The news that Representative-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) plans today to take an informal Congressional oath of office on a copy of the Qur'an once owned by Thomas Jefferson might seem surreal to those who cannot imagine that the Founding Fathers had anything but a passing familiarity with the religion that so dominates political discourse in 21st century America. Ellison's specific choice of Qur'an was meant to highlight the relationship that Islam and Muslims have had with the United States since its inception, as well as the place that Islam's holy book had with one of the most respected leaders of early America.

Adorned with his initials, Jefferson's Qur'an - an 1764 English translation from Arabic by George Sale - was purchased and used during his comparative legal studies, and was sold to the Library of Congress after the War of 1812. Sale, while clearly distancing himself from Islamic theology in his commentary (the translation Ellison will take his oath on calls the Prophet Muhammad a "criminal... imposing a false religion"), also states that "the praises due to his real virtues ought not to be denied him" and that Islam had no better or worse a historical record than Judaism or Christianity.

And despite public opinion about Islam at the time (which differs little from Sale's professed negative statements), Jefferson explicitly referenced Islam in his support of Virginia's Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1786, where he praised its protections of "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and the Infidel." Early American writings show Jefferson wasn't alone. "It is clear that the Founding Fathers thought about the relationship of Islam to the new nation," writes James Hutson, Manuscript Division Chief for the Library of Congress, "and were prepared to make a place for it in the republic."

One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and a colleague of Jefferson, Pennsylvania's Benjamin Rush, wrote that he would "rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." "If we may openly speak the truth," wrote John Locke wrote in his influential Letter Concerning Toleration, "neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion."

An important point to note is that regardless of personal opinion about the religion of Islam, neither politician nor citizen during America's founding would countenance the exclusion of Muslims from American political or civic life. During the formation of the United States, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being debated at both the state and federal level, opponents of religious freedom statutes cited the fear of a Muslim being elected to office ("As there are no religious tests, pagans, deists and Mahometans might obtain office," argued Baptist Rev. Henry Abbot during North Carolina's debate), but thankfully the other side prevailed.

"In the course of four or five hundred years I do not know how it will work," countered North Carolina Provincial Congress member William Lancaster. "This is most certain, that Papists may occupy that [government] chair, and Mahometans may take it. I see nothing against it."

This just goes to show that people like Goode (who was the first to complain about Ellison's use of the Quran) do not even know their own history! If Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers of the United States were open-minded, when it comes to diversity of religions, then what can this fool Goode say now? Im sure he will come up with something, but it's important to note, that all congressmen and women are sworn in without ANY book, and are only asked to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. The use of a Bible, Quran or any other religious book or text is just for the "in-formal" and private ceremony for the respective congress people. I applaud Congressman Ellison for responding intelligently to the vicious and stupid attacks by Islamiphobes like Goode!

Perfect writeup! This issue is quite sensitive: some in the US think Ellison *might be* a frontman for World Islamism, while some Muslims think he *should be* a frontman for World Islamism. However, there is no evidence that he is either. I am pleased to see an emerging fusion of our American and Islamic cultures and Ellison's use of Jefferson's copy of the Quran is an absolutely excellent symbol of this fusion.

The truth about oaths

Use the Bible, the Quran, or nothing at all? The dust-up over the first Muslim congressman sheds light on what it means to be an American.

By Jonathan Turley

The newest member of the Minnesota delegation, Keith Ellison, would appear to be the very model of a god-fearing congressman whom conservatives have longed for. Yet Ellison has been denounced as a constitutional blasphemer after discussing his upcoming oath of office. The problem was not with Ellison's oath, but with his god ó Ellison is Muslim (our nation's first in Congress) and intends to use the Quran today to pledge to serve faithfully before Allah.


Judging from the outcry, one would think that Ellison wanted to use the January edition of Penthouse. America's permanently angry class of religious zealots has organized protests. Some have called for a law requiring that all members use the Bible ó regardless of whether they believe a single word in it. They do not expect Ellison's conversion, they just want him (and presumably the two new Buddhist members) to pay tribute to their faith system.

President Bush has not addressed the controversy, even though it was started by one of his appointees ó a rabid talk show host named Dennis Prager whom Bush appointed to the prestigious United States Holocaust Museum Board.

"Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned," Prager wrote, "America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

Bush's silence is curious given his tireless campaign against "Islamofascists," extremists who seek to force people to conform to their Islamic faith. In this age of hyphenated fascism, what do we call Jews or Christians who want to force non-believers to swear to the Bible? Judeo-Christofascists?


Of course, the comparison with Islamofascists might not be fair ó to Islamofascists. Take the quintessential, Bush-certified Islamofascist regime of Iran. Under Article 3 of the Iranian Constitution, "members representing minority religious groups will take the oath mentioning their own holy books."

It appears that though the Iranian government denies the Holocaust and calls for the eradication of Israel, it views Prager's idea of requiring people to swear to someone else's faith to be ... well ... extreme. (Iran's parliament has had a Jewish member, Morris Motamed, for years ó though the Jewish population is about 25,000 out of 70 million). Various experts on Iran told me that such tailoring of oaths to religions goes back to early Islam. Indeed, Tehran University professor Hossein Bashiriyeh explained that "an oath taken with a holy book other than one's own cannot be religiously and morally 'binding.' ... In effect it will amount to not taking an oath at all."

Nevertheless, last year, a North Carolina judge ruled that a Muslim would have to swear on a Bible rather than a Quran. His reason was a 1777 oath statute that referred to the use of "the Holy Scriptures" to guarantee that anyone lying would be "justly deprived of all the blessings of that holy book." Since Muslims are not seeking "the blessings of that holy book," it was the ultimate triumph of form over substance.

To their credit, various Jewish groups and leaders have denounced Prager, who is Jewish, as a bigot. The Anti-Defamation League called his views "intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American." (On the defensive, Prager recently suggested that he might accept Ellison's use of the Quran if he also brings a Bible "to honor it.")

Yet many leaders have supported Prager.

Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., even used Ellison as a lesson on illegal immigration. (Ellison was born in Detroit and converted to Islam in college.) Referring to "the Muslim representative from Minnesota," Goode stressed that "if American citizens don't wake up and adopt (my) position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran."

The powerful American Family Association has called for the use of the Bible for all members of Congress. AFA President Tim Wildmon explained that the Quran "represents a change in our society, our culture" if it is to be treated "as equivalent to the Holy Bible." In perhaps the only point of universal agreement, Wildmon noted that, "If calling the Bible superior to the Quran in American tradition and culture is intolerant, then I'm guilty."

Prager was equally unapologetic, dismissing the Quran as if it were some book-of-the-month selection: "Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is."

About that oath

Both Prager and his allies show how intolerance is often based on ignorance. First, all members are actually sworn in at the same time using a generic oath that ends with "so help me God." The Bibles are pulled out for a later, purely ceremonial event for some members. Second, if Wildmon's law were passed, it would clearly violate Article VI of the Constitution, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Third, it is entirely untrue that, as Prager claims, the use of a non-Bible would be "the first break of the tradition of having a Bible present at a ceremony of installation of a public official since George Washington inaugurated the tradition." Presidents such as John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover opted not to use the Bible (Adams used a legal book). Franklin Pierce declined to take a sworn oath at all and instead simply affirmed. Likewise, other members have foregone the Christian Bible. As recently as 2005, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., used a Tanakh, a Hebrew Bible without the New Testament, to be sworn into office.

Nevertheless, Prager insists "if Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9/11." Another possibility: that Prager and his allies are doing the greatest damage to the unity of America by fostering religious divisions and promoting prejudice as principle.

Just as fascism is the ugly face of nationalist politics, Judeo-Christofascism is the ugly face of faith-based politics. When Ellison takes the oath with his hand on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Quran, he will reaffirm our most basic values as a country and, in a single elegant moment, defeat those who use but do not live the tenets of faith.

The "swearing in with a holy book" is more a photo-op for the newly elected member. The main swearing in is not done with any book but the raising of the person's right hand and taking their oath of office.

I know there are groups in the US that desire this country to become Islamic i.e. The Muslim American Society, members of CAIR, and the Islamic Circle of North America. However, I see nothing "sinister" in Mr. Ellison desiring to have his photo-op using a Qur'an. The man is a muslim. It seems silly at best to require him to use a book that is not of his faith. Jewish members have used the Torah and Mormon members have used the Book of Mormon and other members have used nothing at all.

As long as the man does his job to represent his constituents and uphold the Constitution of the United States and our principles, that is what matters, not what book he uses in his photo-op.

ND

Very intersting article. If Keith Ellison was elected in Jefferson's day (not that that would have happened) I think the outrage would be more directed at the color of his skin than his religious persuasion. This seems to argue more for a pluralist relgious society where all religions are expressed and celebrated. Its unfortunate that there is a lot of hostility towards religion in general these days, which is not to say that 'religious' people haven't earned some of it. But as a muslim when I see people fighting to take crosses out of public places in the name of their unconstitutionality I am not so sure I agree with that. Although i am open to argument. I think a blow against any religion as a blow against all religion, and if desacralizing the world and its many diverse traditions is considered the way forward i'm not sure I like where it is going.

In that respect I appreciated Jefferson's appreciation for traditions that weren't his own. These days many people seem to feel it is better to be raised without any religion rather than with a religion. I tend to disagree, and am more inclined to agree with Jefferson.

Caveats! I am not baiting anyone. This is an honest question.

Do Muslims need to take a new name when they convert? Or can they keep the old name? I ask because most celebrity conversions involve a change of name also (Cassius Clay to Mohamed Ali; Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam etc..) For that matter even ordinary people change names when they convert.

Did Rep. Ellison choose to keep his name because it would affect him adversely in politics? Being a realist I can imagine many people who voted for him not knowing he was a Muslim. I wonder if he would have won the party nomination if he had been named with an obvious islamic name.

There is no rule that says you have to change your name when you become muslim. The Prophet (P) used to have people change thier names only if they were demeaning or denoted some sort of idol worship. Many people choose to change thier name as a way of asserting thier new faith but they are not compelled to.

IT seems far fetched that many voting for Keith Ellison would have not known he was Muslim because his opponents used every opportunity to use his faith against him.
Most of the Muslim converts that I know (including myself) chose not to change their names when they embraced Islam.

Can honest questions justifiably be ask of Ellison? Like if he would like to see Sharia Law in the United States? I have debated this with a member of the Nation of Islam HERE
and he just seemed to leave the debate. Maybe some of you can help me have a better understanding and let me know where I am wrong. Thank you all and may God bless you.

"Would you like to see Shari'ah Law in the United States" is a loaded question. This is like me asking a Christian if they would like to see all Muslims convert to Christianity and throw away their Qur'an. Both questions have a "yes, but" situation. Would a Muslim like to see the worldwide population embrace Islam and be saved? Of course, but not as an assertion of dominance. Does any rational Muslim realize that this simply won't happen and that democracy is also a very wonderful system that has desireable qualities and should be protected? I would have to say yes.

Don't compare Kieth Ellison to the Nation of Islam. the NOI has never represented Islam but rather an African-American movement. Consider Malcolm X, who changed from a NOI cronie to a true Muslim who lost his life for his beliefs.

I was just saying that someone from the Nation of Islam was debating me on the post I that I posted. Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding.

I am a muslim and I don't want Shariah law in the United States. Shariah law is not meant to be some static set of rules that are to be thrown in any context anyways, though regretfully many muslims conceive of it as such. The Shariah laws you have in mind (the hudud laws) are very similar to the rules in the Old Testament anyways and there are countless people that wish to implement those Old Testament laws. Should we assume everyone swearing on the Bible wants to stone adulterers and kill homosexuals and apply all sorts of particular laws to women who are menstruating? Is it the phrase "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars and God's what is God's assuage that fear?" as you claim If so, why doesn't the Quranic phrase "Let there be no compulsion in Religion" give you the same degree of solace?

ah, my apologies. Sometimes I perceive a challenge when there is none. NOI isn't worth the eartime and they have never made their points very powerfully.

Kieth Ellison identifies himself as an American before he identifies himself as a Muslim, but sees his election as an opportunity to bridge the gap. His performance as a political entity? I do not know.

""Would you like to see Shari'ah Law in the United States" is a loaded question. This is like me asking a Christian if they would like to see all Muslims convert to Christianity and throw away their Qur'an. Both questions have a "yes, but" situation.

Your characterization isn't correct. Shari'a law embeds discriminatory practices against Christians, Jews and other religions, such as special taxes, and it also strips the property rights of those of different religions. For instance, according to Shari'a law, property belonging to a Christian may be sold to a Christian or a Muslim, but property once owned by a Muslim may not be sold to an "infidel." These kinds of rules act as a "compulsion" over time, especially among poor, ordinary folks.

There are many other examples, but clearly Shari'a law is incompatible with Western (classical) liberality. I'm not sure that any but the most fundamentalist Muslim would want to live under strict Shari'a law., just as only a tiny fanatical minority of other religions want to live by the strictly interpreted rules of semi-nomadic sheepherders who lived 5,000 years ago.

Very good post.

Should we assume everyone swearing on the Bible wants to stone adulterers and kill homosexuals and apply all sorts of particular laws to women who are menstruating?

Please know that Christianity has anachronized large parts of the Mosaic law, especially the dietary and cleanliness laws. Essentially (and perhaps too simplistically), they argue that the death and resurrection of Jesus was a new convenant that superseded the older Mosaic convenant. The theological basis for this is found in the writings about Peter, the writings of Paul and the example of Jesus found in the Gospels. Thus, it is unlikely that devout Christians would espouse the views implied.

Often, non-Muslims and Muslims throw verses at each other. For example, the phrase "let there be no compulsion in religion" is then met with "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." As a non-Muslim I don't know which to believe because I don't have enough training and knowledge to ferret out the contextual or situational meanings of either. In other words, we usually don't know enough about someone else's religion to say truly what they believe or ought to believe and what they intend or ought to intend. Answering your questions more directly, this is why the phrase does not give many non-Muslims solace. It seems contradicted by other Quranic verses and, at times, by practices. (Here, I don't mean that it actually is just that to someone who is not versed in the religion it is difficult to reconcile.) In such situations, it is very difficult to determine which we ought to believe and therefore to take solace in it.

BTW,as an African-American I should say that the NOI has made many of its socio-political points rather powerfully. It is essentially a black nationalist organization in very poor religious garb. The people I know who have been associated with the NOI and moved on were folks who couldn't fathom the theology/mythology of the NOI (which differs markedly from Islam as such just read Malcolm X's autobiography) and who couldn't take the race-baiting that the leaders use to coat their social conservatism.

Kenya

Please know that Christianity has anachronized large parts of the Mosaic law, especially the dietary and cleanliness laws. Essentially (and perhaps too simplistically), they argue that the death and resurrection of Jesus was a new convenant that superseded the older Mosaic convenant. The theological basis for this is found in the writings about Peter, the writings of Paul and the example of Jesus found in the Gospels. Thus, it is unlikely that devout Christians would espouse the views implied.

I agree. In a similar fashion no serious scholar of Islam thinks muslims should continue collecting jizya. Although, I admit many people do not view Shariah in context and assume it is a static code that does not (or did not) and should not adjust to changing circumstances. Laws are always contextual. Quran and Sunnah are the basis of an entire legal tradition not the be all and end all of legal argument. I wasn't trying to imply that my rebuttal to markedmanner was complete or even intellectually honest. I was actually trying to demonstrate exactly what you point out. That "verse hurling" is not an honest way to debate. He claimed that the render unto caesar thing is why he does not fear a theological state. I don't think that is the case, I think that in the absense of that Bible passage he would still be very secure and unfearful. Jesus is also quoting as saying 'don't think I have come to make peace...' (I don't recall the reference but I could look it up). There is plenty of passages in any religious text that a determinsitic selective reading of could make you quite an unpleasant person.

I do disagree however that all Christians don't take Old testament laws seriously. Certainly the quest agaiinst homosexuality waged by the Christian Right has some inspiration from the Old Testament, or some other place in Christian Texts. Essentialism is the problem from both the side of fundamentalists and from those who pretend that everyone of a single faith hold the same views because of certain texts. Its just not the way humanity functions

Homosexuality is an interesting case, in that the fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists of all three Abrahamic religions agree that it is against scripture. According to the Creation narrative of the Old Testament, the normal, God-intended context and purpose for sexual relationships is between a male and a female in a committed relationship. This was codified extensively in Mosaic law, which further restricted proper sexual relations by prohibiting certain male-female relationships (between close relatives, etc.)

Paul reiterated this prohibition on numerous occasions in the New Testament, along with others. By this time, the Jews had been out of step with the dominant European (Mediterranean) culture for hundreds of years, as both the Greek and the Romans thought that male-male homosexuality was at least as good if not superior to heterosexuality. Paul was Greek-educated and a Roman citizen so it was clearly important to him that Christianity also conveyed a message of sexual morality that was part and parcel of the (to use a modern phrase) culture of life that defines Judeo-Christianity.

The point is that you don't have to be a fundamentalist to believe that sexual morality is demanded by the Torah, the Christian Bible and the Qu'ran and that this morality is very narrowly defined.