Bullseye - that's exactly right.
Well of course it is. I said it.
We need to keep that last sentence in mind during any discussion about Islam, especially when Sharia and Wahabbism are the subject matter.
Absolutely. The last sentence being, "Therefore, in the eyes of Muslims, the state and all of it's laws must be based firmly on Sharia law." But we must also keep in mind that there are many, many Muslims (a vast majority, in fact) who, while they believe it and would prefer a church run state, they are also fine with the realities of a non church-run state. Actually, so long as the laws of the state do not directly conflict with Islam, and few few laws do, they have no issues with a non church-run state. The primary issues are the traditional, fundamentalist penalties for breaking various laws.
True, but it's very few when taken as a percentage of Christianity in its entirety. These people are regarded as the "fringe" by the majority of their Christian peers.
I would have to disagree with that. The percentage is far higher than many people realize. I spent 10 years in the Church Directory Division of Olan Mills, spending 5 and 6 days a week in churches of all faiths and flavors other than the Amish. I worked in churches, mosques, and synagogues and spent a lot of time talking to people about things other than which picture do you like best. Any idea how hard it is to sell Christmas cards in a synagogue? It's tough.
In some churches the fundamentalist attitude was a very small percentage, but in others it was nearly 100 percent. But even in the more moderate middle of the road churches, the wish for our nation and its laws to be more Biblical was a significant percentage, if not an actual majority.
The big differing factor is how some wish to accomplish their goal. Some will use violence, and justify it with the Bible. Others won't go that far. But the same is true for Muslims, where all or at least most all of them want it, but it's the small percentage who wish to use any means necessary, including violence, to accomplish it.
Contrary to popular belief, the percentage of violent, radical Muslims is small. It is a larger percentage than that of Christians, however, because of the nature of the two religions. While they are, IMHO, frighteningly similar, the one striking difference is that Christians believe in Free Will and Muslims do not. For Muslims, everything, and I mean everything that has happened, or ever will happen, has already been preordained by Allah, and there's nothing you, me, them, or anyone else can do about it. That's a dangerous thing, because once you've submitted totally to Allah (which is what "Muslim" means), then you can be easily led and manipulated, and you'll think that whatever you are doing is for Allah. Still, there are many Muslims who can reconcile all that with the realities of the modern world.
How will these devout muslims react when/if we start passing laws against the requirements of Sharia?
Well, "devout Muslim" is redundant, since in order to be a Muslim you have to be devout already. The question should be how will the radical fundamentalist Muslims react. We already have a few laws that are inconsistent with Sharia law. Islamic Modernists, Traditionalists and Fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship, much like the same differences within Christianity. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well. For example, the laws governing divorce vary substantially between sects, schools, states and cultures, just as they do with Christianity. Muslims men are permitted up to four wives. Christianity, and our laws, permit just the one.
But the biggest difference between Sharia and secular Western law is not so much the laws themselves, but in justice. There are no lawyers, or juries, trials are conducted solely by a judge. There is no pretrial discovery, no cross-examination of witnesses, and no penalty of perjury (who would condemn their eternal soul by lying to a holy Sharia judge?). Physical evidence such as forensics is rarely, if ever, allowed. Oral testimony is given paramount consideration. A confession, an oath, or the oral testimony of a witness are the only evidence admissible in a Sharia court, and any written testimony, if allowed, is only to be allowed after multiple witnesses have verified its reliability.
Another viewpoint regarding Sharia from an interesting article by Frank Gaffney:
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Quoting from the article:
"...
among other Constitution-affronting features, Islamic law prohibits democratic law-making. It requires the replacement of constitutions and governments like ours with a global theocracy governed by Islamic law. It brutalizes women and otherwise treats them as second-class citizens and authorizes the murder of homosexuals and apostates.
Shariah is, in short, wholly incompatible with our legal system, freedoms and way of life."
I would agree with that, except the part about Sharia (and Islam)
brutalizes women and otherwise treats them as second-class citizens and authorizes the murder of homosexuals and apostates. While true, if the laws are interpreted in that manner, so would our courts if they were run by Christian fundamentalists who based their decisions and punishments on a strict reading of the literal Word of God, which is exactly what Sharia law does. Except, not all Sharia courts dole out the same punishments for the same crimes.
For example, some Sharia judges are wacko fundamentalists, like Al Qaeda members and such. Sharia law in areas before fundamentalists like Al Qaeda took them over handed out of much difference form of justice. It's in these areas where women must wear burkas and the other really fundamental dictates of Islam. But those things aren't the norm in Islamic countries around the world. The model Iman, pictured well up into this thread, for example, is a Muslim.
Still, Sharia law or Muslim rule doesn't have a prayer of getting widespread acceptance in the US. It might in some small communities, on a limited scale, but it will not become the law of the land. What is contradictory to our way of life is not Islam as a whole, because it contains more than one form, namely the Modernists, Traditionalists and Fundamentalists. The Modernists are content to live their lives in peace among us, in many way incorporating our culture into their own. The Traditionalists are content to live their lives in peace among us, but will keep their own traditional cultures, more or less, living their daily lives more in line with the traditional interpretations of the Qur'an. None of these first two groups are violent. It's the Fundamentalists that are the problem, as they could care less about us or our culture, and the only peace will be when everyone left alive is a Muslim. But again, they are not the majority of Muslims, not even close. Even the Muslims who live in hardline Islamic states don't like them.
