[Karensmith]

this is why islam and secularism cannot coexist.
but then again people may point out as to how secularism is actually saving islam in india.
let me explain. in india there is a huge muslim population that is still a minority. yet the muslims contest elections and are in parliament and have successfully molded the constitution so that muslim population's basic rights are not violated.
they use the shoulder of secularism because the other option - extremist hindu religious doctrine based constitution - will effectively signal a mass pogrom for the muslims.

in germany there are two political fronts - just like in most non-muslim secular democracies : the left and the right (the conservatives and the liberals). the right is generally against immigration and islamization of society (openly) and invoke nationalism from the indigenous population. the left is less vocal against immigration and talks more about respecting all religions.
now this is all in theory and press releases. in practice both left and right know that islamic values are a threat to their self-made, misguided destructive values. and they work actively towards eliminating this 'threat' from their society (with the right taking the lead) and from other countries as well. it is not surprising they all are part of the ISAF operating in afghanistan.

so why cannot something like india where secularism is actually a safeguard for muslims, happen in some country like germany ? the thing is in germany the other option to the current government is not a hindu extremist group but the Left Party (merkel is from christian democratic union - CDU - and merkel cabinet comprises of a 'grand coalition' between social democrats and christian democrats). a further example: in france, the 'other' group is the nationalist rightists. and both parties are secular. yet for the right's anti-immigration policies i dont see many muslims siding with them. so the answer is: the muslims are not a large population in germany to make up a significant portion of the parliament to be able to legislate laws that prevent rulings like these from being passed. in india, such rulings according tot he constitution would automatically be prevented by simply showing the opposing party the constitution (which after years of toil can now help the indian muslims).

yet the base question remains. does secularism inherently oppose religion? the answer is an unequivocal yes. other religions may argue over this as they have changed their laws to suit the law of the lands. but not islam, and never islam in sha Allah. hence that is why we are opposed by the secularists so much. we just do not budge. a clear cut example of secular opposing religion is this . in india of all places. you see there is no question of islamic banking being 'harmful' to economy. you will notice they are opposing it because it is based on Muslim religious texts. and hence a religious commandment. same was in france. they showed concern that halal meat was mistakenly fed to the french. can they produce any evidence that there is something unhealthy about halal meat? no. they opposed it because it is based on a muslim religous text.

so this shows that while secularism can, and is preventing, the 'massacre' of muslims in india because of Hindutva the reason secularism is working is because in its absence the 'religion' that will come into power is hindu. yet the secularists will oppose any law (as shown by above link) which is based on a religious text. so secularism in india can provide 'safety' muslims in terms of the literal meaning and also on social and economic terms - yet it will not allow muslims to govern themselves with their own laws.

in UK the shariah courts are seemingly contrary to this where muslims are given the choice to settle their own issues via shariah. but it is different from calling for muslims to bank the islamic way which could threaten their riba profits. hence secularism is a compromise in india where it saves them from hindu extremists. and in secular western democracies perhaps the correct term to use is that liberals are less harmful to muslims than conservatives. yet both are secular. so if one wishes to do an india in germany, britain or france then both will oppose it in the same way because of their allergy to religion. in india the constitution prevents such allergies to be made into laws. while in germany there is no protection. yet the allergy is present in both countries. how long can indian muslims keep thm at bay?


now does the example of india means secularism can help muslim countries? the answer is an unequivocal no. because the religion of Islam that the muslim secularists are replacing in govt is not barbaric. it is the only true religion remaining and the only way the world can achieve world peace. the arguments we give against hindu extremists do not apply on shariah. the rights of minorities and the safety of minorities are more in shariah than any western democracy. you just have to dig beneath the picture to figure that out.
if muslims continue to support western democracy and continue voting for secular parties in muslim lands they welcome such ridiculous rulings in their country: a day might come then when circumcision is banned in pakistan because the liberals say so.

(any mistakes in govt facts i provided from germany, britan and india are welcome to be pointed out)