With Merkel's Foes in Disarray, Germany Defies the Trump Trend

[Dill]

(04-27-2017, 05:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps you should ask Fred what he meant by Radical; as he was the one that used the term, to which you are quoting my reply.

If you don't know what desiring to implement Sharia Law means; I have no other was to explain it other than they think it should be the law of the land.

You understand that there are four different legal traditions in Sunni Islam, right, and that some are stricter than others, and that Sharia would be different for each?

And you understand that since in the 19th century, especially in Muslim countries under British or French rule, legal systems have developed which partially or wholly incorporate Sharia, often by breaking precedent and mixing and matching among the traditions, syncretising British, French and Sharia law? 

"Implementation of Sharia" would therefore mean many different things to many different Muslims, everything from lip service to the Koran to Saudi style regulation of dress and daily life, along with criminal, commercial and family law.  In Great Britain, for example, there are two very different "Sharia" court systems set up for Muslims there.

The mixture among Muslim countries is rather astounding. For some Sharia means ignoring things like lashing, stoning, and removing hands of thieves. For others it means putting laws on the books, but never carrying them out. For still others (a few) it means actually carrying them out. But even in these countries (Afghanistan, Sudan, Northern Nigeria) they are contested by other Muslims.

If a Muslim would "like" to implement Sharia that could mean anything from "I would like to live under a system I feel is just" to "I would like to live under the system I am comfortable in the country from which I came (Indonesia, Jordan, etc.)" to a Hanabli/Wahabist "I would like this society to be remade into society at the time of the prophet."

So Sharia is not one thing.