Obama Adviser Says Sharia Law Misunderstood – Implications For The Ground Zero Mosque
May 25, 2010 
42 Comments
Update (8/16/2010): The post below takes on great significance given the radical views of the Ground Zero mosque’s imam Faisal Abdul Rauf concerning Sharia law, his outright support of terrorist organizations, and the significance of mosque’s name to Islam. Combined with the statements supporting Sharia law of Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, it is time to drive a stake through heart of the building of the mosque and open a full investigation into the ideology and radicalism of Dalia Mogahed, Faisal Abdul Rauf, and the State’s department decision to fund a world tour for Mr. Rauf to raise money for the building of a mosque on hallowed ground. That our tax dollars are funding a known supporter of terrorist organizations to build what is nothing short of a monument to the victory of radical Islam on September 11th, 2001 is an act of such contempt that nothing short of a full purging of any radical elements within the administration is called for and a full apology by the President of the United States to the citizens of this country for the deplorable lack of oversight on his part in the selection of his advisers and his statement that Muslims have the right to build a mosque near New York’s Ground Zero (some evidence now suggests the mosque location is on ground zero proper). A supporter of terrorism does not have the right to anything short of deportation from this country.
In 2004, radical imam Rauf published a book titled What is Right with Islam is What is Right with America. While this may send a tingle up the leg of Prince Charles who believes that we must “Follow the Islamic way to save the world“, here in the United States we have a document called the Constitution which trumps Sharia law in every circumstance and every instance. Sharia law has no legal standing in our country and belongs only in those places where barbaric behavior is celebrated and women are second class citizens.
In that book the radical imam argued:
The American political structure is Sharia compliant. For America to score even higher on the ‘Islamic’ or ‘Sharia compliance’ scale America would need to do two things. Invite the voices of all religions in shaping the nations’ practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.
Shove it Rauf.
Just as troubling is the refusal of radical imam Rauf to condemn terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. In my world, refusal to condemn equates to tacit approval and no sane argument exists that can rebut this fact. Pajamas Media reports:
Evidence continues to mount showing that the developer of the proposed mega-mosque at Ground Zero, Abdul Faisal Rauf, is untrustworthy at best, and possibly downright dangerous. The project would be called Cordoba House, named for a Spanish city conquered by the Moors which Muslims regard as a model for other communities.
Rauf’s political/religious vision is intimately connected with Malaysia, where he lived for ten years as a youngster and where he now owns a home and bases his policy-making organization, the Cordoba Initiative, which also has an office in Manhattan. Malaysian officials have come out with statements that are virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic, including explicit calls for jihad and suicide bombing. Rauf claims that he intends to build bridges between the West and Muslims, yet he has never made any public statement objecting to such incitement….
…Previously unpublished English translations of sermons from Malaysia’s Department of Islamic Development reveal potentially lethal levels of hostility towards the West that appear to have gone unnoticed…
…Every Friday, the Muslim holy day, sermons (khutbahs) are given in mosques. During Israel’s Cast Lead operation in January 2009, when Israel entered Gaza to stop being bombarded with rockets, the khutbahs of Malaysia’s Department of Islamic Development became warlike….
…On January 9, 2009, the khutbah denounced Israel as “evil” and a call was made to use the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to channel financial assistance to the Palestinians. A boycott was demanded of all goods and services connected with both Israel and America. Countries that are part of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and all other Muslims were urged to stop using the American dollar as currency.
On January 16, 2009, military plans were further consolidated. There was a call to “strengthen strategic planning in the defense system of Islamic countries” and to stop allowing foreign military bases to be built in Islamic countries on the grounds that they are used for spying.
On January 2, 2009, we have the most alarming khutbah of the three given here. The unnamed imam proclaimed his support for Hamas and Hezbollah, demanded a boycott of any goods associated with all Jews (not just Israelis), and called for jihad and suicide bombing, or “bind(ing) the stomach” in the manner of the “fatwa [of] Sheikh Yusof Al-Qaradawi.
By using the word “fatwa,“ the imam gives moral authority to his call for jihad and suicide bombing. Sheikh Qaradawi is a Muslim Brotherhood ideologue based in Qatar who has made himself very popular throughout the Muslim world by constantly calling for “martyrdom operations” against Israelis. Qaradawi even expresses admiration for Adolf Hitler and hopes that Jews will be “punished” with another Holocaust. He has stated: “Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption.The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them — even though they exaggerated this issue — he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.”
To borrow Obama’s favorite line: Let me be clear – stop the building of this mosque by the pawn of radical Islam, radical imam Rauf. Withdraw any support for this man and do not under any circumstance use our tax dollars to spit on this country or we’ll spit right back. Remove Dalia Mogahed from her position as your adviser on Muslim affairs – now.
Let us now turn our attention back to the original post concerning Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed:
——————————-
Yeah, I had to do a double take to when I stumbled on this one. Par for the course for the administration of the perpetual apology.
From the Daily Telegraph: Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood:
President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.
Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and the majority of women around the world associate it with “gender justice”.
The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.
The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.
Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir’s national women’s officer, Nazreen Nawaz.
During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism”.
They called for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”.
Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that “promiscuity” and the “breakdown of traditional values” were what Muslims admired least about the West.
She said: “I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.
If the reader could possibly help me out on this one, I’m not exactly quite sure how one can lack understanding and perspective when it comes to honor killings, stonings, hanging, and lets not forget beheading. In this Alice in Wonderland world I guess I’m the one who is supposed to feel backward and out of touch with what apparently should be completely acceptable and mainstream practices.
My take? I doubt Miss Mogahed has watched the movie The Stoning of Soraya M.. This is a must see for anyone who is does not mind inconvenient truths, with an ending so difficult to watch my wife had to cover her eyes with her hands while sobbing.
There is no perception issue with Sharia law in the West and the fact that Obama has done nothing to address the statements of Miss Mogahed is very troubling. Add to this his recent snubbing of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the demands that Israel kowtow to the Anointed One’s demands, and his walk tall and carry a tiny twig approach concerning Iranian nuclear weapons. Either the leader of the free world moonlights as the poster boy for naivety, or something more sinister is afoot. The pattern of complete acts of negligence and outright incompetence are so prevalent that anyone not paranoid is probably neurotic.
Google Sharia law. Watch the Stoning of Soraya M. and tell me your not concerned the statements of Dalia Mogahed are allowed pass as acceptable in the Obama White House.
The story, which broke last year, was eclipsed by the ongoing ObamaCare saga. Maybe its time to shine a little light into the dark corners. This says more about the administration’s stance towards radical Islam than a hundred bows ever could.
The impact of Miss Mogahed’s statements to Obama and his administration of malcontents cannot be measured. Even given the previous narrative of the administration’s contempt for this country and the constitution, modern developments already are having an effect.
First we have the Sestak saga. Next is the upcoming Rod Blagojevich trial where Rahm himself has been issued a subpoena. Add to the mix Andrew Romanoff’s statement the White House offered him not one, not two, but three different job proposals to drop his bid against Obama-favored Democratic Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet. Throw this cherry on top and it’s going to be a long and very hot summer for Obama and an even greater November for the country. The chickens have come home to roost. It’s time for the Apologizer-in-Chief to pay some dues for his misrepresentation to the world of this great country and what we stand for.
Here’s a video of Sharia law at work. Misunderstood my a$$.
Update: The story gets even worse.
In other news and opinion:
Dick Morris has it right – An Oil Spill Is Not An Act Of God. Just another example of incompetence on the part of a President in the process of redefining the very concept itself. Mr. Morris concludes:
Obama is and he deserves a round of condemnation for his obtuse failure to plan for a disaster that was always inevitable.
Amen to that. Add to that a number of additional rounds of condemnation for just about every single act committed or policy supported by this administration. November can’t come soon enough.
Nice try apologist Scott. Somebody sure has been washing that brain of yours quite well I see.
It is well known that in most countries that practice Sharia law, women are second class citizens. Actually, even in Qatar they don't have the same rights as men. You give me one example and tell me to judge from that. How about Somalia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and the host of other countries where Islam dominates? Funny you left them out. One may even say it's a little convenient.
Why leave them off your list and give an example of one of the more liberal Islamic countries? With one billion adherents, you ask us to buy your example of what represents a small percentage.
We are awake Scott. Hopefully, you can learn something from that. Apathy has left the building, much to the apologists' chagrin.
again. if all this blogger can think of is honor killings, stonings, hanging, and beheading when it comes to something as broad and as all encompassing as Sharia Law, it most certainly is misunderstood.
i did not defend it, make apologies for it, explain it, or agree with it. i merely state that it is, indeed, very misunderstood in the west. this much is fact.
scott_z,
So the sum total of your stance on this subject (and probably most other subjects) is that it is a misunderstood topic in the West ('cause them rich people in the West are arrogant and narrow-minded) , that it might have some good points (although you apparently can't or won't outline any of them), and the despicable acts broadly associated with it should be dismissed as trivial (because you don't want to talk about them at all).
Explain the reasons why Sharia Law is misunderstood. Explain how enforcing Sharia Law wouldn't violate the U.S. Constitution. Explain how it is a lie that honor killings, stonings, hangings, and beheadings occur under Sharia Law.
Or, can you only debate a subject by making simpleton statements like, "This is a complex subject with many different viewpoints, that is a fact"?
Building on your brilliant debating skills, how can your belief that any subject is misunderstood be claimed to be a fact? Feelings, thoughts, or beliefs aren't typically classified as facts. Even if you really, really believe in your heart of hearts that something you state is a fact, that doesn't make it a fact. Even repeating a statement over and over and over again, each time declaring it as fact still doesn't make it a fact.
Why don't join the debate and tell us your thoughts on genital mutilation or the parallels between Marxism and Sharia Law? Or, is that also simply a matter complicated, misunderstood facts?
what does the US Constitution and your families' freedom have to do with any of this?
"Explain how enforcing Sharia Law wouldn't violate the U.S. Constitution. "
it would. i never made that claim, the Obama advisor never made that claim.
Exhibit A: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/war_for_is…
The last time I checked, laws in our nation are supposed to be based on the U.S. Constitution (or at least that is the way it used to be).
I don't care if following Sharia Law would make butterflies fly out of your ass and cause the skies to rain down Mountain Dew, it isn't based on the U.S. Constitution and is therefore a moot point to discuss it as being implemented in the United States.
In addition, does anyone else think it is revealing that the only positive about Sharia Law that scott points out is a Marxist belief against paying interest on a loan? Could a connection between Marxism/Progressivism and Islam/Sharia Law be the real reason for supporting and condoning Sharia Law in the western world?
Angus,
I'm glad I was not drinking Mountain Dew when I read that one, because it would have excited my nostrils.
Butterflies flying out my ass – now that's funny.
well, i never said sharia law would be permissible under the US constitution, nor did the Obama aide in the story. so i wonder why you keep ringing that bell, it simply makes no sense.
i simply said sharia law is far reaching, and often wrongly tied to things like genital mutilations, beheadings, violence against women, etc.
not all sharia law is interpreted the same. and most nations that practice the more barbaric practices are significantly less advanced than the society we enjoy in the united states.
shall we equate capitalism to slavery and segregation a few generations ago in the US? women's property rights and lack of vote merely 90 years ago?
we've come a long way in 150 years. the rest of the world, much poorer and less educated, is struggling to catch up.
Would the portion of the world that is poorer and less educated be able to "catch up" by following Sharia Law?
why not?
any less than christians who are trying to push creationism and a 6,000 year old earth on americans?
i did in fact live in qatar for several years,and the amount to which they have "caught up" in the past two decades alone is absolutely staggering. women not only vote, they hold political office. they own and manage companies, etc.
one could argue tragic human rights abuses occur elsewhere in the non-muslim world, surely we cannot blame sharia law for that!
again, sharia law does not mean de facto beheadings, subjugation of women, etc…. only certain interpretations of sharia law as practiced by certain nations do.
which again, backs my original statement supporting the Obama advisor:
sharia law is often misunderstood.
You do realize what the punishment for homosexuality under Sharia law is, right?
…
Right?
apparently you do not. it varies from country to country.
you will note, that american conservative groups like Family Research Council are actively working to criminalize homosexuality in the US right?
this is just ignorance on a grand scale, on your part.
Good points denialator. I don't hear much from the human rights folks on this one, do you?
hey! how much would you have heard of the human rights folk in america 100-200 years ago?
<crickets chirping>
lets all pat ourselves on the back. the past few generations of our forefathers managed to advance our society further than any other societies on earth.
~150 years ago, we were cool with humans as property. ~80 years ago, we subjugated women as nonvoting entities.
now take a step back and gain some global historical context and perspective.
**YOU** did not make this sudden awareness happen. in fact, there are many americans who follow the likes of Rand Paul who want to reverse our policies, and make them mesh closer to the afghan taliban.
who do you support?
So, you are claiming that it was only in the past few generations that slavery ended and women got the vote? And, there was a total absence of debate about ending slavery or allowing women to have voting rights?
Maybe you should take a step back and gain some global historical context and perspective.
"And, there was a total absence of debate about ending slavery or allowing women to have voting rights?"
many people are having discussions regarding modern reforms of sharia law.
many, many, many people. again, this points to why sharia law is so misunderstood.
and again, you have no proper context for your claims. please have a read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Modern_perspe…
From reading scott_z's "arguments", what he is advocating and which is apparently grossly misunderstood by most Western dolts, is a form of authoritarian government called Sharia Law which is designed to control each and every aspect of a person's life.
If the authorities are harsh under sharia law, then you end up with beheadings and honor killings.
If the authorities are benevolent under sharia law, you end up with a society where a woman might be allowed to drive a car.
The harshness of the form of Sharia Law in each country, town, or household is solely dependent on the mood of those in charge, and that mood can change rather quickly under an authoritarian government.
Rather than admit and openly declare his belief in this type of government, he simply attacks both the present and the past history of the Western world and tries to label Christians as bigots and racists. I fail to see how diverting attention to unrelated subjects builds a case in support of Sharia Law, but that appears to be the only defense for an indefensible position.
The U.s. Constitution is to the discussion of Sharia Law because it is written to prevent the indefensible abuses that occur under Sharia Law. In addition, the injustices of slavery and the abuse of women's rights were eventually corrected by following the rights spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is a document of freedom, Sharia Law limits freedom. An authoritarian government can't exist when the U.S Constitution is actually followed, Sharia Law needs an authoritarian government to exist. The fact that an Obama adviser apparently doesn't see this correlation is why it is important and relevant to involve the U.S. Constitution into this discussion. Are those in government ambivalent to Sharia Law because they are attempting to build the framework of an authoritarian government?
I simply want freedom for me, my family, my country, and the rest of the world. Sharia Law stands in the way of universal freedom and that is why I am opposed to it in all its forms.
Scott_z, do you have the courage to proclaim your stance for an all-controlling authoritarian government? From your support of Sharia Law (which is so misunderstood), how could you ever support a limited government?
"which is apparently grossly misunderstood by most Western dolts"
is this seriously how you go through life? alternating between attacking others and playing the "whoa is me" victim card?
i would encourage you to go travel. live in and amongst other cultures, read books, and talk to people.
and again, any discussion of the US Constitution is entirely off topic because the Obama advisor never suggested Sharia law be brought to the US. Not once. You made it up. You just made it up out of thin air.
From reading scott_z's "arguments", what he is advocating and which is apparently grossly misunderstood by most Western dolts, is a form of authoritarian government called Sharia Law which is designed to control each and every aspect of a person's life.
If the authorities are harsh under sharia law, then you end up with beheadings and honor killings.
If the authorities are benevolent under sharia law, you end up with a society where a woman might be allowed to drive a car.
The harshness of the form of Sharia Law in each country, town, or household is solely dependent on the mood of those in charge, and that mood can change rather quickly under an authoritarian government.
Rather than admit and openly declare his belief in this type of government, he simply attacks both the present and the past history of the Western world and tries to label Christians as bigots and racists. I fail to see how diverting attention to unrelated subjects builds a case in support of Sharia Law, but that appears to be the only defense for an indefensible position.
The U.s. Constitution is to the discussion of Sharia Law because it is written to prevent the indefensible abuses that occur under Sharia Law. In addition, the injustices of slavery and the abuse of women's rights were eventually corrected by following the rights spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is a document of freedom, Sharia Law limits freedom. An authoritarian government can't exist when the U.S Constitution is actually followed, Sharia Law needs an authoritarian government to exist. The fact that an Obama adviser apparently doesn't see this correlation is why it is important and relevant to involve the U.S. Constitution into this discussion. Are those in government ambivalent to Sharia Law because they are attempting to build the framework of an authoritarian government?
I simply want freedom for me, my family, my country, and the rest of the world. Sharia Law stands in the way of universal freedom and that is why I am opposed to it in all its forms.
Scott_z, do you have the courage to proclaim your stance for an all-controlling authoritarian government? From your support of Sharia Law (which is so misunderstood), how could you ever support a limited government?
Angus,
Phenomenal synopsis that captures the real essence of the argument and touches all the salient points. Great rebuttal and I love the gauntlet throw-down at the end. Fantastic contribution to the debate. Also, I think Scottie and Scott_z are the same person. Either that or I have to contemplate the possibility that there is more than one person who would just love to cuddle up to that misunderstood Sharia law that has been getting such a bum rap by us common folk clinging to our guns and bibles in flyover country.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_re…
wikipedia, scottie? Really? That just completely nullifies anything you have to say if that's your reference.
scott,
I would think that at some point in you life you would have been exposed to the fine art of sarcasm during your extensive world travels and endless hours of book learnin’. In the future I will try to explain to you when I am being sarcastic so that your level of confusion will be much lower.
On the subject of daring to compare the U.S. Constitution and the sacred Sharia Law, why would anything at any time be “off topic” in an intelligent discussion? I explained my thought process in a post above, why don’t you explain how I am wrong or fail to understand the intricate nuances of Sharia Law? You lived under Sharia Law in Qatar (supposedly), so I would assume that you could explain to an ignorant person like me (sarcasm) how it actually works and is morally equivalent to the U.S. Constitution.
By the way, according to my limited knowledge on the subject (sarcasm), the correct phrase is “woe is me”, horsies have nothing to do with the phrase. It is possible that they taught you the incorrect spelling in Qatar, so I will apologize in advance if that is indeed the case. (not technically sarcasm but close)
It appears that scott's comment has disappeared for some reason and now my comment doesn't make much sense.
I apologize for any confusion.
Well it's easy to understand why Scott is a big fan of Sharia law…..he's a GUY
Why would being male make you a big fan of Sharia Law?
In my mind, someone that is afraid of women, is intimidated by women, would rather not have women around when they are "socializing" with other men, or is fearful that a mere glimpse of the female form would make "undesirable" desires arise might be in favor of Sharia Law.
I won't even comment on the genital mutilation aspect beyond stating for the record that I definitely prefer a woman that isn't mutilated. Why would anybody want a wife (or is that wives under Sharia Law) that has been mutilated so that they are incapable of being orgasmic?
Of course, this is another one of the numerous misunderstandings about Sharia Law that Scott speaks so eloquently about. Why would you want to surgically deprive your numerous wives of orgasms, Scott?
Sharia law is only misunderstood by those of us who are not 'missing a chromosome' as the Muslims are allowed to marry their first cousins which is incest. If you believe sharia law is benevolent or sacred, you are missing a chromosome.
I would say that even if Sharia law is "misunderstood" and its application caused the aforementioned butterflies and mountain dew events to occur…if the portion that is "understood" condones or allows stonings, honor killings, mutilation or other inequities… no amount of "understanding" is going to redeem it…it is no d@mn good! And the only FACT actually germain to the issue is that there is only ONE supreme law of the land…the US constitution!
When we have no more hungry children or homeless, when welfare is abolished and the projects are gone, then we have the right to judge other cultures. We allow the old to die without meds they need to survive, children to starve so that we can build another strip mall, murderers and molestors to live off of tax payers until they die. What gives any of us the right to interfere in other cultures when WE the AMERICAN PEOPLE took PRAYER out of school!!!
So you see no purpose in comparing and contrasting the Sharia Law which limits individual freedom and liberty and the US Constitution which guarantees and protects the freedom and liberty of the individual?
Most of the problems that you outlined currently exist in the US because the US Constitution has been ignored and Progressive laws have been enacted that favor the rights of the group instead of the rights of the individual.
If it can be successfully argued that the problems under Sharia Law exist because of the abuse of individual rights, then it can also be argued that the problems that exist under the current Progressive perversion of the US Constitution also exist because of the refusal to protect our individual rights.
If our individual rights were protected instead of attacked by politicians, then the problems you outline would cease to exist along with most of the power that politicians covet.
It is that they are wanting to bring Sharia law into the countries they are attempting to take over…I am not saying in their country…I am against Sharia law in THIS country. Where large groups of muslims "settle" Sharia law is practiced covertly at first and advocated as a superior law, and them demanded based on their "religious freedom" Keep shariah law OUT of the US.
Since Christians in America have adopted the false doctrine of tolerance of evil in all its form the church has fallen from HIS protection. Politics, Press and Entertainment have led so called Christians by the nose into the false belief that Islam is a real religion. The few who try to press the full Crown Rights of Jesus Christ into all areas of the culture are now labeled as terrorists. This nation is DOOMED for it's lack of knowledge!
http://www.dutchjoens.tk
As long as they are not charging interest, they will never advance as a society. Profits are good.
Could sharia be a lethal cocktail of 7th Century imperialist misogyny and violence? Perish the thought! Good Muslims don't drink cocktails.
It's disgusting. Defending this so-called "law" that has such atrocities as part of it cannot accepted by any sane person. The Crusades were the same crap, before you get started on "Christians are just as bad." Maybe so. Doesn't make this Sharia filth any less repulsive.
Excellent point Lee and it looks like Sepp decided not to read your comment before drudging up the past.
"… During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism”.
They called for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government” …"
So it really is about the suppression of women. Like saying "Don't let women get into any position of authority … it could make going to war more difficult."
It's not exclusive to Islam, by the way. Christian culture has plenty of blood on its hands as well. Think back to the burning and drowning of "witches" so prevalent all over Europe only a few hundred years ago. And I think America had its share of this as well. Remember the witches of Salem?
Sepp,
Don't forget about those damn Scandinavians and their murderous Viking past of raiding peaceful monasteries in the British Isles and Ireland. Just who the hell do they think they are giving out Nobel Peace Prizes?
Is there no longer a possibility of redemption? Is every nation, every culture, and every individual morally equivalent to every other nation, culture, or individual regardless of whether or not they have corrected past mistakes?
Is redemption and correcting past wrongs isn't possible, if all nations, all cultures, and all individuals are deemed to be irredeemable, then what would justify recognizing past mistakes and correcting past wrongs?
Maybe that is the difference between a Western culture and a Sharia Law dominated culture. Forgiveness and redemption is a fundamental part of a Judeo-Christian culture, but is it a part of Islam? Is that why the "defenders" of Sharia Law keep pointing to centuries old events? If past wrongs can never be corrected under any circumstances, then what happened centuries ago is still relevant isn't it?
Does Obama's adviser (and Obama by extension) believe in redemption? Or, do we deserve to be punished for the wrongs that our grandfathers supposedly inflicted on the world? Is that why Obama's adviser (and Obama by extension) doesn't fiercely object to the thought and concepts of Sharia Law?
Sepp,
Yes the Christians did do those things – a few hundred years ago. I am talking about today. You and I are alive and living today. The problems we face are problems today, and the solutions to those problems will address the issues of – you guessed it – today. The past can inform us. Christianity did have its enlightenment period and today you don't see much craziness. However, Sharia is widespread, oppressive, and on the move. Two hundred years ago, we did not have nuclear weapons. Today, we have a very oppressive regime in Iran that is building nukes. Think about that for awhile before reaching hundreds of years back into the past to make a comparison that has no bearing on contemporary issues.
Your point is made. Anyone with half a brain knows about Christianity's past. The crusades, the burnings, the excommunications, blah, blah, blah, blah. It's called history for a reason. You learn from it and move on.