The deeper question raised by the anti-Muslim attacks in Michigan’s Senate race

Jeff Kowalsky/AFP/Getty Images

The Republican argument against electing Abdul El-Sayed as a senator is becoming perilously close to, Don’t vote for him because he’s a Muslim.

Blistering rhetoric targeting the Democratic nominee in Michigan is among the most discriminatory — some would say bigoted — of any modern election.

The goal of President Donald Trump, GOP nominee Mike Rogers and now even Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno seems clear: Portray El-Sayed as un-American and unacceptable for public office in a key race that could decide the Senate’s majority.

The strategy is further polarizing a race also shaped by Trump’s unpopularity; soaring living costs; a trade war with Canada that hit border states such as Michigan especially hard; and splits between Democratic moderates and progressives.

But the ugly tone of the Michigan Senate showdown runs deeper than a single tight election with enormous stakes. It is consistent with the language and actions of a president who, in one of the first official acts of his first term, tried to impose a travel ban on Muslims — and who, when speaking of his first presidential predecessor, Barack Obama, rarely drops his middle name, Hussein.

Trump often seems to amplify cultural, religious and racial rhetoric at the most stressful political moments — like now, as he faces down the possibility of Democratic congressional majorities. Ultimately, it’s about portraying those who don’t share MAGA’s dogma, faith or majority-White race as somehow less authentically American.

This tactic, as applied to El-Sayed, goes beyond a campaign scare. It challenges constitutional principles and reveals a divide between Trump’s movement and those with a more mainstream view of religious and racial diversity and their defining role in US identity.

Trump’s comments on El-Sayed go from personal smears to mocking and stereotyping the Muslim faith — and, by implication, every American who shares it. He’s called El-Sayed a “jihadist”; said metal detectors would be needed at the Senate if he’s elected; and deliberately mangles his name as “Mohammed” and “Abdul Ramadan.”

Trump seems to be equating being a Muslim with Islamist terrorism. On Thursday, he returned to one of his frequent tropes — that minorities see politics through one exclusive racial or theological lens. “If you’re Black, or if you’re Jewish, and if you vote for Abdul, you’re crazy,” the president said.

Rogers is more careful to avoid maligning Islam generally, saying that he wore the uniform of the US Army to safeguard the freedom of Muslims to pray as they please. He’s stuck to questions around El-Sayed’s political affiliations, not mocking his name or faith. But in their last debate clash, Rogers said El-Sayed had links to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian Islamist group, and questioned his loyalties. “Are you for America, or are you for these terrorist groups overseas?” Rogers asked. El-Sayed has disavowed the group.

On Wednesday, Moreno stripped away all pretense, going beyond the false critique that El-Sayed may be a terrorist or a sympathizer to arguing effectively that he should be barred from office simply because of his faith.

“This character Abdul El-Sayed can be nowhere near Washington, DC,” Moreno said at a Trump rally in Ohio. “Do you think he understands that concept that our rights come from God almighty, that Jesus came here for our salvation?” Moreno added. “He should be nowhere near Washington, DC, and (GOP nominee) Mike Rogers is going to kick his ass on Tuesday.”

Adam Cairns/Columbus Dispatch/USA Today Network/Reuters

Saul Loeb/AFP/Pool/Getty Images

Article VI of the Constitution stipulates that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The First Amendment says Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Unlike El-Sayed, Moreno was not born in the US — he’s a naturalized citizen from Colombia. But he implied the Michigan Senate nominee does not deserve the same rights because he’s not a Christian. Such a view might also bar Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, all of whom are currently represented in Congress, from government service.

Corey Brettschneider, a Brown University professor who hosts the podcast “The Oath and the Office,” said that the anti-El-Sayed rhetoric has troubling constitutional implications. “When you are saying we can’t trust people who are Muslims and that he’s going to need to enter a metal detector — unlike everyone else in Congress — to get in, that’s nothing less than a religious test for office.”

Moreno’s sympathizers might point to the use of the word “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence to argue that the founders, many of whom were believers, regarded the new United States as an officially Christian nation. But Brettschneider noted that George Washington and other founders took action specifically to ensure that the country did not have an official religion. “I don’t think Jefferson, who of course is a primary drafter of the Declaration, was a Christian nationalist, and the framers of the Constitution and the document itself are explicitly anti-Christian nationalism. It’s a rejection of theocracy,” Brettschneider said.

Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images

It is appropriate for El-Sayed to be questioned about his attitude to the Muslim Brotherhood and to other foreign policy positions that many Americans oppose.

And left-of-center parties in the US and elsewhere have sometimes not appreciated the concerns of voters who worry that their traditions could come under pressure from immigration or the diversification of their communities. Such omissions have created political space for populists like Trump.

But much of the GOP’s rhetoric has gone beyond the cross-examination common in campaigns and ignores important context about El-Sayed’s past.

The Brotherhood is a transnational Middle Eastern Sunni Islamist organization that was founded in Cairo, Egypt. Republicans have seized on old social media posts from El-Sayed’s half-sister describing how their mother — who left in El-Sayed’s early childhood — had been active in the organization in the ’70s.

El-Sayed wrote an article in the HuffPost in 2011 arguing that if the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt, instead of its ruthless military rulers, the consequences could be more favorable than many people thought. This all came in the context of the Arab Spring uprisings, when tyrannical governments all over the Middle East were falling and long-persecuted opposition forces like the Brotherhood were emerging as alternatives.

After the toppling of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak in the Arab Spring uprisings, the Brotherhood’s political wing won democratic elections in Egypt under Mohamed Morsi, who became president. Hope suddenly rose that freedom would thrive in Egypt. But Morsi’s rule ended amid huge protests triggered by his economic reforms, and he was later ousted in a military coup. The Trump administration has designated some chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations, including over support for Hamas.

But the complex context is often missing in the Michigan furor. And since many voters are unfamiliar with the history, Republicans can use the Brotherhood as a vague proxy for Middle Eastern groups in a way that sounds threatening.

Bill Pugliano/AFP/Getty Images

In a town hall meeting earlier this month, El-Sayed rebuked a questioner for assuming “that because I am Muslim, that somehow I would have some allegiance to something that is not our Constitution.” He added, “For me, that Constitution is the guiding light.”

This heated debate also comes against the backdrop of the political tumult unleashed in US politics over Israel’s response to the Hamas terror attacks on October 7, 2023, that killed around 1,200 people in Israel. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have died alongside many of the movement’s operatives in the operation. At the same time, many Democrats as well as Republicans are uneasy with El-Sayed’s positions on Israel and his calls for a change in US foreign policy toward the Jewish state.

But a new CNN/SSRS poll Thursday casts doubt on whether the attacks are working in a state with a large Muslim minority and amid signs Democrats are uniting behind El-Sayed after a bruising primary. He led Rogers by 49% to 42% among likely voters.

On Tuesday, Michigan’s voters will decide whether El-Sayed wins a Senate seat as America’s voters decide whether or not Democrats will control the chamber.

But the race in Michigan will leave scars. It has turned into a deeper argument than the normal clashes between Republicans and Democrats, becoming a platform for a struggle over religious diversity, pluralism and the Constitution. Ultimately, it opened a new front in a perennial political question: What does it mean to be an American?

Jeff Kowalsky/AFP/Getty Images

共和党反对选举阿卜杜勒·埃尔-赛义德担任参议员的理由越来越接近于“不要投票给他，因为他是穆斯林”。

针对密歇根州民主党候选人的激烈言辞是现代选举中最具歧视性——有些人甚至会说是偏执性——的言论之一。

唐纳德·特朗普总统、共和党候选人迈克·罗杰斯，甚至现在的俄亥俄州参议员伯尼·莫雷诺的目标似乎很明确：在可能决定参议院多数席位的关键选举中，将埃尔-赛义德描绘成不爱国、不适合担任公职的人。

这一策略进一步加剧了选情的两极分化，而这场选战的其他影响因素还包括：特朗普不受欢迎；生活成本飙升；与加拿大的贸易战对密歇根州等边境州造成了尤其严重的打击；以及民主党温和派和进步派之间的分裂。

但密歇根州参议院这场对决的丑陋本质远不止一场势均力敌、意义重大的选举那么简单。它与这位总统的言行一脉相承。这位总统在其首个任期的首批正式举措之一，就试图对穆斯林实施旅行禁令；而且，在谈到他的首任总统巴拉克·奥巴马时，他几乎从不提及奥巴马的中间名“侯赛因”。

特朗普似乎经常在最紧张的政治时刻——比如现在，当他面临民主党可能赢得国会多数席位之际——放大文化、宗教和种族方面的言论。归根结底，其目的在于将那些不认同“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）运动的教条、信仰或白人种族的人描绘成某种程度上不够“美国化”的人。

就埃尔-赛义德而言，这种策略远不止是竞选造势。它挑战了宪法原则，并揭示了特朗普运动与那些对宗教和种族多样性及其在美国身份认同中所扮演的角色持有更主流观点的人之间的分歧。

特朗普对埃尔-赛义德的评论从人身攻击到嘲讽和妖魔化穆斯林信仰——并暗示所有信奉伊斯兰教的美国人。他称埃尔-赛义德为“圣战分子”；声称如果他当选，参议院就需要安装金属探测器；还故意将他的名字念成“穆罕默德”和“阿卜杜勒·拉马丹”。

特朗普似乎将穆斯林身份与伊斯兰恐怖主义划上了等号。周四，他再次老调重弹，声称少数族裔看待政治只局限于种族或神学视角。“如果你是黑人，或者你是犹太人，如果你投票给阿卜杜勒，那你就是疯了，”总统说道。

罗杰斯更加谨慎地避免对伊斯兰教进行全面诋毁，他表示自己身穿美国陆军制服是为了捍卫穆斯林自由祈祷的权利。他一直围绕着埃尔-赛义德的政治立场提问，没有嘲讽他的名字或信仰。但在他们上次的辩论中，罗杰斯指出埃尔-赛义德与埃及伊斯兰组织穆斯林兄弟会有联系，并质疑他的忠诚度。“你是支持美国，还是支持海外的恐怖组织？”罗杰斯问道。埃尔-赛义德已经公开否认与该组织有任何关联。

周三，莫雷诺彻底撕下了伪装，不再仅仅错误地批评埃尔-赛义德可能是恐怖分子或同情者，而是有力地论证了仅仅因为他的信仰就应该禁止他担任公职。

“阿卜杜勒·埃尔-赛义德这个人根本不配待在华盛顿特区，”莫雷诺在俄亥俄州的一次特朗普竞选集会上说道。“你觉得他明白我们的权利来自全能的上帝，耶稣来到世上是为了拯救我们吗？”莫雷诺补充道，“他根本不应该出现在华盛顿特区，（共和党候选人）迈克·罗杰斯周二会把他打得落花流水。”

Adam Cairns/哥伦布电讯报/今日美国网络/路透社

Saul Loeb/AFP/Pool/Getty Images

美国宪法第六条规定，“任何宗教信仰测试均不得作为担任合众国任何公职或公共职务的资格条件。” 第一修正案规定，国会“不得制定任何法律来确立国教，或禁止宗教自由”。

与埃尔-赛义德不同，莫雷诺并非出生于美国——他是哥伦比亚裔归化公民。但他暗示，密歇根州参议员候选人不应享有同等权利，因为他不是基督徒。这种观点也可能将犹太教徒、印度教徒和佛教徒（他们目前都在国会任职）排除在政府部门之外。

布朗大学教授、播客节目“誓言与职位”的主持人科里·布雷特施奈德表示，反对埃尔-赛义德的言论具有令人担忧的宪法意义。“当你说我们不能信任穆斯林，而且他（埃尔-赛义德）需要通过金属探测器才能进入国会——这与国会其他所有人不同——这无异于对议员进行宗教信仰测试。”

莫雷诺的支持者可能会指出《独立宣言》中使用了“创造者”一词，以此论证建国者们（其中许多人是信徒）将新生的美国视为一个官方基督教国家。但布雷特施奈德指出，乔治·华盛顿和其他建国者采取了明确的行动，以确保国家没有官方宗教。“我不认为杰斐逊——他当然是《独立宣言》的主要起草人之一——是基督教民族主义者，而宪法的制定者和《独立宣言》本身都明确反对基督教民族主义。这是对神权政治的否定，”布雷特施奈德说道。

Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images

对埃尔-赛义德就其对穆斯林兄弟会的态度以及其他许多美国人反对的外交政策立场进行质询是恰当的。

美国和其他地区的左翼政党有时未能充分理解选民的担忧，这些选民担心移民或社区多元化会对其传统构成威胁。这种疏忽为特朗普等民粹主义者创造了政治空间。

但共和党的许多言论已经超越了竞选活动中常见的交叉质询，忽略了有关埃尔-赛义德过往的重要背景。

穆斯林兄弟会是一个跨国的中东逊尼派伊斯兰组织，成立于埃及开罗。共和党人抓住埃尔-赛义德同父异母的妹妹早年在社交媒体上发布的帖子大做文章，这些帖子描述了他们的母亲——在埃尔-赛义德幼年时就离开了家——曾在上世纪70年代积极参与该组织的活动。

2011年，埃尔-赛义德在《赫芬顿邮报》上发表了一篇文章，认为如果穆斯林兄弟会而非残暴的军方统治者接管埃及，其后果可能比许多人想象的要好。这一切都发生在阿拉伯之春运动的背景下，当时中东各地的暴政政权纷纷垮台，而像穆斯林兄弟会这样长期遭受迫害的反对派力量则作为新的选择出现。

在阿拉伯之春起义推翻埃及独裁者穆巴拉克之后，穆斯林兄弟会的政治分支在穆罕默德·穆尔西的领导下赢得了埃及的民主选举，穆尔西当选总统。人们一度燃起希望，认为埃及将迎来自由的繁荣。然而，穆尔西的经济改革引发了大规模抗议，最终导致他的统治结束，并被军事政变推翻。特朗普政府已将穆斯林兄弟会的部分分支列为恐怖组织，其中包括一些支持哈马斯的组织。

但密歇根州的这场风波往往忽略了其复杂的背景。由于许多选民不了解这段历史，共和党人便可利用穆斯林兄弟会模糊地指代中东团体，从而营造出一种威胁感。

比尔·普利亚诺/法新社/盖蒂图片社

在本月初的一次市政厅会议上，埃尔-赛义德斥责了一位提问者，该提问者假定“因为我是穆斯林，所以我就会效忠于宪法之外的东西”。他补充说：“对我来说，宪法就是指路明灯。”

这场激烈的辩论也发生在美国政坛因以色列对2023年10月7日哈马斯恐怖袭击事件的回应而引发的政治动荡的背景下。那次袭击造成以色列约1200人死亡，数万巴勒斯坦人以及许多哈马斯成员在袭击中丧生。与此同时，许多民主党人和共和党人对埃尔-赛义德在以色列问题上的立场以及他呼吁改变美国对以色列外交政策的言论感到不安。

但周四公布的CNN/SSRS最新民调显示，在穆斯林人口众多的州，以及民主党人在经历了一场激烈的初选后正团结在埃尔-赛义德周围的情况下，这些攻击是否奏效令人怀疑。在可能投票的选民中，埃尔-赛义德以49%对42%领先罗杰斯。

周二，密歇根州的选民将决定埃尔-赛义德是否能赢得参议院席位，而美国选民也将决定民主党是否会控制参议院。

但密歇根州的这场选举将会留下伤痕。它已经演变成一场比共和党和民主党之间通常的冲突更为深刻的争论，成为围绕宗教多样性、多元主义和宪法展开的斗争的平台。最终，它在一个由来已久的政治问题上开辟了新的战线：成为一名美国人意味着什么？