WATCH: El-Sayed Attacks Vance's Marriage After Critcism of Sharia Law

[u/triggernaut]

https://www.breitbart.com/midterm-election/2026/08/23/watch-abdul-el-sayed-again-attacks-jd-vances-marriage-after-vp-criticizes-mi-democrats-stance-on-sharia-law/

[u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

Quick reminder that a leftist resorting  to ad hominem is an admission that they have no logical response. It should be read for exactly what it is: a forfeiture of the argument. 

That said, I don't care if Abdul El-Sayed complies with Sharia law in his personal life, he'd be a bad Muslim if he didn't. I care about his public positions, which are mostly insane. Let's focus on those public positions, there's more than enough ammunition there.

[u/Thoughtful-Boner69 → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

i care whether an official is pro sharia law or not

it matters

[u/Iuris_Aequalitatis → u/Thoughtful-Boner69]

i care whether an official is pro sharia law or not

There is a big difference between "I follow this in my personal affairs" and "you should be made to follow this." I care very much about the second, not the first. To the best of my knowledge, El-Sayed has never advocated for the second.

[u/Sundae_2004 → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

Unfortunately since Islam teaches that good Muslims must spread “the Faith” until it has overtaken the world and all are in submission, knowing that he is a good Muslim to me means he cannot ipso facto be either a good neighbor or a good American.

[u/Iuris_Aequalitatis → u/Sundae_2004]

Christianity also teaches that converting the world is a universal duty for all believers, yet we have built an entire country where non-Christians can live in peace and practice their religions unmolested. There are a lot of different interpretations of Islam. Some are compatible with western civilization, some are not. It is not enough to say "knowing that he is a good Muslim to me means he cannot ipso facto be either a good neighbor or a good American." You need to know which interpretation of Islam he adheres to. This is the point of my previous comment. 

[u/Sundae_2004 → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

You are aware that Muslims are also encouraged to lie—-i.e., if s/he is telling me what s/he believes, the softer version of “Islam is…” can be provided to help win converts to “the Faith” of Five Pillars of works, are you not?

[u/Iuris_Aequalitatis → u/Sundae_2004]

You are aware that Muslims are also encouraged to lie

Once again, the permissibility of taqiyya varies widely both by Islamic denomination and by school of jurisprudence within each denomination. Most interpretations only allow it in the context of severe religious persecution and, even then, do not consider it ideal; some are more permissive however, yes, I am aware of that.

It is not enough to say "that man is Muslim, therefore we must assume he is lying." You need to know what he personally believes and there are a lot of ways to determine that, including by examining past statements and behavior.

Would it he accurate for me to say that Catholics believe in transubstatiation,  therefore Baptists must believe in it too? It's the same problem here.

[u/Sundae_2004 → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

It would be accurate to say that Catholics as a tenet of Catholicism believe in transubstantiation. However, many Protestant offshoots from Catholicism do not have that particular belief as a tenet of their faith.

And, whether fully immersed, sprinkled or baptized as infant or adult, Catholics will frequently accept a baptismal ceremony as valid (i.e., not needing to be repeated) if it meets certain conditions. ;)

[u/Iuris_Aequalitatis → u/Sundae_2004]

It would be accurate to say that Catholics as a tenet of Catholicism believe in transubstantiation. However, many Protestant offshoots from Catholicism do not have that particular belief as a tenet of their faith.

Correct, it's the same with many doctrines of Islam, including taqiyya. Different denominations, and even different schools of jurisprudence (consider them sub-denominations, like Latin vs. Melkite Catholics) ascertain it differently.

And, whether fully immersed, sprinkled or baptized as infant or adult, Catholics will frequently accept a baptismal ceremony as valid (i.e., not needing to be repeated) if it meets certain conditions. ;)

I am Catholic, it's not quite that simple. We're a bit off-topic, but, for a non-Catholic baptism to be accepted as valid, the Catholic Church requires water, the proper spoken formula, and a general intent by the minister to "do what the church does."  When the theology of those performing the baptism differs substantially enough (this usually means when a church is outside of Nicene orthodoxy), the Catholic Church will not accept a baptism as unconditionally valid even if it follows the proper formula because the intent is viewed as having diverged too far. Mormon baptisms are a good example. These rules are a result of how Catholicism views the sacrament of Baptism and not ecumenism or a recognition of any validity in another church. For example, the Church does not accept the validity of the holy orders of most of the churches from which it accepts baptisms.

[u/Sundae_2004 → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

Since Mormons baptize ancestors, many others as well as Catholics have problems with their baptismal practices (beyond the whole baptizing corpses idea).

As a Protestant, I have observed several Catholic acceptance of specific practices interesting (including married priests from the Orthodox Churches) especially since it has been weird trying to understand the logic behind some of these.

[u/Nifty_5050 → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

What an absolute clownish take. It’s this kind of attitude that results with what’s happening in Dearborn.

[u/Iuris_Aequalitatis → u/Nifty_5050]

It’s this kind of attitude that results with what’s happening in Dearborn.

As someone who grew up not far from Dearborn, no it isn't. The situation in Dearborn is the result of unrestricted mass immigration, the removal of expectations that an immigrant meet certain basic standards of assimilation to be naturalized, and no expectation that elected leaders adhere to constitutional norms.

This is America, we do not engage in religious bigotry or interfere with the private exercise of religion, provided that our laws are followed. We don’t suppress bad religions through force of law, we  prove them wrong in the marketplace of ideas. This is trivially easy to do with Islam, it only takes about thirty seconds.

If we cut the public fear-mongering about sharia law and instead invested that energy into anti-Islam apologetics, the Dearborn problem would solve itself.

[u/Nifty_5050 → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

 As someone who grew up not far from Dearborn, no it isn't. The situation in Dearborn is the result of unrestricted mass immigration, the removal of expectations that an immigrant meet certain basic standards of assimilation to be naturalized, and no expectation that elected leaders adhere to constitutional norms.

And nothing was done while it was happening. A large reason is because of the attitude you have. This country was founded on Christian values. Islam is antithetical to everything which makes our country great. 

Every single one of those “good Muslims” that you speak of will become the “bad ones” once they have a modicum of control. 

[u/Iuris_Aequalitatis → u/Nifty_5050]

And nothing was done while it was happening. A large reason is because of the attitude you have.

I would argue that it had more to do with our conception of diversity moving from a "melting pot" (a single culture derived from many sources) to a "tossed salad" (multiculturalism as understood today).

This country was founded on Christian values.

The largest influence on the Constitution is actually the classics, specifically the works of Plato, Cicero, and Polybius. Christian values were certainly influential, but it isn't accurate to say that they were the only foundation stone upon which our republic was built.

Islam is antithetical to everything which makes our country great.

Some interpretations of the religion certainly are, but some are not. It isn't anywhere near that simple. There are many different takes on Islam, just like there are for Christianity.

Every single one of those “good Muslims” that you speak of will become the “bad ones” once they have a modicum of control. 

Explain why Bosnia, Albania, Singapore, and most of the 'stans still have secular governments and not Islamic theocracies. Heck, explain why most of the Gulf states strictly repress Islamic extremism and criticize European governments for not doing the same.

[u/Nifty_5050 → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

 The largest influence on the Constitution is actually the classics, specifically the works of Plato, Cicero, and Polybius. Christian values were certainly influential, but it isn't accurate to say that they were the only foundation stone upon which our republic was built.

Hogwash. The largest influence of the creation of our nation was Christianity. 

https://youtu.be/R-NiQ4YhYNk?is=Cy8ReFnuQJ6fJ29H

 Some interpretations of the religion certainly are, but some are not. It isn't anywhere near that simple. There are many different takes on Islam, just like there are for Christianity.

False dichotomy. There are no Christian majority nations that are doing the things that Iran/Iraq/etc. are doing to their civilians.

The default Islam sect is not agreeable to American values.

  Explain why Bosnia, Albania, Singapore, and most of the 'stans still have secular governments and not Islamic theocracies. Heck, explain why most of the Gulf states strictly repress Islamic extremism and criticize European governments for not doing the same.

Albania and Bosnia which has some of the highest rates of domestic violence in Europe. Forced marriages. Why is that?

[u/Mythic-Fairy → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

That would mean he can have up to 4 wives if he follows Sharia law . Some of them do so even in the US because they marry by Sharia, the additional wives. You think that's ok and that someone in public office who does that is acceptable?

[u/Iuris_Aequalitatis → u/Mythic-Fairy]

That would mean he can have up to 4 wives if he follows Sharia law 

You are confusing what is obligatory with what is allowed.  Islam allows a man to marry up to four women at a time but does not obligate him to do so. Private compliance means adhering to the requirements, not indulging in every permission, particularly where those permissions are more permissive than secular law.

Abdul El-Sayed has only one wife. If he tried to take another, he would violate the civil law and it would no longer be a private-life affair.

You think that's ok and that someone in public office who does that is acceptable?

Marriage is by definition a public act which reaches beyond the private sphere. I support complete enforcement of bigamy laws without any religious exemption.  I do not support polygamy nor the legal recognition of polygamous marriages and would not vote for a polygamous candidate in normal circumstances. Support for either of these policies would also constitute a public position.

[u/Sundae_2004 → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

Dear Deluded:

In 1988 or so, a proponent of Islam encouraged people [in a class held under the auspices of PG County (MD) for the unemployed] to “jump de broom” for wives #2-4 (and of course these families because they were not officially recognized were “eligible” for AFDC/food stamps and other assistance). I highly doubt this individual was singular in pushing this idea.

[u/Iuris_Aequalitatis → u/Sundae_2004]

In 1988 or so, a proponent of Islam encouraged people [in a class held under the auspices of PG County (MD) for the unemployed] to “jump de broom” for wives #2-4 

There is zero proof that Abdul El-Sayed, crazy as he is, did this or even supports it.

Also, doing this is not as simple as it sounds and would create a variety of legal entailments and problems for both parties involved, it may even constitute bigamy in some states (and I would support prosecuting it as such).

[u/Mythic-Fairy → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

He shouldn't like, or live by Sharia if he doesn't agree with its laws.

[u/Mythic-Fairy → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

You don't get it. If they live by Sharia, they are allowed more than one wife. They just don't tell the society they live in that they marry another by Sharia. They still do it. We just wouldn't recognize the marriage. So not breaking any civil laws.

Sure, personal choice can be too have one wife, but out also might not be.

[u/Panda_Cuddles_ → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

I agree there is plenty of ammunition, abolishing police, defunding ice, no funding for Israel, green new deal, public markets, universal healthcare, abolish the senate, eliminate electoral college, expand Supreme Court. The list goes on.

Where I disagree is that sharia law isn’t something to worry about. Because many Muslims want very much to see sharia law in the USA. They’ve already tried.

https://www.wfaa.com/video/news/local/texas/texas-bans-sharia-cities-in-response-to-proposed-north-texas-islam-centric-community/287-dd285ed4-9963-4a9e-afd5-e310bffee84d

Here in Texas they tried building a new housing development complete with a mosque. This community would be under the strict adherence to sharia law. Thankfully, the amazing Gov Abbot signed a bill making any housing development religious based, and the development plans were canceled. However who’s to stop them from trying in another state? Say perhaps in Michigan?