AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): The victory of seven Muslim candidates in the US midterm elections, including El-Sayed's entry into the country's Senate as the first Muslim senator, has once again drawn attention to the presence and role of Muslims in the political structure of the United States. This electoral success, especially in circumstances where Islamophobic rhetoric has peaked at the hands of White House officials including Trump, has had wide reflection; but beyond the electoral hype and grandiose headlines, there is a more important issue that cannot be easily passed over: the relationship between Islamic identity, presence in the American power structure, and adherence to the principles that Islam emphasizes.
To understand this issue more precisely, we first address the concept of "American Islam" in the intellectual system of the martyred Leader of the Revolution; a concept that is sometimes mistakenly confused with the geography and citizenship of the followers of a religion. What is meant by American Islam is not the Islam whose followers live in America or are citizens of this country; rather, it is a reading of the religion that remains silent before oppression and domination, comes to terms with the greed of powers, and instead of defending the deprived and the oppressed, serves the oppressors. The martyred Leader of the Revolution, on June 4, 2010, explained this concept with expressions such as "ceremonial Islam," "Islam indifferent to oppression and greed," and "Islam helping the oppressors." He also referred to two faces, the rigid and the secular, as manifestations of American Islam; two seemingly different approaches that can reach a common point in distancing themselves from the truth of Islam and indifference to domination and arrogance. Therefore, the boundary between pure Islam and American Islam is determined not by the place of residence of Muslims but by their position toward power, justice, and the rights of the oppressed.
By such a criterion, one can neither consider a Muslim a representative of pure Islam merely because of his presence in the US Congress, nor consider living in America or activity in this country's political structure as a sign of the Americanization of Islam. What matters is the positions and political performance of individuals. It was from this angle that the critical positions of some Muslim candidates, including El-Sayed, Rashida Tlaib, and Adam Hamawy, regarding Washington's military support for the Zionist regime and the Gaza war received attention. These positions, especially in the American political atmosphere, created an image of these figures as critics of Washington's official policies and supporters of the rights of Palestinians. But is opposition to part of the US administration's policies and criticism of Israel alone sufficient to understand the intellectual and political orientation of a figure? The answer to this question becomes more important with an event that recently happened regarding El-Sayed.
Recently, a clip from last month has been published on social media in which El-Sayed, in a conversation with a Fox News host, shows a reaction to the assassination of the martyred Leader of the Revolution that is certainly undesirable at first glance. It is natural that audiences who have encountered grandiose headlines about the victory of this American figure — as the first Muslim senator of the US Senate — would now be affected and angry upon hearing such remarks; especially those who may have followed for months the news about the Zionist lobby's spending to defeat El-Sayed. His confrontations with Trump, the terrorist US president, and his anti-Israel remarks had turned El-Sayed into a popular figure in the eyes of part of Iranian public opinion; to the extent that we too unconsciously fell into the vortex of supporting him. But now we are faced with remarks that, at least at first glance, are distant from that previous image and seem aligned with Washington's terrorist policies. Of course, in this article we do not intend to analyze the details of this clip; what other option did El-Sayed, who was under the most intense Islamophobic campaign to lose in the race against Republican Mike Rogers, fundamentally see before himself for responding? That he consciously changes the course of the discussion to bypass a direct answer to the issue of the assassination of the martyred Leader and emphasize the wrongness of the war with Iran? Questions and analyses that should not marginalize the main issue; we also have absolutely nothing to do with whether El-Sayed falls into the category of American Islam or not!
The main issue, beyond one interview or media reaction, is the same criterion that the martyred Leader of the Revolution emphasized in explaining the concept of American Islam: the relationship of religion with truth, justice, and domination. The victory of a Muslim candidate in the US elections, although an important event from the perspective of the political participation of the Muslim community, is in itself neither a sign of representing pure Islam nor a guarantee for standing against domination-seeking policies. Just as opposition to Israel or confrontation with Trump should not, without examining other positions and performances, become a definitive criterion for judging a figure.
And the final criterion is the position of individuals at fateful moments; where they must choose between political expediency and defending the right, between accompanying power and supporting the oppressed. This is the very point where the boundary between pure Islam and American Islam becomes evident.
**************
End/ 345E
