Democratic Candidate’s Past Declarations Resurface
Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is facing renewed scrutiny over comments he made about Sharia law nearly two decades ago, after a 2009 New York Times interview resurfaced following his primary victory. The interview, highlighted this week by the Washington Free Beacon, dates back to when El-Sayed was a 24-year-old medical student. At the […]
Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is facing renewed scrutiny over comments he made about Sharia law nearly two decades ago, after a 2009 New York Times interview resurfaced following his primary victory.
The interview, highlighted this week by the Washington Free Beacon, dates back to when El-Sayed was a 24-year-old medical student. At the time, he was discussing his decision to use an Islamic financing arrangement when purchasing a condominium through University Bank in Ann Arbor.
The Times article focused primarily on the bank’s efforts to offer financing products structured to comply with Islamic prohibitions against charging or paying interest. For most readers, the story was a look at how financial institutions adapt conventional lending practices for customers whose religious beliefs place restrictions on interest-based transactions.
What stands out now, however, is the language El-Sayed used to explain his personal decision.
“Ultimately, the question is,” El-Sayed said at the time, “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.”
Nearly 20 years later, and with El-Sayed seeking a seat in the United States Senate, those words are receiving a very different level of attention.
The obvious question is what El-Sayed meant by “obligation” and whether his views about the relationship between his religious beliefs and public service have changed since 2009. Religious observance by itself is hardly unusual among American politicians. Christians, Jews, Muslims and members of other faiths routinely allow their beliefs to influence their personal decisions.
The relevant political issue is whether a candidate believes religious law should ever supersede the Constitution or civil law.
Members of the Senate take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and El-Sayed’s campaign says there is no conflict between that responsibility and his personal faith.
“Abdul believes in the separation of church and state,” campaign spokeswoman Roxie Richner told the Free Beacon. “While he personally lives by the rules of his faith, as many Americans of various faiths do, Abdul opposes any effort by any religious community to write their faith laws into the laws of our country.”
That is an important distinction. A person following religious rules in his private life is very different from a politician attempting to impose those rules through government.
Still, El-Sayed’s critics argue that his earlier wording deserves closer examination, particularly because he described Sharia compliance as an “obligation.” They want to know whether that obligation was limited to personal religious conduct, such as financial transactions, or whether it reflected a broader view of Islamic law.
His political associations are also likely to remain part of the debate. El-Sayed has appeared alongside controversial left-wing commentator Hasan Piker, whose past remarks about the September 11 attacks have drawn widespread criticism. Opponents are certain to use those connections to argue that El-Sayed is comfortable operating alongside figures well outside the political mainstream.
That does not establish that El-Sayed shares every position held by people who support him or appear with him. Candidates are routinely endorsed by, photographed with, or supported by individuals whose views they do not fully embrace. But in a statewide Senate race, those relationships are fair subjects for questions, especially when they touch on national security, religious liberty and constitutional government.
The strongest criticism of El-Sayed, then, does not require claiming that a Muslim candidate is inherently dangerous or that practicing Islam is incompatible with public office. The more relevant issue is straightforward: voters are entitled to know where any candidate draws the line between private religious obligation and public constitutional duty.
El-Sayed’s campaign has now provided an answer, saying clearly that he supports the separation of church and state and opposes writing religious law into American law. Voters will have to decide whether that explanation resolves the concerns raised by his 2009 comments or whether they want a fuller account of how his thinking has developed since then.
With the general election approaching, the controversy is unlikely to disappear. El-Sayed is no longer an obscure medical student talking about how he financed a condominium. He is seeking one of the most powerful elected offices in the country.