Are you against Christian Sharia Law?

Actually, "there" officials agree not only with them but the Asian Football Organisation allows it explicitly.

The Olympics doesn't allow it and I agree with them. No special rules. Equal treatment.

You're not very educated with football and the Olympics: all rules with Olympic fottball are regulated by the world football association FIFA.

Whatever. Whoever made the rule that the women could not wear the scarves is fine with me. That's all that matters. I don't think my education has anything to do with that.

Not your general education but your special about football (soccer) rules and organisations and their relationship to the Olympics.

My football education doesn't matter, Walter. We know that the women from Iran cannot play unless they obey the rules like everyone else.

They play and could play... according to the rules by the Asian Football Association.
Iran's women's team[ and three Jordanian players were banned by FIFA at the second round (!) of the Pre-Olympic Tournament due to not adhereing to the western dress code.

Good. They were rightly banned. That's why we have rules in sports.

They were not banned for not adhering to the western dress code. That isn't what the article states. The article states that they were banned because they would not play without scarves on their heads like everyone else. The Iranian government is at fault here because the Iraniann government demands that the team wear the scarves because of Islamic law. That's who is to blame, not the "western dress code".

The article is an article and has nothing to do with the FIFA ruling at all.

The Iranian government has nothing to do with he Iranian Football Association (at least not officially9.

The headscarfs are allowed in the Asaian Football Association"s appendix to the AFC Equipment Regulations.
From the second pre-round for the Olympics onwards, FIFA regulates those matches - thus FIFA regulates the ruling and FIFA's equipment rules apply.
Those are western.

The head scarves are Islamic Law forced on the women by the Iranian government which is a dictatorship under one supreme Islamic ruler.

Correcting the above:
Iran played in the first round with the same outfit. Nothing was said about their equipment.

That only happened before the second round's match versus Jordania started.

FIFA's official decision was because the "hijab could lead to harm to a player".

Irrelevant, because the topic is football, women's foot to be precise, and the equipment of the players.

No, it's not "irrelevant". The scarves are the issue and the reason they were banned. That is hardly "irrelevant". Try again.

As said, you are not educated at all about football and its rules.

Try to educate yourself, preferably not on one of the neo-Nazi-like sources you like so much but e.g. on the FIFA website.

Oh yeah, for sure. G'night.

Renaldo,

You are proof that Jesus, if he ever existed, is long gone and now irrelevant. Jesus came preaching love for your neighbors and your enemies, compassion for the poor, good deeds and forgiveness.

If Jesus were real, then his followers would be the kindest, most compassionate and forgiving people around. Yet you are bitter, cruel, sarcastic and hateful.

The best evidence that Jesus isn't real is the people who say they are his followers.

Yes, Jesus loves everyone. Jesus also tells his followers to shun evil and expose it to the light. Sharia Law is evil. This thread has to do with Sharia Law, not the fact that Jesus loves everyone. You're confused.

The fact that you have to make me your topic shows us that you have run out of points. Better to be silent than to make personal attacks because that reveals you're weak and ill-informed.

I think the first sentence of the original post is incorrect, and therefore not answerable:
"The basic idea of Sharia law is that God should be at the center of political and public life. There is no difference between conservative Christians and conservative Muslims on this point."

For a believer, God should be the center of a person's individual life, regardless of any public and political practices.

Here's the difference: Mohammed gave the example of murder to spread his message. Jesus told his followers love and peace are the way to spread his message.

The fact that God should be at the center of your life doesn't really mean anything until you see how that believer uses God. For violence in the name of God or love and peace in the name of God. Islam fails.

I think you miss the point of the thread.

Some political conservative Christians have an agenda of putting laws on the books in our states based on religious beliefs.

For example, their war on homosexual marriages can really only come from religious beliefs even if they don't admit it. Even the phrase "one man, one woman" comes from the NT. (I have to admit that there are just as many democrats who say that as well so it is not limited to conservative christian activist.) This would mean that everyone has to abide by it even if they don't believe it which would be forcing religious beliefs down their throats.

I am not really versed in Sharia law (not at all really) but I would assume that there would be something in there about women having to wear at least a hair covering of some sort. Everyone would have abide by it if it was put into laws in our states even if they don't believe in it.

While my example may not be the most grammatical or eloquently put, the point is that both would seek to have everyone abide by their religious beliefs regardless of their own particular belief or non belief.

I think the whole crises is made by the conservative right. Those wanting Sharia Law if any exist, only want a legal system similar to the Catholics legal system which is not laws in our legal system in either federal or state level, but merely a legal system limited to their followers.