Islamists’ secularist hypocrisy

Islamists love secularism in DarulHarab (house of war). As for Darul Salam (house of peace) they want rigid mono-religious and totally intolerant society

The modern conception of human rights, demands equal treatment and rights for all. The underlying basis of its ethical code is known as the golden rule. In Wikipedia it is defined like this:

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code, or morality that essentially states either of the following:

• -(Positive form): One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. 
  
  
• -(Negative/prohibitive form, also called the Silver Rule): One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.

The Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others.

Secularism allows people of all religious persuasions to practice and preach their religions. It follows from the golden rule that as one wishes for the right to practice and preach one’s religion one should wish for others to have similar rights.

As opposed to the above universal Golden and Silver rules the Islamists have their own ‘cast iron’ and ‘tungsten carbide’ (a very hard metal used to forge sharp cutting tools like daggers) rules viz:

• ‘I demand for myself what I deny to you’.
  
  
• ‘All rights are mine, all duties are yours.’

At home, the Islamists seek total denial for breathing space for opposing religious views and to target religious minorities and opposing religious sects for oppression, inferior status and ultimately total annihilation. There is no following of the ‘golden rule’ by these fanatical Islamic sectarian leaders. These leaders demand implementation of their religious ideals at the expense of other religious minorities whom they seek to make inferior citizens in their own land.

However, in the states where non-Muslims are in a majority, they favor and push for the ideals of secularism and free societies, where they can fully enjoy – rather exceed – religious freedom. This attitude or approach is aptly summed up as ‘My rules for my house as well as yours’.

For instance, in the USA, Muslims of all sects enjoy more freedom to practice and even preach their beliefs than they do in many Muslim countries themselves (in Islamic theocratic states of Saudi Arabia and Iran there are practically no religious rights for Shias and Sunnis respectively). There are thousands of mosques and Islamic centers all over the USA. However, instead of being thankful for these privileges, radical Islamists are asserting for more, using Western values of secularism, multiculturalism, human rights, openness etc.; as a weapon against the host societies. Despite knowing that proposed Ground Zero mosque will only rub salt on the wounds of 9/11 for the Americans, the Islamists are pushing for its construction and denouncing the resistance to it as something against religious freedom and human rights. While claiming this they forget about the Dhimmitude of the Arab states for their non-Muslim residents. Let alone practicing their beliefs openly, non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia cannot have their holy books like Bible or Geeta or religious symbols such as crosses, idols etc.; at their homes as entry of all such objects are strictly prohibited in the Kingdom. Yet Saudis are investing hundreds of millions of dollars for preaching Wahhabi-Islam, building mosques and madrassas in non-Muslim countries including the West, despite the fact that many analysts believe that such investments cause unfurling radicalism and, subsequently, terrorism.

Even in most permissive Arab emirate of Dubai, where night life compares favorably with that of San Diego and Honolulu, there are restrictions on non-Muslims for setting up their worship places. In whole Dubai where non-Muslims – mostly expats – constitute over 60% of its population, there is only one Hindu temple and one Christian church allowed for over 2 million followers of these faiths residing there. These too are very small houses with plain exteriors, bearing no traditional religious symbols.

Malaysia has received world-wide recognition as a modern and progressive Muslim state, including from the West. Former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Muhammad in the World Economic Forum in New York (2004), declared, "Malaysia is a modern, secular and progressive Islamic state - not despite but because of Islam". Yet, the minority non-Muslim citizens (mostly Chinese and Indians) in Malaysia have faced a situation of apartheid designed by the state over the decades. Non-Muslims are barred from Government educational institutions, jobs and business ventures through positively discriminatory measures. Yet, these minority Chinese and Indian non-Muslims (35%) are the life-line of Malaysian economy despite the severe discrimination they face. It is the Muslims who get all Government-funded local and overseas education whilst the non-Muslims have to settle for local private schools, universities or overseas education supported from their own pockets. On the religious front, non-Muslims cannot preach and seek converts from amongst the Muslims whilst the Muslims have created elaborate programs for converting the non-Muslims to Islam. Even then, without the contribution of the hard-working non-Muslims (non-Bhumiputras) population, Malaysia will be like any other impoverished and anachronistic Third World country - not a modern and wealthy state which Malaysia and the Muslims worldwide always keep boasting about.

Is there a single country in the entire world dominated by the non-Muslims, where the minority Muslim people are discriminated like this? Such is the true color of even a modern secular Muslim state!

In sharp contrast to above, ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) has recently urged Department of Justice to criminalize criticism of Islam, something similar to blasphemy laws in Pakistan. While demanding these they overlook the non-stop wagging tongue of likes of Dr. Zakir Naik, busy belittling and criticizing other religions on his (in)famous TV channel.

Recently a group of Muslim student at Washington D.C.’s Catholic University of America has demanded the removal of crucifixes from the class rooms terming their presence as ‘human rights violation’ as it prevents them from offering prayers there. There cannot be a better example of Bedouin’s camel than this. Understandably the university belongs to Catholic Church and Muslims students are mostly foreigners, alien residents and immigrants. Can you imagine a group of even native non-Muslims in Pakistan demanding removal of Muslim religious symbols, such as wall hangings showing sacred verses, at a public facility and then walking alive from that place?

Taking advantage of human rights ideals of the Western society, Muslims in the USA aver to push the limits of their liberties and supremacist claims. Army ROTC students demand the right to wear hijab as part of their uniform, Muslim parents in New Jersey demand private rooms for prayers in elementary public schools for their children,employees at Hertz demand breaks for prayers without clocking out, just to mention a few examples. In Europe situation is even ironical. Whenever, authorities in the West take some rare measure to protect western values such as ban on hijab in France, Islamists decry such action calling it a discriminatory act and contradictory to the spirit of secularism. Islamists become champions of secularism when living in a non-Muslim majority country and hate this word back home. However, this should not surprise anyone as radical Islamists are not shy to justify these double standards. The current foremost Islamic scholar and ‘TV star’ Dr. ZakirNaik is on record audaciously defending this dualism in his interview with Dr. Shahid Masood on a TV channel, which is reproduced below:

Masood: There is a question of a Non-Muslim from India. He has asked that are Non-Muslims allowed to preach their religion and to build their place of worship in an Islamic state? If yes, then why building of Churches are not allowed in Saudi Arabia whereas Muslims are building their mosques in London and Paris?

Naik: ….. (In an Islamic state) Propagation of other religions is prohibited. Even construction of any place of worship is also prohibited. So many non-Muslims ask that when we allow Muslims to preach and build their mosques in our countries then why we are not allowed to do so in these Muslim countries? …..Similarly, as far as matters of religion are concerned we (Muslims) know for sure that only Islam is a true religion in the eyes of God. In 3:85 it is mentioned that God will never accept any religion other than Islam therefore knowing that Islam is the ONLY true religion we DO NOT ALLOW PROPAGATION OF ANY OTHER RELIGION. As far as the second question regarding building of churches or temples is concerned, how can we allow this when their religion is wrong? And when their worshiping is also wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our country.

Masood: But is it not so that they (non-Muslims) think that their religion is true whereas we (Muslims) think that our religion is true?

Naik: One thing must be understood that the non-Muslims will not allow teaching 2+2=3 in their schools.as they are sure that 2+2=4. Similarly in religious matters only we know for sure that we are right – they are not sure if they have been sure then why should they have allowed wrong things to be preached? Thus in our country we can’t allow preaching other religions because we know for sure that only Islam is the right religion

Masood: Will it not be against “Human Rights”?

No it will not at all. However, if a non-Muslim likes to practice his religion in Islamic country then he can do so inside his home – but he can’t propagate his religion. It is exactly as if a teacher thinks in his mind that 2+2=3 then he has the right to do so but we can never allow such a person to teach this to our children. Non-Muslim is no doubt expert in science & technology and we invite them from Europe & USA to teach us science and technology. But in the matters of religion we are expert. They (non-Muslims) are not sure about religious truths. Thus we are trying to get them to the right path of Islam. Therefore we propagate our religion to the non-Muslims.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jYUL7eBdHg&feature=player_embeded:)

The above mind blowing logic given by Dr. Naik is very simple i.e. ‘My rules for my house as well as yours’. The same Dr Zakir Naik, however, when banned from touring the UK due to complaints about his glorifying Osama Bin Laden and spreading an extremist message found this to be in poor contrast to what he praised as the superior secularism of India: “These western countries talk a lot, but India is more secular and more democratic than any of them. Our constitution must be the only one in the world which gives freedom of speech and also the freedom to practice and propagate religion,” Naik says, praising India for issuing special visas for public speakers and preachers. For him, this dualistic principle of ‘My rules for my house as well as yours’was to be upheld without any blushing at the contradictions of his approach.

Another famous Islamic scholar Dr. Israr Ahmed talks about this dualistic principle, which, although he recognizes it as a bitter pill to swallow, he counsels his followers to uphold courageously:

“What will be the status of non-Muslims?..... Non-Muslims will be protected minority. They will not be equal citizens. If you wish to call it, you can call it second-grade citizens, I don’t object.…..We have to take these bitter pills because this is exactly what Islam requires from us. We must have the courage to announce these principles without hesitation.”

As regards to those he regards as heretical sects like the Ahmadiyya he not only wishes for them to be disallowed from preaching their religious message but he goes further than that and incites his followers to kill them:

“….then the parliament decided that they (Ahmedis) are non-Muslims. But this decision is incomplete! Please note it down. I am admitting for the first time that Ahmadiyyat has not been harmed at all by declaring them non-Muslims. …..However, even in the country they could have been rooted out only if the apostates / renegades would have been killed. There is “capital punishment” for the apostates in Islam”. (Video of this speech is available on Youtube‘Mullah World Order – Islam as understood by Extremist Mullah’).

The views of Dr. Naik and Israr Ahmed are consistent with those of other modern times Islamic scholars preceding them. Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953 (more famously known, as ‘The Munir Report’) recorded the opinions of leading Pakistani Islamic academicians alive at that time, when inter alia they were asked about status of non-Muslims in an Islamic state, some of which are reproduced below:

…..MaulanaAbul Hasanat on being questioned on the subject stated as follows:—

“Q.—If we were to have an Islamic State in Pakistan, what will be the position of the kuffar (non-Muslims)? Will they have a voice in the making of laws, the right of administering the law and the right to hold public offices?
A.—Their position will be that of zimmies. They will have no voice in the making of laws, no right to administer the law and no right to hold public offices.

Maulana Ahmad Ali, when questioned, said:—

“Q.—if we were to have an Islamic State in Pakistan, what will be the position of the kuffar? Will they have a hand in the making of the law, the right to administer the law and the right to hold public offices?
A.—Their position will be that of zimmies. They will have no say in the making of law and no right to administer the law. Government may, however, permit them to hold any public office”.

MianTufail Muhammad stated as follows:—

“Q.—Read the article on minorities’ rights in the ‘Civil and Military Gazette’ of 13th October, 1953, and say whether it correctly represents your view of an Islamic State? (It was stated in the articles that minorities would have the same rights as Muslims).
A.—I have read this article and do not acknowledge these rights for the Christians or other non-Muslims in Pakistan if the State is founded on the ideology of the Jama’at”.

It can be noted above that there is general consensus amongst the Islamist scholars regarding the Dhimmitude. But how about the Muslims living in the lands of non-Muslims?: the same report observes:

The ideology on which an Islamic State is desired to be founded in Pakistan must have certain consequences for the Musalmans who are living in countries under non-Muslim sovereigns. We asked Amir-i-Shari’at Sayyad Ataullah Shah Bukhari whether a Muslim could be a faithful subject of a non-Muslim State and reproduce his answer:—

“Q.—In your opinion is a Musalman bound to obey orders of a kafir Government?
A.—It is not possible that a Musalman should be faithful citizen of a non-Muslim Government.
Q.—Will it be possible for the four crore (40 million) of Indian Muslims to be faithful citizens of their State?
A—No.”

Another Islamic scholar made very interesting comments in ‘Munir Report’:

Ghazi Siraj-ud-Din Munir:—

Q.—What will be your reaction if the neighboring country was to found their political system on their own religion?
A.—They can do it if they like.
Q.—Do you admit for them the right to declare that all Muslims in India, are shudras and malishesn with no civil rights whatsoever?
A.—We will do our best to see that before they do it their political sovereignty is gone. We are too strong for India. We will be strong enough to prevent India from doing this.
Q.—Is it a part of the religious obligations of Muslims to preach their religion?
A—Yes.
Q.—Is it a part of the duty of Muslims in India publicly to preach their religion?
A.—They should have that right.
Q.—What if the Indian State is founded on a religious basis and the right to preach religion is disallowed to its Muslim nationals?
A —If India makes any such law, believer in the Expansionist movement as I am, I will march on India and conquer her.”

Since, the marshal plan of above learned gentleman is not implementable at least for the time being, especially in the distant lands of Europe and the USA, the multicularism and secular principles of India and West give Islamism much room to flourish there. That is why, Islamists love secularism in DarulHarab (house of war). As for Darul Salam (house of peace) they want rigid mono-religious and totally intolerant society. This is what we call ‘My rules for my house as well as yours’.