I'm not particularly fond of the term "Islamofascism", but I'm less fond of sharia (Islamic law) or any one who advocates its imposition (Islamists). That disdain of sharia applies equally to its peaceful imposition.
It's quite simple, really: No one is free under sharia.
Christians are not free under sharia. The final command Jesus gave to his followers was to go and make believers of the world. Sharia forbids Christians from proselytizing Muslims. How can one be a Christian under sharia when one is not allowed to practice a fundamental requirement of the religion.
Atheists and polytheists are not free under sharia. At least Christians and Jews are given 'protected' status under sharia---as long as they know their place and how to keep their mouths shut. Atheists and polytheists? It's open game guys. I hope your heads aren't particularly fond of your necks.
Muslims are not free under sharia. How can one be 'free' if one cannot choose to leave one's own religion? Yet this is precisely what sharia does. Islamic law forbids Muslims from leaving Islam. Traditionally the penalty for leaving Islam is death.
But even more moderate Islamists, who would not impose such a draconian penalty, agree that apostasy is a crime. A Christian who denies Christ is a sinner. A Muslim, living under sharia, who denies Muhammed is a criminal.
Islam under sharia law is like the Hotel California: you can check in but you can never leave.
Even if the penalties for these 'crimes' under Islamic law are less severe than in Iran, or in Saudi Arabia, or in Afghanistan under the Tabliban, you cannot be free under sharia. The so-called moderates who support sharia still want to make it illegal for me to call Muhammed a pedophile. Even if they don't want to kill me for it, but instead fine me, I am still not free.
Moderate and liberal Islamists promise to be kinder gentler masters than the Taliban or the Iranians.
A slave to a kind master is still a slave.
Powered by ScribeFire.