Muslim Candidate Declares He Will Follow Sharia in EVERYTHING He Does

A Michigan Senate candidate once told a reporter he would follow Islamic religious law “in everything” he does, right up until he stands before God on judgment day.

Story Snapshot

A resurfaced 2009 New York Times interview quotes Abdul El-Sayed saying he felt religiously obligated to follow Sharia-compliant practices, not out of fear but obligation.
In 2022, El-Sayed told a Council on American-Islamic Relations audience in Oklahoma that opposition to Sharia bans cannot be separated from historical injustices like the Trail of Tears.
PolitiFact says El-Sayed never called for Sharia to become U.S. law, calling social media claims a distortion of his remarks.
Republicans, including Senator Tommy Tuberville, have used harsh language against El-Sayed, prompting accusations of Islamophobia from Democrats and CNN.

What The 2009 Interview Actually Said

The quote at the center of this story comes from a New York Times interview conducted while El-Sayed was in medical school. He described choosing a Sharia-compliant mortgage for a condo instead of a conventional loan. He explained the choice as a matter of personal religious duty, saying he wanted to live his life the “Shariah-compliant way” so that when he faced God, he could account for his choices without regret.

That statement, on its face, describes private financial behavior tied to faith. Millions of Americans make similar choices rooted in Christian, Jewish, or other religious convictions every day. The question conservative voters are right to ask is not whether he can bank the way his faith allows, but whether that same worldview shapes how he would legislate for 10 million Michigan residents.

That question grew louder after 2022 remarks resurfaced showing El-Sayed speaking to CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter about the state’s 2010 ballot measure banning Sharia from state courts. He argued that opposition to such bans could not be separated from the “same exact forces” behind the Trail of Tears and the destruction of Black Wall Street.

The Sharia Ban Comments Draw Sharp Reactions

Critics on the right point to that comparison as the clearest evidence yet that El-Sayed views Sharia bans as bigotry rather than legitimate legal boundary-setting. One conservative outlet described the resurfaced video as proof he was “openly advocating for Sharia law in the United States”. That framing treats his defense of religious minorities’ rights as functionally identical to demanding Sharia govern American courts, a leap fact-checkers say the full context does not support.

PolitiFact reviewed the same 2022 speech and concluded El-Sayed did not call for Sharia to be implemented in the U.S. The outlet says social media posts claiming otherwise “distort his remarks” and that his actual theme was discrimination against Oklahoma’s Muslim community, not a legislative push to install religious courts. Sharia, PolitiFact notes, holds no binding legal authority in America regardless of any candidate’s personal views.

Still, PolitiFact’s rebuttal leans heavily on categorical denial rather than a full transcript walking through every disputed line. Voters deserve to see the complete recording, not just curated clips from either side, before deciding how much weight this controversy should carry heading into November.

Republicans Escalate While Democrats Cry Foul

The political temperature spiked when Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama publicly labeled El-Sayed a “RADICAL ISLAMIST” and a “TERRORIST,” claims CNN’s own reporting notes lack supporting evidence. El-Sayed responded by urging critics to correctly pronounce his name rather than weaponize it, and he has repeatedly steered interviews back toward Medicare for All, infrastructure, and campaign finance reform.

Conservatives are entitled to scrutinize any candidate’s stated religious obligations when those views touch on how American law should function, especially when a candidate himself frames Sharia bans as rooted in racism. But there is a real difference between demanding transparency and hurling unsupported terrorism accusations. Michigan voters can hold both truths: the 2022 remarks deserve full context and scrutiny, and baseless slurs do nothing to earn public trust either.