>>>>>>>To do that would require excising shari’a law and that clearly DID NOT happen.

The question is *what kind* of Shari’a law. If it applies in theory, or only for religious matters, that would be one thing. If it’s the Wahhabi version, that would be something else.

To give you an example: did you know Sharia law is recognized in Israel? As is Jewish religious law? This doesn’t make Israel a theocracy.

Why? Because in both cases the laws apply (a) only to those who volunteer for them to apply to them, and then (b) only in purely religious or personal issues (e.g., the state recognizes religious marriages), and (c) it was simply a case of recognizing long-established customs in both the religious Jewish and Muslim populations.

If it’s *that* kind of Shari’a law, it can work out in practice quite well with a modern democracy. The problems begin when the Wahhabis butt in.

Same, incidentally, for Sharia’s demand for killing heretics (say). In theory, Jewish religious law demands the same punishment to anyone daring to work on the Shabbath (Saturday). .

Only, the sages of the Talmud made it clear that to deserve death you must (a) have lived during the time the Jewish Sanhedrin was operating (e.g., not for the last 2000 years); (b) been constantly warned both in advance and during your heresy by two male adult witnesses that what you’re doing is a crime punishable by death; (c) be condemned unanimously by a Sanhedrin panel made of, I think, 23 judges.

Needless to say, this is not a practical possiblity. If Sharia death penalties are of *this* nature, I won’t care.