[www.forumsovetov.ru]

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.

If all religious symbols are banned, sure, but in Switzerland, there is a double standard since church clock towers are not banned. If there was a ban on erecting any building that advertized a religion, then they'd have an argument but when minarets are specifically targeted, it is hypocrisy.

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. And that is the basis of it all. Why do Muslims not migrate to the Vatican? Because we get the idea that we'd have problems practicing our religion there. On the other hand, people who moved to Switzerland believed that their practice of religion won't be hampered.

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. Why? Muslims do not believe in equality of religions but the secularists do. So, if they are secularists, they should practice what they preach. If they're standing for Christian values instead, then they should say that from the start.

And theres also something suspiciously wrong in supporting atheistic liberalism over christian or people of the book, rule. Ugh...I don't even know where you're getting these strange ideas from when they're not found in my post. If a country promises that a person will be free to practice their religion and that no religion will be given any preference over another, then a Muslim should not have to fear for his religion when he chooses to move there. On the other hand, if a country says these things but then does a 180 and says that this and that practice of Islam is henceforth banned, then we have a big problem. If Muslims moved to a country knowing full well that it ran on Christian laws, then they'd go there with different expectations, just how a Hindu or a Christian does not expect to build a temple or a church in Saudi Arabia.

There's no majority of muslims argument. The question is what Islam teaches. Does Islam allow conquering and forcing khilafah ? When living in non-Muslim lands, Islam tells us to follow all the laws that do not violate Islam. There is no obligation to wage jihad, conquer, and force khilafah on the population. This is even contrary to the sunnah because when the Muslims made hijrah to Madinah from Makkah, they did not wage jihad against the people of Yathrib and force Islamic rule upon them but the majority of the Arabs there (especially those belonging to the Aws and Khazraj tribes) accepted Islam.

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. It does not matter what our standards are when we go to a different country and expect to live by its laws and its constitutions. That is why anarchists, Communists, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, etc. are free to live and preach their ways of lives in secular democracies but within the context of secular democracy - which means that they can preach and do what they want and not have any impositions against them and the same for every other group. When Muslims are specifically targeted, there is a hypocrisy.

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. Who is "they"? Muslims gain power by turning those who you are calling "they" and them into us. When the majority converts to Islam, then the power turns in favour of Islam. So, people effectively choose to be governed by Shari'ah.

The Muslims 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. First of all, the Muslim position does not necessarily equal the Islamic position and it hasn't since there is no khilaafah today except in limited form in Afghanistan. Secondly, a secular state determines that every group has equal rights in practicing their religion, regardless of what the religion propagates. For example, a lot of Christians in the US want Christian prayer in public schools but that cannot happen in a secular democracy and so there is no prayer in schools in the US. Similarly, there is no banning of Christian cathedrals with towering spires and no banning of Muslim masajid with tall minarets. This is secularism. The other form of secularism would be to ban all buildings that advertize a religion, which would include banning spires on cathedrals and minarets on masajid. But, if there is a grey area, where Muslims cannot have minarets but Christians can get their clock towers and spires and crosses, then it is not secularism.