The EWTN News portal reports that Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, during a Fox News appearance, equated Islamic sharia law with Catholic canon law, declaring that neither is being “pushed on anyone else” in America, and likened opposition to sharia to “white supremacy.” The outlet frames the controversy by noting technical distinctions—sharia governs civil and political life in Muslim nations, while canon law regulates only the Church’s internal discipline—yet platforms the candidate’s relativistic equivalence without theological refutation. This reportage exposes the conciliar sect’s institutional commitment to religious indifferentism, whereby the immutable rights of Christ the King are surrendered to a false irenicism that places the Law of God on par with the law of a false prophet.
The Conciliar Press as Megaphone for Islamic Apologetics
The article in question originates from EWTN News, a flagship organ of the post-conciliar establishment, which styles itself “Catholic” while functioning as a propaganda arm for the novus ordo hierarchy. Its senior editor, Amira Abuzeid, presents the El-Sayed controversy with the studied neutrality of a secular wire service, quoting the Muslim politician’s assertion that “Nobody is trying to push sharia law on anyone else, just like I hope nobody is trying to push canon law on anybody else” as a reasonable plea for religious liberty. The portal then offers a cursory “Difference between canon law and sharia law” sidebar, admitting that sharia “forms part or all of the political and legal systems in several Muslim-majority countries” while canon law “does not function as a civil or political legal code for the state.” This concession, buried beneath the headline equivalence, reveals the fraud: the conciliar media legitimizes the Islamic claim to mere “private worship” while obscuring sharia’s intrinsic totalitarian ambition to subjugate the temporal order to Allah. The Syllabus of Errors condemned precisely this error: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Pius IX, Syllabus, prop. 55), a proposition the neo-church now embraces in practice by refusing to demand the public confession of Christ’s Kingship over Muslim lands or American legislatures.
Canon Law and Sharia: An Ontological Chasm Obscured by Modernist Relativism
The comparison is not merely inaccurate; it is blasphemous. Canon law (ius canonicum) derives from the potestas iurisdictionis conferred by Christ upon His Church: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Mt 28:18). It governs the societas perfecta established by the God-Man for the salvation of souls, regulating the sacraments, the hierarchy, and the faithful’s path to eternal life. Sharia, by contrast, is the fabrication of a seventh-century Arabian warlord who denied the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Crucifixion. It claims divine authority for a system that sanctions polygamy, easy divorce, corporal mutilation, and the dhimmi subjugation of Christians and Jews. To equate the two is to assert that the Lex Ecclesiae, which binds the baptized to the lex credendi of the One True Faith, is morally and juridically equivalent to a code that mandates the death penalty for apostasy from Islam. The article cites Michael Knowles’ quip about “plant oils” versus “four wives,” but the deeper horror is the conciliar silence on sharia’s intrinsic injustice—its denial of the natural law written on every human heart (Rom 2:15). Error communis facit ius (common error makes law) is a maxim of the devil; the conciliar sect’s adoption of it signals its apostasy from the lex aeterna.
The Syllabus Condemned This Indifferentism Over a Century Ago
Pius IX, in the Syllabus (1864), anathematized the proposition that “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (prop. 15), and that “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (prop. 16). El-Sayed’s rhetoric—”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”—is the verbatim echo of these condemned errors. The EWTN report treats this as a defense of “freedom of religion,” the very libertas perditionis (liberty of perdition) that Leo XIII denounced in Libertas (1888) as the “root of all evils.” The conciliar sect’s Dignitatis Humanae (1965) enshrined this heresy as “doctrine,” and its media outlets now parrot Islamic talking points that exploit the vacuum. The article’s mention that Oklahoma’s anti-sharia law “passed with over 70% of the vote but was struck down by a federal judge” is presented as a victory for justice, not as the judicial imposition of secularist relativism that the Syllabus foresaw: “The civil law prevails” over the ecclesiastical (prop. 42). The neo-church, having surrendered the potestas indirecta in temporalibus, has no ground to stand on when the mosque demands equal access to the public square.
Quas Primas: Christ’s Kingship Admits No Rivals
Pius XI, in Quas Primas (1925), instituted the Feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the “secularism of our times, so-called laicism” that “began with the denial of Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations.” The encyclical declares: “His reign encompasses not only Catholic nations… but also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ” (citing Leo XIII, Annum Sacrum). El-Sayed’s demand that sharia be tolerated as a private “faith choice” is a direct assault on this dogma. Sharia claims to be the lex divina for all humanity, superseding the Gospel. The conciliar sect’s response—platforming the equivalence, noting “differences,” and moving on—is the silentio legis (silence of the law) that Pius XI warned would bring “seeds of discord sown everywhere, flames of envy and hostility.” The article quotes Kyle Shideler calling the comparison “deliberately misleading,” but the neo-church cannot articulate why it is misleading without invoking the Social Kingship of Christ, which it abandoned at the Council. Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia; where the Vicar is a usurper, the Church’s voice is silenced, and the mosque fills the void.
The Sedevacantist Perspective: Why the Conciliar Hierarchy Cannot Resist
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the scandal is not merely El-Sayed’s demagoguery but the conciliar hierarchy’s structural incapacity to refute him. The “bishops” and “cardinals” of the novus ordo—including the current usurper “Pope” Leo XIV (Robert Prevost)—profess the heresy of religious liberty, teaching that the State has no duty to profess the Catholic Faith. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, cap. 30), “A manifest heretic cannot be Pope… he cannot be the head of something of which he is not a member.” The line of claimants since John XXIII has publicly defected from the Faith (Canon 188.4, 1917 Code), losing office ipso facto. The See is vacant; the structures in Rome are a secta paramasonica (paramasonic sect) occupying the Vatican. EWTN, founded by the “Mother Angelica” of the charismatic movement—a movement condemned by Pius X’s Lamentabili sane exitu as “the synthesis of all errors”—is part of this occupation. Its reporting on El-Sayed is not journalism; it is the propaganda fidei of the anti-church, normalizing the mosque-church parity that the Masonic lodges have sought since 1717. The “Two Lucia Sisters” theory in the Fatima file illustrates the depth of the disinformation: the conciliar narrative is a controlled demolition of Catholic truth.
Conclusion: The Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place
The EWTN article is a microcosm of the conciliar apostasy: it presents the enemy’s lie (sharia = canon law), offers a tepid technical correction, and calls it balance. This is the hermeneutic of rupture masquerading as dialogue. The true Church, persevering in the catacombs of Tradition under valid bishops and priests, knows that “There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Canon law is the lex vivendi of that salvation; sharia is the lex mortis of a false revelation. To equate them is to spit on the Cross. The faithful must reject the neo-church’s false irenicism, cling to the Traditio integra, and pray for the restoration of the Regnum Christi—when the Crescent will fall before the Cross, and every knee shall bend, in caelis, in terra, et sub terra (Phil 2:10).
Source:
Muslim Senate candidate faces backlash for comparing sharia law to canon law (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 26.08.2026