Quote:
Originally Posted by Adux
How can a Islamic state provide equality to its citizens, the very word 'Islamic State' stomps on the minorities, that they dont have much say in the country. As long as non-muslim cant have all the freedoms of that a muslim enjoys , even the right to be elected to the highest office as well as not having to pay something as the zakat. How can there equality, forget secularism, lets not beat around the bush about what an Islamic state is ,An Islamic state catagorically states non-muslims will always remain second class citizens by the doors it has closed for non-muslims. Its just another form of racisim in my opinion.
|
Adux, is your problem with:
a) any nation that has an established state religion, or
b) just Muslim states that do?
The question is important. In fact, it is crucial. It gets straight to the heart of all of the debates that play out endlessly on WAB & similar fora.
I ask this because I want to know if your objection is based on principle or prejudice. Allow me to explain.
Personally I object to the notion of any nation having an established Church. It opens up all sorts of possibilities for discrimination against people who are not believers. Churches should have no official role in any modern nation.
Having said this, the presence of an established national church does not necessarily mean that people who are not of that faith will be reduced to the status of secondhand citizens. The clearest example is actually one of those nations so frequently derided for its concessions to Islam - Great Britain (well, England & Scotland to be precise). Israel, Denmark, Norway & most Swiss Cantons also have established Churches. Despite Christianity's long & violent history of religious repression, these nations have managed to create what we would consider modern pluralist nations despite having national churches.
So, is there any reason why a nation with Islam as the state religion should be incapable of providing the same level of equality to all that these nations do? Based on their posts I would argue that a lot of people here would say YES - Islam is so intrisically different to all other religions that it simply cannot create such a state. This is an incredibly attractive argument because it immediatley precludes the need for deeper examination. It means that we never really have to make the effort to understand Islam in its infinite variety. It is just different (and bad), that is all we really need to know. An further 'research' is simply about gathering anecdotes to buttress the established position.
Is that any better than racism?
Such an argument requires an almost heroic refusal to look at history or understand the influence of culture & history on religion. It ignores our own religious past & the long struggle to civilize Christianity (a process that is nearing completion). Islamic states are in a period of change as rapid & destabilizing as anything the West has ever encountered. There have been tremendous strides forward in many nations - note that the three largest Muslim nations have all elected female heads of government. There have also been setbacks - the genocide in East Pakistan, the Iranian revolution & the growth of revolutionary Islam among them.
Just as the West dragged the Islamic world into its disputes during the C20th, so there are some in Islam attempting to drag the West into further Islam's disputes (with the unfortunate assistance of some Westerners). I say further because policies adopted by the West over the past 200 years already put us there. If we simply decide that Islam is inherently bad & incapable of existing as part of a modern, pluralist society then we give Muslim revolutionaries what they most want - an intractible clash of civilizations. How better to rally waverers to the cause than have the West show them that it considers them irredeemably bad?