“Now, you may not hate Muslims. But I’ll tell you, Muslims definitely hate you,” El-Sayed said.
The remark came during a heated confrontation with then-Republican gubernatorial candidate Patrick Colbeck, who had questioned El-Sayed about his Muslim faith, his previous involvement with the Muslim Students Association and concerns surrounding Sharia law.
Eight years later, Republicans are putting the exchange back under the microscope.
An Explosive Exchange From 2018
The confrontation unfolded at a Michigan gubernatorial forum in May 2018.
Colbeck raised concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood and pointed to El-Sayed’s previous leadership role in the Muslim Students Association at the University of Michigan.
El-Sayed served as vice president of the university’s MSA chapter during his senior year in 2007.
Colbeck also invoked a controversial 1991 memorandum written by Muslim Brotherhood member Mohamed Akram. That document, which later surfaced as evidence in federal litigation, included the Muslim Students Association among a lengthy list of organizations.
“This is very serious stuff, guys. This is about civilization jihad,” Colbeck said.
The moderator subsequently asked El-Sayed whether implementing Sharia law in Michigan was a legitimate concern.
El-Sayed pushed back strongly against the premise.
He said elected officials would be required to uphold the Constitution and accused Colbeck of promoting Islamophobia and racism.
Then came the line now circulating again:
“Now, you may not hate Muslims. But I’ll tell you, Muslims definitely hate you.”
The context matters. El-Sayed was addressing Colbeck specifically, not declaring that Muslims hate Americans generally.
There is also no established evidence that El-Sayed himself belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood. Fox News Digital, which reported on the resurfaced video, said it had not discovered a tie between El-Sayed and the organization. Independent reporting examining similar allegations has likewise found no evidence establishing such a connection.
But the video nevertheless gives Republicans another controversial moment from El-Sayed’s past to highlight during an already bitter general-election campaign.
Vance Turns Up the Heat
Vice President JD Vance has already made clear how aggressively Republicans intend to campaign against El-Sayed.
During an August 31 rally in Sterling Heights, Vance delivered an extraordinary attack on the Democratic nominee.
“I realize that there’s something about Abdul El-Sayed that is very, very evil and on the rise in the United States of America today,” Vance said.
Vance argued that El-Sayed represented a style of politics in which Americans are divided according to racial, ethnic or religious identity rather than treated as members of one country.
El-Sayed fired back, accusing Vance of using divisive rhetoric and arguing that Republican economic and healthcare policies were themselves harmful.
The vice president’s characterization therefore remains a political accusation—not evidence that intelligence officials have reached some undisclosed conclusion about El-Sayed. Public reporting on Vance’s remarks describes them in the context of the campaign fight, including disputes involving El-Sayed’s comments about Usha Vance and other controversies.
El-Sayed’s Past Is Suddenly Relevant Again
El-Sayed is no longer a long-shot gubernatorial candidate.
In August, he defeated Rep. Haley Stevens for Michigan’s Democratic Senate nomination after a closely watched primary that exposed major ideological divisions inside the party.
The former public-health official ran as the progressive candidate in the contest, earning support from figures including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
That victory dramatically raised the stakes surrounding comments from his earlier political career.
Republicans have consequently been digging through El-Sayed’s record, associations and previous public appearances as they attempt to define him for general-election voters.
The resurfaced forum provides particularly combustible material because it touches simultaneously on religion, constitutional government and the bitter debate over political Islam.
El-Sayed’s campaign, however, has been explicit about where the candidate says he stands.
“Abdul believes in the separation of church and state. While he personally lives by the rules of his faith, as many Americans of various faiths do, Abdul opposes any effort by any religious community to write their faith laws into the laws of our country,” his campaign said.
Fox News reported that it was unaware of any El-Sayed proposal to implement elements of Sharia law in the United States.
That leaves Michigan voters with two sharply different interpretations of the controversy.
El-Sayed and his defenders portray the 2018 exchange as an angry response to what they regard as attacks on his religion.
His Republican critics are highlighting the words he chose in that response and asking voters to consider what they reveal about a candidate now seeking considerably greater political power.
What cannot be disputed is what the camera recorded.
“Now, you may not hate Muslims. But I’ll tell you, Muslims definitely hate you.”
A line delivered during a gubernatorial campaign eight years ago has suddenly become ammunition in one of 2026’s most closely watched Senate contests.
And with November approaching, Michigan voters are likely to hear it again.
