There's a bit of a difference between Halakhic law and Sharia; the worst that can happen under Halakha is being stripped of Orthodox identity and mourned as dead while you're still alive. Under Sharia, the last thing you hear is the schwing of a sword
Well, there's that. Plus, there are several other religious courts, of a sort, within the US. The biggest difference in all of them and in Sharia, however, is Sharia inherently wants (demands) to supplant
any and all secular laws with Islamic law. There's nothing wrong with Muslims wanting to live their lives by Sharia law, unless they want to subject non-Muslims to that law, or unless they want to break the secular civil and criminal laws of the US. There have been at least two incidents (that I know of) of US courts setting aside US law in favor of Sharia law. In both cases, the appeals courts overruled those decisions, and both times the lower court judges received scathing, almost brutal rebukes by the higher courts. As long as the Sharia courts stick to matters of finance and family matters, and don't overstep US laws, they'll be fine.
Being like them and looking like them are two different subjects. Imho
Yes and no. Being like them and looking like them are often one in the same for those who come from certain regions or countries of the world, particularly from countries with little or no racial diversity. Where they come from of what they look like is the very first step in the vetting process.
Nevertheless, saying that "ISIS kind of folks"
all look the same to me is an honest assessment of the physical characteristics of the typical ISIS member. It's stereotypical, sure, and there are always exceptions to every stereotype, but that doesn't make it wrong, or racist to acknowledge what is otherwise plainly evident, i.e., ISIS members tend to have a certain, similar look. It would be nice if they all had a singularly distinguishing mark of some sort, like a tattoo on the forehead that said ISIS or something, but they don't. So you have to go with what makes the most sense when vetting them.
The phrase "they all look the same to me" is a stereotype, yes, and like most all stereotypes, is rooted in the truth. But it's not racist, especially if it's a true and honest statement. Koreans, Japanese, Okinawans, North Chinese, South Chinese, Vietnamese, Pacific Islanders, they each have distinctly different physical characteristics that people of those regions and cultures can spot in an instant. Nevertheless, they all look the same to me. Exactly the same. But that doesn't make me racist because of it. Can you tell at a glance the difference between a Seminole, Navajo, Apache or Cherokee?
Incidentally, the word "vetting" is of British origin. It comes from having a horse "vetted" (examined closely by a veterinarian, to examine, appraise, assess) to ensure its proper fitness before a race. It was first used in print by Rudyard Kipling. My OED (Oxford English Dictonary) taught me that.
