This is what you get when you put wingnut Brigitte Gabriel in front of a camera with wingnut Frank Gaffney:
Gabriel: But a lot of people say that Sharia law is a religious practice, and maybe it should be protected by the First Amendment. Can you please tell us, is it compatible with the Constitution? Should it be protected by the First Amendment as a religious practice?
Gaffney: It is the law of the land in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and anyone who thinks that life is like in either of those two countries is the same as life in America obviously doesn’t nothing about Saudi Arabia or Iran. In fact, it is absolutely antithetical, Sharia is, to our Constitution, and the pursuit of it you said in your comment is incompatible with the Constitution’s Article VI, and therefore being a protected religious practice, it is an impermissible act of sedition, which has to be prosecuted under our Constitution.
Yes, you should be scratching your head and muttering “WTF” to yourself over and over again after reading that. The only thing Article XI says about religion is a ban on religious tests for office. This has precisely nothing to do with Sharia law.
And of course, the question of whether the practice of Sharia should be protected religious practice depends entirely on which specific practice we’re talking about. If a Muslim believes that Sharia requires them to pray 5 times a day while facing Mecca, give to charity, believe the Quran to be the word of Allah, and so forth, then of course those practices are constitutionally protected.
If they believe that Sharia requires them to commit honor killings, strap explosives to their chest and blow up buildings, or behead infidels, then of course those practices are already against the law and always will be.