Sharia in the US

[swansont]

From http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100641-trump-protestors/?p=957919

I think that Islam is half religious and half political and I disagree with their politics and think Sharia law is NOT compatible with our constitution and separation of church and state.

I think it would be more accurate to say that your caricature of Sharia might not be compatible with our constitution and separation of church and state, but even that would be a stretch

I will copy this rather than rewriting it, from another thread

First of all, there seems to be a gross misunderstanding of what Sharia is. It's not "law" as we understand it — it's not a set of statutes. Sharia means "the path to be followed"; it's what you need to do to be considered a good Muslim. There are a lot of things Christians do (or are supposed to do) that would be considered the analogue of Sharia — any teaching from the Bible. Going to church on a regular basis. Confessing your sins, if you're a Catholic. Tithing. Not eating shellfish, and other foods to avoid. The kind of cloth your garments should be made of.

"While often thought of as a legal system, Shariah covers personal and collective spheres of daily life, and has three components – belief, character, and actions. Only a small portion of the “action” component relates to law. In fact, only about 80 of the Quran’s 6,236 verses are about specific legal injunctions."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/sharia-law-usa-states-ban_n_3660813.html

To suggest to a Muslim that they should reject sharia is to tell them they should discard their religion. It's a ridiculous suggestion. It's like asking a Christian to stop following the Bible (to whatever extent that they do)

The US constitution prevents the adoption of sharia, but by the same token, also prevents the government from keeping people from following it, if that's what they choose to do. The only conflict is where existing law prevents some actions, but we already have precedent on this. You can't cite your belief in human sacrifice as a justification for doing that. Beliefs are protected, but actions are not.

So Sharia is not "compatible with our constitution and separation of church and state" in the same way that wearing a yarmulke is not, wearing a cross necklace is not, not eating meat on Friday is not (if people still do that) or avoiding pork is not, or avoiding getting a tattoo or eating shellfish is not (if people actually avoid the things in Leviticus) or even saying "God bless you" after one sneezes is not. That is to say, it is in no way incompatible.

 

As I said in the quote, the Constitution protects us from any laws that do not have a secular basis. That applies to all religions. You can't pass laws that exclude, or promote, a religion. Nobody is going to be able to pass a law that will stand a challenge that forces you to "Islamic things" (for lack of a better phrasing) any more than you can get a law to stand up to scrutiny that makes everyone do something that is exclusively Christian — unless there is a secular reasoning behind it. Murder, as an example, is called out as a sin in the Bible, but that's not why it's illegal.

 

The first amendment says you can follow whatever religion you want, and the courts have said this is up until your practices break some secular law (no sacrificing virgins, for example), though you can still believe what you want. Your belief is sadly not grounded in fact. It's a spook story being passed around to make you afraid.

 

[CharonY]

Ultimately it is a bogeyman as it sounds foreign and threatening and fears are based on completely ignoring the legal framework a given society (even their own) is based on. While somewhat off-topic it is akin to the irrational fear of having freedom of speech suppressed by introducing elements that are considered PC, such as introducing polite forms to address minorities.

[MigL]

The problem is not what reasonable people like yourself and CharonY understand Sharia law to be, but what some religious fundamentalist, who blames his daughter for 'getting' raped, understands it to be.

Its all just 'threatening and fears' until some young woman gets stoned ( and I don't mean high ).

[Delta1212]

The problem is not what reasonable people like yourself and CharonY understand Sharia law to be, but what some religious fundamentalist, who blames his daughter for 'getting' raped, understands it to be.

Its all just 'threatening and fears' until some young woman gets stoned ( and I don't mean high ).

You can say similar things about any religious or cultural doctrine. Most people following Sharia don't stone their daughters and most people following Biblical law don't bomb abortion clinics.

 

The problem is not whether one follows a set of religious precepts. The problem is the murderous loon.

 

The question is whether answering in the affirmative to the question of whether one follows "Sharia law" is highly correlated with being a murderous loon.

 

The answer to that question is "no."

[CharonY]

The problem is not what reasonable people like yourself and CharonY understand Sharia law to be, but what some religious fundamentalist, who blames his daughter for 'getting' raped, understands it to be.

Its all just 'threatening and fears' until some young woman gets stoned ( and I don't mean high ).

 

And how many stonings have happened in the USA? And as for the extremist individuals, what does it matter whether they did because of the Bible, Quran, anti-capitalist, anti-government, supremacist, political, or any other ideology?

If we use the same measure, shouldn't we ostracize all ideologies that could eventually lead to violence? And when we do, what is left?

[MigL]

And one could make the argument that no stonings or whippings have happened in the US exactly because we don't have Sharia law.

Can you make the same statement about countries where Muslim Clerics are the law givers/judges/enforcers ?

[CharonY]

If you read SwansonT and my post it should be clear that Sharia law does not an issue in the USA (note the title) due to the legal framework provided.

 

 

Nobody is going to be able to pass a law that will stand a challenge that forces you to "Islamic things" (for lack of a better phrasing) any more than you can get a law to stand up to scrutiny that makes everyone do something that is exclusively Christian — unless there is a secular reasoning behind it. Murder, as an example, is called out as a sin in the Bible, but that's not why it's illegal.

 

 

Ultimately it is a bogeyman as it sounds foreign and threatening and fears are based on completely ignoring the legal framework a given society (even their own) is based on.

[swansont]

And one could make the argument that no stonings or whippings have happened in the US exactly because we don't have Sharia law.

Can you make the same statement about countries where Muslim Clerics are the law givers/judges/enforcers ?

 

 

Yes, one can make crappy arguments.

 

We don't do that in the US because we have no religious law, and a constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Remember, stoning is in the Bible, too. But no whipping? You should reread your history books.

[MigL]

Yes, one can !

The fact that it doesn't happen in the US does not mean it doesn't happen in parts of the World where it is ( even partially ) practiced.

And I can post contemporary stories of whipping from those parts of the World also, while you had to reference History books for North American/European examples.

 

No law should be based on religious beliefs, whether here or there. I think THAT we can agree on.

[swansont]

Yes, one can !

The fact that it doesn't happen in the US does not mean it doesn't happen in parts of the World where it is ( even partially ) practiced.

And I can post contemporary stories of whipping from those parts of the World also, while you had to reference History books for North American/European examples.

 

 

The subject of the discussion is Sharia in the US. So yes, it can happen elsewhere, but that's irrelevant to this particular discussion.

[tar]

I am not an expert on sharia law, but I understand it is the political half of Islam. Muhammed, as first Caliph of Islam decided all things legal and political. He was not just a spiritual leader, and a prophet of Allah. Muslims must learn the Quran by heart and travel to Mecca and circle the stone reciting such, as least once in their life. They must strive to live their lives as Muhammed did, and fight the disbelievers in Muhammed and Allah.

 

ISIS has a Caliph and the main idea of ISIS is to establish a caliphate, initially around Raqqa in Syria, but including lands in Iraq. They have eyes on Libya and other locations around the Mediterranean. I saw a picture of the expected near term caliphate about three years ago, that had black pretty much surrounding the south and east of the sea. This was not religious in essence it was political. Sharia law would be the law of this caliphate, hence a law I do not want to see in my country. It is not compatible with our laws. Not the way it treats woman, not the way it treats gays, not the way it feels toward interest or Christians or Jews or apostates or idol worshippers or people that would mock Allah or Muhammed. It would not work here, it is not desirable here, and anyone bringing it here is not welcome here. That is, I will not accept a tower with a speaker calling me to prayer 5 times a day. It is not our way.

 

What is left of Islam, if you take away sharia law? Not much. It is basically then just the old testament.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 24, 2016 by tar

[CharonY]

 

 

The subject of the discussion is Sharia in the US. So yes, it can happen elsewhere, but that's irrelevant to this particular discussion.

 

Precisely. The context being the USA or, potentially by extension, other Western countries. If one omits all context one can make a case for virtually anything. For example Hitler was elected withing a democratic system. So I could claim that democracy is bad, as it resulted in a Nazi regime (whilst ignoring other parameters that were relevant).

Pardon the Godwin, but that is the direct consequence of omitting context. Now, if you want to, would you mind trying to refute the points SwansonT proposed? Because I surely can't.

 

And since homosexuality has been brought up, there have been anti-homosexuality laws in the US, and (male) homosexuality was considered a felony up until recently. There are still laws enacted trying to limit LGBT rights, and as far as I can see these were not pushed primarily by Muslims. Take a look at the Pew data on homosexuality. 45% of the Muslims said that it should be accepted. While it is lower than Catholics (70%) or Jews (81%) it is still higher than Evangelical protestants (38%) or Mormons (36%). But why are they treated differently? Also the acceptance of homosexuals by American Muslims is higher than in other countries. Doesn't it tell us again that it is meaningless to paint everything with one brush?

 

We do that for protestants: "they may be anti-gay but they are basically good people" or how about the statistic I recently cited regarding misogyny comparing Syrians and Germans?

Why is it that we can differentiate between nuances of intentions and see the good in people, provided they are more like we are? And why can't we do the same for those that are not, even if available data shows a far more complicated view?

 

Do theocratic Muslim regimes do horrible things? Sure. But do you really believe that a theocratic protestant regime would be so much better if given unlimited power? And again, that is why we have laws and the constitution to prevent precisely that happening, regardless which faith you may or may not be.

Edited November 24, 2016 by CharonY

[tar]

CharonY,

 

One argument would be that we are predominately a Judeo/Christian country. The laws of Moses and the Laws of Jesus are entwined in our laws.

 

The attorney general of the U.S. spoke of love being an important consideration. Love trumps hate, is a placard in the current street protests. Obama is pardoning drug offenders that were jailed when crack cocaine sentences were longer than cocaine sentences, he talks of forgiveness and second chances and repentance.

 

My father is a retired psychologist and professor, he did not come to church when our mother took her daughter (my sister), and I. But his father took him to church. His father gave him his values, how one should be toward others, and it included all the teachings I learned from Sunday School and all the things my mother taught me about Jesus' love. My sister and I are both atheists, my father is atheist, my departed mother was Christian, through and through. My wife who is religious, took my daughters to Episcopal church, because we wanted to teach them the values associated with the religion. We were married in an Episcopal church, baptized our daughter there and live according to Christian principles of love and tolerance, respect for others and personal responsibility to do the right thing.

 

When you walk down the street in the U.S. you know that the people around you believe in both the constitution and their religion. The two are compatable here, because the founders of the constitution were going by Christian values, that accepted people of other faiths. The separation of church and state works here, because both Jews and Christians can handle that separation. American Muslims can handle that separation, because they have seen the value of the constitution's separation of church and state, and of the Christian values of love and tolerance and the combination of workable religious values, with workable human laws, based on religious values, makes a workable framework, for all. Islam is compatible with Christianity and with Judaism because all three are based on Moses laws. Basic tenants of all the religions are similar, but Muhammed made some adjustment to the old testament, that talked about Christians being in error because they believed erroneously in Allah having associates, and Jews being in error because they charged interest on loaned money, and idol worshippers being in error because they worshiped graven images, and people that mocked Mohammed being in error, because mocking the prophet of Allah was mocking Allah.

 

My father did not reject the teachings of his father, but did not go to church. I do not go to church. My daughters no longer go to church, but my one daughter believes in god and the other not so much. My sister and her husband and their son do not go to church, but everybody in my family is a good person, and tolerant of others and forgiving of others.

 

I do not see those qualities in ISIS. The difference between the beliefs of ISIS and my beliefs and the beliefs of my children are the tenants of Christianity and the tenants of the constitution of the U.S.

 

Regards, TAR

[DrP]

QUOTE: "love trumps hate"

 

Is that why you guys were shooting at and teargasing what remains of the indigenous people of your land in Dakota earlier this week? I do not necessarily agree with their stance, but it IS kinda their homeland.... and no-one cares about them at all, it is like they are an embarrassment to you that you want to forget? Your whole country was based on people from all over the world flocking to the land and destroying the people that were there before you - so don't tell me your land was based on Christian values. Keep lying to your self if it makes you feel better.

[swansont]

One argument would be that we are predominately a Judeo/Christian country. The laws of Moses and the Laws of Jesus are entwined in our laws.

We are predominantly a Judeo/Christian country because of who settled here early and in in greater numbers. The Constitution affords people the right to follow what religion they want to. As far as the laws of Moses and the Laws of Jesus, goes, we lifted rules that made sense in a secular fashion. Some of those are present in Islam, too. Do you really think Jesus cornered the market on "thou shalt not kill" (or the rest of the ten commandments)?

 

 

 

I do not see those qualities in ISIS. The difference between the beliefs of ISIS and my beliefs and the beliefs of my children are the tenants of Christianity and the tenants of the constitution of the U.S.

ISIS is not the subject here, though. It's Sharia in the US, and how the fear surrounding it is propaganda pushed by the right. Individuals practicing Sharia law are as protected under the Constitution as a Christian is for following the tenets of Christianity. Adopting Sharia is as forbidden as adopting non-secular parts of Christian law. And that applies to all religions, not just ones tied to Moses. That is, for anyone who believes in the Constitution.

[tar]

DrP,

 

You guys, is talking about all of us. We had a situation a little while ago where ranchers were protecting their land from government takeover for a bird sanctuary. If public good and eminent domain is good for birds, then it is good for gas lines.

 

We stole the land from the Indians. Fact. We made treaties with the Indians we should honor. We should respect their sacred sights.

 

We had a gas line put in across North Jersey, that a lot of land owners and towns protested. It went in anyway. For the public good.

 

Regards, TAR

We are predominantly a Judeo/Christian country because of who settled here early and in in greater numbers. The Constitution affords people the right to follow what religion they want to. As far as the laws of Moses and the Laws of Jesus, goes, we lifted rules that made sense in a secular fashion. Some of those are present in Islam, too. Do you really think Jesus cornered the market on "thou shalt not kill" (or the rest of the ten commandments)?

 

 

 

 

ISIS is not the subject here, though. It's Sharia in the US, and how the fear surrounding it is propaganda pushed by the right. Individuals practicing Sharia law are as protected under the Constitution as a Christian is for following the tenets of Christianity. Adopting Sharia is as forbidden as adopting non-secular parts of Christian law. And that applies to all religions, not just ones tied to Moses. That is, for anyone who believes in the Constitution.

Well fine, be a Muslim that does not adopt Sharia law, if that is possible then fine. But is that possible? I know I can be Christianish without believing in God. Can a Muslim be Muslimish without believing in the teachings of Muhammed? I don't think it works. Can they believe in the constitution of the US AND Islam, is the question.

 

Regards, TAR

I would like to hear from a Muslim on this. Is it possible?

Can you recite the words of Muhammed and his scribes, 5 times a day, AND accept the constitution of the US?

[swansont]

Well fine, be a Muslim that does not adopt Sharia law, if that is possible then fine. But is that possible? I know I can be Christianish without believing in God. Can a Muslim be Muslimish without believing in the teachings of Muhammed? I don't think it works. Can they believe in the constitution of the US AND Islam, is the question.

In my OP I stated that the two are inseparable. I don't know how you come to ask the question, because my point has been that there is no prohibition on an individual practicing Sharia law (up to the point that an action violates the law) — it's fully compliant with the Constitution.

 

And here you seem to imply I have stated the opposite of that.

 

What can't happen is any religion using the government to force other people to follow their religious teaching.

[tar]

SwansonT,

'

Well if our upholding of the constitution demands we protect people's rights to practice their religion, up to the point that it infringes on other people's rights, or breaks the laws of the land, then the question is at what point does the practicing of Sharia law break our laws?

 

Should we ever protect a Muslim's right to construct a tower and call other Muslim's to prayer, in a loud fashion?

 

Can a bank refuse to hire a Muslim, because a practicing Muslim denounces the charging of interest?

 

Should a public school make special allowances so Muslim children can pray?

 

Should beards and clothing required by the religion be worn by Muslims in situations where such are inappropriate, or not customary?

 

At what point does the teaching of Islam, in a Mosque, become radicalizing? Should we monitor Mosques to ensure they do not present a danger to our way of life?

 

If, when a Muslim is in a Mosque in Racca, practicing their religion the U.S. is the great Satan, smoking,looking at pornography, worshipping graven images, taking drugs, having anal sex, charging interest, making mischief across the globe, siding with the Zionists, giving Allah associates and worthy of having their heads cut off for their crimes against Allah, what aspects of this can I assume are being similarly taught in the Mosque down the street in good old U.S.A.where a Muslim is practicing their religion? What, about being a citizen of the U.S. do Muslims like? What are they teaching their youth?

 

After 9/11 I read the Quran twice. Once for the jist and once for comprehension. I wanted to know, why a person would think it advantageous to their religion, to fly planes full of people into buildings full of people, in my country.

 

My book report on the Quran and my assessment of the religion that memorizes and recites it, is this. Muhammed got messages from Gabriel an angel of Allah, retelling the stories of the Old and New Testament and setting new rules, in the dark of a cave. He related these messages from Gabriel to his scribes who wrote them down reflected in the first parts of the Kuran. The ideas are Muhammed's and the reasoning is Muhammed's. He structured his thoughts to convince his followers that doing his will, was doing Allah's will and vice a versa, and simultaneously oft repeated that he was but a simple prophet. He basically repeated all the stories of the bible, but made a few corrections, pointing out where jews got it wrong (charging interest) where Christians got it wrong (the father, son and holy ghost) and where idol worshipper had it wrong, to worship, graven images. The most part was to set rules for what one not do, like eat animals found on the road, that you did not kill, and what to doh with your wifes and such in terms of punishing them at the appropriate time for their sins against Allah or the prophet, and when to fight against someone, and when to show them mercy and such. How you will get satin couches and virgins and rivers of honey for following the prophet, and have boiling oil poured down your throat for eternity for mocking the prophet. The last part of the Quran sounds more like the Scribes just repeating earlier ideas of Muhammed, like he ran out of ideas and the scribes just repeated stuff and wrote poetry praising Allah and the prophet. But the religion was founded to make Muhammed the caliph and bind together the warring idol worshipping tribes, in a fight for dominance of Arabia and the Middle East. Political in nature. The religion is both spiritual and political. The division between the believers and unbelievers is repeated over and over in many different ways throughout the Quran.

 

 

My question remains, how do you recite the verses over and over, every day, and not believe them?

How is practicing a religion, meant to bind the troops behind a conquering caliph 800 years ago, going to find itself compatible with my way of life, here in America in 2016?

 

Regards, TAR

so...if a Muslim man, would physically strike his daughter, for wearing makeup, would our laws protect the man's right to practice his religion, or would we interfere, on the basis that we think it alright to wear makeup and not OK to punish someone for doing it?

does our government have the right to tell a parent how and when to discipline their child, to ensure their compliance with the rules of the religion they practice?

Edited November 24, 2016 by tar

[CharonY]

 

 

Regards, TAR

so...if a Muslim man, would physically strike his daughter, for wearing makeup, would our laws protect the man's right to practice his religion, or would we interfere, on the basis that we think it alright to wear makeup and not OK to punish someone for doing it?

does our government have the right to tell a parent how and when to discipline their child, to ensure their compliance with the rules of the religion they practice?

 

Which laws do you think apply when a Christian or a an atheist strikes his daughter?

 

Also, you are arguing from an extremely judgmental position of incredulity. Did Christians not change their attitude? Did I not present evidence that Muslims are not a homogeneous mass in their attitude? Is that, in turn not evidence that Muslims can have a very differentiated opinion on issues even if they have the same religious background? Should I point out that Christianity is in its core misogynist and is therefore not compatible with our society, which is supposed to be based on equality?

Edited November 24, 2016 by CharonY

[tar]

CharonY,

 

The Muslim religion did not go through the reforms and protests that the Christian religion did. There have been many years of adjustment for most religions to become more compatible with secular governments. Kings are on their way out, or have diminished roles all over. There are not that many religions that claim total say over a follower, legal, political, cultural and religious..

 

It is possible, as you have shown for Muslims to have a wide range of adherence to, and deviation from the rules. But mostly when they live in a non-muslim country that has a secular government. There are indeed different sects like the Shiite and the Sunni that might hold different beliefs, or certain countries where Muslims are allowed to be more liberal and break the rules. Or black Muslims in America that have their own set of rules, what is carried forward from Mohammed and what is more recently constructed.

 

This is why I would like to hear from a "liberal" Muslim. Which of the old crap laws have you dropped and what are your new standards?

 

The old crap laws don't work here in the U.S. and we will never allow ourselves to have territory within our borders, that answer to a Caliph and not the local, state and federal government, in terms of solving legal and family disputes and determining human rights and freedoms.

 

But no, I can't particularly say why it is OK for a thing to be the case where we use to do another.

.

When I was young there was a manger scene every year in the home plate cage at the park across the street. Public park. Somewhere in the last 60 years we figured that was against the constitution. I personally don't think it un-American to display such things. Still allowed, but only if other people with different beliefs get equal time in the public spot. Gets silly to have big signs that say "there is no god" and such, to give atheists equal time. I AM an atheist and I think its rude and inappropriate. And it feels wrong, and causes friction between believers of different things. So no, I can't tell you why one religious tradition is valued by a society and another rejected. Maybe it comes down to the context you are talking about. If you have a town, where there is one person that would be offended if public places displayed a nativity scene then such should not be done...but if everybody in town wants the nativity scene then a government ban from the Federal level, would be an imposition.

 

Regard, TAR

Edited November 24, 2016 by tar

[Hans de Vries]

Comparing Islam with Christianity is like comparing rodents to cephalopods. Both are animals and derived from a common ancestor but this is about as much in terms of their similarity..

 

Jesus was a man of peace. His apostles were a peaceful folk. There is no account of them engaging in attempts to spread their religion by force. Christianity was created in an environment that was extremely hostile - the Roman Empire. Under these conditions resorting to sword would very quickly put an end to entire religion. Quietly spreading the Gospel was the only way to go. Furthermore, the Christian religion very quickly *bu the time of Paul of Tarsos) became influenced by Greek philosophy and drifted away from Judaism and it's strict legalistic framework.

 

 

Muhammad was neither peaceful nor persecuted. To the contrary - he was the one who persecuted others. He became the absolute ruler of Arabia (would a peaceful prophet really want this much power?) and was extremely harsh towards even the slightest criticism of himself or his religion. The Quran tells Muslims to strive to be like Muhammad - and his successors (the first the "sahaba") immediately attacked Byxantium and Persia and achieved great military success within 10 years of Muhammad's death.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Hans de Vries

[DrKrettin]

Jesus was a man of peace. His apostles were a peaceful folk. There is no account of them engaging in attempts to spread their religion by force.

 

 

That's not how christianity developed, though. It was utterly vile in the Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition is an obvious example of spreading religion by force.

[MigL]

I usually bow out when Tar 'takes over' a discussion, but...

 

That is exactly how Christianity developed, and I might add, the figure who sets the example of HOW we should lead our lives, is Jesus, in the New testament. You know, the 'turn the other cheek' guy, the guy who asked his Father to forgive his executioners. In all of the writings about him, whether real or fictional ( who cares, he is simply a symbol of what we should strive for ) he gets upset one time only, and upends the money-lender's tables in the temple.

 

Now compare with the example set for Islam, by Mohammed.

( and remember that these are now actual historical records )

 

Mohammad starts preaching in Mecca ( a trading center for nomadic traders ), where he quickly runs foul of the law, leaves for Medina, and organizes raids on caravans travelling through Mecca to steal their goods. When he has amassed enough wealth and power he returns to re-take Mecca. And subsequently, also by the sword, all of the Arabian peninsula. in his name, and by the sword, eventually, to the west all of North Africa and the Iberian peninsula is conquered as far as the Pyrenees, and to the east, as far as the Punjab.

 

Which 'example' should we be following ?????

 

As for sharia law, in the Trump/Hitler thread I mentioned how a dictatorship could "never happen here" and was quickly corrected by Phi, Delta and iKnow, that I was making foolish assumptions, because it couldn't happen in Germany either, until it did !

So I'm going to suggest that Sharia law can't currently happen here.

Until it just might !

[swansont]

As for sharia law, in the Trump/Hitler thread I mentioned how a dictatorship could "never happen here" and was quickly corrected by Phi, Delta and iKnow, that I was making foolish assumptions, because it couldn't happen in Germany either, until it did !

So I'm going to suggest that Sharia law can't currently happen here.

Until it just might !

Just like a Christian Theocracy could happen here, if people start ignoring the Constitution.

[Phi for All]

As for sharia law, in the Trump/Hitler thread I mentioned how a dictatorship could "never happen here" and was quickly corrected by Phi, Delta and iKnow, that I was making foolish assumptions, because it couldn't happen in Germany either, until it did !

So I'm going to suggest that Sharia law can't currently happen here.

Until it just might !

 

The differences have been explained, so I'll attempt an analogy. Let's make it a capitalist analogy and say you own a store that sells merchandise. The Trump to Hitler comparison works because he's getting an invitation to come visit our store and look around, see if there's anything he likes. He's charismatic and friendly if you stay on his good side, and before you realize it he's got a truck parked around back, and he's filling it up with your merchandise, and thanking you for your generosity. He's in control of your life because you invited him.

 

Sharia in the US would be like trying to drive the truck through the front of the store to steal the merchandise. We've got all kinds of security cameras watching the front, we've arranged the approach to the store so a truck can't get going very fast, and we've put those steel posts in front of the doors to prevent the truck from smashing through and ransacking. And as a last resort, even if they could get the merchandise, we've got ways to track it so we can get it back. And we have the police to help us stop these attempts as well. As long as we keep our protections in place, this is NOT a successful strategy.