My problem with your take/explanation is in the words ‘it has no force of law’. Such standings as ‘home owners associations’ do/can limit ownership of property. I do not want to live in any societal context where such influence on valid Constitutional rights is superseded by some self designated body of persons, especially such as with Sharia Law.
Neither do I. Which is why I’m glad sharia has no such effect.
BTW, some of the seemingly more rational complaints about sharia law have turned on US courts using it in their deliberations.
Without exception these have been in civil disputes where the contract in dispute was drawn up using shari law or the law of a Muslim state based on sharia. Obviously, the US court has to apply sharia in such a case, not because sharia is valid here but to enforce the terms of the contract as written.
Very similar situations occur for contracts drawn up under French or Russian law. And it occurs here between states. I was recently an expert witness in a case here in Florida. It involved a dispute over a prenup. The case was heard in Florida, but was required to apply Michigan law because the terms of the contract so specified. Most contracts specify what state’s laws will apply in case of dispute.
There was also a criminal case in NJ or thereabouts where an idiot judge made an idiot decision using sharia to excuse the defendant in a criminal case. The idiot decision was promptly and properly overturned on appeal. That’s a problem with an idiot judge, of whom we have a number, not with sharia as such.