My point is that people engage in associations with voluntary bylaws all the time. Obviously those bylaws cannot run afoul of civil law, or redefinitions of English language; or they ought not to. To the extent that Sharia doesn't run afoul of civil law we ought not to be bothered by it (except that the people who wish to live this way are Muslims) any more than we should be troubled by rules established by the New York Racing Association.
ML/NJ
One major problem with Sharia law is the common-law concept of undue influence. A Muslim who refuses to be subject to Sharia law, where Sharia is available, is considered an apostate.
The penalty for apostasy under Islam is death, so be carried out by any Muslim having opportunity to do so. Allowing Sharia law as an option makes it non-optional for any Muslim.
“To the extent that Sharia doesn’t run afoul of civil law we ought not to be bothered by it (except that the people who wish to live this way are Muslims) any more than we should be troubled by rules established by the New York Racing Association.”
That would be Ron Paul’s misinformed response exactly.