You have posted here multiple times against Sharia without any explanation,

You are a time waster

It's a simple question: Why don't you follow Sharia?

You won't answer the question because you know that whatever answer you give will show that you are not neutral towards Sharia, contrary to what you vainly claim. (I don't think you won't answer the question because you are too ignorant to form an opinion. Am I giving you too much of the benefit of the doubt?)

I have cited dozens of precepts of Sharia on this forum, pulled from primary sources, that I disagree with. What have you ever cited?

When you are challenged to offer substantive arguments of your own, you retreat with claims of neutrality to avoid having to do so. Your refusal to answer this simple question shows you are being disingenuous in this discussion. You are the one wasting people's time.

It's disappointing because I know you can do better.

Why don't you follow Hans Christian Anderson?

I don't see why you are badgering somebody for not following Sharia law because it's not applicable to them.

They are rules applicable to a subset of society, and as long as they are applied within the legal restrictions of the host country, then I see no issue with the laws or those that want to follow them.

There is little difference between Sharia law in Europe and the tenets of other religions, or the local golf club or English Forum. We are legally not allowed to execute errant members, but we can certainly cast them out.

"What have you ever cited? " To answer this I recommend you search through my posts; there are only a few thousand

Come on. Tell that to the victims of Nice, Bataclan, etc.

In relation to why Sharia is/is not important?

What is the link between these and Sharia law; you are somewhat confused.

You posted "I have cited dozens of precepts of Sharia on this forum" so you were implying that I should search for these posts and read them?

I returned the compliment by proposing you search through my posts to obtain my opinion on Sharia.

You then posted "In relation to why Sharia is/is not important?" My answer is; of course, just search

Marton, you know that ISIS claims Sharia as justification for its attacks.

And as for your cites, I see you have made many comments, but I don't see any citations.

Ah, but you're neutral

ISIS makes a great many claims. Not all of them are to believed as a true representation of the actual state of affairs.

Perhaps Canada should force Quebec to adopt the common law system, as their legal system is based on one for which the guillotine was a valid punishment.

"you know that ISIS claims Sharia as justification for its attacks. " No I don't know, no doubt you have a link to a credible source?

You're being vague. I'm not saying that the Islamic State's interpretation of Sharia is the only one; merely that their interpretation is what what they believe to be true and this is what drives them. After all, al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Law.

As far as other interpretations of Sharia are concerned, those are the great questions of our times. Are there interpretations that can completely undercut groups like the Islamic State? If so, how can Muslims spread these alternative interpretations? How can non-Muslims help (if at all)? Must Islam go through a "reformation" of its own before any progress can be made?

But to begin to discuss these questions we must first acknowledge the importance of Sharia to the events of today, including Islamic terrorism in Europe and elsewhere, the war in Syria, the resulting refugee crisis, etc., and have some knowledge about what Sharia is, what its different interpretations are, and if there is space for modernization.

The issues surrounding Sharia are a bit more relevant than those involved with Manitoba's common law vs. Quebec's civil law.

Haha Marton. And I'll post a bunch, and you'll insist they're not credible, and we'll debate their credibility, and when you're backed into a corner, you'll simply declare that you don't actually care if Sharia is important to the Islamic State. And if asked for your own opinion, you'll duck the discussion by claiming you're neutral. Wash, rinse and repeat.

Well, by constantly linking terrorism and Sharia and Islam together, as I think you seem to be doing above, it would be a bit juvenile to think that this would be of any assistance to any part of that religion which was interested in some form of reformation.

But if you wish to call my point vague, be my guest. I am currently trying to observe a week of Pedantaram, so I guess it's working.

As I expected you cannot find sources to justify your statement ""you know that ISIS claims Sharia as justification for its attacks. ".

About "Must Islam go through a "reformation" of its own before any progress can be made? "

No, Islam needs no change. The problem is that groups like ISIS claim their legitimacy based on their false interpretation of the laws of their religion.

The key issue is that Islam is not hierarchical so you cannot go to some higher authority or Pope and ask that such false interpretations be banned or changed.

Add to this that many ISIS supporters are not "academically inclined" so logical counter arguments based on correct Koran interpretations are doomed to fail.

Maybe you should try just drawing a Pentagram with candles lit on every apex; if you do not have enough candles I am just around the corner and have plenty

Brave words!
So far in this thread you have posted no sources or links but simply bluff; I live in hope but sadly it is fading.

I am not linking terrorism and Sharia and Islam, groups like the Islamic State do that. You may notice the name, ISLAMIC State, and you've seen their tactics, including terrorism.

There are other schools of Islam that would never support such tactics, like the Ahmadiyya. Sadly, its members only make the news when they're murdered.

Not that any of this should matter to you, as someone who denies any link between competing schools of Islamic law and violence.

I admire you're persistence, Marton.