Eww udder submission.
 

Kant, though, believed (parallel to Islam and Luther) that utter submission to reason is the only way to be truly free. (Kant regurgitation over)

Still, I suppose that reasoned people will see anything non-reasoned to be imprisoning.
 

Unfortunately, utter submission to God usually means utter submission to the dudes who claim to speak for God.
 

Kant was a loser who wrote books to show that it's ok to be a loser, as long as you quash your dreams, your desires, your will.
 

I think the problem here is that Muslims still think the discrimination that they face in the US is about people "misunderstanding" their religion. Thus, everytime something bad is said about Muslims or Islam, you see a series of events or articles explaining The True Islam. The problem, though, is not a matter of religious education--which is simultaneously an evangelical project--but one wherein using religion as a political organizing tool is deemed illegitimate by the mainstream. I'm not saying that people should agree, but just that it shouldn't automatically be discarded as illegitimate or backwards. Bilaal's piece is nowhere near as bad as this other one in the Daily Cal early this summer (a response of mine was printed the following week), but I still think it uses the same misguided and pointless approach in responding. As for the totality of submission, there are multiple ways to interpret and to implement this (if you totally submit to God, you cannot submit to other men, so you can see how this might be formulated into freedom on earth), and it certainly is in no way unique to Islam, but it's something I'm not really into either.