Staff Reports
Senator-elect Abdul El‑Sayed told NPR he will “likely” place his hand on a copy of the Quran when he is sworn into the U.S. Senate. He even mused about which historic copy to use — Thomas Jefferson’s Quran or an early volume at the University of Michigan. That short interview set off exactly the kind of political firestorm you would expect when identity, ceremony, and the presidency of the Constitution collide.
What El‑Sayed actually said — and what it means
In a recent NPR Newsmakers interview, Senator‑elect El‑Sayed said, “I will likely swear in a Quran. Which Quran, we — we’re not sure.” He added the line that should calm constitutional realists: “It’s not the book that you swear on. It’s the book you swear allegiance to.” He framed the choice as a ceremonial, symbolic act tied to his identity and history, not a change to the legal oath required by the Constitution.
Ceremony versus the constitutional oath
Let’s be clear: the Constitution requires an oath. It does not require any particular holy book. There is a long and sensible precedent for ceremonial swearing-on-a-book photo ops. When Rep. Keith Ellison first took his seat in Congress, a Jefferson-era Quran was used for a photo ceremony while the official, group floor oath was done without any book. The distinction matters — and critics who act as if a photo op rewrites the Constitution are either being dramatic or lazy.
Why the controversy is predictable — and legitimate questions to ask
Still, this will stir strong reactions. El‑Sayed’s faith became a campaign issue, and critics point to an old interview about Sharia that resurfaced during the race. Symbolic acts in politics matter; they send a message. Conservatives are right to press for clarity about whether the Quran will be used only in a ceremonial moment, who will administer the oath (traditionally Vice President JD Vance presides over new senators), and whether any official step will differ from standard practice.
What to watch next
Don’t expect this to blow over. Watch for a formal announcement from El‑Sayed’s transition team about which copy, if any, will be used and whether the event will be the official Senate swearing or a separate photo opportunity. Watch for statements from Senate leadership and interfaith groups. The answer should be simple and straightforward: ceremony is symbolic; the Constitution is the law. If Democrats want to lean hard into identity symbolism, they can — but they should not be surprised when people ask whether that symbolism comes before the oath to the Constitution.
