[www.forumsovetov.ru]

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.

You'll find that there is no "liberal argument" nor is there a "right wing" argument to banning the minarets because neither of those are supposed to matter when it comes to freedom of religion in a secular society. So, it is pure hypocrisy.

You're also confusing yourself into thinking that Muslims support secular democracy when they live in the West. You're also not being coherent by applying the standards that others uphold onto Muslims - i.e. applying the idea that secular democracy is ideal, which is held by the non-Muslims in the West, onto Muslims who don't hold this view. Muslims wouldn't be making a big fuss about the minaret ban if the countries they moved to claimed to be Christian in their application of law instead of secular, but since these countries are going against secularism, then they are being hypocritical.

Secularism means separation of church and state. Defending one's culture does not play a part in secularism (and that isn't a liberal argument either, since liberal arguments tend to favour the minorities, which would be Muslims) neither does suspicion of minorities in a state where the courts are to determine innocence or guilt (and that isn't a "right wing" argument, but an extremist xenophobic argument, since majority of Muslims don't want to conquer the countries they move to and force khilafah upon these countries).

All in all, if Muslims go to a country that claims to be a secular democracy, they expect to be treated in a particular manner that is in accordance with the laws that exist in that nation. On the other hand, Muslims who want Shari'ah would rule by the Shari'ah and the Shari'ah does not grant equal rights as Muslims to the governed non-Muslims but at least there wouldn't be a bait and switch tactic at play as appears to be the case in Europe.