from a few days ago in Egypt-- enjoy

format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset

The person doesnt get chosen by force rather its his own will if he wants to lead a country or not, when you decide to you know that you will have alot on your shoulders. The person must resemble the majority of the people.

I know the theory, I just think it's almost impossible in practice. If you had it as a system over time then politicians simply learn to become skilful in appearing to be reluctant leaders.

Also, it begs the question of who is a member of the body that elects the leader (the shura or otherwise). We're past the point of having natural tribal leaders.

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري

exactly what is conspiracy about the coup that happened?

i didn't say it was a conspiracy. You did. Surprise, surprise - you think it's all America's fault!

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري

The U.S loves Mubarak's regime and wants it at any cost

format_quote Originally Posted by faithandpeace

I may still be new to Islam but my understanding is that there is no separation of church and state in Islam, none whatsoever. Therefore, those calling themselves Muslims and advocating against a Sharia state in Egypt preferring instead a secular state are instead demonstrating apostasy from Islam and therefore become munafiqueen. There is no "liberal, progressive, or secular" Islam. There is Islam or non-Islam.

The problem with this though is that if you tie one's ability to be a Muslim with how much they think political order should be based on religion it leaves the potential for large numbers of Muslims to be labeled as apostates if the political culture shifts towards secular politics. That are large structural factors (economic and otherwise) that influence countries towards secular or a democracy. How else to explain the wide variations of attitudes amongst Muslims concerning the application of religious law?

Astaghfirullah if I have used the word "munafiq" inappropriately. I did avoid calling out any specific individuals, groups, entitites, governments, etc. to avoid the risk of incorrect accusations. On a general note, I do believe, however, that individuals, entities, governments, etc. claiming to be Muslim(s) and representing Islamic values and practices while intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately are promoting things that are against Islam or opposing things that are Islamic would fall into the definition of munafiqueen. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I do believe it is true that in much of politics and media there are "token Muslims" who use the label "Muslim" when in reality try to steer the Muslim and non-Muslim public away from Islam by deliberately attempting to modify Islam. Government and media all too often like to place Islam into two camps: "moderate Islam" and "radical Islam." Yet in reality much of what they say in what they call "moderate Islam" is not Islam at all and much of what they deem "radical Islam" is actually correct Islam. I see it time and time again where "moderate Islam" refers to Muslims who don't pray or fast, women who wear Western clothes with cleavage showing and no hijab, Imams who conduct same-sex marriage, promotion of gender-mixing, opposition of Sharia states and Sharia as a political/economic system in general, etc. Then Muslims who dress Islamically, pray and fast as prescribed, and believe in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and attempt to follow Islam as the Prophet (saw) taught it are now deemed "radical Muslims." If they are then physically attacked or severely oppressed and they try to defend themselves, then they are labeled "terrorists." This is the agenda I see that is going on.

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري

secularists are a minority a very small minority and they know their weight in the voting booth hence they had to come through a coup on the back of a tank to bulldoze people, literally torch them alive, they closed 17 Islamic channels, and they have specifically targeted the children of the brotherhood to ruin their morale and break apart their leadership. Yes people who are secularists are apostates.. why do you see that as a problem?

format_quote Originally Posted by faithandpeace

Astaghfirullah if I have used the word "munafiq" inappropriately. I did avoid calling out any specific individuals, groups, entitites, governments, etc. to avoid the risk of incorrect accusations. On a general note, I do believe, however, that individuals, entities, governments, etc. claiming to be Muslim(s) and representing Islamic values and practices while intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately are promoting things that are against Islam or opposing things that are Islamic would fall into the definition of munafiqueen. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I do believe it is true that in much of politics and media there are "token Muslims" who use the label "Muslim" when in reality try to steer the Muslim and non-Muslim public away from Islam by deliberately attempting to modify Islam. Government and media all too often like to place Islam into two camps: "moderate Islam" and "radical Islam." Yet in reality much of what they say in what they call "moderate Islam" is not Islam at all and much of what they deem "radical Islam" is actually correct Islam. I see it time and time again where "moderate Islam" refers to Muslims who don't pray or fast, women who wear Western clothes with cleavage showing and no hijab, Imams who conduct same-sex marriage, promotion of gender-mixing, opposition of Sharia states and Sharia as a political/economic system in general, etc. Then Muslims who dress Islamically, pray and fast as prescribed, and believe in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and attempt to follow Islam as the Prophet (saw) taught it are now deemed "radical Muslims." If they are then physically attacked or severely oppressed and they try to defend themselves, then they are labeled "terrorists." This is the agenda I see that is going on.

My apologies, I do not believe I fully explained myself. In my earlier post I made reference to structural factors but did not properly elaborate. The problem is that there are broad historical and economic factors that will gradually shape societies into particular directions. These structures function in that they create incentives for certain actions and other the course of time the institutions of a state (or society or system) will be transformed. For instance, the West has gradually become secularized over the past century or so. In Europe this has often meant a complete collapse in religious belief whereas in the United States it is more that religion is a part of a person's private life rather than being a part of the political realm (all though there is a politically active Christian movement in the United States, but their over reliance on their religious principles and their faith in God has undermined their ability to be politically successful). Social scientists have produced different theories for why this happened. The process mostly seems to be the result of broad economic and historical trends that gradually eroded religious belief.

The question is, will such a process eventually happen in the Islamic world? There is some scholarship that is of the opinion that Islam is particularly unadaptable to secularism. I am not so sure, There seems to be research and polling data that indicates that Muslim attitudes towards things like Sharia vary by country to country. If there is variation in attitudes there has to be something affecting it, right? This is of course a separate issue from what you have mentioned which is that anyone who does not practice political Islam is a non-Muslim. This may or may not be the case. I do not know. But if it is the case, and if historical trends eventually lead to a secularization of the political space in the Islamic world (not people stop practicing the five pillars of Islam or such, just keeping religion out of public policy matters) will that not imply that they will cease to be Muslims? What if someday the vast majority of Muslims were to fall into this category?

Of course such a day is still a long ways off (consider that it seemed to take a century for something similar to happen in the West). I think the process was actually set back by the topping of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. If they had been allowed to continue to govern the country it might have been possible for political order to be consolidated. Once that had happened and political participation had been expanded and institutionalized it might have been possible for Egypt to progress forward. The pressures of an ever competitive world economy would have forced the Brotherhood to modernize the country in ways that would make Egypt competitive. Such reforms would fuel the growth of a middle class and begin fueling the secularization of the country. Unfortunately all of this fighting in bloodshed it only going to delay political development.

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري

The situation is unique in the Muslim world- It has been secular since the dissolution of the Ottomans and the sykes picot agreement. But even with mass killings Muslims want to bring back Islam and sharia and they've been dying for that for a good hundred years now! I also want to comment that it is the uneducated in Egypt who are secularists as they're ignorant of the religion and only see what they tell them on TV. 90% of the brotherhood are doctors, engineers, college professors (you should do research on them) and there's a vested interest in keeping them in prison and keeping the morons masters over the masses.. Whatever situation you've in the west we have the opposite of it. West thrived under secularism and did very poorly i.e the darkest (middle ages) under christianity whereas Islam had its zenith and age of enlightnment under Islam. Christians of the west seem to be oafish tea party trailer trash, in the Muslim world Islamists are the highest educated individuals.

The regimes in the post Ottoman era may have been varying forms of secular, but the people were still pious Muslims were they not? When I'm talking about secularization I don't refer to the government, I refer to the civil society.

I am not a moderator here, just a member, but I object to the way in which non-Muslims are relatively free on an Islamic discussion board to meddle in our political and economic affairs. Since this forum is about Islam and its expected audience is primarily Muslims, I don't really understand why we as Muslims are constantly having to be subjected to arguing our own political affairs with non-Muslims on our board. If a non-Muslim wants to come here to sincerely learn about Islam either for their own education purposes or because they are considering conversion or because their spouse or friend has converted and they want to learn about Islam to be supportive I am fine with that.

Yet there are people here who demonstrate no intention to learn anything about Islam as they never ask any religious questions about Islam and never post in any threads about Islam. Instead, they show up solely on political and current event threads to argue with Muslims about our Islamic views on events and situations that are affecting us. Whether non-Muslims enter our mosques or go online to an Islamic board I feel their welcome should be extended to cover their own education on Islam and an inclusion in the Islamic community as a non-Muslim only if they demonstrate respect towards Islam and Muslims. I don't feel that non-Muslims should be welcome in mosques or on online Islamic discussion boards to dictate and control our politics, laws, and religious matters. It is like being invited to someone else's house for dinner and then telling them how to run their own household.

format_quote Originally Posted by جوري

pious Muslims is an individual thing I can't comment on that I can only comment on the state and that it was secular and especially abusive to Muslims, thousands were killed then as they are now but without any media attention. Do you have any idea how many thousands died in Algeria in 1992? which wasn't that far off. If people are practicing their islam as they're in the west as in under fear or threat or abuse and frank imprisonment then it is hard to practice it correctly especially that they were killing scholars and closing down islamic schooling and in the African north west they took away their Arabic language almost completely so they wouldn't even learn basics. In a nutshell secularization and any system under it is the most abusive form of governance and represents no one if you subscribe to current world stats on who follows what religion then atheists are marginal and I don't know whether or not christians prefer to live under christianity or not I imagine they don't since they are very allowing with their religion and it changes to adapt to modern trend rather than basic fundamentals to which most adhere. Jews of course have their Jewish state even though a majority of them are atheists and have extreme right wingers like that bouncer liberman and netyn in office with no one minding their racist policies!

So I take it that if broad historical and economic trends do eventually result in a secularization of the Islamic world, you would consider any Muslim who accepts a non-religious government to be a non-Muslim? What if they follow the five pillars of Islam?