DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Kuwait passes anti-Blasphemy law, Shia enraged

**vNZsk39B** · 05-17-2012, 01:32 PM

How does this "[make] Muslims [shoot] their own foot"? Switzerland (not Sweden) banning minarets goes against what they claim their laws are based upon: secular democracy without pandering to any religion. Our religion is not a secular democracy and the khilafah puts Islam at the top. If Switzerland was a Christian state, then sure, it has the right to ban minarets without looking like a hypocrite but it isn't one so its banning of minarets while allowing Christian church towers and crosses is a violation of secularism.

The liberal argument would be that they are protecting the cultural identity and values. The right wing argument basically would come down to saying that muslims who don't believe in secular democracy and wants to replace secular democracy with khilafah should not get freedom in secular democracy. And this basically is the argument of right wings groups. That if they dont get rid of Muslims from Europe then soon under Islamic rule they non-muslims would be treated as rats. That none of the rights Muslims now demand from them would be given to them when muslims rule. That those non-muslims who now support Muslim rights would be treated as second class citizens when Muslims get power. And i see this argument every time you argue with islamophobes.

And I sense something wrong in supporting secular democracy in one place but considering it shirk in another place.

Anyways, these are deductive arguments. It will be better in clarifying the presuming Islamic ruling on it before trying to make a coherent understanding of this. Brother tripoly Sunni can start a new topic on shariah ruling for non-muslims displaying their religious or other symbols.

05-17-2012, 01:32 PM	#13
vNZsk39B Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 453 Senior Member	How does this "[make] Muslims [shoot] their own foot"? Switzerland (not Sweden) banning minarets goes against what they claim their laws are based upon: secular democracy without pandering to any religion. Our religion is not a secular democracy and the khilafah puts Islam at the top. If Switzerland was a Christian state, then sure, it has the right to ban minarets without looking like a hypocrite but it isn't one so its banning of minarets while allowing Christian church towers and crosses is a violation of secularism. The liberal argument would be that they are protecting the cultural identity and values. The right wing argument basically would come down to saying that muslims who don't believe in secular democracy and wants to replace secular democracy with khilafah should not get freedom in secular democracy. And this basically is the argument of right wings groups. That if they dont get rid of Muslims from Europe then soon under Islamic rule they non-muslims would be treated as rats. That none of the rights Muslims now demand from them would be given to them when muslims rule. That those non-muslims who now support Muslim rights would be treated as second class citizens when Muslims get power. And i see this argument every time you argue with islamophobes. And I sense something wrong in supporting secular democracy in one place but considering it shirk in another place. Anyways, these are deductive arguments. It will be better in clarifying the presuming Islamic ruling on it before trying to make a coherent understanding of this. Brother tripoly Sunni can start a new topic on shariah ruling for non-muslims displaying their religious or other symbols.
	Quote