ISIS and conservatives have a similar message.
THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD
The Caliph makes war upon Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians (provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)--which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself--while remaining in their ancestral religions) and the war continues until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden--who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book--until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled." (Koran 9:29) (final italics mine)
Section o11.4 of Reliance of the Traveller says thatZakat, the tax that Muslims have to pay but non-Muslims don't, is supposed to be the same amount as jizya at a minimum
"The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (4.235 grams of gold) per person per year. The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon."
Somehow I imagine the bargaining power of the two sides in determining the maximum is not quite even.
I notice that you don't mention that section h.17 makes one of the eight categories of recipients among which believers are obligated to distribute their zakat "those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration). They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent . . . ."
This is actually something new for them.
When it was 911 and Al-Qaeda "terrorist" and "Islamic radical" were the rice of the leftist meal, trying to lay blame for the event on Bush. Now, Obama has a peace prize, has apologized to the Arab and Muslim world and interfered in several regime changes; enough that he should be able to claim actual rights to that now embarrassing prize [after AL Gore, Jimmy Carter and Obama it has as much meaning as a blue ribbon in fair with one entrant].
But he cannot justify this claim of success so necessary to his "legacy" now that every other thing he's touched has turned to pillars of salt.
What is interesting is how fast the "stupid voters" pick up on the new monologue, a rather Orwellian shift from "enemies" to some kind of generic threat that cannot use any term suggesting Islam is involved.
It's an amazing dance and proof to me Obama is a sociopath. On the one hand he is saying, in effect, there is no radical Islam while at the same time claiming credit for killing them.
How anyone cannot be a Muslim because they kill other Muslims is not a logic at all...
It's just plain lying
"Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt
Shariah Law, we can all agree, is a legal system that places a high emphasis on Religious Social issues, making them law.
The Christian right wants to do something similar in the U.S. They would envision enacting laws that are based upon their own religious social values, making them law, and thus making those who do not share their values forced to live by their ways.
However, how the two groups choose to attempt to enact their policies, are two different animals entirely, and not even comparable.
Just my two cents.