(NOTE: The premise of this article is to highlight the potential and immediate danger India is facing with increased Islamic rampant terrorist activities and Terrorist organizations’ plan to convert India into an Islamic country. If India has to stop the repeat of nearly ten centuries of Muslim brutal conquest, implementation of two nation theory or benign dictatorship is the need of the hour).

Links to read the Part and Part 2 are given below.

Part 1:
http://worldpeaceactivists.org/savetemplestest/2016/02/01/two-nation-theory-implementation-or-benign-dictatorship-needed-stop-the-potential-hindu-genocide/

Part 2:
http://worldpeaceactivists.org/savetemplestest/2016/02/12/two-nation-theory-implementation-or-benign-dictatorship-needed-to-stop-the-potential-hindu-genocide-part-2/

Islam is incompatible with Democracy

Islamic law based on Quran, Hadiths and Sunnah is totally incompatible with democracy. Allah is the head of the theocratic order of governance. People have no choice except to obey, surrender and submit to Allah. Democracy will be thrown out and replaced with Caliphate. Once these democracies are overthrown, strict Islamization of the country will be imposed through Sharia law denying all the rights to non-Muslims.

Ann Elizabeth Mayer observed that Islamization "did much to eliminate due process, to erode the independence of the judiciary, to place legal proceedings under the control of political leaders, and to convert courts into instruments of repression and intimidation. Thus, in all three countries Islamization became associated with a decline in the quality of the administration of justice.” American scholar Jamal Badawi states that it is the duty of Muslims to bring about Islamic rule:

 "The Qur’an is full of direct and indirect, implicit and many times explicit indications that show that the establishment of the Islamic order is a requirement on Muslims whenever possible."  He also scoffs at secularism: “If a Muslim believes that there is any human being who has the right to make laws other than Allah then obviously this is total divergence from the path of Islam. Or any person who believes that secularism is superior to the law of Allah, he's violating the basic Quranic tenets.”

Islamic scholar Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi writes that "Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation that rules it.  Islam requires the earth – not just a portion – but the whole planet.”

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Hadith Number 4294, clearly directs the Muslims to fight with nonbelievers.  "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya.

If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."  Non-Muslims are intended to be surrendered to Islam. Most of the Muslim countries declared themselves as theocratic governments with Allah alone as their head. Allah's law is interpreted by a ruling body of clerics.

The governments are totally governed by Islamic sharia law. There is no room for a secular political system in which all people are treated as equals. In Muslim societies, with a few exceptions, modernization has been synonymous with dictatorship, repression, and corruption—in short, social injustice. Many Western experts assert that the two are incompatible and a truly democratic system will never succeed in a Muslim country. It is certainly true that most Islamic regimes are authoritarian and have not been democratically elected.

In places like Sudan, Iran under Khomeini, and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Islam has been used in ways that have led to repression, violence, and injustice. Now, ISIS using Islam as the source of inspiration to wage war against all non-Muslim countries as well as Muslim countries considered moderate claimed to have defied Allah. Church and state are one in Islam.  Islam of course knows of no such separation.  There is no sacred-secular distinction in the Muslim world. Everything is religious and everything is political. As Rodney Stark wrote, “Muhammad was not only the Prophet, he was head of state. Consequently, Islam has always idealized the fusion of religion and political rule, and sultans have usually also held the title of caliph” (The Victory of Reason).

Is Islam incompatible with Secularism?

Secularism is incompatible with Islam. In secularism you do not give any preference to any particular religion. It is up to the individual to practice whatever faith he chooses. Ernest Gellner commented: “To say that secularization prevails in Islam is not contentious. It is simply false. Islam is as strong now as it was a century ago. In some ways, it is probably much stronger.”

He goes on to elaborate on this point by saying that Islam “totally and effectively defies the secularization thesis … [and] there is no indication that it will succumb to secularization in the future either.” Muslims oppose secularism because of their firm belief that there is no God but Allah. Unlike Hinduism, Muslims believe that Islam came into being to replace the previous manifestations of other faiths and govern them, control them and wipe them out.

That was the command of Allah. They believe that Islam affects all aspects of their life such as marital affairs, role of women, business, eating habits, manner of sleeping, dress code, work ethics, prayer, and other aspects of life.  Islam should also have complete control on the political system of the nation. Government should operate as per the Sharia law and everybody should obey and surrender to Allah. Let us start with the Indian Constitution. During the dark days of Emergency in 1976, ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic’ was changed to‘Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic’. Sovereign means self-governing, our governments have replaced it with selfish government; socialist means collective, now being replaced by corruption; secular means irreligious which our government uses it as anti-Hindu. These three deadly S’s are destroying the country and chipping away the fundamental freedom of Hindus. Their life is in persistent danger and their future is in perennial gloom.

Secularism – What does it mean?

According to Thomas Jefferson, “Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, former President of India, observed: “When India is said to be a secular state, it does not mean that we reject the reality of the unseen spirit or the relevance of religion to life or that we exalt irreligion. It does not mean that secularism itself becomes a positive religion or that State assumes divine prerogatives. We hold that not one religion should be given preferential status.”

Donald E. Smith, Professor of Political Science in Pennsylvania University provided what he regarded as a working definition of a secular state. This was in his book, “India as a Secular State.”

“The secular State is the one which guarantees individual and corporate freedom of religion, deals with the individual as a citizen irrespective of his religion, is not constitutionally connected to a particular religion, nor does it seek to promote or interfere with religion.”

Rejection of Secularism: Muslims do not see secularism as a method of governing the nation where every individual is allowed to practice their faith.  Many Islamic countries rejected the secular concept of government as can be witnessed by some of the statements by political leaders. In winter of 1970, Ayatollah Khomeini observed: “This slogan of the separation of religion and politics and the demand that Islamic scholars not intervene in social and political affairs has been formulated and propagated by the imperialists; it is only the irreligious who repeat them.

Were religion and politics separate in the time of the Prophet…. Did there exist, on one side, a group of clerics, and opposite side, a group of politicians and leaders? … These slogans and claims have been advanced by the imperialists and their political agents in order to prevent religion from ordering the affairs of this world and shaping Muslim society, and at the same time to create a rift between the scholars of Islam, on the one hand, and the masses and those struggling for freedom and independence, on the other. They have thus been able to gain dominance over our people and plunder our resources, for such has always been their ultimate goal.”

Similarly, in the summer of 2007, the deputy prime minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak, emphatically declared that Malaysia was not a secular state but an Islamic one. “Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state. But as an Islamic state, it does not mean that we don’t respect non-Muslims,” he told reporters after officiating at the International Conference on the Role of Islamic States in a Globalized World in Kuala Lumpur. When asked by one reporter whether Malaysia was not seemingly moving toward being a secular state,

Razak fired back: “I have to correct you. We have never, never been secular because being secular by the Western definition means separation of the Islamic principles in the way we govern a country. We have never been affiliated with that position. We have always been driven by our adherence to the fundamentals of Islam. So, your premise is wrong.”⁵⁸

Mushir-ul-Haq also stated that India Muslims are not secular and in fact anti-Hindu; in fact, Islam is incompatible with Islam. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi say that “For Muslim societies, the acceptance of secularism means something totally different; i.e. as Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (ibadah) and legislation (Shariah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shariah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions; It is indeed a false claim that Shariah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: "Say! Do you know better than Allah?" (2:140).

Secularism is at odds with Islamic political theory because the state and religion have to be intertwined. Whatever the religion teaches to be prohibited, the state must also prohibit. Secularism and western democracy allows elected individuals to formulate laws in parliament. In Islam, the caliphate recognizes Allah's role as the supreme legislator meaning that his law is the supreme law. No law can supersede or overrule his law. The reason why most Islamic countries are not secular is due to the stiff opposition to secularism. Most Muslims see secularism as an innovation and a western invention. In fact, secularism can be interpreted as shirk which considers worship of any God other than Allah as sin, which the Lord will never forgive. Thus secularism hasn’t achieved mainstream support in the Islamic world.

One of the foremost Islamic scholars, Yusuf Qaradawi, says Allah knows better than anybody. According to him: “Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (ibadah) and legislation (Shariah), and acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shariah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions.  It is indeed a false claim that Shariah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance:

“Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (2:140). For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shariah is downright riddah. The silence of the masses in the Muslim world about this deviation has been a major transgression and a clear-cut instance of disobedience which produces a sense of guilt, remorse, and inward resentment, all of which have generated discontent, insecurity, and hatred among committed Muslims because such deviation lacks legality.”

Islam Abhors Human Rights

Islam would not recognize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and it is incompatible with the human rights, dignity and respect. Unless these rights are couched in Islamic doctrine, they are unacceptable.  In fact, Muslims have no rights; Quran emphasizes only the obligations to his Allah.

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) was developed by 45 Muslim countries especially for the adherents of Islam in response to UDHR which emphasizes the universal rights for all human beings irrespective of religion, race or sex. Article 24 of the declaration states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 also says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." Article 10 of the Declaration states: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism."

UN Iran’s Representative, Said Rajaie-Khorassani argued that these human rights cannot be used to judge Islam’s human rights. He stated that, “It recognized no authority . . . apart from Islamic law . . . conventions, declarations and resolutions or decisions of international organizations, which were contrary to Islam, had no validity in the Islamic Republic of Iran.... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which represented secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition, could not be implemented by Muslims and did not accord with the system of values recognized by the Islamic Republic of Iran; his country would therefore not hesitate to violate its provisions.¹⁰

Iranian Constitution provided sweeping constitutional justifications for infringing on rights and denying freedoms. Article 4 of the Iranian Constitution, quoted here illustrates what Islamization meant for Iran's rights guarantees: “All civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political laws and regulations, as well as any other laws or regulations, should be based on Islamic principles. This principle will in general prevail over all of the principles of the constitution, and other laws and regulations as well. Any judgment in regard to this will be made by the clerical members of the Council of Guardians.” ¹¹

President Zia of Pakistan stated in 1983 insisted on his commitment to pursue Islamization as the justification of his presidential powers and abolition of constitutional rights. “One basic point that emerges from a study of the Quranic verses and the Prophet's sayings . . . is that as long as the Amir or the head of State . . . abides by the injunctions of Allah and his Prophet (PBUH) ["peace and blessings upon him"] his obedience becomes mandatory for his subjects or the people, irrespective of the personal dislike that someone may harbor for the Amir or any of his actions. . .. Not only in my opinion but also in the opinion of legal experts and scholars, my Government, too, is a constitutional Government, which has been acting upon the tenets of Islam.... We are . . . devout Muslims. I concede, and I am proud of it.”

A K Brohi, former Minister of Law and Religious Affairs in Pakistan said that, “The individual if necessary has to be sacrificed in order that the life of the organism be saved. Collectivity has a special sanctity attached to it in Islam.” “The Western liberal emphasis upon freedom from restraint is alien to Islam .... Personal freedom [in Islam] lies in surrendering to the Divine Will.” Failure to surrender their personal freedom to Allah they may face severe consequences. Recently the ISIS jihadist group has reportedly beheaded a teenager listening to the pop music and shot dead two others for missing the Friday prayers in Mosul. The case of this boy listening to Western music was referred to Sharia court which issued a decision to execute. One eye witness reported that the boy’s parents were forced to witness the beheading of their son.

Human Rights of Islamic Women