Comment on [deleted by author] by apollopop

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

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

3 bumps

Signature