Challenging an Islamist on separation of church and state

Submitted by Prashant (United States), Dec 21, 2021 at 18:52

Dear Dr Pipes, I admire Mr. Abdul Hadi for is effort to engage in civilized arguments about Islam. Usually we do not get this kind of courtesy from Muslims. That said, his long defense of the 17th century Mughal tyrant Aurangzeb is fundamentally flawed at least in the modern context.

Islamic doctrine(s) have no respect for separation of church and state. In our modern world, all countries except Islamic do not allow people of any religion to rule over people belonging to other religions only based on who belongs to which religion. Muslims residing in various western and eastern democracies routinely demand and enjoy the freedom of religion offered by these democracies.

But Muslims see nothing wrong in saying that non-muslims enjoyed enough privileges under Islamic rule. I want to remind Mr Hadi that previleges do not matter at all; if you have an Islamic rule, you have something illegitimate. If you are ruling by Sharia then it is irrelevant if Sharia is benign or malignant; as long as it is there, it is unacceptable. It should be obvious to all Muslims but let me repeat it anyway: non-muslims dislike Islamic rules just as much as Muslims dislike non-Muslim rules. And, it does not matter what the Quran or Allah or Muhammad say or think.

Hope it helps Mr Hadi. Lands occupied by Islam need to be free of Islamic hegemony. Period.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".