Abdul El-Sayed faces backlash for equating canon law with sharia law

Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed sparked controversy this week after appearing on Jesse Watters Primetime and drawing an equivalence between Christian canon law and sharia law, a comparison that critics say is not just misleading but dangerously wrong.

During the segment, El-Sayed, a Democrat running for Senate in Michigan, defended his right to practice his faith as he chooses, saying, “I don’t begrudge you your right to practice your faith as you choose. I don’t know why the idea that I could practice my faith as I choose is a problem.”

His remarks were quickly condemned by host Jesse Watters and others, who argued that conflating the two legal systems obscures fundamental differences in their scope and application.

What is canon law, exactly?

Canon law is not “Christian law” in a universal sense, as El-Sayed’s critics note. Protestants do not follow a Vatican codebook, and the Eastern Orthodox churches have their own separate canons. What El-Sayed referred to is the internal legal system of the Catholic Church, primarily the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which governs how the Church administers its own affairs.

Think of it as the bylaws of a 1.4 billion-member organization. It dictates how bishops assign priests, regulates sacraments and parish property, and determines whether a marriage can be annulled within the Church. Its harshest penalties are laicization, denial of Communion, and excommunication.

Notably absent from that list: fines, prison, or stoning.

A bishop in Detroit cannot walk into a Michigan courtroom and demand the state enforce a canon law. He cannot jail someone for skipping Mass, seize property for leaving the faith, or discount a woman’s testimony. If he tried, the First Amendment and civil courts would intervene.

The Code itself instructs Church authorities to defer to civil law on ordinary matters such as property, contracts, and guardianship. In the United States, the Constitution is supreme, not divine law. The Church can preach and withhold the Eucharist, but it cannot become the penal code.

Sharia as state law vs. private piety

Critics of El-Sayed’s comparison emphasize that while private sharia—such as prayer and dietary rules—may resemble religious practice protected by the First Amendment, the version of sharia he is flattening is sharia as public law, which operates in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

In those jurisdictions, sharia is not optional; it is the theocratic legal system applied to Muslims, Christians, atheists, and even tourists. It is not a matter of “my faith, my choice” but rather “Allah’s rules, or else.”

Under state-enforced sharia, apostasy and blasphemy can be capital crimes. A woman’s courtroom testimony is worth half a man’s. Daughters inherit less than sons. Male guardianship is a binding legal chain of command over a woman’s body and movements. Sex outside narrow permissions can lead to death sentences, and in some regions, female genital mutilation is practiced to ensure compliance.

Canon law’s worst-case outcome is denial of a wafer. Sharia’s worst-case outcome, where it governs, is denial of a courtroom, a passport, or a pulse.

Global support for sharia

Critics point to Pew Research Center’s 2013 global survey to underscore that sharia as state law has widespread support, not just among fringe extremists. The survey found that 99% of Afghan Muslims and 84% of Pakistani Muslims wanted sharia as official state law. Of those, 79% in Afghanistan and 76% in Pakistan backed the death penalty for apostasy. In Egypt, 74% wanted sharia codified into law, and 86% of those supporters backed executing converts—amounting to about 64% of Egyptian Muslims overall.

These numbers challenge the notion that state sharia is merely a misinterpretation by a few bad regimes, according to critics.

Political and historical context

The debate comes amid broader political tensions over religious liberty and national identity. Some commentators, including Watters, argue that the Founders built a nation rooted in Judeo-Christian moral values but deliberately avoided establishing a national church. The First Amendment, Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance, and Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Freedom were crafted by men steeped in scripture but wary of theocracy, having witnessed Europe’s centuries of throne-and-altar conflict.

Christianity and Judaism, critics note, operate within this bargain: their authority stops at the congregation door. Civil law applies equally to believers and nonbelievers. Canon law fits inside that framework, as does halakha when practiced privately.

What does not fit, they argue, is a legal system engineered to be the state itself.

When former President Trump has proposed banning sharia law in the U.S., El-Sayed has called such measures racist and Islamophobic. But critics counter that banning state-enforced sharia is consistent with American constitutional principles, which hold that no religious law can supersede civil law.

El-Sayed’s past behavior has also drawn scrutiny: he previously asked a documentary crew to keep his bookshelf full of Islamic books out of frame to appear more “secular,” and he has been associated with individuals accused of ties to terrorism. These factors, critics say, undermine his credibility on religious liberty issues.

The question remains whether El-Sayed’s framing will gain traction with voters or whether the sharp distinction between internal church governance and theocratic state law will hold in public discourse.

Source: www.dailywire.com — https://www.dailywire.com/news/no-canon-law-and-sharia-law-are-not-the-same-one-of-them-wants-you-dead