From the links:
1- First, secularism makes lawful what Allah has made unlawful.
The Rule of Allah (Shari`ah) is compulsory and has basic laws and regulations that cannot be changed. Some of these laws are concerned with the acts of worship, the relations between men and women, etc.
What is the position with regard to these laws?
Secularism makes adultery lawful if the male and the female are consenting adults. As for Riba (interest on money), it is the basis of all financial transactions in secular economies. On the contrary, Allah says (s.2 A. 278): "O you who believe, fear Allah and leave what comes from Riba if you are believers. If you do not do so, then wait for a war from Allah and His Messenger." As for alcohol, all secular systems allow the consumption of alcohol and make selling it a lawful business.
Highlighted parts that seem despotic to me.
But in a secular government Muslims are free to act out whatever roles they believe should be given to men and women, abstain from adultery, and to abstain from purchasing or imbibing alcohol.
In what way does this "force a Muslim to do anything against his/her views" which was the original question? I see no evidence of any Muslims being forced to do anything against their views in a secular country besides being able to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throat. Can you please make it more clear at which point Muslims are
forced to do anything against their beliefs, unless
indeed you're saying the thing they're forced to do is stop themselves from forcing their beliefs on everyone else?
2- Second, secularism is clear unbelief (Kufr).
Secularism is based on separating religion from all the affairs of this life and hence, it rules by law and regulations other than Allah's laws. Hence, secularism rejects Allah's rules with no exception and prefers regulations other than Allah's and His Messenger's. In fact, many secularists claim that Allah's laws might have been suitable for the time they were revealed but are now outdated.
As a result, most of the laws governing the daily affairs of life in the countries ruled by secular systems contradict Islam. Allah says (S.5 A.50): "Do they seek a judgment of Ignorance? But, who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?"
But do you really argue that non-Muslims should live by Muslim law? Do you really think for even a second that Muslim's ideals are better than everyone else's? That goes beyond thinking that Islam is true and other beliefs are false; that steps into an entirely different territory.
Is it really fair for Muslims to tell everyone else what to do? Is it really? Do you consider it unfair if an atheist would tell a Muslim what to do, or a Jew were to tell a Muslim what to do, or a Hindu to tell a Muslim what to do, etc.?
In a secular government nobody can tell a Muslim what to do. Nor can a Muslim tell anyone else what to do. How is that unfair? Because it prohibits Muslims from forcing their beliefs on others?
2- The true character of a Muslim as required by Islam obliges him to be a man of politics. Every Muslim is required to fulfill the Islamic obligation of commanding good and forbidding evil. Also, it is the responsibility of every Muslim to offer advice to all his Muslim brothers and the leaders of the Muslim nation. We, Muslims are also commanded in surat Al-`Asr to enjoin good and stick to patience.
So non-Muslims have to abide by what Muslims think is evil?
Or else what? If a Muslim told me not to drink a bottle of whiskey with my friends I'd tell them to eff off, just like I'd tell anyone who thinks it's their business to get into my business to eff off.
If it came down to a government telling me that I can't do something that harms nobody with my friends, then I'd lay down my life to bring that government down. I'd literally
die to fight that kind of senseless tyranny because freedom is worth more to me than life. Nobody has the right to take away freedoms because of their personal taboos, especially when those taboos aren't hurting anyone when I'm doing them. I understand the "alcohol = drunk drivers" argument but it's flawed.
I'm not a drunk driver; just like "religion = suicide bombers" argument is flawed because not all religion believers are suicide bombers.
Allah says: By the declining day. Lo! man is in a state of loss. Save those who believe and do good works, and exhort one another to truth and exhort one another to endurance (Al-`Asr: 1-3) The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) urges every Muslim to fight mischief and combat injustice and never accept oppression.
How am I different from a Muslim, then, by combating the injustice or the oppression that a theocracy as described would lay upon me?
Upon being asked about the best form of Jihad, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: The best form of Jihad is upholding the truth before a despotic ruler. It is also reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: The master of martyrs is Hamzah and comes after him a man who gets killed just because he stands to a despotic ruler commanding him to do good and give up evil.
But the rule that's being suggested IS despotic. Banning things because of a few individuals when the majority of the people don't do those things IS despotic. Just like banning religion because a few bomb buildings (when a majority don't) would be despotic. It's nonsense -- utter, asinine, tyrannical nonsense.
It is an utter mistake and idle thinking to believe that the domain of prohibition in Islam is confined to committing adultery, drinking wine or the like only; rather, its of wider dimension. It extends to all acts that involve humiliating peoples, rigging the votes, oppressing the individuals and casting them in the dungeons of prisons without committing any crime; all these are apparent forms of evil. Appointing incompetent people and dismissing, without justifiable cause, the qualified ones is surely a sinful act, and, thus, a form of evil.
What is "adultery?" I agree that having sex outside of a committed marriage is wrong because that's breaking a promise to someone, but there is nothing wrong with sex outside of marriage. There is nothing wrong with homosexual sex. There is nothing wrong with drinking wine. ALL of these things would be prohibited needlessly, despotically. Evilly.
I agree with preventing humiliating people, rigging votes, oppressing (IRONIC that a man arguing for oppressing people who drink alcohol responsibly would mention oppression) people, and casting people in dungeons without committing crimes. (In fact, under a system some people have described where I'd be imprisoned for drinking alcohol or for loving my girlfriend Alicia that would INDEED be a situation where I'm "imprisoned without committing a crime.")
It's really backwards to me that the person in this quote claims to be against self-righteous indignation, hypocrisy, despotism and evildoing but ostensibly supports a system that would cause exactly that -- oppressing people who don't abuse alcohol but enjoy it occasionally, probably outlawing legitimate homosexual love between individuals who love each other enough to die for one another, outlawing the casual enjoyment of a cigarette between friends on a cold winter night on the front porch... I can't find it anything other than strange and backwards. I mean, maybe we're coming from different worlds, but I try to put myself in others' shoes a lot to try to glean understanding from them, but in this instance I see nothing but evil and oppression in these men's ideas.
