<p>
</p>
<p>This is laughable. No one votes for Sharia law. The powers that exist gladly impose it, depriving people of basic freedoms (political, economic & religious),keeping people so weak that they can’t overthrow the yoke. Again all built on the foundation of religious perfection, forbidding dialogue and change.</p>
<p>Ephesians 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church…”</p>
<p>Colossians 3:18 “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord”</p>
<p>Also, the Bible permits a father to sell his daughter in to slavery in some circumstances, and it states that the penalty for adultery is death.most Christians today would probably say that women are equal to men, slavery is wrong, and the punishment for adultery shouldn’t be death. There are things that are in the Bible that should be considered archaic, just as in the Quran.</p>
<p>Also, what about the Spanish
Inquisition, in the 1500’s when the King and Queen instigated the banishing and killing of both Jews and Muslims if they did not convert. They did this with the full backing of the Catholic Church. Does this make Christianity “intolerant” as some people on this board accuse the entire religion of Islam to be?</p>
<p>It is just as bad to condemn all of Islam as it is when Islamic extremists condemn the West for being evil. Now, those extremists choose to act upon it in the name of religion, which is completely inexcusable. I’ll leave it at that.</p>
<p>
WHO, anywhere, ever has done that?</p>
<p>@americannigerian - excellent post </p>
<p>Some details have emerged about the identity of one of the attackers - a British born man of Nigerian ethnic origin, raised a Christian, who converted to Islam about ten years ago [Woolwich</a> attack suspect identified as Michael Adebolajo | UK news | guardian.co.uk](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-suspect-michael-adebolajo]Woolwich”>Woolwich attack suspect identified as Michael Adebolajo | Woolwich attack | The Guardian)</p>
<p>I recently read a very interesting article about how Islam is simply the vehicle for transporting tribal values and practices to other societies. Some cultures simply can not mesh.</p>
<p>@sosozema
A perfect example when muslims choose Shariah through democracy is Egypt. Although the government faces fierce opposition, the majority still supports the government headed by the Islamic movement the Muslim Brotherhood.
Tunis is al also another example, when bin ali of tunis was removed; elections were made and no one was forced to vote for anyone. Guess what, al nahda party , the Islamic movement, won.
A fact that many people do not know is that Islam was what united the tribes of Arabia and the Arabs including many other nations. Trust me they are goin to cling on to it with every part of their souls. Why do you attack Shariah when its twin sister, Jewish law in the Torah has nearly the same rules?
Did you ever hear of the law of apostacy and homosexuality in judaism. With 3 witnesses a homosexual can be killed by the court in Solomon’s temple…</p>
<p>To all those defending the current actions of one group based on the past actions of another…consider this.</p>
<p>Many of us here spent our HS years during a time when driving drunk was not considered to be the very big NO NO it is today. If you will be honest with yourselves you know this to be true. Enforcement and repercussions for underage drinking and DUI’s were laughably lax. </p>
<p>So just to make it clear…Christians had the crusades and we now see this as wrong. So, now Islamists have their Jihad but under political apologetics it’s okay because, well, because Christains had their crusades. </p>
<p>Hey, most of us here grew up during a time when drunk driving was often overlooked and considered a right of passage. It was wrong then…but we did it…so…we should excuse our kids if they drive drunk because…well…because we did it and it’s only fair. Oh, and today there will probably be fewer DUI victims because vehicles are built to higher safety standards. And, as one poster mentioned, if one group has less victims than the other…well…then it’s just not that bad. Right?</p>
<p>Zoozermom: Yes, tribalism and the modern world do not mix. Ayaan Hiris has written several wonderful books on this subject.</p>
<p>
No one really believes that. The argument is just to give cover for being afraid that if you pick your head up enough to attract attention the barbarians will be showing up at your door with a machete. It’s about showing fake solidarity so that when they rampage you will not be a target. “You hate the Jews? So do I how about that?” Take the machete, the pressure cooker bomb, the gun over there instead of over here because I’m a good guy, I understand that the Crusades really, really hurt your feelings. People aren’t afraid that the Jewish diamond dealer is going to cut off someone’s head or that the Christian pro-lifer will detonate a pressure cooker in the middle of a crowd of innocent civilians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why wouldn’t we be just as afraid of Eric Rudolph as we are of Tamerlan Tsarnaev?</p>
<p>
Because there was one Eric Rudolph and many bombers. We’re not talking about culpability, but about the raw, primal fear engendered in others by acts like beheading someone on a peaceful street in the middle of the day and then standing there with red hands talking to a video camera. And isn’t that the point? To create that fear? The barbarians who undertake these acts do so to make people terrified because it makes them feel powerful. You can sit there at your computer and make a small argument, but I think down in your soul there is a part of you that would be worried if a group of young men started praying to Allah on a flight you or your family member was on. Jesse Jackson, himself, talked about learing how that fear felt after he was the victim of crime twice and then looked in trepidation at young black men in certain circumstances.</p>
<p>Also, the element of showmanship and drama. Rudolph didn’t stand in front of a video camera and talk about what he did, there was a lof of confusion about who actually did the act. But many terrorists videotape themselves undertaking the acts (Daniel Pearl) because they are proud and want people to know what they did, who did it and why they did it. Which makes these acts very different from typical criminal behavior.</p>
<p>zoosermom: The crusades (bad behavior of the past) are used as an excuse for Jihad (bad behavior of the present). And that excuse allows the current bad behavior to not only continue, but to be packaged in such a way by our politicians and other groups, that it is excusable. Your are spot on in that
. But the fear of an Islamist terrorist attack is quite real. Our collective fear to state the obvious…a group of people are out to actively and violently hurt another group of people just makes it so much easier to continue the rampage.</p>
<p>
They are out to hurt everyone else. Which means that Muslims who don’t toe whatever specific line is set by a particular barbarian is subject to attack. Actually, Muslims are the first targets. I’ve been reading a lot prior to yesterday’s attack about the area in England where the attackers were from and it seems like the barbarians first fouled their own nest and made their neighbors, both Muslim and not, utterly miserable before expanding their mission.</p>
<p>^^^ That type of fouling the own nest behavior sounds like a typical drug gang. The rule being - either join the gang or be terrorized by them.</p>
<p>
Well they do that too. Which is, I think, an important point. A lot of this behavior is about gang or tribal warfare and Islam is just the excuse they give for it. I’m not a great believer in the theory that Islam is inherently violent at this point in time, but I do think some tribal cultures absolutely are. Unfortunately, it’s hard to separate the two.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, ignorance about what is in “Jewish law” is expected from non-Jews but equating it to Shariah is so plain wrong that it beggars description. I could spend pages describing how Talmudic rules and Jewish interpretation have little to do with Muslim Shariah and the application of Muslim legal codes, but I’m not going to bother because I can live with ignorance but not the utterly ridiculous assertion about Solomon’s era. It isn’t in Jewish law to kill homosexuals. It’s in old books that Jews are intelligent enough not to follow to the letter. </p>
<p>Jewish law doesn’t cut the hands off thieves. It doesn’t stone adulterers. </p>
<p>But even more importantly, there is no place on earth where anyone is going to enact Temple era Judaism, let alone Torahnic legal codes. But they are actually doing that in the Muslim world. </p>
<p>To point at something from thousands of years ago and say “See, they do it too” is really freaking wrong.</p>
<p>
. </p>
<p>This is incorrect. There is no vote on Sharia law and there will certainly never be a vote to exclude it. Fundamentalists will invoke it as part of Islam and all that do not practice it will be infidels. No choice, no democracy, no freedom. BTW since Islam does not offer freedom of religion there never can be the democracy of choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do Malaysia and Indonesia fit in this? Both have over 85% literacy for females. Both have 15% or more non-Muslim populations.</p>
<p>The main difference between radical Christianity and Radical Islam is there is no country governing leadership held by radical Christians. There is no “Christian State.” For example, it would be the American equivalent of having the West Borrow Baptist Church running things here in America. Many extremist countries have Religion ran governments. </p>
<p>Now for the fact people today cannot use the world Islamic Terrorists is pretty evident. Obama claims the Ft Hood shooting an act of Work Place Violence. It was later reported that NSA officials put him on a watch list and Hasan was in contact with radical Yemen cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Anwar al-Awlaki was a confirmed member of al-Qaeda. </p>
<p>To make a statement or to imply that all Muslims are terrorists is simply wrong. Being in the Army and deployed, I met some really good interpreters who were DoD employees who dearly loved America. I’ve also became friends with some Saudis at school who are good people trying to get an education. Even they admit they’re terrorist in the world. </p>
<p>The statement about women should submit to their husbands and adulterated is punishable by death is flawed. No Christian today or any acceptable form of Christian mainstream views hold these to be applicable today. </p>
<p>Proverbs 31:10 An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels. </p>
<p>The full quote:
Ephesians 5:22-23, 33 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior… However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.</p>
<p>I only post the first one to show how how valued a good wife can be. The second one is in complete context. Women submit to your Husbands but Husbands better love their wife as they love themselves. Its applied to be a two way street.</p>
<p>Malaysia has a Constitution that sets out freedom of religion. It’s a mixed secular/non-secular country where Muslims have to follow certain rules that non-Muslims don’t. It’s about 60% Muslim, which makes a difference. I expect that if the number were 90% or more, the country would be much more oppressive. </p>
<p>Indonesia is a different story. They are more Muslim and you see a real split between Asian Islam and that more like practiced in the Middle East, meaning much more tradition bound. This really shows in Aceh, where a war has been going on and off for a long time in part concerned with attempts to establish a purely Islamic state and in part more basically separatist. It’s sometimes referred to as a hidden or dirty war. Indonesia has been becoming more Islamic, so there are questions about what one can say about now versus the future. The dictators - Sukarno, Suharto - didn’t allow an Islamic state but it’s becoming more of one.</p>
<p>BTW, some Muslim countries are literate and others aren’t. It also depends on how one defines literacy; some include bare reading and writing of simple things like a name and signs and the like. But the differences are, I would say, more cultural than religious, with the caveat that the spread of extreme Islamism may change that to be more of a religious issue. Arab countries and tribal countries like Pakistan have tended to be non-reading (outside of the Quran) and have lower literacy rates. (Syria had relatively high women’s literacy. I say “had” because I’m not sure what Syria is anymore.) As the UN noted a few years back, the total number of books translated into Arabic each year is less than the number translated into Greek. Greece has about 11 million people. The Arab speaking world is well into the hundreds of millions. And nearly all the books translated were in Egypt and God only knows if that will continue given the Islamist takeover and the growing oppression of the Copts.</p>
<p>The UN releases reports about these human indicators on a fairy regular basis. Status of women. Literacy. You can find a ton of information about economic participation rates for women and so on. That last got noticed when the Islamists imposed limits on women working - most famously in Afghanistan - and that led to a collapse in nutrition. You can read about birth defect rates, etc.</p>
<p>As a note, the main education even for boys is often memorization and recitation of the Quran. I find that simply amazing.</p>