On Wednesday 20 April 2016, David Cameron defamed Imām Sulaiman Ghani from Tooting at Prime Minister’s Questions as an “IS supporter” – a popular acronym for ISIS. Downing Street’s Press Office later clarified that Mr Cameron really meant Imām Ghani supported “an” Islamic state. The basis of this claim, Downing Street argued, was the ‘Quiz a Muslim’ event, that I personally chaired in my hometown of Bedford, last November.
However, it was only in January this year when Mr Ghani spoke at an anti-ISIS conference entitled “The Evils of ISIS”. Mr Cameron’s defamatory and irresponsible accusation escaped an imminent lawsuit due to his parliamentary privilege.
Nevertheless, this did not stop Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, from repeating the lie on a radio interview when Labour’s Sadiq Khan won the London mayoral elections. He went a step further, describing Imām Ghani as a supporter of “Daesh”; the Arabic acronym for ISIS.
Led by the lifelong Tory supporter and journalist Peter Oborne, and LBC’s Political Editor Theo Usherwood, an uncompromising campaign demanding Cameron to apologise to Imām Ghani was underway. It was only after Imām Ghani proceeded with legal action that Defence Secretary Fallon apologised for his “inadvertent error”. Hours later on Wednesday evening, Downing Street issued an unapologetic “apology” to the Imām, stating,
“In reference to the Prime Minister’s comments on Sulaiman Ghani, the Prime Minister was referring to reports that he supports an Islamic state. The Prime Minister is clear this does not mean Mr Ghani supports the organisation Daesh [Isis] and he apologises to him for any misunderstanding.”
I get the feeling this swift “apology” was a high priority for Mr Cameron in setting a precedence to prevent other Tory politicians from repeating the lie without parliamentary privilege, leaving them open to legal action.
Is “an” Islamic state ok, then?
Beyond the stress and fear that Imām Ghani and his family have experienced over the past few weeks, the “IS supporter” slur has exposed a much wider problem, with serious implications for British Muslims.
The manufactured conflation between ISIS and the normative Islamic concept of a caliphate or an Islamic state proper, has been a yardstick, which has been repeatedly used by the media and politicians to beat Muslims with. Initially, it appeared, and pretty much still appears, that the government considers supporting the terrorist organisation ISIS, and desiring the unification of Muslim majority lands via peaceful means under a single ruler as the same thing – an unacceptable extremist belief.
However, it is conveniently brushed under the carpet that the historical caliphate, under numerous dynasties, made up thirteen centuries of Islamic history and heritage. Ultimately, this is an institution that is enshrined in Islamic theology, mentioned in Quranic verses and numerous Prophetic statements (ḥadīth), and agreed upon by all mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
Such a unanimous consensus has been confirmed explicitly by the likes of Imāms al-Qurtubi (Māliki), al-Buhūti (Hanbali), al-Haskafi (Hanafi), al-Māwardi (Shāfi’i), Ibn Hazm (Dhāhiri), and Ibn Taymiya (Hanbali), to name but a few. The Andulusian jurist Ibn Hazm even went so far as to state that only people to take exception to this consensus was an obscure minority from amongst the Khārijites.
The announcement of the re-establishment of the caliphate by ISIS in June 2014, despite being rejected by Muslims everywhere, was a dream come true for some western governments. Now they had, at last, found a “medieval” entity that would justify the continuation of their destructive foreign policy campaigns in the Middle East.
What this latest saga with Imām Ghani and the Tory leadership has proven is something that has been well-known within the Muslim community for nearly 15 years; any non-violent politicised and orthodox conception of Islām is becoming increasingly unacceptable. The McCarthyite witch-hunt of Muslim figures, and the “muscular” approach to Muslim assimilation to secular liberalism is no longer a secret, as witnessed in recent weeks.
However, let the Defence Secretary and Prime Minister’s half-hearted “apology” be a lesson learnt for politicians and journalists alike, who frequently smear Muslim scholars and activists by conflating “support for ISIS” with the belief in a Caliphate. Consequently, now that the leader of this country has reluctantly distinguished between the two, will Whitehall acknowledge this in their legal definition of “extremism” in preparation for Cameron’s Queen Speech on May 18, when new measures under the Counter-Extremism Bill will be announced? I very much hope so. Otherwise people like Michael Gove may as well smear Cameron as an extremist for appearing to show some nuance.
Edited by Islam21c Islamic Affairs editor
 Al-Jāmi’ li Ahkām al-Qur’ān by Imām al-Qurtubi; Vol. 1 page 264.
 Kashāf al-Qinā by Imām al-Buhūti; Vol. 6 page 158.
 Al-Darr al-Mukhtār by Imām al-Haskafi; Vol. 1 page 110.
 Al-Ahkām al-Sultāniya by Imam al-Māwardi; page 5.
 Marātib al-Ijmā’ by Ibn Hazm; page 124.
 Al-Siyāsa al-Shar’iyya; page 161.
 Al-Fasl fī al-Milal wal-Ahwā wal-Nihal by Ibn Hazm; Vol. 4 page 87.
The True Islamic state will be a state of justice and security to all as has been and was doucumneted by Christian,jewish and historians of other religions. Just look at the accounts of Saladin? From his enemies. You would think they were written by his own supporters! Out of centuries and centuries of time you can always find injustices and anomalies but the underlying state was always about justice. People of all races colours and religions can and must learn to live together.
Interesting article. As a non Muslim can you help me understand the nature of this ideal caliphate. I thin I am correct in believing it would unite all Muslim lands under a single ruler or Caliph. I also assume that the caliphate would, by definition be run under Sharia Law.
I also assume that under such a state there would be no need for democracy?
I also assume that amongst other things the following would apply:
Apostates to be punished by death y/n
Blasphemers to be punished by death y/n
Practicing homosexuals to be punished by death y/n
Adulterers to be punished by lashing/and or stoning y/n
Women to remain fully covered and not to leave home if at all possible y/n
I believe it is important to define what is meant by the terms that we use. So when someone states that they believe in ‘An Islamic State’ it is clear what is meant.
Well if we are talking of ideals, the ideal caliphate would be comprehensive in many senses. That would mean that it would not be an ‘islamicised’ mutation of a nation state. One of the problems of looking at an alternative whilst sitting within the disaster that is the modern nation state experiment is that we supplant the unfortunate features of a coercive, legally monistic (as opposed to pluralistic), authoritarian structure we call “nation” today. That is partly the cause of the usual questioning of whether x would be stoned or y would be kicked out and so on. An *ideal* Islamic state would implement sharī’a (synonymous with ‘Islam’), which is a far more advanced and pluralistic legal framework when it comes to the questions you’ve asked (based on our current [western] nation state binary). In all of those cases there is no yes or no answer that would apply across the board; it is down to individual benefits/harms (which is foreign to us in our authoritarian western view of these things).
As for there being no need for democracy, then I’m not sure what this means. Why would going back to an ideal that set the higher benchmark for democratic features in the first place (the caliphate system) suddenly relieve us of the need for democracy in general? Ideally we would not have the so-called “democracy” we have in western hegemonic powers (the “inverted totalitarianism” of corporate control Hedges and others refer to), but that’s very different from doing away with “democracy” in general.
I don’t want to come across as dodging the questions, but I hope you appreciate the fact that there are no black and white answers. Yes, if someone insists, for example, of receiving a particular ‘punishment’ to purify themselves of a particular sin/crime that they do not wish to be held accountable for in the hereafter, then yes, it is the duty of the ideal islamic state to cater for that (if it does not lead to a bigger harm). However that is understandably different to the usual generalised pronouncements about “sharia law” you and I are accustomed to in order to manufacture irrational hysteria we expect of Islamophobes (and generally thick people).
Abu, thanks for your reply. I am not suggesting that this ideal Islamic State would be simplistic. I am sure there would be a lot of complexities, and hugely different from the nation state that I am familiar with. I would like to address that further but firstly, without accusing you of dodging the question, I believe the questions that I asked are quick to simple and it is perfectly possible to give straight answers to them. As far as I am aware all of the questions I have asked are clear under Sharia Law and I would assume that any Muslim adhering to the Koran and the Sunnah, would be able to confirm that in straightforward fashion. Indeed I would expect them to be proud to do so, rather than moving the focus in another direction whilst pointing out the imperfections in current nation states.
To return to the issue of the complexities that you raise. What you seem to be saying is that many aspects of this ideal state are not agreed. This is why Islamic State can claim, that the state they have created is in fact this ideal Islamic State. They clearly believe it is. They clearly justify this through interpretations of learned scholars that believe this to be the case. On the other hand other scholars interpret things differently. Unless you can point out these differences by clearly articulating what this alternative Islamic State would look like there is bound to be confusion. I wonder, and I mean this honestly, if the only difference between these differing visions of the Islamic State is the means of arriving at it, rather than the nature of the state once it existed?
If I could ask one further questioning it is this. How would the Caliph and his ( I assume it is a he) be decided. If I understand my history in the past it seems to have run in a dynastic fashion. Surely that can’t be an appropriate way to select such an important role. However, if democracy is not encouraged I wonder how else the role would be determined.
I don’t know how much you know about Islam, but let me tell you that Islam is a beautiful way of life (religion). Islam is more than just punishing people. God asks us to use our intellect and come to the right conclusion and then submit to him, rather than having blind faith. I know many muslims will disagree, but then not every muslim reads Quran and understands arabic and the history. Also by merely saying someone is a muslim doesn’t mean he/she is a true muslim who follows Quran and Sunnah, just as every Christian doesn’t follow Bible.
Firstly, there is no compulsion in Islam. No one can force someone else to become a muslim. Any kind of compulsions we see today are not part of Islam. Once you submit willingly to the one God, there are some laws which you have to abide. It’s just like you know that you have to stop at a red signal. If you don’t, you might get fined, but its a matter of getting caught. The same applies on the punishments you have asked. Adulterers can only be punished, if there are four witnesses. At the time of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) no one got punished for blasphemy (to my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong). It’s only after his death people have started to punish out of love and respect for the prophet, but it’s not what the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has taught. Every Muslim should be offended out of love if disrespect is shown to God and any prophet (incl. Jesus (pbuh)), but that doesn’t give them the right to punish, they just need to advice. Some countries do have a law, people just need to be careful in those countries.
As for homosexuals it’s forbidden, but the punishment will only be given by God, people are supposed to give them advice and not punish them.
Women in Islam need to cover themselves, but the same is mentioned in the Old and the New Testament. They are not needed to be confined in homes.
Lastly, Islam has justice to offer, but that doesn’t mean the Muslim in power won’t be biased and will give the right verdict. Many countries which seem to have Sharia Law, don’t follow it thoroughly and have their own ideas too (such as women not allowed to drive).
I hope, I’ve covered your points and hope that I’ve been any help. Feel free to ask or criticise. I normally don’t read many articles and comments here and have never replied too. Don’t know how I got here today and seeing that you didn’t get your answers, I had to reply.
Rezwan, thanks follow r your thoughtful reply. I appreciate that Islam isn’t all about punishment. I am also sure that for you Islam would be and is a beautiful way of life. However in outlining some more f the characteristics of what you believe this Islamic State would be like you also highlight serious contradictions. It seems clear to me that, despite there only being one Koran plus the Hadiths, there are many different interpretations of its meanings. You like many Muslims are keen to highlight its peacefulness and beauty. Yet others, no doubt equally devout, use what I would describe as barbaric punishments – beheadings, floggings, amputations etc – to ensure adherence to this correct way of life.
This issue is one of the major problems with Islam today. It seems all devout Muslims agree that Islam is the most important thing in their life. This means that adhering to its principles is just as important. Defending these principles is every good Muslim’s duty. But unfortunately there are many, many different interpretations of what these principles are. For example, Sunni, Shia, Salafi, Deobandi, Sufi, Wahaabi, Ahmadi etc etc, and differences within each of these too. For believers in each different interpretation, the belief that these beliefs are supremely important means that inter Islamic strife is widespread. Eg Sunni/Shia, Hezbolla, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra etc etc. So a religion n with many peaceful aspects to its teaching is constantly at war with itself.
This is why I am keen for people to be explicit about their beliefs rather than using labels such as An Islamic State. You may not like me pointing out what I see as barbaric prohibitions against natural activities, but I believe that they would be an integral part,of any version of this. To come back to the original question in the article – Is Cameron OK with an Islamic State? – I can’t speak for him. But in reality rider for anyone to be able to answer the question it behoves people that believe in one, to say precisely what one would look like. For me I am certain that such a state would be non-democratic, misogynistic, homophobic and against freedom of expression and belief. Further, there is currently An Islamic State. Many, if not the big majority, of the world’s Muslims disagree with the principles and practices of that state. However, I have no doubt the same would be true of any other alternative versions n, such is the level of disagreement between Muslims themselves.
“Well if we are talking of ideals…”
Meanwhile, back at reality…
” if someone insists, for example, of receiving a particular ‘punishment’ to purify themselves of a particular sin/crime that they do not wish to be held accountable for in the hereafter, then yes, it is the duty of the ideal islamic state to cater for that (if it does not lead to a bigger harm). ”
And what if someone insists on not receiving a particular ‘punishment’ to purify themselves of a particular sin/crime that they do not wish to be held accountable for in the here-and-now?
Hector and Carl are trolls! All their questions and points they raise have 1 purpose to be islamophic and to put down Islam or Muslims in any way they can.
You come here to ask us questions yet Hector completely avoids answering any questions himself. I can provide links to many articles he has commented on. If you read his comments and his attacks then brothers and sisters you will understand the reality of these trolls!
In fact in one post he got so worked up he started abusing people’s mums!!
Is this the behaviour of someone who really wants to understand Islam and Muslims??
Any answer you give them will go above their heads. The issue is simple yet too complicated for Trolls who are islamophobic already to understand.
The keep saying Islam is homophobic when the are much more islamophobic.
Carl has asked all these questions already on another post and even then he was not happy with answers. Carl you need to find an Islamic scholar of your choosing and ask him direct.
No one else can really answer your amoeba idiotic yes no questions.
Islam does not in anyway shape or form need to justify itself to you! Nor does the khilafah or any part of Allah’s law need to justify or answer your questions.
If you understand this understand it well, here and now. One day you will have to justify why you did not accept Islam and YOU will be questioned asto what you did in regards to this. On that day you wont be able to avoid the questions.
Abu, I object to being called a troll and labelled Islamaphobic. I come on this website in order to try to gain an understanding of 21st century Islam. In order to do so I ask questions to ensure that my understanding is correct. I have had some good replies but I sense generally there is a reluctance to enter into debate, and indeed to question your own beliefs. Any phobia is an irrational fear. I believe that I am rational, indeed the fact that I come on the website, read articles and then question them demonstrates this. I am afraid of the influence of Islam in the UK as it seems to me that it is : anti democratic; misogynistic; homophobic; unquestioning and against freedom of thought and belief. I have tried, through asking questions on this site, to understand if this fear is justified. I have to confess that the strength of my belief in this has been increased by the dialogue I have had here.
I would like you to consider your reply and contrast it with Rezwan’s. Clearly you both disagree with me, but Rezwan’s belief in the goodness and peacefulness of Islam shines through. I have to say your response creates the opposite impression. You finish with the comment that one day I will have to justify my decision not to accept Islam. I believe that I have given it the consideration it deserves. It is of course possible that for not accepting it I will burn forever in hell. I ask you to consider two things. Is a God that inflicts this fate on the majority of mankind genuinely a peaceful God? How can you be certain that your particular belief is correct. I don’t doubt your sincerity. But, equally I don’t doubt the sincerity of. Roman Cathoilics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Daoists, Animists, Orthodox Christians, Maronites, Druze etc etc. Equally I don’t doubt the sincerity of Sunni, Shia, Ahmaddi, Wahaabiis, Salafis, Sufis, Deobandis, etc etc. Given this it might pay to have a bit of humility, just in case you’ve chosen the wrong side.
Carl, first look the the questions you asked?
In any kind of justice system is there ever a yes no answer?
Islamic verdicts are it some punch card system where you put the answer in a large Alan Turing type analytical machine and after a serious of mechanical noises you get a yes or no?
My response was inline to your question. You posed this question before but I did not answer tbrnon another article as I felt it was a weird question.
In Islam what people do in their own house is private. The state has no interference on this.
If you can tell me 5 incidents out of centuries of the khilafah where anyone was actually punished for these crimes?
In English law what do you need to prove adultery? 1 witness the wife is eniugh. In Islamic law you need 4 people to visually see the actual penetration.
There was a time when 4 witness came forward to accuse a woman of adultery. When the Khalif Umar took oath from all 4 one of them, one of the men when asked if he actually witnessed the physical penetrtion, he said he was now slightly doubtful if he actually visually saw that. The Khalif Umar had all 4 repremanded\fined\punished due to the gravity of what they were accusing someone of a d the case was thrown out.
The true Islamic justice if we had it the whole earth would flock to live under its rule. The reality is right now we don’t have it.
There were times when the Prophet sws gave a ruling in favour of a jewish man against a Muslim and there are many stories like this.
Cut through the media fed frenzy against Islam and look at it with an open heart.
Abu, thanks for you more thoughtful reply. However, I’m afraid I must still disagree with you. You ask if in any justice system there is a yes/no system. The answer to this is clearly yes. For example in the UK someone guilty of murder used to be punished by death by hanging. Now the punishment is a life sentence. So, of course the verdict of any particular offence is unclear, but the punishment is clear. Unless I am wrong the punishments I list are clear for someone found guilty of the offences.
In terms of how the court itself would work in the UK the test is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. You seem to think that adultery being witnessed by 4 people is a preferable test. Frankly I think it is bizarre. Followers of every other religion in the world, and people without faith would believe so too. You have your right to believe it, but you should also think why. Ask yourself why not 3? Why not 5? I gather there is a similar ruling with respect to rape which would effectively make it impossible to convict anyone. Again, please ask yourself if it is possible that there might be another way.
The case you cite is also peculiar. 3 people had clearly witnessed an event but because a fourth wasn’t certain the other 3 were punished. Do you seriously think this is an example of good law?
Finally, you ask me of five incidents from the history of the Khalifa. I have to confess, that my knowledge of this history is limited. I do know that from the very earliest times there was disputes over who the Caliph should be amongst the various tribes. If it was unclear at that time it is no doubt more unclear now. As far as my knowledge of history gores the caliphate ended in ignominy in the early 1900s. I do also know that there is currently a self proclaimed Islamic State. This state justifies itself through their interpretation of the scriptures. I do also know that this state regularly throws homosexuals from the top of tall buildings. I do know that it also punishes adulterers by stoning. I do know that it practices slavery. This is why I am asking readers of this website to state clearly what they mean by an Islamic State.
that’s exactly why I gave you the original answer!
You don’t want to accept it as something inside you, regardless of what I say or any argument I use will always be in denial as you see Islam as opposed to everything you think the west stands for.
I am not here to justify or convince you as Islam and Allahs religion does not need any defense or rationalizing by a human mind.
Allahs law is for all times and all places regardless of if we can understand it or not.
American states still have the death penalty?
I dont see the big uproar or attacks on America form you?
Also you keep going on about the punishment, give me a few actual cited examples of when it was applied in any of the previous khilafas or any punishment. If you can give me just 5 examples (that can be referenced and verified) of where it was used I will take back everything I said.
Abu, sorry but I can’t understand your reply. yousay ‘That’s exactly why I gave you the original answer’ I’m not sure what you mean by ‘That’? You then say that I don’t want to accept ‘it’ as something inside me. Again, sorry, but I don’t know what you mean by ‘it’.
You the state that Allahs Law is for all time whether we can understand it or not. I accept that this is your position. As I have said previously though it is a dangerous position because others in the many other religions around the world have the same ideas about their positions too. Essentially if that is the case their is little point rying to understand it or debate it. It does make me wonder what this site is for if that is the case?
I’m unsure why you mention America. I am against the death penalty and disagree with those states in America that still use it. Again though it is a clear punishment for particular crimes. I can’t understand why you find it difficult to cionfirm that the punishmnets that I have listed for the ‘offences’ that I listed are correct under Sharia law and would exist under an Islamic State.
I am sorry but I can’t find a history of punishment under the Caliphate. If you can provide me with a source I will gladly read it. I di look at the early history of Islam and was dismayed to see actions such as plundering, mass beheadings and the taking off women as booty. Again, given this, and in the absence of anyone willing to provide me with a clear description of how an Islamic State would be run I can only conclude that such a state would be iniquitous.
Are any of these claims of what they do and don’t do even true?? Sky news or BBC news have to say that as they have an agenda to push.
The leaders of the free world still have the death penalty? I don’t see you shouting about that here?
Everything you say is taken out of context.
Don’t worry, Carl.
Abu Mustafa calls everyone a troll if they raise questions he can’t answer. When he tires of that, he calls them an islamophobe and ends up whining they are islamophobic trolls. He hopes if he says it often enough people won’t notice his ignorance.
“…any non-violent politicised and orthodox conception of Islām is becoming increasingly unacceptable…”
This is exactly what it amounts to now, orthodox Muslims are being targeted. I believe the theme being currently used is “non violent extremists” need to be addressed.
And they come up with new terminologies everyday. Basically, if you are a practicing Muslim adhering to the Qur’an and Sunnah then you are fair game.
By “a practicing Muslim adhering to the Qur’an and Sunnah” do you mean someone who would like to live in a state where – among other things – apostates from islam, blasphemers, practising homosexuals and adulterers would be killed and who believes it is your duty to establish such a state? Then of course you are “fair game” in that people are perfectly entitled to point out what you actually believe.
Just what is the difference – apart from their timing and enthusiasm – “between ISIS and the normative Islamic concept of a caliphate or an Islamic state proper” anyway? What would happen to “Muslim majority lands” that failed to welcome unification “via peaceful means under a single ruler”? What would be the attitude of the caliphate to “dar al kufr”? What would be the position of muslims – including people who call themselves muslims but do not acknowledge the caliphate’s claims to authority – who live in “dar al kufr”?
Hector the Troll. As I said Islam or an Islamic Khilafah does not need to answer your parrot broken record questions.
We don’t have to justify Islam to you.
You WILL have to justify your choices one day so worry about yourself and not Islam and what will or won’t happen in the Islam state.
When it comes it comes and the majority of Muslims will know when it does.
It’s been fortold and prophesied in manay Hadith and answering your parrot questions won’t have any affect on it, hasten it or delay it by a second.
When the command of Allah comes it will come.
Like I said:
Abu Mustafa calls everyone a troll if they raise questions he can’t answer. When he tires of that, he calls them an islamophobe and ends up whining they are islamophobic trolls. He hopes if he says it often enough people won’t notice his ignorance.
Again still didn’t answer the question. I’m not the only one who says that! I’m just most vocal as I’m exposing who you really are so no one really takes you seriously!
If your arguments were constructive or actually about bringing communities together I would answer appropriately.
If in all your posts the message is against Islam or some negative angle. Read your own comments on previous posts.
I second Abu, Carl Abbot, Hebrew Hector and Risbrook all Trolls. Lol
I’m glad to see you recognise there is no difference between islam and “some negative angle”.
I don’t think it’s possible to bring communities together in many cases. How do you propose to bring sunni and ahmadi muslims together? What about muslims and bahais? I favour a society which accepts that various communities within it have insuperable – albeit ridiculous – differences and requires them to accept that they have to tolerate one another, however reluctantly.
from the groups you mention, they all lived together in same areas before sky news and bbc news came along!
your thoughts go down a very slippery slope with intolerance and ‘not possible communities can be brought together’ Hitler said the same thing!
No, from the groups I mention mention, they did not all live “together in same areas before sky news and bbc news came along!” Ahmadis lived mainly in India, Bahais in Iran or – as it was then known – Persia, long before the BBC or Sky News were thought of. They were also persecuted by their muslim neighbours in both places. When they have the opportunity assorted muslims still try to silence, suppress or even kill ahmadis or bahais even in nonmuslim countries. How do you propose to deal with this very slippery slope with muslim intolerance?
In history that did happen. There is roughly 300 million Muslims in India alone so give examples with cited referenced proofs were this happened.
If you can find any let’s gomthrough how many minorities the West has tried to persecute in the last century alone. You would loose hands down that’s why you wont reply with any real referenced examples.
The West and Western governments have persecuted millions more.
I’m eager to see your examples? Most of them or all will be best say!
Or just crawl back to your troll sty.
Should say in history that did not happen.
Your answers do really show how thick you actually are. India, pakistan Bangladesh Kashmir were all India then!
You seem to be even more confused than usual.
What in history did (or did not – you certainly believe in covering all the options!) happen? Where did I deny that “India, pakistan Bangladesh Kashmir were all India then”, whenever “then” was?
You claim above that “The true Islamic justice if we had it the whole earth would flock to live under its rule. The reality is right now we don’t have it. ” When – if ever – did we have it? However, I cited groups of people – the ahmadis and the bahai – who have been and are being persecuted by muslims. They certainly wouldn’t flock to live under its rule. No more would polytheists, atheists, agnostics, gay people or people with a taste for fornication or adultery. As to the persecution of ahmadis and bahais, you can find details in the newspapers. I don’t know what variety of muslim you are, but ask a sunni imam about ahmadis and what should be done to them for some very interesting responses. Alternatively, look at the Second Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan which became a part of the Constitution of Pakistan on September 7, 1974 or the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Your claim about “how many minorities the West has tried to persecute in the last century alone” isn’t very helpful as you don’t specify just what you mean by “the West” and don’t specify which monorities you are referring to. It is also completely irrelevant. I have made no claims about absolute justice in “the west”, I have merely pointed out that your claims for the virtues and wide appeal of “islamic justice” aren’t true. If you think you can prove them, begin by demonstrating that – say – claiming to be a prophet of god ought to be a crime punishable by death today. Remember, if you are going to persuade the whole earth to flock to live under its rule you are going to have to use arguments that nonmuslims would accept. If that “crime” under sharia is unacceptable, you can always try to justify the criminalisation of some activity and justify the punishments supposed to be imposed.