Eh, personally I don't see that much difference between Islam and Christianity and Judaism as religions. The current culture of particular followers seems to be the primary difference- if 21st Century Southern Asians were Christian and 21st Century Americans and some Western Europeans were Muslim, I think we'd see all the same things happening, only with slightly different slogans. It's more of the usual angst that comes with culture clashes and globalization.

I'm neither a Christian preacher nor much of a practitioner, but I think Jesus (who told his followers to get along with practitioners of other religions, such as Pagans and Samaritans) said that the essence of his religion (Judaism) boiled down to two commandments: "Love God with all your heart and with all your soul, and Love your neighbor as yourself." That's considered Christian doctrine, but it is said to derive from Judaism.

Is there an equivalent Islamic concept?

If so, can it be called central to Islam?

I think the tense and interpretation is wrong.

You can "submit" to your parents wishes and not be too happy with it, whether you love them or not is irrelevant. They are the lawmakers and until you are of age you must do as they ordain (within the law and reason, of course).

Judeo/Christian principles are very much the same in this regard. You must show honor to your mother and father and your elders. You don't have to love them, you just have to respect and honor them.

AA traditionally had members "turn their life over to G-d." I don't see "submission" as different from that.

I think the complaint about Valentine's Day is that it is putting love as the focus of relationships, rather than respect and duty. You don't have to love your spouse. That is secondary to your responsibilities with respect to marriage (and why we are so conflicted on the marriage issue these days). If I may take liberties with Tina Turner, "What's Love Got To Do With It?" We tend to put respect and duty to our mates as part of the love umbrella, but that's more semantics than anything else. If someone grows to love their spouse, then they are fortunate, but it isn't important in their culture.

They still arrange marriages in Islamic families and giving young people the sense that they would have a say in their relationships, or "love" their mate, is contrary to their cultural practices.

Our marriage ceremony traditionally said, "love, honor, and obey" ("obey" is often changed to "cherish"). That's not any different from "submission." That doesn't make you "submissive." It means that you accept that G-d's Law or your marriage vow/mate are sacrosanct.

Somewhere, within the more modern Judeo/Christian churches, we have come to believe/accept that G-d's Law is subject to interpretation, rather than chiseled in stone and non-negotiable. Christianity teaches "there is one way" and you either submit to/accept that or you don't.

Many people treat their religious texts as they do the U.S. Constitution--that it may be interpreted to mean what any generation thinks it means, rather than what it meant at the time:

“If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?” --Frank J. Hogan, President, American Bar Association, 1939

Thanks GS. Very thoughtful comment. I'll try to give a brief response (and hopefully not too contradictory a one).

First, all language is by its nature subject to interpretion.

And interpretation being the enemy of fundamentalism, I'm all for interpretation of religious text. However, I am against the type of "interpretation" of the Constitution to which you refer, as we know exactly what the Constitution says, we know who wrote it, and we have available a body of arguments to show what was on their minds at the time. Unlike religious texts, it specifically states that it is the supreme law of the land. Unlike religious texts, the Constitution does not compel men, it limits the government's power over men.

Religious texts are inherently random selections of things written in most cases by persons unknown, and accepted on faith. What we call the Bible was simply a compilation under a deadline ordered by Constantine the Great. It is binding on no one save people who deem themselves bound. Because it was translated and transcribed over many centuries, exact meaning of words and intentions are subject to construction. Authorship of the Koran is said to be God, but that requires believing Muhammad -- an illiterate man -- acted as a scrivener, which is not what happened. Instead his words were written down by others, and eventually agreed upon. The Koran contains numerous inconsistencies and reflects changes over time depending on what Muhammad was facing. Therefore, I think interpretation of the type I might dislike with the Constitution is called for with the Koran.

As to submission, we Westerners tend to see it as optional. Islam sees it as mandatory.

GS, I'm glad you mentioned children, because they should submit to their parents. I think therein lies the difference between Islam and the West; the former treats adults like children, and in theory, adults are free in the West.

My biggest complaint is the growing tendency to treat adults as children.

Submission is the result.

I think you found the correct way of interpreting where Judeo/Christian and Islam values are the same: "We are G-d's children."

As adults we have Free Will to choose to follow G-d's Law or not, but not following it doesn't unmake it as law.

If you believe it, that is.

Unfortunately, even for those who want to believe, multiple laws of multiple gods make for multiple ifs.

:)