Islamic State is Oppressive to non-Muslims.

Muslims all over the world, be it due to their ignorance or religious fervent, most aspire to form Islamic state in their respective nations. If you ask them why, they will tell you that it is their Allah given duty.

Google Islamic State, you'd hit a lot of websites and blogs dedicated or attempted to explain and describe Islamic States. Sieving through all the information found on the internet, it eventually becomes clear to me that an Islamic State in both it's ideological form as well as its practical form, is inherently oppressive to non-Muslims. Let me show you.

From http://www.readingislam.com in their article the purpose of Islamic State, it said:

every Muslim is to be regarded as eligible for positions of the highest responsibility in an Islamic state without distinction of race, sex, color or class.

There were no mentioning of whether non-Muslim should enjoy the same eligibility. To find the answer I do not have to go far. From http://www.parvez-video.com in its Quran - State Affairs page, it said:

since the very purpose of the existence of this (Islamic) state is the establishment of the Divine System and the enforcement of the Quranic status, it is apparent that those who do not believe in its ideology i.e. the non-Muslims, cannot be admitted to participate in the affairs of the state.

Then I found this written in a Muslim blog describing Quranic State:

The State which is established on this concept is called the Quranic State or you can say Islamic State, which encompasses two groups of people:

(i) The group whose members believe in the Quranic concept of Ideology and

(ii) The group whose members do not believe in this Ideology.

The members of the first group run the administration of this State and also look after the human rights of the second group so that the members of this group are not deprived of any human right.

So, here you go, in an Islamic State only Muslims are entitled to be elected to run the country, non-Muslims are automatically disqualified. This is a form of discrimination, the non-Muslims are discriminated base on their religion.

So, what happened to non-Muslims in an Islamic state? If you were denied the opportunity to be elected so that your voice could be heard in the nation that you are residing in, you have been denied your right to freedom of speech and your right to be represented in the running of the state. There will be no one to fight for your rights and to protect you from any oppressive measures or policy to be taken by the state. This in itself is another form of oppression and discrimination.

It is idiotic to say that the Muslims will be able to understand the needs and rights of the non-Muslims via consultations. The very essence of the ideology where an Islamic State could only be run by Muslim is itself a manifestation of the inability of Muslims to respect the right of the non-Muslims to be represented in the affair of the state. When one of the most fundamental democratic right of the non-Muslims to be represented is automatically denied to them, how then the Muslims would be able to treat the non-Muslims fairly and would be able to protect the rights of the non-Muslims in an Islamic state?

Just take a look around the world today, you could see Alberto Fujimori (a Japanese) elected as the President of Peru, Manmohan Singh (a Sikh) elected as the Prime Minister of India, and Obama elected as the President of USA but have you ever heard of a non-Muslim being elected as the leader of any Islamic state? There is none. In the ideology of democracy, Muslims are entitled to be elected as representative just as the non-Muslim, but in an Islamic "Democracy" non-Muslim is automatically disqualified. In this regard, democracy is definitely a fairer ideology compared to Islamic "democracy".

Actually, the argument that Islamic State is a democratic state is based entirely on the Khalifa (khilafah or Khilafat depending which Muslim Scholar source) of early Islam Community. Since the Khalifa were elective in nature, so the Muslim Scholars argued that an Islamic State is democratic. This is a severe distortion of the word: democratic. Let me use an analogy: The leader of the Communist party are also elected, but you don't call Communist Country Democratic. The reason is obvious, only those from the Communist Party (those who subscribe to the communist ideals) are eligible to be elected. Just as in an Islamic State only the Muslims are eligible to be elected. So, to me Islamic Democracy is as oxymoron as the term Communist Democracy.

If you have been told by Muslims that in an Islamic State, non-Muslims would be treated fairly and they would not be oppressed or trampled upon, then you should read what is ordained In the Quran.

(Sura 6:109): "You revile not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah Almighty in their ignorance". The problem lies in exactly that there is an escape clause.

(Sura 9:29): "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." This justified Dhimmitude.

As is seen in what is already happening in Malaysia, there are bound to be inter-religious conflicts, as we all live together in the same country. When conflicts happened between the believers and the non-believers, any questioning of the "Islamic" practices would be deemed insulting to the said religion. So as ordained in the Quran, it would be state sanctioned that the non-believers be put down by force. As the non-believers would be accused of reviling against Allah. As it's seen happening almost daily around the world.

Also, given the ultra-sensitivity of the Muslims today, any attempt at initiating an intellectual dialogue on all things Islam, would be automatically classified as attempts to insult the religion, as is seen in the Malaysia Bar Council forum entitled "Conversion to Islam: Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, Subashini and Sharmala Revisited" .

Then if you have been told that the Sharia law would not be imposed onto non-Muslims, you would have been lied to. Think about it, if the Sharia Law become the state law, how would non-Muslims being citizen of the state be exempted from such state laws? In fact, from http://www.parvez-video.com:

The non-believers being the citizens of an Islamic State, Islamic laws shall be applied to them. In their personal affairs, they shall be allowed to take their own decisions, subject to the laws of the Islamic State.

Also from http://www.readingislam.com:

In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. The laws given by Allah through His Prophet ( Shari ‘ah) are to be regarded as constitutional principles that should not be violated.

So, these website has already spelled it out explicitly or implicitly for us. Being the citizen of an Islamic State, Islamic Law will be imposed to the non-Muslims. This is a form of Oppressions as the non-Muslims are subjected to religious laws that they do not subscribe to.

Lastly, the formation of an Islamic State would not be completed until the practice of Dhimmitude. All non-believers would eventually be made Dhimmis in an Islamic State as is ordained in the holy Quran (Sura 9:29).

From Wikipedia. Being a Dhimmi in an Islamic states means that you will have less right compared to that of a Muslim, you would be subjected to state sanction humiliation, your house can not be seen bigger than that of a Muslim's house, your testimony in the court is only as good as half of that of a Muslim, you would have to wear distinctive clothes to differentiate yourself as a dhimmi and you would be the first target of attack of any uprising as is seen throughout the history of all Islamic Empires, and your life would worth as best one half of that of a Muslim. In modern day definitions, being treated as a dhimmi in your own country is definitely a form of oppression.

My conclusion that Islamic State is inherently oppressive to non-Muslim is then verified by an article in http://www.islamfortoday.com/. The article said:

Islamic states inevitably treat non-Muslim citizens as less than equal curbing their access to power and religious freedom.

With this, I end my article here.

If you have reached here, you should note that I use no internet source that is anti-Islam or websites that propagate Islamophobia. Feel free to check them out to verify my claims.