Michigan Senate hopeful Abdul El Sayed is drawing fierce criticism after explaining that the Quran shapes his politics and then invoking Jesus while defending his socialist agenda.

The remarks came during a May appearance on The Progressive Christians Podcast, where religion and left-wing politics received the usual friendly blending, as reported by Trending Politics News.

El Sayed, whose full name is Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed, is a far-left Democrat seeking a Senate seat in Michigan.

He said he follows Sharia law in his personal life, while rejecting concerns that politically active Muslims intend to impose a particular doctrine through government.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

“One of the most frustrating things is there’s this notion that somehow when Muslims are trying to organize politically, that there’s this effort to push a certain ideology,” El Sayed said.

His answer framed Islamic political involvement as a matter of personal conviction and public service, rather than ideological pressure.

“There’s this verse in the Quran, [unintelligible], which literally means there’s no compulsion on faith.”

He then argued that faith should be lived voluntarily, not used to force a religious code on people who do not share it.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

“So there is no compulsion in religion. Your job is to live out your faith,” he said.

El Sayed added that believers should offer dignity and opportunity while allowing others to decide whether to pray, how to pray, whom to love, and how to participate in society.

The discussion then moved from theology to El Sayed’s policy program, including his support for “Medicare for all.”

The host asked how he answers the label “radical,” while suggesting that progressive Christians view his platform as “very similar to the teachings of Jesus.”

“Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, was considered radical in his time too. And there is a radical nature to being willing to stand forthright in a time of corruption,” El Sayed replied in part.

The comparison predictably set off outrage among critics who saw more ego than humility in the remark.

The controversy was not an isolated case of loose rhetoric.

Just last week, according to the source article, El Sayed offered left-wing podcaster Jennifer Welch another sweeping interpretation of Christ’s mission, one built around overturning economic power structures.

The teachings of Jesus were “about upending the system against the richest and most powerful and the ways that they used their power and their money to subjugate other people.

Like, that was the essential teaching,” El Sayed told Welch. That is a remarkably convenient summary for a politician selling a socialist program.

This argument has become routine among leftists and progressive Christians who want to dress government-mandated redistribution in biblical language.

In their telling, bigger federal programs become compassion itself, while objections about coercion, taxation, bureaucracy, and individual liberty are treated as moral failures.

Traditional Christian doctrine presents a sharply different account of Jesus and his purpose.

It teaches that Christ came to fulfill Mosaic law, lived without sin, and died on the cross for humanity’s sins so that those who repent and place faith in him can be reconciled with God.

That core message concerns sin, redemption, repentance, and eternal life, not a campaign blueprint for federal health care or wealth transfers.

Conservatives have every reason to question politicians who borrow the authority of scripture, then use it to bless another expansion of Washington’s reach.

El Sayed’s attempt to answer the radical label may therefore have created a larger political problem.

Rather than reassuring skeptical Michigan voters, he placed his own agenda alongside the radicalism attributed to Jesus, a comparison likely to follow him as the Senate contest develops.

The source article also reports that El Sayed’s mother was recently linked to a group that supports terrorists around the world, though it provides no additional details in the supplied material.

That separate allegation adds another serious question around a candidate already inviting scrutiny over ideology, religion, and political associations.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.