And we are undergoing a battle in America because the Christians are trying to take over. I did not think America could undergo a metamorphosis as the Middle East did. But it is happening now. The Christians will drag America back a few centuries. The attack on science and education should give you pause. Oddly, their spokesman, daffy Donald, is as unreligious as you can get,These are weird times.
Democrat voters in Michigan are JUMPING SHIP, saying they will NOT vote for "Abdul" El Sayed — a socialist
- Thread starter ziggy
- Start date
Fuck do you waste space. That is so.
If it's a fact, then you should be able to prove it, right?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Christians have had over three centuries to make the American colonies, then the US itself, a Christian nation. They haven't tried and in fact put it in writing that it can't be done. Now, oddly, Leftists, like you, think that Muslims aren't trying to incorporate tenants of Islam into Western culture and not just in the US.
The math doesn't even add up.
Sayed trails in every legitimate poll.
Coming out in support of Sharia law doesn't help his chances.
You are very angry. Is your goat cutting you off?
How so?
Is there such a thing?
Abdul El-Sayed has not “come out in support of Sharia law” in the sense of advocating that it become U.S. civil or criminal law, replace the Constitution, or be imposed on non-Muslims.
The claim circulating after his 2026 Michigan Democratic Senate primary win is a distortion of a 2022 speech he gave as keynote at a CAIR Oklahoma awards banquet. In that talk, he criticized Oklahoma’s 2010 “Save Our State” constitutional amendment (later struck down by federal courts as unconstitutional for specifically targeting Islamic law). He said voters banned “Shariah law” without knowing what it meant, framed the ban as part of a longer history of discrimination (linking it to the Trail of Tears, the Tulsa Massacre, and the Oklahoma City bombing), and attributed it to the same “forces” of white supremacy. He did not call for implementing Sharia as American law; the speech’s theme was unity, civil rights for Muslims, and quoting the U.S. Constitution (“We the People… in order to form a more perfect union”).
El-Sayed has repeatedly denied any intent to impose Sharia and affirmed separation of church and state:
- In a 2017 interview, when asked if he was part of a conspiracy to bring Sharia to the U.S., he said “No.” He has described his faith as personal and stressed that as a religious minority he depends on church-state separation so he (and others) can practice freely—or not practice at all.
- During his 2018 Michigan gubernatorial run, he stated he does not believe Sharia law is a question in the state and rejected associations based solely on his being Muslim.
- More recently he has reiterated support for constitutional governance and religious liberty for everyone.
Sharia is a broad body of Islamic guidance covering personal ethics, prayer, family matters, finance, etc.; interpretations vary widely. As a practicing Muslim, El-Sayed follows personal religious obligations derived from it, which is ordinary for adherents of any faith and does not equate to advocating theocratic rule or parallel Islamic courts overriding U.S. law. No public record shows him pushing Sharia as civil/criminal law in the United States.
Abdul El-Sayed Sharia Law Misrepresentation | Shared Grok Conversation
Did Abdul El-Sayed "come out in support of Sharia law"?
grok.com
The rando on twitter put Sayed at 60%, Rogers at 43% - 103% total.
Yep, it happens in November every two years.
Guess you didn't watch the supplied video.
2021 - and fully stated in the Tweet that was the case
In that talk, he criticized Oklahoma’s 2010 “Save Our State” constitutional amendment (later struck down by federal courts as unconstitutional for specifically targeting Islamic law). He said voters banned “Shariah law” without knowing what it meant, framed the ban as part of a longer history of discrimination (linking it to the Trail of Tears, the Tulsa Massacre, and the Oklahoma City bombing), and attributed it to the same “forces” of white supremacy. He did not call for implementing Sharia as American law; the speech’s theme was unity, civil rights for Muslims, and quoting the U.S. Constitution (“We the People… in order to form a more perfect union”).
El-Sayed has repeatedly denied any intent to impose Sharia and affirmed separation of church and state:
- In a 2017 interview, when asked if he was part of a conspiracy to bring Sharia to the U.S., he said “No.” He has described his faith as personal and stressed that as a religious minority he depends on church-state separation so he (and others) can practice freely—or not practice at all.
- During his 2018 Michigan gubernatorial run, he stated he does not believe Sharia law is a question in the state and rejected associations based solely on his being Muslim.
- More recently he has reiterated support for constitutional governance and religious liberty for everyone.
Sharia is a broad body of Islamic guidance covering personal ethics, prayer, family matters, finance, etc.; interpretations vary widely. As a practicing Muslim, El-Sayed follows personal religious obligations derived from it, which is ordinary for adherents of any faith and does not equate to advocating theocratic rule or parallel Islamic courts overriding U.S. law. No public record shows him pushing Sharia as civil/criminal law in the United States.
Abdul El-Sayed Sharia Law Misrepresentation | Shared Grok Conversation
Did Abdul El-Sayed "come out in support of Sharia law"?
Grok gets it wrong much of the time. This is yet another example. We saw the speech. When they tell you their plans, only the stupid demand "they don't really mean it."
The only danger to civil rights is from those like Sayed and other Muslim Supremacists.
The "rando" is a betting market reporting which way bettors are betting.
That doesn't make polls and polling "legitimate".
I ran a fact check and posted the result.
So you say.
How so?
Who's "we"?
I don't recall demanding anything, much less claiming Abdul El-Sayed didn't "really mean it".
PolitiFact rated the specific claim that he “openly calls for Sharia law in America” Pants on Fire, calling it a distortion of the old video that cherry-picks lines out of context.
Similar accusations have been leveled by some Republican politicians and online accounts, often tying them to his Muslim identity, CAIR appearances, or progressive positions rather than direct statements of support for imposing Sharia.
In short, the claim misrepresents opposition to a (court-invalidated) ban on courts considering Sharia as advocacy for replacing American law with it.
I believe all leftists can be reasonably tarred with that particular brush.
I don't think I'd want to put my trust in a Crypto prediction site that can't make their percentages add to a hundred.
Just saying.
Are you saying all voting is corrupt?
No, you turned to AI instead of dealing with the facts.
What was in the video remains.
So El-Sayed says - on video.
AI can only respond to what you feed it. Grok didn't see the video. You fed it loaded questions to elicit a desired response.
I can do it too.
{
So if one puts the post of another in AI and claims "I ran a fact check and posted the result." would that be correct?
Not necessarily. It would depend on what they actually asked the AI to do.
If they simply pasted someone's message-board post into ChatGPT and asked something like “What do you think about this?”, then saying “I ran a fact check and posted the result” would be misleading. They obtained an AI opinion or analysis, not a fact check.
If they asked ChatGPT to verify the factual claims in the post against reliable sources, and the AI actually researched those claims, then calling it an AI-assisted fact check would be reasonable.
There is also an important distinction: ChatGPT's answer by itself isn't proof that something has been fact-checked. A proper fact check should identify the specific claims, examine evidence/sources, and distinguish verified facts from interpretations or opinions.
So, in short:
Straw man argument.
I understand your particular schtick is "both sides against the middle," but this fell flat.
Is that what you think happened here?
Am I?
I turned to AI to bring me the facts.
Deceptive editing is a thing. Ask the POTUS and 60 Minutes.
Did Abdul El-Sayed "come out in support of Sharia law"?
Don't take my word for it. Click the link.
Abdul El-Sayed Sharia Law Misrepresentation | Shared Grok Conversation
Did Abdul El-Sayed "come out in support of Sharia law"?
grok.com
Go ahead. Ask this question: Did Abdul El-Sayed "come out in support of Sharia law"?
Try it and see.
True. Ask Grok "Did Abdul El-Sayed "come out in support of Sharia law"?"
Possibly. What's that got to do with me?
I'm pretty sure the shared link I just posted will make your insinuations null and void.
Is that so? I didn't use ChatGPT.
So you say.
No, that is as a matter of fact, what happened here.
You turned to Grok to avoid dealing with the fact presented by El-Sayed in his own words.
I already did, with video.
You did.
El-Sayed claimed that the reason voters opposed Sharia is because they didn't understand it., A statement of support and defense.
You're arguing both sides in this thread. It's not nearly as clever as you imagine it is.
Non sequitur. Post the entire video. All of it.
Did I?
Is that right?
I don't recall imagining anything of the sort.
sure. But your mind is closed.
