One hot phrase from 2018—“Muslims definitely hate you”—just crashed the 2026 Michigan Senate race.
Story Snapshot
- A 2018 forum clip shows Abdul El-Sayed clashing with then-lawmaker Patrick Colbeck over Islam and affiliations.
- El-Sayed also vowed to uphold the Constitution and said Sharia law was not at issue in Michigan.
- Republican nominee Mike Rogers now brands El-Sayed “extremist,” citing the clip and Hasan Piker ties.
- Reports show no proposal by El-Sayed to implement Islamic law, and no proven Muslim Brotherhood ties.
The Flashpoint: What El-Sayed Said, And Why It Travels
The resurfaced video from a 2018 Michigan gubernatorial forum shows Abdul El-Sayed facing questions from Patrick Colbeck about alleged Muslim Brotherhood ties and Islamic law. El-Sayed pushed back hard, including the phrase, “Muslims definitely hate you.” The same exchange also includes his pledge to uphold the state and federal Constitutions and the line, “Sharia law is not in question in this state”. Fox News reported it was unaware of any proposal from El-Sayed to enact Islamic law.
That single sharp sentence powers attack ads because it is simple, raw, and easy to clip. Voters will hear it more than they hear his oath to the Constitution. That asymmetry is predictable in modern politics. The short line stings; the longer context bores. Yet the context matters. The remark came while he rejected claims about affiliations and religious law. Reports cite no proven organizational tie to the Muslim Brotherhood. The political effect, however, does not wait for footnotes.
The 2026 Frame: From Old Clip To Current Charge
Republican nominee Mike Rogers folded the clip into a broader case that El-Sayed is “an extremist,” pointing also to El-Sayed’s campaign relationship with online figure Hasan Piker. Detroit News reported Piker appeared at El-Sayed’s final Detroit primary event and noted backlash over Piker’s 2019 “America deserved 9/11” comment, which Piker later walked back. PolitiFact clarified that El-Sayed did not make that 9/11 statement and covered Rogers’s charge after the August 4 primary. The link remains political, not evidentiary.
El-Sayed’s response leans on bedrock civics. He argues for separation of church and state through his campaign and says democracy means addressing differences peacefully. In a Senate debate, he said, “Democracy is about addressing our differences peaceably” and stated he does not agree with some of Piker’s past words. His campaign also states he opposes turning faith rules into United States law. Those positions line up with constitutional limits, not religious rule.
What The Record Shows, And What It Does Not
The public record shows three concrete points. First, the 2018 phrase is real and politically potent. Second, El-Sayed, at that same event, affirmed his constitutional oath and dismissed Sharia as a live policy question in Michigan. Third, available reporting offers no confirmed tie to the Muslim Brotherhood and cites no El-Sayed plan to implement Islamic law. These facts do not settle the campaign fight, but they narrow what is actually at issue.
American conservative values start with equal law, ordered liberty, and transparent standards. On that measure, the burden is simple: show the policy, show the plan, or show the tie. If a campaign claims extremism, it should point to a bill, a pledge, a payment, or a membership record. If the proof is a supporter’s ugly quote, voters should treat it as a judgment test, not as borrowed guilt. Standards protect both scrutiny and fairness.
How Voters Can Parse The Noise In One Sitting
Focus on the few things that matter. Words tied to power matter most. Did the candidate propose a law that replaces American law with religious rules? Reports say no. Did the candidate swear to uphold the Constitution? Yes, and he said it on stage. Did anyone show a verified tie to a listed extremist group? Reports cite none. Associations still matter, but they are not the same as adoption of those associates’ views.
Republicans can still make a strong case on judgment and alliances. Voters can ask why a serious Senate campaign elevates a figure known for reckless comments. That is fair. But the line between judgment and libel is bright. Keep the case on character, choices, and consequences, and anchor it to evidence. If new documents emerge, weigh them. Until then, the 2018 clip wounds by shock value, while the broader record, as documented, points back to the Constitution.
Sources:
redstate.com, foxnews.com, politifact.com, detroitnews.com
© partiallypolitics.com 2026. All rights reserved.
