Imposition of Shari'a Requires Elimination of Liberty-Free Will Necessary to Seek the Truth

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Aug 11, 2009 at 11:20

As long as there has been religious differences of opinion, there has been the opposition to imposing one form of religiosity over another, one kind of belief being held better than others. Seriously, this was the central basis for forming the Constitution of the United States of America, to avert that type of conflict, allowing the practices and observances of the various belief systems to function and operate as their tenets dictate in the environment of peace. All of that is now lost, being replaced by the destructive secularist mentality to eliminate the very mindset which permitted religious freedoms.

Strangely, true Christianity is the reason such religious freedoms are under attack, for the secularists targeted Christianity for its truth, that such truth imposed guilt on a sector of society which confuses liberty to pursue the freedom to express truth with the unabashed pursuit of pleasure as a substitute. The result of the secularists having eliminated the absolutes of Biblically based observances of civil law, the American society entertains the variances of social behavior-all of the deviant aberrations having been named before-, allowing the disruption of a peaceful co-existence with one that permits riotous behavior within the normal realm. What may one offer to battle unrestrained pursuits of pleasure? Islam has one answer-sharia law.

It is observed by others here that Islam's answer does present a problem, that in its guise as a proselytizing religion that seeks to contain those so governed, the issue of free will becomes an unanswerable question, that free will cannot be allowed to entertain the liberties once thought acceptable in a free society. Therein lies the challenge to its implementation in free societies. But we have seen such things before, though not in the current context; not exactly.

When post-World War One Germany was intent on shedding its subservience to the other European powers seeking their retribution for the Kaiser's indulgences, it was necessary to form a change in the German society that would allow order to rule in place of liberties, regulations being to dictate that order. Instead of a society willingly placing itself under the rule of law for the sake of peace, the rule of law would be imposed upon that society by a government seeking such power against that society's will, irrespective of the loss of peace. The Third Reich used an amoral variant of religion to accomplish that purpose. The former Soviet Union did the same with secularism.

We need only look at Iran to understand the contemporary version of how that is going to work, and decide. If the right decision is not made, and even in America there is that sense of loss being fought even as this is being written, then the world has only itself to blame. For only in the Biblical perspective can peace be achieved; and the loss of that perspective does not relieve its truth, but brings the consequences of judgment for the denial of that Truth.

That can never be attained with shari'a law, neither by imposing a secularist's mentality against the truth upon a society needing freedom to seek the Truth.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".