Is Muslims' Demand of only Civil Code of Sharia in Non-Muslim Majority Countries Justified?
Susmit Kumar, Ph.D.
(In response to an inquiry from a person of the Muslim community who objected on having common civil code in constitution)
Yes, you have a valid point about common code, i.e. there should be religious freedom. But why do you stop at choosing only civil code and not criminal aspect of Muslim code? If the court convicts a person, he will go to prison if he is a non-Muslim (Hindu, Christian, Parsi or Sikh), but if he is a Muslim, his limbs (hand/leg) will be cut off, eye put out or death by stoning according your Sharia law. Why do not you ask for this in India, i.e. criminal aspect of Muslim code? You can not choose what you like in your religion and discard what you do not like.
Sharia discriminates against non-Muslims. People like you are taking advantage of secular democratic system. If you Muslims are in power or in majority, you will enforce sharia laws on non-Muslims also and will not give them “freedom of religion” because your Sharia does not give legally any freedom to non-Muslims - a non-Muslim can not even represent himself in a sharia court. On the other hand, if you are in minority, then you will shout “Freedom of Religion” ……“Freedom of Religion.”
In Saudi Arabia (where your two most holy sites are), no body can keep non-Muslim religious book or practice any religion other than Islam. Any one, found in violation, is immediately arrested and given prison terms. Will you condemn this because you Muslims are free to keep Muslim books and practice your religion in all non-Muslims majority countries? If you will criticize Saudi Arabia for discriminating against non-Muslims, the moment you will enter Saudi Arabia for Hajj (or for any reason), they will arrest you for criticizing Quran and Sharia, and you will get death by stoning. Whatever they are doing is in accordance with Sharia and Quran because these do not give religious freedom to non-Muslims. If you do not condemn Saudi Arabia, then why not non-Muslim radicals do the same to you where you are in minority, i.e. stop you from attending mosques and not allow you to keep Quran?
When you Muslims were in power in India (i.e. during Islamic empires), the Muslim rulers imposed jaziya tax on non-Muslims. Muslims were not required to pay this tax. They destroyed tens of thousands Hindu temples and constructed mosques on their ruins. If some how you again come to power in India, you will do the same – your brothers in Pakistan and Bangladesh are doing it. At the time of 1947 partition, Hindus were 24 percent and 31 percent of population in (West) Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), respectively whereas now these numbers are 2 percent and 9 percent, respectively, only. This drastic reduction has happened due to forced conversion, including forcible marriage of Hindu girls with Muslims. This shows how your Quran and Sharia treat non-Muslims. On the other hand, population of Muslims in India is increasing every day, for an example just between 1991 and 2001, the population of Muslims increased from 10 percent of total population to 13 percent of population. Then why not Hindu radicals/fundamentalists do the same to you Muslims in India, i.e. conversion of you Muslims to Hinduism?
Discrimination against non-Muslims is happening in almost all Muslim countries. For instance in Malaysia where sharia courts may overrule any court’s decision, i.e. Sharia courts’ decisions are supreme and final. The problem is that non-Muslims can not even present their sides in a sharia court. Via the web link below, you can read how Sharia court made Maniam Moorty a Muslim. He was a national hero, the first Malaysian to climb Mount Everest, whereas the truth was that he was a Hindu. Just on the basis of few frauds’ statement, he was declared a Muslim. These frauds claimed that he converted to Muslim when he was in hospital. The problem is that he was in coma during his entire stay in hospital and he died in coma. His wife could not even represent her side in sharia court that declared him a Muslim. Despite plea by his wife, who wanted to give his dead body Hindu rites, he was given a Muslim burial.
In several Islamic countries, a non-Muslim gets only fraction (ranging from one half to one-tenth) what a Muslim gets in a similar legal settlement in courts, i.e. if a Muslim is awarded 100,000 rupees, then a non-Muslim will get only 10,000 rupees in same situation. This is due to sharia laws. Then why not non-Muslim countries, where you are minority, apply non-Muslim (Hindu, Jewish, Christian) legal code on you Muslims.
It is just your "belief" that Quran is divine revelations made to Prophet Mohammed. There is no proof for this except claim by just one person, i.e. Prophet Muhammed. Based on this belief, you discriminate against non-Muslims in every sphere. Jews also have their own "belief" that entire Palestine is their land given by god. Then why not they kick out every one else from there? Hindus also have “belief” that the controversial Hindu temple in Ayodhya is the place where their god Ram was born. Thousands of Hindu temples have been destroyed in Pakistan after 1947, then why not Hindu radicals demolish the dilapidated Babri mosque in Ayodhya to build a grand Hindu temple?
Manu Smirti is the oldest Hindu penal code. According to Hindu scriptures, all non-Hindus are considered lower than shudras. If India imposes the legal code of Manu Smirti on you Muslims, you will be no where. If you will kill any Hindu (even a shudra), you will get death penalty whereas on the other hand if a Hindu (even shudra) kills you, then he will have to just donate couple of animals. Your Quran and sharia are 7th Century books/code. Then why not India can impose Manu Smirti on you?
Muslims in several Islamic countries (including India and Pakistan) cheer for Osama and Muslim radicals like him who are bent on killing non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries, then why not Osama like non-Muslim radicals do the same to you. Christians have "belief" that only they will go to heaven and rest will go to hell. Fanatic Christian fundamentalists/radicals in US claim that if there will be another attack like 2001 attack in US, they will nuke (drop nuclear bombs) on Mecca and Medina. What do you think about it?
Conversion by Muslims to other faiths is forbidden under sharia and converts are considered apostates. Non-Muslims, however, are allowed to convert into Islam. In several Islamic countries there are numerous cases in which sharia courts have forced Muslims, who converted to other religion, to remain Muslims and are given prison terms. Then why not other religions take legal actions against the people, who convert to Muslims, and send them to prison? Here is an example of decision of a sharia court in Malaysia:
You Muslims are still living in 7th Century because Sharia and Quran are nothing but social system of 7th Century Arabia. For this very reason, we do not see any significant scientific achievement in Muslim countries. Although you claim to represent one sixth of world population, but how many doctors, engineers and scientific researchers are there in your countries; their numbers are negligible as compared to from other religions.
There is not a single country that enforces a non-Muslim religion on its citizens. You Muslims need to modernize yourselves and Islam, the way other religions have modernized; otherwise you will get violent backlashes in non-Muslim countries by radicals/fundamentalists of other religions. Outsiders can not bring changes in (i.e. modernize) your religion, it has to be done by you/Muslim themselves like Mustafa Kemal did in Turkey after World War I.