I respect the effort, but I think you, just like myself have an armchair's scholarly knowledge about Shari'ah. Like most of us here there is no enough in-depth knowledge on studying the sacred law. For example:
"Some people falsely equate Sharia with criminal or
huddud laws, which are centuries-old specific punishments for major crimes such as killing, adultery, or theft.
Huddud laws are only a tiny part of Sharia and can only be applied by an Islamic state; it is questionable if any of the nations claiming to be “Islamic states” actually fit that description morally or structurally, so these laws are generally not applicable in a modern context, let alone in the U.S. Unfortunately, the misapplication of these laws by the Taliban or other contemporary groups or governments generally contradict both the letter and spirit of Sharia and have given it a bad name."
Source
"Are American Muslims trying to enforce Sharia Law in the United States?" (From same source as above)
"No, America Muslims are merely trying to follow Sharia in their personal life just as practicing Jews try to follow Jewish law (
halakha). There is no evidence of American Muslims individually or as a group trying to force Sharia on others. Muslims are obligated to adhere to the law of the land, and the observance of any laws that run contrary to the Constitution such as polygamy would be prevented even if someone tried to implement them."
I typically find it funny that people look at Sharia Law but don't look at Judaic law like for example Gett and how hard it is for women to get a divorce citing patriarchal elements see:
Yet here we are debating Sharia but don't equally cite other laws that could be perceived as reprehensible.
You also said Sharia is for everyone, well that is also another myth
MYTH NO. 2
In Muslim countries, sharia is the law of the land.
"While it’s true that sharia influences the legal codes in most Muslim-majority countries, those codes have been shaped by a lot of things, including, most powerfully, European colonialism. France, England and others imposed nation-state models on nearly every Muslim-majority land,
inadvertently joining the crown and the faith. In pre-modern Muslim lands,
fiqh authority was separate from the governing authority, or siyasa. Colonialism centralized law with the state, a system that carried over when these countries regained independence.
When Muslim political movements, such as Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, have looked to codify sharia in their countries, they have done so without any attention to the classical separation of fiqh and siyasa, instead continuing the legal centralization of the European nation-state. That’s why these movements look to
legislate sharia — they want centralized laws for everything. But by using state power to force particular religious doctrines upon the public, they would essentially create Muslim theocracies, contrary to what existed for most of Muslim history."
Source
Finally, DOES SHARIA APPLY TO NON-MUSLIMS?
Sharia does not apply to non-Muslims anyway so the hysteria that is now being incited by certain groups, I believe, is based on utter ignorance and bigotry. This bigotry underlying the anti-Sharia campaign was recognized by the American Bar Association when it passed a resolution in 2011 opposing various anti-Sharia measures. As the resolution stated:
“Initiatives that target an entire religion or stigmatize an entire religious community, such as those explicitly aimed at ‘Sharia law,’
are inconsistent with some of the core principles and ideals of American jurisprudence.”
To set the record straight, one should note that anti-Sharia legislation has been defeated in Florida, Missouri and
Oklahoma and the fight continues in
states such as Michigan."
Source
Sorry for the non-sequitor I just had to correct you because all it takes is a little digging.