[deleted by author]

q2025 · 3/8/2025, 10:42:45 AM · permalink

5 bumps

apollopop · 3/8/2025, 9:00:35 AM · permalink

I think a helpful distinction to make is the distinction between practicing Islam in your private life and implementing Islamic law on a nation-wide level. Both of these things are considered obligatory upon Muslims, but the idea that Islamic law will be forced by Muslim citizens in the West onto Europeans is a construct of media propaganda and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how a true Islamic state is supposed to develop.

Touching on the point of private religious practice - this is a requirement upon every Muslim irrespective of time and place, and entails maintaining your five daily prayers, fasting, giving charity, etc. Nothing about this should be threatening, since in this case Islam is practiced much like how Christianity is within a secular nation. (Citizens practice privately, the nation remains secular.)

Since private practice involves the bare minimum of every Muslim's religious duty, a Muslim is only allowed to live in a non-Muslim nation if the right to private religious practice is protected. But what must also be added, is that part of Islamic rules is that we must **obey the laws of the foreign nation we are in**. There is no incompatibility between obeying the laws of a non-Muslim nation and truly practicing Islam. That's because, as established, you are only allowed to immigrate to nations where the right to private practice is already protected. There is Islamic precedent for this from the time of Prophet Muhammed peace be upon him. New Muslim converts were persecuted by the polytheists of Mecca, and so some of them traveled to Abyssinia since it granted religious freedom. They did not try to impose Islam on the populace. **They were true practitioners of Islam.**

**To your first question: Can a non-Muslim nation adequately protect the religious freedoms of a Muslim minority?**

Yes, it can. Muslims in the West (with the exception of some countries such as France, perhaps) are allowed to privately practice their religion. While they might endure some harmful attacks as a result of Islamophobia, none of this is state-sanctioned and violence is a possibility anywhere. Not to mention, many Muslims actually endure even more harm in Muslim majority countries. This is because no Muslim-majority country currently implements Sharia and those who advocate for it are often imprisoned. The reason for this is because most Muslim leaders are puppets to western powers. (The West installs oppressive, power-hungry leaders and helps them remain in power so long as they enact western interest and persecute those who speak out against it and / or them. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement for the two parties that occurs at the expense of the populace.) The West does not want to see a proper Islamic state anywhere in the world. You mentioned UAE. The UAE should not, in fact, have secular law if it were a true Islamic state - not to mention it is complicit in many crimes towards Muslims around the world.

You used the UAE as a model of protecting non-Muslim minorities. Since I'm opposed to the UAE, you may now be wondering if a Muslim nation can still truly preserve the religious freedoms of a large religious-minority population. To answer: Yes. This is because part of Islamic law is that religious minorities may, in fact, enact their own laws and courts under the umbrella of the Islamic state. I'll use a word that, if you're American, should hopefully clarify how this works: **federalism**. Think state vs. federal rights. Except instead of state laws, its laws enacted by non-Muslim communities for themselves. This is a provision within Sharia.

Now to the second point on Muslims' duty to establish Islamic law. This duty is to establish law **amongst the Muslim people**. Not to immigrate to some other random country and dictate your values on its populace.

People in the West believe in secular values, naturally they want a government that establishes secular values. Muslim people believe in Islamic values, naturally we think Islamic law is best. The West, which claims to believe in the right to self-governance, should not be imposing its values on people who do not believe in them. Of course, they do it anyway - since a true Islamic state does not divide on national, ethnic, or cultural lines, it would make up a huge block of people united on very strong values. This would effectively end western hegemony (with all its unethical wars on terror and support of oppressive regimes) and hence why it is threatening. Islamic conquest is also very much a thing. Muslims see it as a way to spread justice to Muslims and Non-Muslims alike (Ik this seems bad, but it’s a natural position anyone who believes in anything takes. Consider how the west uses the UN to try and force us to do what it thinks is right. Like normalize LGBTQ rights). Historical precedents also show how Islamic rule can be better in some cases. Take the Byzantines as an example. One of the many reasons why they were so effectively conquered is because their populace immediately preferred Muslim rule (way less taxes!). And keep in mind the point above about how minority rights are protected.

This is what I know to the best of my knowledge. Feel free to agree / disagree. May God forgive me if I made a mistake anywhere, and hopefully that sheds some light on your questions. Peace!

9 bumps

adambahri · 3/9/2025, 1:34:04 AM · permalink

6 bumps

A

apollopop · 3/9/2025, 6:38:56 AM · permalink

3 bumps

T

tengoshu · 3/9/2025, 8:53:54 PM · permalink

The claim that Islam can only be fully practiced in a Muslim-majority state is historically inaccurate. Some of the earliest Islamic caliphates ruled over vast territories where Muslims were a minority, yet Islamic governance thrived, justice was upheld, and religious freedom was granted to non-Muslims.

**1\. The Rashidun Caliphate (632–661 CE)**

During the early conquests, the Muslim rulers governed regions where non-Muslims were the majority, such as Egypt, Persia, the Levant, and North Africa. In these regions:

Non-Muslims maintained autonomy in their religious and civil affairs. The dhimma system allowed Christians, Jews, and other communities to govern their own personal matters according to their laws.

Muslims were a ruling minority but did not force conversion on the population. Islam spread gradually through trade, cultural exchange, and the justice of Islamic governance.

Religious institutions were protected. Churches and synagogues continued to operate, and religious leaders retained their authority over their communities.

**2\. The Umayyad Caliphate (661–750 CE)**

Under the Umayyads, the Muslim minority ruled over vast lands where non-Muslims (Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, Hindus) formed the majority, including:

Spain (Al-Andalus): When Muslims entered Spain in 711 CE, the majority of the population was Christian. The ruling Muslims allowed religious minorities to keep their traditions, laws, and places of worship. Many Jews and Christians flourished under Muslim rule, particularly in science, philosophy, and administration.

Persia &amp; Central Asia: The Persians, who were predominantly Zoroastrian, continued to practice their faith for centuries. Persian culture deeply influenced Islamic civilization, and Persian scholars contributed immensely to Islamic sciences.

Islamic governance was built on principles of justice, not forced assimilation. Conversion was neither demanded nor rushed, and societies remained religiously diverse for centuries.

**3\. The Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258 CE)**

The Abbasids ruled an empire where non-Muslims were still a majority in many provinces.

The House of Wisdom (Bayt al-Hikma) in Baghdad: The Abbasids encouraged interfaith intellectual collaboration, where Muslims, Christians, and Jews worked together to translate Greek, Persian, and Indian texts into Arabic.

Tolerance and Economic Inclusion: Non-Muslims occupied high-ranking positions in government, including Christian physicians, Jewish financiers, and Persian administrators.

During this period, the Muslim minority ruled effectively, allowing religious freedom and benefiting from the contributions of non-Muslim scholars and officials.

**4\. The Ottoman Empire (1299–1922 CE)**

Though the Ottoman Empire became majority-Muslim over time, it ruled for centuries with large non-Muslim populations.

The Millet System: Different religious communities (Christians, Jews, Armenians, etc.) had their own courts and laws. They paid the jizya tax but were otherwise free to practice their religions, govern their internal affairs, and engage in trade and administration.

Jews and Christians Thrived: After the fall of Granada in 1492, many Jews and Muslims were expelled from Christian Spain. The Ottomans welcomed them, and Jewish communities flourished in Istanbul and Thessaloniki.

Conclusion: Islam Thrived Under Muslim-Minority Rule

Islam was not only practiced but flourished under early Islamic rule, even when Muslims were a numerical minority. The key was justice, not population size.

The caliphs ensured that non-Muslims had freedom in their personal and religious matters.

Conversion to Islam was not forced but occurred over centuries through trade, intermarriage, and intellectual exchange.

Muslims practiced Islam freely, even when they were a minority, because Islamic governance ensured the protection of religious obligations.

Thus, the idea that Islam can only be practiced in a Muslim-majority state contradicts history. Islam thrives wherever justice, wisdom, and sincerity in governance exist.

2 bumps

thwasin · 3/8/2025, 6:35:02 AM · permalink

Yes if they're government is rested on the foundation of faith and God, not on politics, fake "democracy", and people's Biases because majority of the time these people will see Islam as a threat to their tyranny which in essence is what Islam was designed to be. To give power to the power and to destroy corruption. If the government is Christian and sticks to the traditions or any other faith, Islam would not pose as much as a threat and would be welcome unless they see the idea of another religion being propagated as a threat due to their own lack of belief and faith in their own religion. Because in Islamic countries , we can have other religions because we Know with certainity our religion is the truth, our people have faith, and keep close ties. If they wish to convert no problem. Whereas in another nation if they have weak faith in their own religion, something as strong and unified as Islam would be seen as a threat. But to be fair in modern times, Islam has been de-unified but thats another story. Take Russia which is a good ezample of Muslims living there, which is a Strong Christian Nation that believes in God. Secularism is the only form of governance that would not be able to achieve this.  
No.2. No, Islam means (to submit to the will of the One God), you can do that in an island somewhere. The religious law will not apply in a land where there is no Islamic caliphate. But, the Sharia on oneself and abiding the commandments of God is obligatory in terms of practises your salah and fasting etc. There are different laws for Muslims living in non-muslim lands and we have to abide by the law of the land and practise our own duties to God. Unless a nation is specifically preventing us from doing anything then No, we can practises True Islam, wherever. The communities being fostered with Muslims make it easier to practises with one another and build bonds and hold each other accountable and but the Sharia Law cannot be inposed as far as I am aware, if the country is not Led by a Muslim. And since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the whole Sharia Law has not been implemented in its entirety, even they went away from it and became corrupt during the end periods hence the massacres of Jews and Christians and other abominations the empire had done but nevertheless, it was the rulers at the time fault not the entirerty or the people. None of the gulf nations uphold the Sharia properly because if they did, their slave workers, their unlawful wealth, their corruption and deceit, their nationalism would be gone and we would have unity, but they of course would not want that. In fact to elaborate, even in these so called "muslim states" True Islam is being overshadowed by, secularism and is being attacked by these other doctrines of Muslims which were populated by the British after the collapse of the empire. And the people may still adhere to True Sunni Islam, but the leaders are not and have persecuted many of those who have tried to go against them and the scholars who have opened up.

7 bumps

G

grouchfkadiogenes · 3/8/2025, 7:29:19 AM · permalink

5 bumps

q2025 · 3/8/2025, 10:50:12 AM · permalink

3 bumps

tajudeen_bin_tijani · 3/8/2025, 12:48:42 PM · permalink

2 bumps

Comments

Signature