In Malaysia it is illegal for a Muslim to convert out of Islam and if a Muslim marries a “kafir” the non-Muslim is forced to convert to Islam. Yeah, that is some great religious freedom, mullah style! The sad thing is Malaysia actually is better than most Muslim countries on religious freedom which shows how pathetic the state of religious freedom is in the Islamic world…
The other thing Muslims forget about Malaysia is that it is 40% non-Muslim. Moreover, the most productive citizens in the country tend to be “kafirs”, particularly the Chinese. This checks the government a bit on the religious issue. Look at what happens in nations which are 90% or more Muslim…
In Indonesia the government announced a “freeze” on Ahmadiyaa activity last year.
These are just a few examples regarding freedom of religion. Freedom of speech? You can be arrested for “insulting” Islam for example in Malaysia.
That is par for the course even though Muslims propagate freely in Christian and other countries. Even in countries where it is legal for all religious to have an open competition, such as Turkey, you face the threat of vigilante murder.
Umar, a “rightly guided one”, committed what today would be called ethnic cleansing when he ordered all “kafirs” to leave Arabia. What prompted this? There is a 1,300 year history of Muslims suppressing non-Muslims. Why? The rest of the world once had this same problem but it moved on. Why hasn’t the Islamic portion of the world?
No. The only time an Islamic state did this was Muhammad in Medina with the Constitution of Medina. That is it. As soon as the “rightly guided ones” took over they reduced non-Muslims to second-class status and this has been the record for the past 1,300 years.
No and no. There are some scholars who oppose the mafia-style policy regarding apostasy (“once you get in you can never leave!”) but the consensus is that apostasty should be illegal. The little debate that exists is on whether murder should be used to force apostates from exercising their freedom of conscience.
Propagation? Forget about it!
Hareem:
Unfettered right to build temples or far more restrictions than what Muslims face in building mosques?
LOL. This is a great example of sharia “freedom.” Rushdie is not allowed to express his religious views? Who determines what is a “lie”? Why not let the marketplace of ideas decide what is a lie? Hatred? Since when did Muslim countries care about the spread of hatred?
That is false. Basically every country allows it–except Muslim ones…In the US Saudi Arabia has an army of imams propagating Islam while Saudi Arabia does not allow “kafirs” to do the same in Saudi Arabia.
What about the majority Muslim areas of Indonesia? Of course Muslims are for freedom of religion wherever Muslims are a minority.
**
Excellent post, Raj!** :k:
I am not that well-versed on actual Islamic doctrine regarding these things so I look forward to seeing your post and whether they refute it. What I have looked at is the record of 1,300+ years and what Muslims have consistently done.
Show us some evidence. What we are saying is based on the record of wherever sharia has been implemented for 1,300+ years.
Says who? You live in England, no? England has an official church. Many of these countries do. Many of them are Christian in law and all of them are Christian in fact but they believe in religious freedom, just like nearly everyone in the world does except Muslims and Communists.
You are allowed to mix religion and politics in secular countries. You just cannot impose your religion on others.
India is overwhelmingly Hindu. What you are saying is that if a nation believes in religious freedom it is non-religious. This is disturbing. You have brushed aside Christian nations with official churches as “secular” so what does your Islamic religious state hold? What is implicit in your comments are that a religious based state cannot have religious freedom.
Often when it comes to discussion of the issues of religious freedom and the rights of minorities the problem is ignorance. Most Muslims actually believe, because of the warped “history” taught to them, that the Arab/Islamic Empire and the Ottoman Empire gave equal rights to minorities*. They don’t know that Umar, one of the five most revered figures in Islam, committed what would today be called ethnic cleansing by expelling all “kafirs” from Arabia.
*To be fair, they gave far more religious freedom than the rest of the world at their peaks. Muslims love to note this but fail to acknowledge the other side of this coin: the world evolved and increasingly offered more freedom and equality, culminating in religious freedom and equality while the Muslim world stood frozen in the laws of 1600.
An individual or a state that refuses to pay tribute to the Islamic state? Regarding the latter, Google “Ridda Wars.” Arabs had long history of paying tribute to powerful military leaders and then when the leader died the payments stopped. When Muhammad died they did what they always did and stopped paying his state. Abu Bakr then waged war on these tribes to force them to pay his government.
How about an individual? Prison. Here are some relevant hadith and more.
Click the links for the original sources Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . These are straight from hadith and other Islamic sources so they cannot be dismissed as “kuffar” lies. What response is there to this? This is what makes so many people around the world nervous for no one wants to be a “dhimmi.”
