>>>...is already dismantled. I don't see it having too many teeth left.
>>
>>I'm curious as to how you've reached that conclusion. It seems to be working just fine to me.
>
>"Seems" is the keyword.

Well, then, back up what you're claiming. Prove me wrong. Arguing semantics is carrying water in a perforated bucket.

>>Which hardly turns into Islamics seeing the West and playing "me too, me too" when pushing for religious law.
>
>Did I say that? It's a known fact that islamic tradition puts the judiciary in the hands of priests. I keep saying that they are handed a "they do it too" argument to silence the dissenters.

Those among them who would want Sharia out of their hair can be easily quashed by the fundamentalists who'd just have to say "look how Christian priests make laws in USA".

And I'm saying that (a) they don't need the argument, (b) they wouldn't use it to begin with, and further, (c) in the Shia faith, the imams are held as descendants of Mohammed, and have the right to make the decisions.

Ergo, the argument is invalid.