The “Sharia paranoia” mouthed by various anti-Mosque protesters is stupefying.  These people are also the same ones who tell us “You have to have an understanding of Islam to know that….Sharia does this and does that…and it’s all bad and is led by terrorists” Here’s an article that simply and quietly tells us what Sharia is.  Quoting from a book entitled,  Understanding Islam: An Introduction by C.T.R. Hewer (an intro that doesn’t interest the Islamophobic much at all),  Here is the definition :

The word shari’a literally means a road or highway, a well-beaten path that leads to a definite place. . . .In technical religious terms, it is a clearly defined way of following the guidance of God that was left as a pattern for. . .living by each of the Messengers. Moses left a shari’a for the Jews based on the guidance of God in the Torah and the tradition that he established. Although in essence the guidance is always the same, the precise details of that guidance and therefore of the shari’a that was based on it may vary

And then Bill Tammeus,  the blog author,  writes about what the Islamophobes can’t seem to grasp.

One thing people unfamiliar with Islam seem not to get is that sometimes cultural patterns overwhelm religious traditions in many countries that are predominantly Muslim. The subjugation of women in some Islamic regions, for instance, reflects much more on the culture than it does on Islam, which was actually quite liberating for women as the faith was first defined and lived by the Prophet Muhammad.

And just as there are many interpretations of both Judaism and Christianity, so there are many ways in which Muslims interpret and live out Islam, which is insistently monotheistic but not in any way monolithic in the way it is found in the world. This diversity applies also to how shari’a is understood.

When people such as Gingrich insist that there’s an international Muslim conspiracy to "replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of shari’a,” it’s simply a political scare tactic that has precious little to do with reality. That is not to say that there aren’t violent extremists who call themselves Muslims who want to kill Americans and destroy our nation. There certainly are. But to counter that threat by attacking shari’a is a ridiculous misappropriation of energy.
Bill’s ‘Faith Matters’ Weblog

Seemingly unable to grasp the idea that Islam is not a monolithic, identically practiced religion (they rather like it to be “simplified” so that it can be subject to the various blackboard diagram musings of the Glenn Beck’s of this world and shouted as slogan),  the anti-mosque phobia continues to assume the connection that was never there ,  except in the minds of the culturally bigoted seeking villainry in an entire culture (as opposed to maybe being concerned at how the United States has always refused to pressure Saudi Arabia,  the home of over 75% of the actual 9/11 terrorists,  to “give up and help gather the groups who actually planned the activity” and cut off the sources of funding which may well have had uncomfortable linkages to the royal family itself.  But we all know “we can’t do that”.  That would be too uncomfortable politically and therefore FINANCIALLY because of the sources of oil.  And for me,  this is just as much a problem during the Obama administration as it was during Bush (OK,  maybe Obama doesn’t have the entire family history that the Bush’s have with the Saudi royalty.  But he hasn’t exactly been confronting the Saudis about it either).  But my point here,  is that the Islam-o-phobes dress up their behavior as pure patriotism,  and even refer to ground zero as “hallowed ground” (Hmmmm…. I didn’t notice that there were any burning bushes there,  although there may well have been some bushes in the landscaping at ground zero that may well have caught fire on 9/11).   I have a big problem using theological language for national imagery.  It’s almost as if we are fighting Islam with what appears to be our real religion,  “USA”.  9/11 was certainly tragic and traumatic event for our country.  But this is not the transfiguration or the place where Moses took off his shoes.  The ground is set apart by an intervention.  However we might want to express it as U.S. history and nationally significant,  I tend to want to reserve “hallowed ground” designations to things deeper than national history. There are relations in the Kingdom of God that transcend nationality. And the religious right doesn’t seem to have a problem with the use of Biblical language to refer to events of national significance. (nor do a lot of progressives and liberals,  for that matter).  I do. 

But I stray from the point here.  ENOUGH of the religiously bigoted paranoia.