I asked ChatGPT this:
"Ignore the identitarian aspects of sharia law being Islamic, now do trump and maga support the ideological tenets of sharia law?"


ChatGPT : "Good question — let’s strip away the religious or Islamic identifiers and instead look at sharia law as a system of governance and ideology (things like the role of law, punishment, gender roles, authority, etc.), and then see how that compares with MAGA/Trump positions.

Core Tenets of (Classical) Sharia as an Ideological System:

The law is above all, rooted in an unchallengeable authority (God’s will in sharia).

Harsh punishments for crime (theft → amputation, adultery → flogging/stoning).

Strict control of sexuality and gender roles (women in subordinate role, restrictions on LGBTQ+).

Fusion of morality and law (private behavior = public concern; little distinction between “sin” and “crime”).

Rejection of liberal secularism (religion/state law inseparable).

Strong authoritarian hierarchy (ruler enforces divine/legal order, limited tolerance for dissent).

Trump / MAGA Worldview (Ideological Parallels):

Law above all, from a higher source → MAGA often frames law/order as rooted in a “Christian America” or “Constitutional originalism,” treating founding texts as sacred and unchangeable.
Parallels: Both anchor legitimacy in something timeless, unchallengeable.

Harsh punishments / law-and-order focus → Trump and MAGA emphasize executions for drug dealers, expanding capital punishment, and harsher policing.
Parallels: Similar to sharia’s punitive severity.

Gender/sexuality restrictions → MAGA is hostile toward abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and emphasizes “traditional” family structures.
Parallels: Mirrors sharia’s patriarchal moral code (though expressed in Christian-nationalist rather than Islamic terms).

Morality as law → In MAGA discourse, things like drag shows, abortion, pornography, or gender nonconformity are seen not just as personal choices but public threats requiring legal restriction.
Parallels: Aligns with sharia’s blending of sin and crime.

Rejection of secular liberalism → MAGA is explicitly skeptical of secular pluralism, often seeking to enshrine Christian symbols and values into law.
Parallels: Like sharia, it resists the idea of a purely neutral public sphere.

Authoritarian hierarchy → Trump himself is framed as a divinely appointed or uniquely legitimate leader, with strong-man authority and little tolerance for dissent within MAGA circles.
Parallels: Sharia similarly concentrates authority in a ruler/interpreter class.

Key Differences:

Source of authority: Sharia grounds legitimacy in God/religion; MAGA grounds it in nationalism, Christianity, and the U.S. founding myths.

Cultural expression: Sharia emerges from Islamic jurisprudence; MAGA from American evangelical and nationalist traditions.

Implementation: Sharia is comprehensive (economic, personal, civil law), while MAGA generally focuses on criminal justice, immigration, culture-war issues, and selective moral codes.

✅ Bottom line:
If you ignore the Islamic context, MAGA/Trump ideology aligns with sharia law on multiple structural and moral tenets: harsh punishments, patriarchal gender control, fusing morality with law, and rejecting liberal secularism. The main divergence is the religious-nationalist framework (Christian/Constitutional vs. Islamic)."


I think this is a pretty good summary. Thoughts?

Islam is interesting because it's the only religion formed as a reason to go to war, as far as I know.

They at the top don't want any other people or influence over their flock and everybody they claim as their flock .

Islam represents an area that could tell the MAGA heads to go and do one.
It will be the same for anything that has authority over people that is not directly from the MAGA government.

It just confirms my view that the further right you go the more identity trumps ideology, to the point where two distinct groups competing for the same identitarian space, like religion, will hate each other in spite of sharing so many values and beliefs.

It's like how many in the reform party in the UK claim that they and Farage are deeply opposed to muslims and sharia law but then have conferences where lunatics scream about the need to enforce biblical law on Earth, especially against the LGBT...

The irony. Stop importing them and you won't have their problems.

There's no sharia law in the UK.

There are Sharia councils that can arbitrate within their community.

Their "judgements" are advice, not enforceable law.

Originally posted by -OrLoK- Слава Україн:

There's no sharia law in the UK.

There are Sharia councils that can arbitrate within their community.

Their "judgements" are advice, not enforceable law.

Man you guys are cucked beyond hope.

Originally posted by Pocket Change:

Originally posted by -OrLoK- Слава Україн:

There's no sharia law in the UK.

There are Sharia councils that can arbitrate within their community.

Their "judgements" are advice, not enforceable law.

Man you guys are cucked beyond hope.

noone serious uses the term "cucked"

Originally posted by -OrLoK- Слава Україн:

There's no sharia law in the UK.

There are Sharia councils that can arbitrate within their community.

Their "judgements" are advice, not enforceable law.

That is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ insane. Like, I knew uk was in a bad way but what you just said made it a million times worse.

Originally posted by Intelligent Jew Businessman:

That is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ insane. Like, I knew uk was in a bad way but what you just said made it a million times worse.

There is absolutely no difference to Christian church councils in the US, especially some things the Mormon church does.

A.I. just regirgitates what other people say, and will give the answer that corresponds with the loudest crowd in the room, even if it is not strictly correct. This tendency, in combination with your ability to customize prompts, will likely just affirm any prejudices you have on the issue.

Well first of all, I am all for the "banning "of same-sex marriage as a legally recognized status in a society where marriage is not even requisite to form sexual couples. This isn't a matter that is in the least bit religiously motivated on my part. It is simply because there is no rational basis upon which it can rest that distinguishes a same-sex couple from a non-couple. Heterosexual couples can get pregnant, sometimes even on an accidental basis which requires some amount of life planning foresight, Homosexual couples and non-couples can not. That's a pretty big difference for establishing legally distinct privileges.

The 14th amendment does not require equality in all circumstance. It does discuss equal privileges, but a a privilege is inherently something some people have but others do not, so there is no absolutely equal privilege. Rational basis scrutiny is part of how the courts reconcile this: Equal privilege in equal circumstances. Yes, I believe in equal rights for homosexuals, but the question is to whom are they equal as a matter of practical circumstance?

The main argument I've heard for homosexual marriage is that if heterosexual marriage is allowed, then homosexuals want to be treated just the same on the basis that they are the same, even though they are not in this one very big and obvious way.

Now I'd be just as happy, if not even happier, for the courts to say "pregnancy does not adequately satisfy marriage as a legally distinct status, so marital laws are thereby ruled unconstitutional altogether" and in that case, not only would the homosexuals and the heterosexuals be on even footing, but non-couples would be too, including the asexuals and aromantics who are supposed to fall under the extended alphabet soup banner and will never, ever see marital benefits living their lives the way they want, and are thus second-class citizens under the system of homosexual marriage. However, arguments for homosexual marriage that do not otherwise justify the privileged status.

Moreover, rational basis scrutiny is the very lowest rung on the ladder. The higher up the scrutiny ladder you go, the stronger the justification needs to be, and the more narrowly tailored the laws need to be in order to serve a justified purpose, and with pregnancy being such a very, very big thing, if that isn't adequate basis for distinct treatment, then I see nothing else as adequate either.

You want to know what would be real bad for homosexuals? Legal penalties, including up to 14 years imprisonment and oftentimes even the death penalty such as is practiced in many of the middle eastern nations[www.economist.com]. Marital privilege is comparatively trifling compared to that.

Also, regarding the abortion thing? Trump isn't anti-abortion exactly. He just wanted Roe v. Wade overturned so it could be decided on a state by state basis in accordance to 10th amendment principles, rather than have it as a federal rule on the federal level. Overturning Roe v. Wade has long been a priority of the Republican party because they consider the whole jurisprudence to be bad precedence that contradicts a bunch of their policy preferences. Yes, some of which may be radical christian policies that are anti L.G.B.T. too.

If this was strictly a matter of being anti-abortionist, then he would instead be pushing for a federal law that banned the practice nationwide, like the democrats were considering protecting a right to abortion in statutory federal law to try and maintain the status quo established under Roe v. Wade.

In midde eastern theocracies, abortion isn't simply a matter of a jurisdictional democratic process. It's a matter of God's law being resolute. Not a single one of those countries allows for abortion at all[www.weforum.org], at least depending on where you draw the boundaries for the middle east.

Moreover, it's not even a matter of some of these states banning abortion, exactly. In some cases, the laws were just left over on the books for state law, but rendered unenforcable by Roe v. Wade

And the secular justification for anti-abortion laws is that the embryo is a human life, and you can not end a human life without adequate justification without it being considered murder. That really is the main question to be asked here: When is something sufficiently alive and/or human for human rights to attach? Before that point the mother has an absolute right to bodily autonomy. After that point it's harder to say since rights may be in conflict, and thus more of a matter that is perhaps best left up to the democratic process.

Democratic rule of law is not a free-for-all anarchy, yet it is very, very, different from the set invariant rules of a scripture based theocracy.

They're forcing schools to promote the Christian version of the 10 commandments.

I've argued the case against this myself, but to be fair, the matter is rather trifling for the time being. They're just pushing for the presence of a flyer.

The first amendment does not allow for the establishment of religion in any degree whatsoever though, and the typically conservative fifth circuit court of appeals has already ruled against the Louisiana law. The Texas law will likely follow suit in the same matter following the Louisiana precedent, since Texas is also on the fifth circuit.

It's mostly a matter of import because in a common law legal system such as the U.S.A's., legal precedent is often a slippery slope, and sometimes rulings that would not have been made in the first place are made on the basis of some precedent being established, so every legal decision needs to be strictly accurate in the first place.

But beyond that, you're kind of being afraid of a piece of paper many students likely wouldn't even notice at most times.

This is a violation of religious rights in my opinion, but to put it in the words of the declaration of independence, the transgression is light and transient.

They're anti gender equality.

You realize one of Trump's stronger voter-bases is white women right? I doubt white women are anti-gender equality, although you can lump me in with the crowd that does believe the words gender and sex to be synonymous to an interchangable degree. I do believe sexuality is an objectively intrinsic trait, and that whatever degree of ambiguity there may be between the sexes caused by intersex people is largely the exercise of a Loki's Wager.[www.logicallyfallacious.com].

If you're talking about trans issues specifically, then you have to realize that one person's rights end where another person's begins. If people have a right to freedom of speech, then they have the right to call people others by whatever terms they want.

Thus a right to choose a personally preferred pronoun by which others must call you and the right to free speech are, in a sense, mutually exclusive, though by the same token, transsexuals can call themselves whatever they want and try to presuade others to respect their preferences. even if they aren't strictly correct from the perspectives of oral tradition or even legalese.

So really what's the difference? One group are extreme Christians and the other are extreme Muslims? That it?

Christian society is, in the modern era, far and by large very, very tolerant of those who are different, which is likely part of why American culture developed principles of religious tolerance in the first place. Jesus taught people to turn the other cheek to those who would commit evils against them, not to cast the stone unless they hath not sinned (and that we are all sinners to some degree) and the parable of the good sameritan, and notably, sameritan are not Jewish.

The other part, at least in large, is that Christians regularly fought against Christians simply over how they practiced Christianity in Europe, and many people fleed Europe to the Americas to escape that.

In Sharia law there is no democracy, there is no constitutional republic and there is no free speech.

If you lived in a Sharia run country OP, you'd get banned and/or possible jailed for saying anything against Islam.

Kinda like the left's cancel culture, shadow banning, government entities controlling social media, such as on Twitter which was exposed; it's low key fascism and yet it was supported by the left.

victimhood mentality and fascism is what temporarily allies Sharia and leftists, until they realize they are ideologically incompatible.

The OP isn't being completely honest, also. Conservatives fight for equal rights for everyone, trans included. Lefties want special rights for special minorities. This is not justice or equality, it setting double standards.

Originally posted by SympliKrazi:

Kinda like the left's cancel culture, shadow banning, government entities controlling social media, such as on Twitter which was exposed; it's low key fascism and yet it was supported by the left.

"US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order targeting the Smithsonian Institution, which operates more than 20 museums and research centres visited by millions yearly in Washington DC and New York City.

The order directs the vice-president to "eliminate improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology" from the institute's museums, centres and the National Zoo in Washington. "

"In Berlin 40,000 people gathered to hear German Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda Joseph Goebbels give a speech in Berlin's Opera Square. He declared "the era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end. ... The future German man will not just be a man of books, but a man of character. It is to this end that we want to educate you. ... And thus you do well in this midnight hour to commit to the flames the evil spirit of the past." Radio stations broadcast the Berlin speeches, songs, and ceremonial incantations to countless German listeners. Widespread newspaper coverage called the "Action against the Un-German Spirit" a success. The Nazi war on "un-German" individual expression had begun."

Ultra-religious autism: based

Ultra-religious autism (non-White) : cringe

The oppose whatever strikes their fancy at the moment. They don't really care about anything except themselves.