Democrat U.S. Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed is facing renewed questions over a 2009 New York Times interview in which he said he felt an “obligation” to conduct his life in a Sharia-compliant manner, while his campaign says he supports the separation of church and state and opposes incorporating religious law into U.S. law.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A nearly two-decade-old statement by Michigan Democrat Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed is receiving renewed attention after reports resurfaced his 2009 comments describing adherence to Sharia as a personal religious “obligation.”
El-Sayed, who won last week’s Democratic Senate primary, made the remarks when he was a 24-year-old medical student and customer of a Michigan bank offering financing structured to comply with Islamic prohibitions against interest.
The comments appeared in a March 2009 New York Times article examining University Bank in Ann Arbor and its system of “Islamically approvable ‘mortgage-alternative’ financing for residential and commercial real estate in 15 states.”
The years-old interview was brought back into the political debate this week by a Washington Free Beacon report published Tuesday as El-Sayed campaigns for a seat in the U.S. Senate.
An X post circulating the resurfaced comments has added to scrutiny of what El-Sayed meant by his remarks and whether his views have changed since then.
The Times article itself focused primarily on Islamic banking rather than politics.
University Bank had developed a method for financing residential and commercial property purchases while avoiding conventional interest payments, which are prohibited under interpretations of Sharia followed by some Muslims.
Rather than presenting the arrangement as a political project, the 2009 report examined how a financial institution could structure transactions so Muslim customers could purchase property while complying with their religious beliefs.
El-Sayed appeared in the story as one of those customers.
According to the Times, he purchased a condominium through University Bank while attending medical school. It was his explanation for choosing Sharia-compliant financing, however, that is now drawing political attention as he seeks federal office.
“Ultimately, the question is,” Mr. El-Sayed, 24, said in an interview, “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.”
A second X post highlighted the 2009 passage, drawing renewed attention to the distinction between El-Sayed’s personal religious practices and the constitutional responsibilities he would assume if elected.
Members of the U.S. Senate are required to take an oath of office pledging allegiance to the Constitution.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The renewed attention surrounding El-Sayed’s remarks has raised questions from critics about whether the religious “obligation” he described at age 24 remains part of his worldview at age 41 and, more specifically, how he distinguishes between following his faith in his personal life and exercising government power under the Constitution.
His campaign responded directly to that issue in a statement provided to the Free Beacon.
“Abdul believes in the separation of church and state,” spokeswoman Roxie Richner told the publication. “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.”
The campaign’s response draws a distinction between El-Sayed’s personal observance of Islamic religious requirements and the laws he would support as an elected official.
His critics have nevertheless argued that the 2009 statement warrants greater scrutiny now that he is seeking a Senate seat, particularly because he described Sharia compliance not simply as a preference but as a religious obligation he expected to answer for before God.
El-Sayed’s political associations have also become part of that criticism.
He has appeared publicly with Hasan Piker, a left-wing political commentator who has faced criticism for past remarks about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Opponents of El-Sayed have cited that association while questioning the political forces supporting his candidacy.
His primary victory has also unfolded amid broader disputes within the Democratic Party over Israel, antisemitism and the party’s approach to the Middle East.
Critics have attempted to connect those debates with El-Sayed’s candidacy and support from the Democratic Socialists of America, while his campaign maintains that his personal Islamic faith does not translate into support for imposing Islamic religious law through government.
The resurfaced statement therefore presents two separate questions that have become intertwined in the Senate campaign.
One involves what El-Sayed meant when he said in 2009 that he felt obligated to pursue the “Shariah-compliant way” in his personal financial decisions. The other concerns whether that religious commitment has any bearing on how he would exercise the authority of a United States senator.
His campaign’s stated position is that it would not.
Richner said El-Sayed supports church-state separation and “opposes any effort by any religious community to write their faith laws into the laws of our country.”
The 2009 comments, however, are likely to remain part of the political debate as voters consider El-Sayed’s candidacy ahead of November’s general election, more than 17 years after he first described Sharia compliance as an obligation guiding his personal conduct.
Original article
Comments