Please explain how sharia law is "binding" in courts (short of a takeover by the muslims), or becomes primary authority over and above US law, when used against US citizens? Wouldn't that be like the Russians (or any other country) attempting to enforce their laws within our borders on us?
The whole argument here is incoherent.
Sharia law rulings are binding on devout Muslims, as rabbinic court rulings are for devout Jews, or canon law rulings for devout Catholics.
But none of them have any mechanism other than peer pressure by the in-group to enforce their rulings.
That is of course what defines “law,” that if those involved refuse to accept the ruling, it is enforced.
> Please explain how sharia law is “binding” in courts (short of a takeover by the muslims), or becomes primary authority over and above US law, when used against US citizens? Wouldn’t that be like the Russians (or any other country) attempting to enforce their laws within our borders on us?
I was merely posting what the blogger posted. Sharia law could only be binding if the Muslims took over and abolished The Constitution and declared sharia law the new law of the land. In other words only if we “allowed” it or were overcome by military might. Of they might do it a region at a time. I have a feeling Soros and his mini-Me fully endorse it.