Mauao Man

Equal in the West, Supreme in the East?

Islam’s Political Double Standard on Religious Minorities

Islamic political theology envisions a world in which Muslims rule and non-Muslims submit—socially, legally, and ritually. This is codified in the historical dhimmī system and resurrected in various forms across Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and other modern Islamic states (as examined in the previous post).

Yet in Western liberal democracies, Muslim minorities consistently argue for and benefit from:

Full legal equality,
Unrestricted religious practice,
Protection from criticism or offense, and
Representation in public and political life.

This contrast raises an uncomfortable but unavoidable question: Does Islam demand what it does not offer? And does this suggest a deep-seated asymmetry in Islamic political ethics—a theological double standard?

1. What Islam Offers to Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule

As detailed in classical fiqh and reaffirmed by modern Islamic constitutions and fatwas:

Non-Muslims are never equal citizens.
They may be tolerated (dhimmi), but only under submission (ṣaghīrūn)—Qur’an 9:29.
They are often deemed ritually impure (najis) and excluded from sacred space.
Their houses of worship are restricted or banned.
They may not proselytize, hold high office, or marry Muslim women.

The logic is straightforward: Islam is supreme by divine right, and no system can override its decrees. Religious pluralism is not an ideal; it is a temporary concession.

2. What Muslims Expect in the West

By contrast, Muslim communities in Europe, North America, and Australasia:

Demand constitutional equality and civil liberties.
Open mosques, Islamic schools, and sharia councils.
Campaign against “Islamophobia,” hate speech, and offensive satire.
Seek public accommodations for prayer, halal food, modest dress, and work policies.
Argue that criticizing Muhammad or the Qur’an is hate speech—not free speech.

Muslim activists often frame these demands in the liberal language of human rights, pluralism, and individual autonomy—values that Islamic states themselves often suppress.

3. Inconsistency or Reciprocity?

This is not merely political opportunism. Many Muslims sincerely believe:

Islam is the final truth and must be dominant in Islamic lands.
Muslims are oppressed when they are not allowed to practice Islam freely elsewhere.
Tolerance is a duty of the non-Muslim majority, but not a reciprocal duty in Muslim states.

This results in what can be termed a doctrinal asymmetry:

Context	Muslim View on Minority Rights
Muslim majority state	Islam must dominate; others must submit or be restricted
Muslim minority state	Islam must be protected, respected, and given full freedom

This is not accidental—it flows from Islamic theology itself:

Qur’an 3:110: “You are the best nation... commanding right and forbidding wrong.”
Qur’an 9:33: “It is He who sent His Messenger... to make [Islam] prevail over all religion.”
Classical tafsīr and fiqh: Islam is meant to rule, not coexist as one religion among many.

Thus, calls for equality in the West are strategic and contextual, not theological commitments to universal pluralism.

4. Real-World Case Studies

A. France and Secularism

Muslims campaign against laïcité laws restricting religious symbols in public schools.
They demand headscarf rights, halal meat in public institutions, and mosque funding.
Yet, churches in Saudi Arabia and Iran are banned—and this is seen as normal.

B. United Kingdom

Muslims demand faith-based arbitration (sharia councils) and equal public funding.
Protests erupt against cartoons of Muhammad—but Islamic states publish anti-Christian, anti-Jewish propaganda routinely.
Ahmadis, banned in Pakistan, are defended by British Muslims on grounds of “Islamophobia” when criticized in the UK.

C. India and Double-Sided Demands

Muslims demand personal law autonomy, mosque protection, and speech limits on Hindu activists.
But in Pakistan and Bangladesh, temples are demolished, and Hindus live as second-class citizens.

In every case, Muslim communities appeal to liberal principles when minorities, while their theological framework does not permit non-Muslims the same freedoms when Muslims are in power.

5. Theological Roots of the Asymmetry

A. Islam’s Self-Understanding as the Final Religion

Islam sees itself as the culmination and correction of all previous religions (Qur’an 5:3).
Other religions are either false or corrupted.
Therefore, Islam has a divine right to supremacy, not coexistence.

B. Ummah vs. Dār al-Ḥarb

Classical Islamic thought divides the world into Dār al-Islām (Muslim land) and Dār al-Ḥarb (land of war).
Muslims living in non-Muslim lands are often in temporary exile, allowed to use the freedoms granted to them, but with the long-term goal of Islamic dominance.

C. Taqiyyah, Hudnah, and Strategic Coexistence

Islamic tradition contains the idea of strategic retreat or dissimulation (e.g., taqiyyah in Shia doctrine or hudnah as temporary truce).
This permits flexibility in minority contexts—but only temporarily.

The result is a context-driven ethics:

When weak, call for tolerance;
When strong, impose supremacy.

6. Is There Any Muslim Country That Models True Equality?

Some point to Indonesia, Tunisia, or Jordan as more tolerant examples. However:

Apostasy remains taboo or illegal.
Christians and other minorities face mob pressure, underrepresentation, and legal bias.
There is no Islamic state—past or present—where non-Muslims enjoy equal status in both law and cultural practice.

Even Turkey, under Erdoğan, has moved toward Islamic revivalism—converting the Hagia Sophia into a mosque, targeting Christians, and Islamizing state institutions.

Conclusion: Islam’s Demands in the Minority Do Not Reflect Its Promises in the Majority

What becomes evident is this:

Islamic political theology is not built on universal pluralism or reciprocal tolerance.
It is built on supremacy when strong, and strategic tolerance when weak.

Muslims in secular democracies benefit from liberal systems they would never reproduce under Islamic law. The dhimmī system has been rebranded in Muslim-majority countries, while Muslim minorities decry any limitation on their religious freedom in the West.

This doctrinal double standard demands scrutiny—not just politically, but theologically. If Islam’s ideal society does not allow for the freedoms it demands when outside power, then Islam is not compatible with genuine pluralism.

📌 Reader Challenge

If you believe this article misrepresents Islamic teachings or unfairly critiques Muslim minority politics:

Provide Qur’anic or hadith evidence for universal religious equality in Islam.
Cite Islamic legal rulings that grant non-Muslims full rights in an Islamic state.
Offer examples of Muslim-majority nations that treat religious minorities exactly as Muslims are treated in secular liberal states.

All claims are open to fact-based correction—but not evasion, tu quoque arguments, or appeals to emotion.