Sad reality to try to convey

Submitted by sara (United States), Jun 21, 2012 at 19:29

Ok. I will give it another try.

You say: If Muslims in Muslim countries vote for sharia law to rule their society it is none of our business.

But unfortunately, by your own statement, you admit that it is indeed our business when you wrote "Until Muslims attempt to impose themselves on us through force". How on earth would that not our business?

You say: ... there is the sharia law of the Muslim Brothers, the sharia law of the Iranian Ayatullahs, and the sharia law of the Taliban. They are not all the same thing.

Oh, yes they most certainly are. We do not need to dissect the nitpicking differences, but suffice it so say that all subjugate women (have a look at this comedic Imam that I saw today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOrTuotvylo&feature=share), all pronounce death for gays and apostates from Islam, etc. etc. Do you really think that there is a moderate form of Sharia law? That statement is antithetical.

You say: Free will is not a western concept. It either exists independent of external factors like locality or it does not exist at all.

Actually, yes, it is a western concept. Tribal clans and subjugated peoples do not all long for freedom and craft sophisticated plots to free themselves like in the movies. There are differences in cultures around the world, people think differently, value differently and live differently and it is not for us to judge but to acknowledge that there are differences and work with them.

You say: Like I said, the election of a Muslim Brother may turn out horribly for Egypt, but the election of Islamists else where has not turned into rivers of blood.

Well, it remains to be seen what will be the outcome in Egypt. But it's a pretty safe bet that Islamists will be taking the culture backwards in time (see Gaza today under Hamas vs. Gazans under the PA, or see Egypt under Nasser, secular). When religion dictates economic policy, people suffer. When religion dictates foreign policy, we are all in trouble. One of the greatest obstacles we have in dealing with Iran is that the religious component, the return of the Mahdi, drives their agenda, so they are not open to dialogue, negotiation or compromise. They are just fine with armageddon as it hastens the return of the Mahdi.

No rivers of blood? I beg to differ, sir. Perhaps you are not searching out (as the media does not showcase) the bloody massacres in Darfur/Sudan, Somalia, Cote D'Ivoire, Nigeria, Yemen, etc. etc? Exactly how much blood would you require to be spilled to be called a river?

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".