Abdul El-Sayed has attracted national attention after invoking Jesus Christ while defending political ideas critics describe as radical.
“Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, was considered radical in his time too,” the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat recently said.
But whether a Muslim politician accurately understands Jesus is not the most consequential question surrounding El-Sayed’s faith.
There is another question that reaches directly into the responsibilities of public office:
What role does Sharia play when a politician who considers it an obligation before God is making laws for Americans who do not believe in it?
That question deserves an answer because El-Sayed has previously described his adherence to Sharia in unusually serious terms.
While discussing his decision to obtain Sharia-compliant financing in a 2009 interview, El-Sayed explained:
“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 Sharia-compliant way.”
Then came the important part:
“Not because of fear but because of obligation.”
That isn’t casual cultural identification.
It describes a religious conviction El-Sayed believes he will ultimately answer to God for.
Americans therefore have every right to ask what happens when that conviction enters the United States Senate.
Sharia Isn’t Just About Prayer And Diet
This is where the discussion needs to become more serious.
Many Americans hear “Sharia” and imagine something roughly equivalent to Christian rules about prayer, fasting or personal morality.
For millions of Muslims, much of Sharia observance is indeed personal: prayer, fasting, dietary restrictions, charitable giving and financial practices.
But historically, Islamic jurisprudence has also addressed matters that Western societies place firmly within civil and criminal law.
Depending upon the country and interpretation, Sharia-based legal systems have addressed marriage, divorce, inheritance, financial transactions, sexual conduct, blasphemy, apostasy, criminal punishment and the legal status of religious minorities.
That doesn’t mean every Muslim supports every such application.
But it does explain why asking a prospective United States senator exactly what he means by following Sharia isn’t prejudice.
It is basic democratic accountability.
Because the question isn’t whether El-Sayed should be allowed to practice Islam.
The question is whether any portion of Islamic jurisprudence could influence how he exercises governmental power.
var images = [],
index = 0;
images[0] = ““;
images[1] = ““;
images[2] = ““;
images[3] = ““;
index = Math.floor(Math.random() * images.length);
document.write(images[index]);
//done
America Has Seen What Happens When The Line Moves
Around the world, countries incorporating Sharia principles into their legal systems demonstrate why that distinction matters.
Pakistan has notoriously used blasphemy laws against religious minorities, including Christians. Iran’s Islamic system imposes religiously grounded restrictions touching everything from public morality to conversion and political dissent. Saudi Arabia’s legal system has historically drawn extensively upon Islamic jurisprudence.
Egypt’s constitution declares Islam the state religion and identifies the principles of Islamic Sharia as the principal source of legislation.
These countries aren’t identical. Neither are their interpretations of Islam.
They illustrate something Americans cannot afford to ignore:
Once religious doctrine moves from voluntary personal conviction into governmental authority, the rights of people who reject that doctrine can become vulnerable.
That is precisely why America’s constitutional system matters.
