A resurfaced 2018 forum clip of Abdul El-Sayed saying “Muslims definitely hate you” has jolted Michigan’s Senate race and revived questions about religion, politics, and trust.
Story Snapshot
- A 2018 video shows El-Sayed clashing with Patrick Colbeck and saying, “Muslims definitely hate you.”
- In the same exchange, El-Sayed pledged to uphold the Constitution and rejected Sharia law claims.
- Republican Mike Rogers is using the clip and Hasan Piker ties to brand El-Sayed “extremist.”
- No evidence shows El-Sayed pushed Sharia law or joined extremist groups, reports say.
What the 2018 Video Shows and Why It Matters
Fox News Digital reported a 2018 forum exchange where Abdul El-Sayed responded to questions from then–state senator Patrick Colbeck by saying, “Muslims definitely hate you.” The remark, clipped and shared, is now central to the Senate race narrative. The same coverage noted that El-Sayed tied his public service to his oath to the United States and Michigan Constitutions and framed religious liberty as the point of the exchange.
Other write-ups describe the exchange as a rebuttal to suggestions about Muslim Brotherhood ties and Islamic law. They quote El-Sayed stating that “Sharia law is not in question in this state.” Those reports present the comment as a sharp reply to a hostile premise, not a call for religious rule. Still, the phrase travels fast online and in ads, which is why this old clip now shapes voter views in 2026.
How Opponents Are Framing the Controversy
Republican nominee Mike Rogers has linked the clip to El-Sayed’s ties with streamer Hasan Piker, who once said “America deserved 9/11” before walking it back. PolitiFact reported that El-Sayed did not make that 9/11 statement and that Rogers used it to call El-Sayed an “extremist.” The attack centers on judgment and associations, which often sway undecided voters even when the core facts are narrow.
The Detroit News reported Piker appeared at El-Sayed’s events during the primary, and that Democrats split over the optics. That created a clean line of attack for Republicans: pair the 2018 quote with a controversial ally and suggest a pattern. But using a supporter’s past words to define a candidate is a stretch without more. That is why the argument rests more on political risk than on proven policy aims.
What the Record Does—and Does Not—Show
Fox News Digital said it was not aware of any El-Sayed proposal to insert Islamic law into United States or Michigan statutes. Coverage of the 2018 exchange quotes El-Sayed affirming his constitutional oath and rejecting religious law as a governing issue. Separate reports state no verified ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. These facts narrow the claim to tone and judgment rather than extremist intent or a legal plan.
PolitiFact also noted El-Sayed’s stance that democracy means addressing differences peacefully. That is a common message when candidates face hard questions about allies. Voters should separate three things: what El-Sayed said in 2018, what he says about law and rights, and what others around him have said. Only the first and second are his record. The third is political noise unless backed by direct evidence.
Why Voters Across the Spectrum Care
Conservatives hear the 2018 line and see disrespect and potential double standards. Liberals see a Muslim candidate grilled on faith, with a clip used to fuel fear. Both groups share a deeper worry: political elites will spin a partial record to win, while real issues—work, prices, safety, and trust—go unsolved. This story shows how a single sentence can crowd out policy and keep people fighting over identity while the system keeps failing them.
Sources:
redstate.com, foxnews.com, politifact.com
© boldfrontnews.com 2026. All rights reserved.
