Yes yes yes wohoooooo he stepped down, armed forces to take control of egypt

[Cabdullahi]

^ perfect voice to listen to before bedtime after your wife

put you to sleep straight away

 

[titus]

Some people are either unwilling or unable to learn,

Your welcome. Yes it does get tedious at times. I would say it is a combination of both traits...

Not to disagree totally with Microsoft on the definition of Theocracy, but you are limiting the definition a little too much.

Another more comprehensive definition of Theocracy is : A form of government which defers not to civil development of law, but to an interpretation of the will of a God as set out in religious scripture and authorities.

Certainly this describes Sharia?

After researching a bit more on the subject it seems that even some experts are divided on whether or not Sharia fits their definition, and their definitions range. Suffice it to say that Sharia is a form of theocracy depending on the scope of the definition being used. To some it is, to some it is not. It is a gray area and one in which there really is no right or wrong answer.

I was going to thank you, Guestfellow, for making your point in such a civil manner in your original post and not in the rude way that other people feel the need to make theirs, but then you made the comment I quoted above, in your reply to vale, and I found it to be a bit... uncivil.

As for those unwilling or unable to learn, I would suggest reading the proverb about throwing rocks while living in glass houses to anyone that would make that comment, or agree with it.

While I know that other people cannot hold themselves back from insulting anyone that doesn't share their viewpoint, I hold out hope that their lack of civility isn't contagious.

 

[Ramadhan]

Another more comprehensive definition of Theocracy is : A form of government which defers not to civil development of law, but to an interpretation of the will of a God as set out in religious scripture and authorities.

Is that your own take of theocracy?
Certainly we have to agree on common definition otherwise there is no use to have this kind of discussion because everyone would cling to their own takes of the term?
Here are the common definitions of theocracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy
Theocracy is a form of government in which a state is understood as governed by immediate divine guidance especially a state ruled by clergy, or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.[1]
From the perspective of the theocratic government, "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state, [2] hence the term theocracy, from the Greek θεοκρατια "rule of God", a term used by Josephus of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[3] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws (rules).


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocracy


Definition of THEOCRACY

1
: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

2
: a state governed by a theocracy

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theocracy

theocracy [θɪˈɒkrəsɪ]n pl -cies1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government by a deity or by a priesthood
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a community or political unit under such government

And that certainly does not describe Sharia. And any most established, common or formal definitions of theocracy that I can find do not describe sharia.

Your own new definition above is certainly not the same with any most common definitions of theocracy I can find, so I suggest you give it another name.
(unless of course, you agree that anyone can create their own made-up definition for a term out of established ones)

 

[Dagless]

Just to add the Oxford English Dictionary definition (since this is probably the most in tune with common usage):

theocracy(the|oc¦racy)
Pronunciation:/θɪˈɒkrəsi/
noun (plural theocracies)

* a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

We also don't have priests or any kind of clergy in Islam.

 

[titus]

Naidamar,

Using your own link I find this statement:

An Islamic state is a state that has adopted Islam, specifically Sharia, as its foundations for political institutions, or laws, exclusively, and has implemented the islamic ruling system khilafah (Arabic خلافة), and is therefore a theocracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Certainly we have to agree on common definition otherwise there is no use to have this kind of discussion because everyone would cling to their own takes of the term?

Exactly the point I made earlier, in that there is no set standard definition. Therefore whether or not Sharia is a form of theocracy depends on which interpretation of the definition you go by.

Another source here says:

caliph (kăl`ĭf'), the spiritual head and temporal ruler of the Islamic state. In principle Islam is theocratic.

We also don't have priests or any kind of clergy in Islam.

Again we kind of get into semantics, but muftis and imams can be considered clergy. Would you agree that in any true Sharia government that Islamic scholars would be required to approve of laws to make sure that they follow the will of God as set down in the Quran and Sunnah? If so then they would, according to some, be fulfilling the same role as any clergy or priests.

Let me say one more time that I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this question as the definition of the word "theocracy" is a bit nebulous and varies from source to source, as are some of the terms used in the definition. I have found multiple sources that say it is, and some that say it is not.

 

[Ramadhan]

Using your own link I find this statement: An Islamic state is a state that has adopted Islam, specifically Sharia, as its foundations for political institutions, or laws, exclusively, and has implemented the islamic ruling system khilafah (Arabic خلافة), and is therefore a theocracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy Certainly we have to agree on common definition otherwise there is no use to have this kind of discussion because everyone would cling to their own takes of the term? Exactly the point I made earlier, in that there is no set standard definition. Therefore whether or not Sharia is a form of theocracy depends on which interpretation of the definition you go by.

The wikipedia source actually expands the definition of theocracy, and by the same token, a large number of countries can be viewed as being theocratic, including most of european countries.

 

[Ramadhan]

Again we kind of get into semantics, but muftis and imams can be considered clergy.

muftis and imams are not ordained.
muftis and imams are not God's representatives.

Unless you want to change definition of Imams and muftis, as you have done with theocracy.

 

[titus]

By your very broad definition of theocracy, a large number of countries can be viewed as being theocratic, including most of european countries.

Unless you want to change definition of Imams and muftis, as you have done with theocracy.

Are you even reading my posts?

For one thing it is not my definition. These are definitions I have found and I have given the source for each of them. You try and make it sound like I made up my own definition.

For another there are multiple definitions that have been sourced. And for another I have already said that there is no way to come up with a definitive answer since there is no consensus on the definition of the word itself or of the other words used in the definition. Don't forget that it was one your sources that called Sharia a theocracy, so to insinuate that I am making these things up is a bit disingenuous don't you think?

muftis and imams are not ordained.
muftis and imams are not God's representatives.

True, but again you are getting into semantics. While not ordained, muftis and imams do perform similar duties as ordained clergy do in Christian churches.

 

[Ramadhan]

For one thing it is not my definition. These are definitions I have found and I have given the source for each of them.

Which source?

The wikipedia definition is actually in line with the other definitions, let me remind you again the definition given by wikipedia:
Theocracy is a form of government in which a state is understood as governed by immediate divine guidance especially a state ruled by clergy, or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.[

Wikipedia violated its own definition to include Islamic states who implement sharia.

You try and make it sound like I made up my own definition.

In post #182 you wrote this:

Another more comprehensive definition of Theocracy is : A form of government which defers not to civil development of law, but to an interpretation of the will of a God as set out in religious scripture and authorities.

you did not cite or give any source for that definition, so it is safe to assume that is your own made-up definition of theocracy.

Don't forget that it was one your sources that called Sharia a theocracy, so to insinuate that I am making these things up is a bit disingenuous don't you think?

The wikipedia definition of theocracy certainly conform with other definitions of theocracy. I disagree that it include Islamic states as theocracy, because then it contradicts their own definition.

True, but again you are getting into semantics. While not ordained, muftis and imams do perform similar duties as ordained clergy do in Christian churches.

It's not just semantics. The difference is fundamentals. That would be like saying agnostics are the same as atheists.
I'm sure you'll disagree with that.

 

[GuestFellow]

I was going to thank you, Guestfellow, for making your point in such a civil manner in your original post and not in the rude way that other people feel the need to make theirs, but then you made the comment I quoted above, in your reply to vale, and I found it to be a bit... uncivil.

I was not talking about you...it was a general statement. The Vale Lilly said people...so I took it as a general statement.

Sorry if I upset you, I will make myself more clear.

 

[GuestFellow]

Not to disagree totally with Microsoft on the definition of Theocracy, but you are limiting the definition a little too much.

I did not limit the definition. :

Another more comprehensive definition of Theocracy is : A form of government which defers not to civil development of law, but to an interpretation of the will of a God as set out in religious scripture and authorities.

Certainly this describes Sharia?

You need to state your source.

There is still an important distinction between rulers that claim to be divine and scriptures that are considered to be blessed by God. You can have a combination of both in some cases.

 

[جوري]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
​

"الحمد لله الذي عزته قاهرة ساطية، وقدرته لا قاصرة ولا متباطية، أتلف قوم نوح فما أبقى منهم باقية، وأراح الريح على عادٍ فعادت لهم واطية، وأهلك ثموداً إذ أصبحت لعقر الناقة متعاطية، ورجم أمة كانت على فاحش الوطء متواطية، وأغرق فرعون فما ردت عنه داره الشاطيه، وخسف بقارون فإذا منازله العالية لاطيه، وهتك ستر بلعام فإذا في باطنه باطية، وبين سبب هلاكهم ففهم الأبله، (وَجَاء فِرعُونُ ومَن قَبلَهُ والمُؤتَفِكاتُ بِالخاطِئة)"[1]، والصلاة والسلام على خير داعية، وعلى آله وصحبه أهل العقيدة الصافية، والهمم العالية، وعلى أتباعهم من الطائفة المنصورة الظاهرة الباقية، أما بعد:
فإن "فرعون" الطاغية: اسم لم يغب عن أذهان الموحدين في هذا العصر، في كل مصر، قال العلامة ابن منظور رحمه الله: "الفرعنة: الكبر والتجبر..".اهـ [لسان العرب 7/80].

جازَ الأُلى مَلَكَتْ كَفّاكَ قدْرَهُمُ *** فعُرّفوا بكَ أنّ الكلبَ فوقَهُم
​

ساداتُ كل أُناسٍ من نُفوسِهِم *** وسادةُ المسلمينَ الأعبُدُ القَزَمُ[2]

ولكن هذا الاسم لحكام مصر –أرض الكنانة- ألصق، وبهم أليق، قال الإمام الزمخشري رحمه الله: "فرعون: علم لمن ملك العمالقة، كقيصر: لملك الروم، وكسرى: لملك الفرس. ولعتو الفراعنة اشتقوا: تفرعن فلان، إذا عتا وتجبر".اهـ [الكشاف 1/166].
ولعل المدعو "حسني مبارك" نزعه عرق! بل عروق! كما جاء في الحديث الضعيف عند البيهقي والديلمي وغيرهما: (إن العرق دساس).
فحكم القوانين الوضعية الوضيعة، كما جاء في المادة (1) من دستور مصر: "جمهورية مصر العربية دولة نظامها ديمقراطي".
وجاء في مادة (64): "سيادة القانون أساس الحكم في الدولة".
وجاء أيضاً في مادة (65): "تخضع الدولة للقانون".
وجاء أيضاً في مادة (73): "رئيس الدولة هو رئيس الجمهورية، ويسهر على تأكيد سيادة الشعب وعلى احترام الدستور وسيادة القانون".
وجاء أيضاً في مادة (79): "يؤدي الرئيس أمام مجلس الشعب قبل أن يباشر مهام منصبه اليمين الآتية: أقسم بالله العظيم أن أحافظ مخلصاً على النظام الجمهوري، وأن أحترم الدستور والقانون".
قال الشيخ محمد حامد الفقي رحمه الله معلقاً على قول ابن كثير: "ومثل هذا وشر منه من اتخذ من كلام الفرنجة قوانين يتحاكم إليها في الدماء والفروج والأموال، ويقدمها على ما علم وتبين له من كتاب الله وسنة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم فهو بلا شك كافر مرتد إذا أصر عليها ولم يرجع إلى الحكم بما أنزل الله ولا ينفعه أي اسم تسمى به[3] ولا أي عمل من ظواهر أعمال الصلاة والصيام ونحوها".اهـ [انظر كتاب فتح المجيد ص 373].
ولله در عبد الله بن طاهر لما ولاه المأمون نيابة بلاد الشام وديار مصر لما صار إليها، نظر إليها فاحتقرها وقال: قبح الله فرعون ما كان أخسه وأضعف همته حين ملك هذه القرية قال: "أنا ربكم الأعلى"! [البداية والنهاية/ سنة ثلاثين ومائتين].
وقبح الله "حسني مبارك" ما كان أخسه وأضعف همته حين ملك هذه القرية قال: "أنا المشرع الأعلى"!
جاء في مادة (86) من دستور مصر: "يتولى مجلس الشعب سلطة التشريع". ثم جاء في مادة: (101): "يدعو رئيس الجمهورية مجلس الشعب للانعقاد... ويفض رئيس الجمهورية دورته..".
وجاء في مادة (109): "لرئيس الجمهورية ولكل عضو من أعضاء مجلس الشعب حق اقتراح القوانين".
وجاء في مادة (112): "لرئيس الجمهورية حق إصدار القوانين أو الاعتراض عليها".
وما هذا بأول كفرياته؛ فلقد قام فرعون مصر حسني اللا مبارك بموالاة أعداء الله تعالى، ونصرتهم على أولياء الله تعالى، فسجن ونكل وعذب خيار الخيار، وعلى خطى جده فرعون سار، فالأول قال: (لَئِنِ اتَّخَذْتَ إِلَهًا غَيْرِي لَأَجْعَلَنَّكَ مِنَ الْمَسْجُونِينَ) [الشعراء: 29]. والثاني قال: "لَئِنِ اتَّخَذْتَ مشرعاً غَيْرِي لَأَجْعَلَنَّكَ مِنَ الْمَسْجُونِينَ"!
ولما رأى فرعون الأول أن بعض بني إسرائيل سيكون سبباً في هلاكه ، قام بقتل أبنائهم واستحياء نساءهم، قال الحافظ ابن كثير رحمه الله: "أن فرعون لعنه الله كان قد رأى رؤيا هالته؛ رأى ناراً خرجت من بيت المقدس فدخلت بيوت القبط ببلاد مصر إلا بيوت بني إسرائيل، مضمونها أن زوال ملكه يكون على يدي رجل من بني إسرائيل، ويقال بعد تحدث سماره عنده بأن بني إسرائيل يتوقعون خروج رجل منهم يكون لهم به دولة ورفعة.. فعند ذلك أمر فرعون لعنه الله بقتل كل ذكر يولد بعد ذلك من بني إسرائيل، وأن تترك البنات".اهـ [تفسير القرآن العظيم 1/116].
على العكس من فرعون الثاني، فلما رأى أن البعض قد يكون سبباً في هلاك بعض بني إسرائيل، قّتل أبناء المسلمين في غزة، ولم يستحي نسائهم، ففرض عليهم الجدار الفولاذي!
قال الشيخ المجدد محمد بن عبد الوهاب رحمه الله: "إذا أقروا أن هذا دين الله ورسوله، كيف لا يكفر من أنكره، وقتل من أمر به وحبسهم، كيف لا يكفر من أمر بحبسهم؟! كيف لا يكفر من جاء إلى أهل الشرك، يحثهم على لزوم دينهم وتزيينه لهم؟! ويحثهم على قتل الموحدين، وأخذ مالهم، كيف لا يكفر؟!".اهـ [الدرر السنية 10/8].
​

صارَ الخَصيّ إمامَ الآبقين بها *** فالحُرّ مستعبَدٌ والعبدُ معبُودُ

​

نامت نواطيرُ مصرٍ عن ثعَالبِها *** فقد بَشِمْنَ وما تَفنى العَناقيدُ[4]

وكما أن الله لما أهلك فرعون الأول نجّا بدنه لكي يكون لمن خلفه آية، كما قال تعالى: (فَالْيَوْمَ نُنَجِّيكَ بِبَدَنِكَ لِتَكُونَ لِمَنْ خَلْفَكَ آَيَةً وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ النَّاسِ عَنْ آَيَاتِنَا لَغَافِلُونَ) [يونس: 92].
فكذلك لما أسقط الله فرعون الثاني نجّا بدنه ولم يغتال، فهو أحقر من أن يقتل كما يقتل الرجال! ليكون لنفسه ولأقرانه ولمن خلفه آية! (وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ النَّاسِ عَنْ آَيَاتِنَا لَغَافِلُونَ) [يونس: 92].
​

ما يَقبِضُ الموتُ نفساً من نفوسِهِمُ *** إلا وفي يدهِ من نتنها عُودُ![5]

حتى صار حسني أضحوكة، وأخزاه الله بالذلة ونزع الشوكة، مصداقاً لقوله تعالى: (وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنْ مَنَعَ مَسَاجِدَ اللَّهِ أَنْ يُذْكَرَ فِيهَا اسْمُهُ وَسَعَى فِي خَرَابِهَا أُولَئِكَ مَا كَانَ لَهُمْ أَنْ يَدْخُلُوهَا إِلَّا خَائِفِينَ لَهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا خِزْيٌ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآَخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ) [البقرة: 114].
وذلك بفضل الله ثم بجهود عوام أهل الإسلام، الذين خرجوا يداً واحدة، يهتفون: "يا مبارك يا جبان، يا عميل الأمريكان".. "أزيحوا مبارك وضعوا خروف، ممكن يحكم بالمعروف!".. "لن نخاف لن نطاطي، نحن كرهنا الصوت الواطي".. ولسان حال كل واحدٍ منهم:
​

إلى أيّ حينٍ أنتَ في زيّ مُحرمِ *** وحتى متى في شِقوةٍ وإلى كم؟!

​

وإلا تَمُتْ تحتَ السيوفِ مُكرماً *** تمت وتُقاسي الذلّ غير مُكرمِ

​

فثبْ واثقاً بالله وثبةَ ماجدٍ *** يرى الموتَ في الهيجا جَنى النّحل في الفَمِ[6]

ولا يُعكر عليهم –بإذن الله- خروج المتردية والنطيحة وما أكل الطاغوت؛ ممن ينادون بتحكيم الديمقراطية والحرية ونحوها من الكفريات.. إذ أن هؤلاء اتفقوا من عامة أهل الإسلام في شقٍ، وخالفوهم في شقٍ؛ وافقوهم في رد الظلم والعدوان من فرعون مصر، وخالفوهم في أن ذلك لا يتم إلا بتحكيم شريعة الله تعالى القائل: (وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ) [المائدة: 45]. والقائل: (وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ أَقَامُوا التَّوْرَاةَ وَالْإِنْجِيلَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْهِمْ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ لَأَكَلُوا مِنْ فَوْقِهِمْ وَمِنْ تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِهِمْ مِنْهُمْ أُمَّةٌ مُقْتَصِدَةٌ وَكَثِيرٌ مِنْهُمْ سَاءَ مَا يَعْمَلُونَ) [المائدة: 66].
ولله در الإمام الشعبي رحمه الله حين قال: "نعم الشيء الغَوغاء؛ يسدون السّيل، ويُطفئون الحريق، ويشغبون على ولاة السوء".اهـ [حلية الأولياء 4/324، وسير أعلام النبلاء 4/312].
نسأل الله أن يهيأ لأهل مصر وجميع الأمصار؛ رجلاً ينقاد لكتاب الله ويقود به، وآخر دعوانا أن الحمد لله رب العالمين، وصلى الله وسلم على أشرف الأنبياء والمرسلين.
​

وكتب: أبو همام بكر بن عبد العزيز الأثري

​

1432هـ - 2011م

​

لهذا اليومِ بعدَ غدٍ أريجُ *** ونارٌ في العدُوّ لها أجيجُ

​

تبيتُ بها الحواضنُ آمناتٍ *** وتَسلمُ في مسالِكها

 

[titus]

you did not cite or give any source for that definition, so it is safe to assume that is your own made-up definition of theocracy.

Actually it's a bit rude to assert that I made it up. If I didn't supply a source all you have to do is ask.

Source

Source

Source

Wikipedia violated its own definition to include Islamic states who implement sharia.

Or possibly you interpreted the definition differently. Regardless, there will be no "winner" in this discussion as even scholars seem to disagree as to whether Sharia falls under the category of a theocracy.

Sorry if I upset you, I will make myself more clear.

Sorry I jumped to conclusions.

I did not limit the definition.

You need to state your source.

Good points.

There is still an important distinction between rulers that claim to be divine and scriptures that are considered to be blessed by God. You can have a combination of both in some cases.

The question, though, does the criteria for a theocracy change if the source of the divine inspiration is direct (i.e. leader says they speak with God who tells him the law needs to be X) or a written source (i.e. Islamic scholars say that according to hadith God wants to law to be X).

Which brings up another interesting question. Was Sharia a theocracy when Muhammad was alive, yet then not a theocracy after he died? Although that is probably a discussion for another thread.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see what form of government Egypt comes up with and how influenced it is by both Western democracy and Sharia.

 

[Argamemnon]

Allah Akbar bism illah bism illah

Masha'Allah... Israel was and still is terrified of these Egyptian soldiers (contrary to Zionist media propaganda about the invincible Israeli army, which can't even defeat Hizbullah).

 

[جوري]

Masha'Allah... Israel was and still is terrified of these Egyptian soldiers (contrary to Zionist media propaganda about the invincible Israeli army, which can't even defeat Hizbullah).

Didn't they predict their own demise in 2012? insha'Allah victory will be ours soon and all the death, destruction, greed and oppression those Zionist pigs imposed upon the world will come down on their heads a million fold... but we've so many and I mean soooooooooo many wrinkles to smooth, with damage and corruption going back nearly 200 years .. I'd like a nice alliance with Turkey, and perhaps a few other middle eastern countries once they rid of their despots insha'Allah.. Jordan, Libya, Yemen.. I am hopeful.. so let's make du3a and our intentions sincere insha'Allah...

 

[Argamemnon]

Didn't they predict their own demise in 2012? insha'Allah victory will be ours soon and all the death, destruction, greed and oppression those Zionist pigs imposed upon the world will come down on their heads a million fold... but we've so many and I mean soooooooooo many wrinkles to smooth, with damage and corruption going back nearly 200 years .. I'd like a nice alliance with Turkey, and perhaps a few other middle eastern countries once they rid of their despots insha'Allah.. Jordan, Libya, Yemen.. I am hopeful.. so let's make du3a and our intentions sincere insha'Allah...

Insha'Allah, Amin.

 

[جوري]

Israel had spent 500 mil on their Bar Lev line and Egyptian soldiers took it down with water.. al7mdlillah.. I don't want peace with that colonial settler cockroach state, sadat is long dead and so is the obsequiousness that came from him and his ilk..

 

[Dagless]

Actually it's a bit rude to assert that I made it up. If I didn't supply a source all you have to do is ask.

Source

Source

Source

Why are all your sources legal dictionaries? Legal, medical, etc. dictionaries are often slightly different to what's in common use. Why don't you use Collins? Oxford? Chambers? Ones which are for language? The legal dictionaries you've used aren't even the popular ones, I mean what's mimi.hu?! and do you take it's definition over OED? :S

 

[جوري]

Why are all your sources legal dictionaries? Legal, medical, etc. dictionaries are often slightly different to what's in common use. Why don't you use Collins? Oxford? Chambers? Ones which are for language? The legal dictionaries you've used aren't even the popular ones, I mean what's mimi.hu?! and do you take it's definition over OED? :S

using one of his random 'source' this is the definition:



Duhaime.org
Law + Legal Information = Justice

Current Section: Legal Dictionary



Sharia Law definition:

Muslim or Islamic law, both civil and criminal justice as well as regulating individual conduct both personal and moral.


what do you know.. sometimes I wonder if he reads his own sources.. but it seems he is more interested in hammering his opinion than the facts.. was it him or that fellow Lynx that provided us with a site before that went against the point he was trying to prove? they really ought to click on the links and read them fully before using it for reference..

 

[GuestFellow]

Source

Source

Source

I suppose it depends on who writes the definition. I see nothing wrong using a legal dictionary. I agree, there is no wrong or right answer.

The question, though, does the criteria for a theocracy change if the source of the divine inspiration is direct (i.e. leader says they speak with God who tells him the law needs to be X) or a written source (i.e. Islamic scholars say that according to hadith God wants to law to be X).

I think the criteria will remain the same. Someone who claims to have divine connection with God can say whatever he wants and it will become law, as long as the public believe him.

Islamic scholars are restricted and must develop laws from written sources. For example, scholars may turn to Hadiths and verses from the Qur'an to develop new laws on technology or medical advancements...

Which brings up another interesting question. Was Sharia a theocracy when Muhammad was alive, yet then not a theocracy after he died? Although that is probably a discussion for another thread.

Not sure...

Regardless, it will be interesting to see what form of government Egypt comes up with and how influenced it is by both Western democracy and Sharia.

Probably a mixture. I doubt the Caliphate will be established. I think some Egyptians want something new. Some people feel like this when they want change and want to experience something different. However, I'm purely speculating and I could be wrong.

I do think the introduction of the Sharia should be introduced step by step, for stability and for people to cope with changes.