 4 them ovrall.But im concerned about standards that may b imposd on Mus/Arab candidates & officeholders, which r not on others--b/c of id/platform. 4 eg, in most cases,a candidate who identifies/d oneself as"pro-Israel" has/d had more success gettg 2 office or keepg it rather than one w/a more balanced platform/id, like one willing 2 talk openly about Pal rghts.This inspite of standard of just being a gppd candidate or officeholder.

I think the prospect of Ellison in congress does raise good (& tough) questions: whether or not to raise Muslim id/issues, whether or not 2 reach out publicly 2 Muslims.I can c argumts 4 & against (in terms of potential benefits & harms) on both 'whether' & 'not' sides, & im not sure which way would b better 4 Muslims ovrall. But I think initially there would b stronger sense 4 a more low-key approach 2 Muslim id.

here is a bit from his article on gay marriage, while problematic, i do like how he frames the issue: look we got more important things to worry about - seriously... i think the same could be said to the liberal/left end of the spectrum who've made gay marriage into a litmus test... most of his other stands very good. I'd vote for him.


"When the religious conservatives come knocking (and they will), inviting the Black church to join in the ecumenical multi-racial opposition to gay marriage, then I hope our ministers ask: "How does picking on gays help us to fight for justice, to set the captives free, to rebuild the wasted cities or to feed the hungry? Would a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage help us to welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, heal the sick, or visit those in prison? Will it save one heterosexual marriage? Will it cause one couple who is living together to go ahead and jump the broom?"

If not, then I hope our ministers tell the religious conservatives that we just don't have the time. We're busy."

Motazz, Senators and Representatives are elected almost always on domestic issues. I think it would be very unfair for the public to vote for an *American* politician based on his stance on a *foreign* issue. And I don't think that the citizenry put foreign issues high on the agenda when they are deciding who to vote for. Also, I think its unfair of the elites and perhaps a little inaccurate of us to say that being pro-Israel tilts the balance: many pro-Israel politicians loose seats because they failed to address consituents' interests. Being pro-Israel just means more money in thier campaign coffers; its never a guarantee. Thus, when you say
>>whether or not to raise Muslim id/issues
I would say 'No'. He will not be elected to represent Muslims; this kind of identity politics and a religio-ethnic spoils system it must produce is a sure way to destroy a republic. Let him vote with his conscious affected by his islamic principles, ethics and morals; nothing wrong with that. But, I'm curious as to what Muslim identity issues he should address? Domestic or would Muslims expect him to 'Free Palestine' and represent foreign Muslim interests? I think we have too many national organizations who represent foreign powers; we certainly don't need an elected official selling out America, too.

definitely, i agree that domestic issues should come first and foremost.

what i meant about muslim id issues was more about how it relates to domestic scene 1st & foremost. specifically, i meant (1) whether he could be able to use his electd position 2 show that it's okay that Muslims have now become more mainstreamed;(2) 2 use his position both symbolically & in practical ways 2 support Muslims that have been descriminated against b/c of clothing, in workplace,etc.

final pt, much of Amer pub is gen not very knowledgable about ME or doesnt care [until recently?]&much; of the views they get--esp in Pal-Isr conflict--is much more tilting 2wrds Isrli side.@ same time, much of this same discourse has led mainstream view projectd that Amer & Isr are 1 & the same thing in terms of interests and perhaps in terms of id.Theres also a danger in underestimatg the power of campaign contributions & soft money in creatg a greatly unequal playg field.Finally a number of candidates have been defeated primarily or prominent admin officials were forcd 2 step down in the past b/c they didnt espouse the mainstream view of conflict [which led 2 smear/harassmt campaigns against them, allegdly from the 'Lobby'].

So while Amercns do elect candidates 4 primarily domestic reasons,many of the office holders either pay very strong support to Isr explicitly or ignore Pal rghts,b/c .A gap has been creatd here which is 2 very large degree filled by groups like AIPAC.B/c of a mix of greater public's apathy ovr the yrs,lack of knowledg & imblncd media covrg/rhetoric--not 2 forget relative weakness of Mus groups--US has been 'sold out' 4 Isrli interests.Many more Congressmem have espousd mainstream position than very few who have done otherwise.That too is unfair & produces non-constructive policies that contribute 2 the envirnmt allowg backlashes 2 has hauntd us.Here is the dilemma: How do we correct this imbal,& seek more constructive for policy,w/o seekg 2 elect officials who would counter monopoly of pwr that pro-Isrli side has in both Congress & Executive?

b/c,it has been judgd by many of those electd that havg a pro-Isrli id isnt a liability but an enormous advantag while havg a more balanced view is a liability.

Critics of Isrli policy or defndrs of Pal rhts have also freqtly had the charge of "antisemtism" thrown @ them w/little or no discussion, a lot of charges thrown by mems of Lobby.And b/c racism is unAmerican,that charge can wreck political careers as well.& this isnt 2 say that some havnt said stupid things that can turn American public opinion against them.But 4 mem of Lobby 2 easily use this charge 2 automaticly stiffe debate ovr the conflict is not responsible either.

Obviously, in gen, tensions btwn interests that revolve around the domestic state of Muslims in the US & interests those same Muslims may have regardg foreign policy can, and probably do, exist--in part b/c in some ways, they r relatd, but also b/c in some areas they may b not. It is a matter of balance.But the imbalance I mentioned above makes this other balance btwn domestic & foreign interests.more difficult 2 pursue, b/c imagery of Palestinians does come back 2 haunt us thru potential harming effects of stereotypg, 4 eg.

>>whether he could be able to use his electd position 2 show that it's okay that Muslims have now become more mainstreamed

Yes, definately. I don't know whether it should be done subtly or if he should or should not explicitly mention this in press releases or speaches.

>>
2 use his position both symbolically & in practical ways 2 support Muslims that have been descriminated against b/c of clothing, in workplace,etc

I wouldn't see a problem with him initiating or supporting refinements to existing anti-discrimintaton laws; after all thats what law makers do. But, I hope that the organizations don't intend to use and abuse him to get access. But, as lobbyists for special interests, I would be surprised if they did not.

>>had the charge of "antisemtism" thrown @ them w/little or no discussion

...which is why I would advise him, if elected, to stear clear of the issue and maintain nutrality; I doubt he could change the debate all on his own and would simply end up reinforcing stereotypes about how Muslims would support foreign powers if/when elected.

>>How do we correct this imbal,& seek more constructive for policy,w/o seekg 2 elect officials

We DON'T! Until we have the financial resources to overcome pro-Israel lobbyists and make it worth thier while. Right now, with the WOT, this is absolutely impossible politically. In the same way, when American Jews were seen as foreign and "sneaky", they could never have had the cultural and political influence that they can employ now. In the same way, once Muslims assimilate and the WOT dies down, then maybe we can take our place in the American mainstream and show that our principles and ethics can benefit traditional Americana. But, not if we jump the gun...

I think the differences here can mainly be over one of approach. & i can c the pros & cons & the argumnts regardg both.

The danger in one approach is that if he does deal w Mus domestic issues & for policy openly, he will branded as an agent 4 for interests. Yet there is also danger that just the mere concern 2 avoid this happng--will promote unnecessarily a sense of 'self-censoring' or 'low keyness', while many others 4 the reasons I mentioned above will take opposite side b/c they r not likely 2 b seen as agents 4 forgn interests-- continuing an imbalance that further continues the conflict,which would not b good 4 America, esp since the conflict is 1 of the major factors makg that region unstable.Theres also the relatd question that 2 what extent this kind of potential 'self-censorg' or 'low keyness' could actually help advance or risk delegitmzg the mainstreamg of Mus [b/c 4 minorties, havg a mem from their community electd/appointd in high office can serve both as a symbol of their mainstreamg, & more importly as tool promotg & legitmzg their mainstrmg], even if he was stay clear of forgn issues?

Certly, he alone could not affect issues concerng Mus, but--despite warrantd awarness of doubt/skepticism-- i also wouldnt b quick 2 b dismissive of the powr of individual initiatives & despite that existnc of few Congrmem who challeng mainstream view and the pro-Isrli camp, they still exist and so there is some potential of formg partnerships 2 b more balancd.

U r rght in sayg that the prospect of Ellison's election raises some of the same kind of dilemmas that early American jewish leaders--in the relationships w Congress/ Executive/politcians, etc.--faced on how 2 approach tensions btwn their status of domestic standg & forgn policy interests, but im not sure 2 what extent Muslims will be similarly successful in domestic standg 1st and then manage 2 create or maintain momentum 4 the forgn policy issues later if they choose 2 follow their eg. b/c of the unique situation of imbalance expland by the factors such as the ones above.

Anyway, it is a dilemma & will require a lot of thought, strategy formulation, discussion, etc--and 4 now, what is important is the election phase.

As a Minnesota 5th district voter, I am trying to find out what Mr Ellison was doing in the Florida meeting referenced in the following link:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24954

Can someone provide information?

From what I've heard, Ellison is doing fundraising events around the country. My assumption is that the Florida meeting was one of those.

If fundraising, why was the meeting closed to the public? These are the kinds of suspicions we need to answer to and having facts will counter the negative sterotypes.

What I'd like to know is why in the world would anybody with half a brain cell link to an extremist hate site like "FrontPageMag" ? Horowitz is a certified judeofascist nutcase.

>If fundraising, why was the meeting closed to the public? <

You act as if this is something very new and peculiar. Both Dems and Repubs do it all the time so why are you so interested in Ellison doing one?