[www.forumsovetov.ru]

Secularism is part of european culture.

Then Europeans shouldn't have a problem with minarets just how they don't have a problem with church towers - but they do in Switzerland. So, secularism may be a part in some parts, but one or more of the following also seem to be a part of it: xenophobia, Islamophobia, Christianity - and since we know Christianity is a part of European culture for the most part, then it contradicts secularism if we say that it is also a part.

[eCw56dzY]

Then Europeans shouldn't have a problem with minarets just how they don't have a problem with church towers - but they do in Switzerland. So, secularism may be a part in some parts, but one or more of the following also seem to be a part of it: xenophobia, Islamophobia, Christianity - and since we know Christianity is a part of European culture for the most part, then it contradicts secularism if we say that it is also a part.

Europeans hate christianity too, you know. Most are atheists. This is probably the reason why they are so against any show of islam in public, because they hate religion in general, they want to live free of any mention of God or religion.

Not to worry, their liberal ideology will lead to their dying out in 200 years anyway. By the end of this century europe will be half muslim, inshallah. This is not even accounting for what I predict will be an explosive amount of conversions in the next 50 years.

I've heard some hadith saying that the future of islam lies in the gharb, the west. They didn't think it referred to europe back then, but maybe thats what the prophet was talking about.

[www.forumsovetov.ru]

Europeans hate christianity too, you know. Most are atheists. This is probably the reason why they are so against any show of islam in public, because they hate religion in general, they want to live free of any mention of God or religion.

Addressing the specific issue of the banning of minarets, it seems that it isn't really a hatred of Christianity, but an indifference at best while there is a hatred of Islam. Otherwise, there would have been a ban on church towers as well.

[eCw56dzY]

Addressing the specific issue of the banning of minarets, it seems that it isn't really a hatred of Christianity, but an indifference at best while there is a hatred of Islam. Otherwise, there would have been a ban on church towers as well.

Maybe its because they don't see christianity as a threat, it's dying out. Muslims however want to practice their religion, and not assimilate and become liberal idiots like other immigrants.

[vNZsk39B]

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.

[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.

[SDorothy28]

Salam `Aleykum,

Sources:

`Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz (rah):
قَالَ عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ: حَدَّثَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنْ [عَمْرِو بْنِ] مَيْمُونِ بْنِ مِهْرَانَ قَالَ: كَتَبَ عُمَرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ أَنْ يُمْنَعَ النَّصَارَى فِي الشَّامِ أَنْ يَضْرِبُوا نَاقُوسًا، وَلا يَرْفَعُوا صَلِيبَهُمْ فَوْقَ كَنَائِسِهِمْ
أحكام أهل الذمة 3/ 1240

`Umar bin al-Khattab (ra):
إن عمر بن الخطاب - رضي الله عنه-، ثم عامة الأئمة بعده، وسائر الفقهاء، جعلوا في الشروط المشروطة على أهل الذمَّة من النصارى وغيرهم، فيما شرطوه على أنفسهم:
أن نوقر المسلمين، ونقوم لهم من مجالسنا إذا أرادوا الجلوس ولا نتشبه بهم في شيء من لباسهم: قلنسوة أو عمامة ... ولا نركب السروج، ولا نتقلد السيوف، ولا نتخذ شيئاً من السلاح، ولا نحمله، ولا ننقش خواتيمنا بالعربية، ولا نبيع الخمور، ... وأن لا نظهر الصليب على كنائسنا، ولا نظهر صليباً ولا كتباً في شيء من طرق المسلمين، ولا أسواقهم، ولا نضرب بنواقيسنا في كنائسنا إلا ضرباً خفياً.
البدع الحولية ص: 414

More here:
http://ardalrebat.com/index.php/2011...-08-04-49.html

The reason they did this because the Muslims considered crosses to be a type of idol that the Christians bow down to and worship, so they wouldn't allow crosses to be displayed in Public especially in Muslim areas.

[HRS1H7gO]

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.

This is really the issue, though. Conversions would be fine to "them", but Islam is forecast to gain a sizeable minority in Europe in the next 50 years not because of conversions but because of high birthrates among Muslims and low birthrates among native Europeans.

[SDorothy28]

Sticking to the topic is a blessing

[www.forumsovetov.ru]

This is really the issue, though. Conversions would be fine to "them", but Islam is forecast to gain a sizeable minority in Europe in the next 50 years not because of conversions but because of high birthrates among Muslims and low birthrates among native Europeans.

Either way, it is paranoid to think that Muslims would suddenly start lobbying for khilafah, considering how Muslims are failing to do so in countries where they are already in the majority and most Muslim-majority countries are also relatively secular.

Furthermore, these current demographics are caused by lax immigration standards and has less to do with religion. Why are the native populations choosing to not have children? If a country is overwhelmed by an immigrating minority that has suddenly become the majority, isn't the fault at the feet of the original majority that allowed this to happen? Doesn't the fault also lie at the feet of the original majority for choosing to not have children? The current trends in non-Muslim households show that couples tend to not get married while living together or stay single bachelors or get married without any prospective children. Those that choose to have children tend to have them later in their marriage (or get married later in their life and then have children) and soon afterwards, the wife undergoes menopause because she had her child in her 40s.

And I really doubt your sources because I've heard this conspiracy before, where Muslims are going to take over due to high birthrates meanwhile many factors aren't considered, such as the Westernization of many Muslims who will also choose to not have many or any children. Furthermore, the "worst" estimates claim that 25% of Europe will be Muslim by religion by 2030 but the birthrates of Muslims will drop while the birthrates of Christians will rise - and this takes into account countries that already have sizable Muslim populations in Europe, such as Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey, etc. In the UK the projected ratio is 1 in 10 but of course, the racist BNP supporters in the UK are up in arms that 1 in 10 people in the UK won't be a non-Muslim, claiming that they're committing cultural suicide, without realizing that many Muslims are converts, many Muslims are from other European countries, many Muslims do not have a different culture, etc.

Here's an article on Snopes about this conspiracy theory: http://www.snopes.com/politics/relig...mographics.asp

If, let's say, these trends are probable, then the only solution where the Muslim majority can be relieved of its power by majority would be to change into a system other than democracy.

EDIT:
@br TripolySunni:



I apologize for prolonging this OT discussion.