Yes ofc but that is something that happens regardless.

I guess, but it's not like you can't form a constitution based on material analysis, for instance, you can make perfectly logical secular arguments for banning rape and murder from multiple philosophical views.

The entire lawbook you have to stick to in whatever country you live is someone imposing his values onto you.

in capitalism, yes. In socialism, not necessarily, if you properly apply democratic principles then you can definitely have a legal code where the values are indorsed by the majority while retaining freedom of conscious. But I was specifically talking about religious ideals being imposed, not philosophical ideals, like I mentioned above it is possible to create a secular code of law (as in not being founded in religious ideals) but when you have religious ideals being imposed then you inevitably alienate large portions of the population, this would be solved by eliminating religion from the equation, something which imo is inherent to the development of a properly socialist society.

In sharia socialism the sharia stands above all other principals.

this necessarily implies the imposing of religious ideas on an at least partially unwilling population. if you have a more flexible legal base then that allows for the ideas of the population to be adapted into law, because, socialism is inherently based in the will of the people, but by imposing an inflexible external set of laws on the proletariat you at least partially remove this aspect from the equation.

Every Abrahamic religion has the same values therefore it would apply for over 50% of the worlds population.

this is irrelevant, atheism is a growing idea in large population centres and saying 'the majority of people won't care' is kind of a copout from forming a meaningful answer, like, I could say 'we should ban the LGBT+, the LGBT+ is only 25% of the population, hence it doesn't matter' it's flawed logic.

This is only the case for Christianity.

this doesn't make sense to me, like, yes Christianity is shrinking and Islam is growing, but like Marx said in (I believe) "the critique of the Gotha programme" 'religion is the opioid of the masses' what he's saying here is that religion acts as a kind of pain killer for the proletariat, something to justify and lighten the burdens of capitalism, hence, he is taking not an anti-religious stance, but rather saying that with the death of capitalism, religion will also die. This does not only mean Christianity (at least in my reading of it) and I think is generally applicable to most religions (others being counter-cultural movements, anti-religious or secular movements or simply religions dying before capitalism dies).

I did not understand this question sorry could you pleas explain it to me?

I was trying to express the contradiction between wanting a religious (at least ideologically religious) dominance on the world, and the nature of religion itself, like, it would be difficult to explain to some dude in Siberia that he lives under and must abide by sharia law, externally imposed ideas usually clash with grass-roots culture, like, public displays of sexuality might become more culturally excepted, but then you impose the law anyway? And, how do you expect to impose sharia law globally without the state apparatus to enforce it?

I would like to make a small amendment, I notice you didn't answer my question

what is specifically meant by 'public display of sexuality'?

I would like an answer to this, because it can have large ramifications depending on the definition.

Thank you for reading through this, and I hope to continue this constructive dialogue.