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

**vNZsk39B** · 05-17-2012, 05:07 PM

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.

Freedom of religion iis subject to their notion of liberalism. So some liberals think that religious symbols should be banned in school. Similarly they'll have their liberal and "progressive" or cultural assimilation arguments against minarets.
Right wingers can similarly make attacks as said before cause they say Muslims are threat to the very secular society.

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. You have point in that muslims migrated to Europe on conditions of religious freedom available. And hence they are not showing hypocrisy in something they were promised.

But I have issues when most muslims argue based on using "freedom of religion" argument and cry of being victims, when they dont rreally hold those values in reality and do not really think such to be a case of persecution when done to non-muslims in shariah rule.

And theres also something suspiciously wrong in supporting atheistic liberalism over christian or people of the book, rule.

, since majority of Muslims don't want to conquer the countries they move to and force khilafah upon these countries). There's no majority of muslims argument. The question is what Islam teaches. Does Islam allow conquering and forcing khilafah ?

The kafirs surely would also force their system upon us. But atleast we should have a coherent position on what our standards and ways are.

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. But there's still something wrong in a tactic of going to a country enjoying the equal rights they give and after we get ppower we turn them iinto second class citizens.

The Muslim position would come down to this:

Allow us to practise our religion without oppression. If you oppress we will either migrate or do jihad and rule tht land. But we Muslims are not ready to recognise the rights for you that we demand from you, when we Muslims rule over you.

And btw, my understanding of shariah is that shariah applies to Muslims while non-muslims are allowed to live by their own laws and courts.
http://eshaykh.com/halal_haram/non-m...r-islamic-law/

I'm not sure if there is difference of opinion between scholars or madhabs in this issue. I would llike to see a scholarly paper on this.

There's another question on our principles which ill start a new topic on.

05-17-2012, 05:07 PM	#25
vNZsk39B Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 453 Senior Member	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. Freedom of religion iis subject to their notion of liberalism. So some liberals think that religious symbols should be banned in school. Similarly they'll have their liberal and "progressive" or cultural assimilation arguments against minarets. Right wingers can similarly make attacks as said before cause they say Muslims are threat to the very secular society. 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. You have point in that muslims migrated to Europe on conditions of religious freedom available. And hence they are not showing hypocrisy in something they were promised. But I have issues when most muslims argue based on using "freedom of religion" argument and cry of being victims, when they dont rreally hold those values in reality and do not really think such to be a case of persecution when done to non-muslims in shariah rule. And theres also something suspiciously wrong in supporting atheistic liberalism over christian or people of the book, rule. , since majority of Muslims don't want to conquer the countries they move to and force khilafah upon these countries). There's no majority of muslims argument. The question is what Islam teaches. Does Islam allow conquering and forcing khilafah ? The kafirs surely would also force their system upon us. But atleast we should have a coherent position on what our standards and ways are. 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. But there's still something wrong in a tactic of going to a country enjoying the equal rights they give and after we get ppower we turn them iinto second class citizens. The Muslim position would come down to this: Allow us to practise our religion without oppression. If you oppress we will either migrate or do jihad and rule tht land. But we Muslims are not ready to recognise the rights for you that we demand from you, when we Muslims rule over you. And btw, my understanding of shariah is that shariah applies to Muslims while non-muslims are allowed to live by their own laws and courts. http://eshaykh.com/halal_haram/non-m...r-islamic-law/ I'm not sure if there is difference of opinion between scholars or madhabs in this issue. I would llike to see a scholarly paper on this. There's another question on our principles which ill start a new topic on.
	Quote