No words:

Hey @realDonaldTrump, many *progressive Muslims* — the ones we should support in ideological fight against extremism — believe in Sharia!! — Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) August 16, 2016

Sally, please … just stop … this is embarrassing.

Apparently @sallykohn thinks Sharia is a progressive and forward thinking ideology. Great hire there, @CNN Top notch. ?? — ZombieHarambe2016 (@LilMissRightie) August 16, 2016

No, but seriously, what? Does she even know what she just said here? https://t.co/eXDxznwzU6 — ZombieHarambe2016 (@LilMissRightie) August 16, 2016

There is nothing "progressive" about Sharia Law. That should be readily apparent to any thinking person. https://t.co/QoXuhRJtSq — Ian McKelvey (@mckelvey_ian) August 16, 2016

Candidate for dumbest tweet of the year. https://t.co/9KYv4fhapg — Jim Branch (@jamesbranch3) August 16, 2016

That tweet in which a Progressive suggests we should completely abandon Western values to be PC. https://t.co/DhU2F0pNrI — Stacey Lennox (@ScotsFyre) August 16, 2016

Liberal Muslim intellectuals focused on religious reform have been executed under Shari'a regimes. But whatevs. https://t.co/tPP7w4xyFh — Blame Big Government (@BlameBigGovt) August 16, 2016

FWIW, she’s defending herself with this Jeffrey Goldberg article about Israel’s adoption of Sharia law for certain proceedings…

Read a book. Or maybe at least an article: https://t.co/KSbR82DAme https://t.co/hNrJNbwPv1 — Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) August 16, 2016

…but this isn’t applicable to most Western nations and she knows it. From the Jewish Chronicle in 2008:

Most matters of personal status, especially marriage and divorce, are ruled in Israel by religious courts. For three religious groups, Jews, Muslims and Druze, there are official, state-appointed courts, who rule on these matters. For Christians, there are private ecclesiastical courts whose rulings are recognised de facto by the civil authorities. The system began with an Act during the British Mandate, under which all recognised religious groups were allowed to deal with matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption in their own courts. After 1948, the system was continued but only in matters of personal status. By law, the sharia courts have exactly the same status as the rabbinical courts.

And:

But Dr Aviad Hacohen, a constitutional law expert from Hebrew University and the head of the Mosiaca centre on state and religion, believes Israel’s system “has two main shortcomings. “The first is that it creates a twin-track system of religious and civil law that are not always compatible.” Over-ruling of the religious courts by the Supreme Court is not uncommon, and in 1992, in the landmark case Bavli v Bavli, the Supreme Court ruled that civil courts take precedence over religious courts. “The second shortcoming is that the system isn’t good for everyone. It can’t deal with mixed marriages, or those who are not recognised as belonging to a religion.” Such arrangements between religious courts and the civil authorities are impossible in countries like the US and France, where there is a strict division between state and religion, but they exist in Germany and Belgium where some religious groups are allowed to rule on such matters.

How’s that working out for Germany and Belgium, heh?

And maybe she can enlighten us on the progressive Muslims who’ve embraced Sharia in these 10 countries?

We eagerly await her answer.

***