Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed ignited a firestorm on social media Monday after comparing Sharia law to Catholic Church canon law during an interview with Fox News host Jesse Watters.
During the interview, Watters questioned El-Sayed about his past opposition to banning Sharia law, asking if the candidate believed that efforts to ban it were indicative of white supremacy. El-Sayed responded by likening Sharia law to canon law, stating, "Nobody is trying to push Sharia law on anyone else, just like I hope nobody is trying to push Canon law on anybody else, because we live in an America where you should have the freedom of your religion."
This comparison drew sharp criticism from conservative commentators who argued that the two legal frameworks are fundamentally different in their scope and application.
"He lies and says no one is trying to push Sharia (they are), and draws a false equivalency to Christian Canon law," wrote Charlie Kirk Show Executive Producer Andrew Kolvet on X. "Canon law determines how Christian leaders, churches, and Christians should live, but Canon law is limited to affairs of the Church (spiritual penalties). Canon law grants great autonomy to the state." Kolvet further contended that "Sharia law is MUCH more comprehensive, governing all aspects of life, and historically, and according to many contemporary Islamic clerics, dictates the affairs of the state."
Political commentator Carl Jackson stated on X that "Sharia law is incompatible with Western Civilization" and expressed frustration with El-Sayed's approach, calling it an attempt "to avoid legitimate scrutiny of Islam."
Fox News contributor Kaylee McGhee White posted on X, "Yeah, it’s over for him."
Conservative commentator Dana Loesch argued on X that El-Sayed "doesn’t get to bloviate about sharia being a mere ‘practice’ of faith when it’s Islamic jurisprudence used to supplant western jurisprudence."
Michael Knowles, another conservative commentator, posed a hypothetical on X: "'Jesse, the Catholic Church requires ministers to use plant oils in sacraments with the blessings of a bishop, so why shouldn't courts allow Muslim men to have four wives?'"
Pamela Geller, a conservative commentator, elaborated on the differences, writing on X, "Canon law applies to Catholics. There is no compulsion in Canon law. Jewish law applies only to Jews. There is no compulsion in Jewish law. It is voluntary. The sharia is a comprehensive legal system governing every aspect of human life, and asserts authority over non-Muslims."
GOP communicator Matt Whitlock commented on X that El-Sayed's defense was "very strange," predicting it would open him up to further attacks.
In a 2009 interview with The New York Times, El-Sayed reportedly said he felt religiously obligated to follow Sharia-compliant practices, stating, "Ultimately, the question is, when I die and I stand before God and go through everything I did in my life, I don’t want to say I did it the easy way instead of the Shariah-compliant way... Not because of fear but because of obligation."
El-Sayed has previously spoken out against bans on Sharia law, linking such efforts to white supremacy. In a 2022 statement, he said, "The reason I wanted to go all the way back to the 1830s is because you can’t understand a Sharia ban without understanding the Trail of Tears. You can’t understand the efforts to uproot Muslim Americans without understanding the Tulsa massacre. You cannot understand the challenges we face today without understanding white supremacy."