The Situation in Egypt

[Sahar]

Just to make things clear, when I talked about Islamic awakening and Islamic government, I didn't mean the puppet governments that sometimes talk in the name of religion or wear the cloak of religion whenever it wants. I am talking about an Islamic government that represents a public will. Politics in KSA largely has nothing to do with religion. It's all about the king and his assistants' view. Many policies of Saudi Arabia are against Islam outright, and can be described as "treachery"! Also, don't give me examples of governments that came on the shoulders of occupation!!!! Of course, these are not the governments that would clash with the USA or its allies!!

If we are talking about Islamic awareness and if we are talking about representation of this orientation and awareness then ABC this way would be independence including political, economic, cultural and of course military independence. Again, Islam will definitely take the lead in the independence of the Arab and Muslim countries from the instructions and interests of the Western governments.

It's enough to look at Iran, Sudan, and Occupied Palestine. ِAlso, it's my first time to see that King Abdullah, the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan under the occupation described as belonging to the Islamic political movements, frankly!!

 

[Sahar]

I'd like to add I am very aware that it's not only the Islamic movement or government that can be problematic to the Western countries. Actually, we had conflicts with Western countries under the secular rule in Egypt; in the time of Gamal Abdel-Nassir (the caller of Arab nationalism) and Anwar Al-Sadat.

But generally the current situation is the Arab (and Muslim) governments are largely secular especially when it comes to politics and are dominated by the Western governments. The largest opposition groups are usually Islamic. When you conduct free elections, usually the Islamists have the voices and win. Look at what happened in the Algerian elections in 1990 or the more recent Palestinian elections in 2006. In the very secular Turkey, look at the AKP of the Islamic background! Usually, the Islamists' approaches are not very friendly to the Western interference and dominance in our Muslim nations and especially the Islamic bond and belonging extends outside a certain locality. (Even during occupation and colonization, usually resistance groups and movements come out from the womb of the Islamic movement.)

This doesn't mean that only the Islamic movement opposes the Western dominance, of course it's not the case, but who can mobilize the masses more and maybe have stronger stances against the Western policies is the Islamic movements, generally speaking.

 

[kai]

I'd like to add I am very aware that it's not only the Islamic movement or government that can be problematic to the Western countries. Actually, we had conflicts with Western countries under the secular rule in Egypt; in the time of Gamal Abdel-Nassir (the caller of Arab nationalism) and Anwar Al-Sadat.

But generally the current situation is the Arab (and Muslim) governments are largely secular especially when it comes to politics and are dominated by the Western governments. The largest opposition groups are usually Islamic. When you conduct free elections, usually the Islamists have the voices and win. Look at what happened in the Algerian elections in 1990 or the more recent Palestinian elections in 2006. In the very secular Turkey, look at the AKP of the Islamic background! Usually, the Islamists' approaches are not very friendly to the Western interference and dominance in our Muslim nations and especially the Islamic bond and belonging extends outside a certain locality. (Even during occupation and colonization, usually resistance groups and movements come out from the womb of the Islamic movement.)

This doesn't mean that only the Islamic movement opposes the Western dominance, of course it's not the case,

but who can mobilize the masses more and maybe have stronger stances against the Western policies is the Islamic movements, generally speaking

.

Which western policies in particular? and why should an Islamic movement clash with the west? what are the core principles that are so different that we cannot overcome disagreement? what makes it so alien that Islamic and western governments cant co-exist in peace?

Of course we are as yet unable to see if that is possible because there arnt any Islamic Governments to use as an example. If one mentions Saudi or Iran we always get the answer that's not true Islam I guess we will have to wait and see, In the mean time the west has to deal with so called Islamic Governments because realistically no country can be so isolated as to not interact with another in this day and age.


A new Government in Egypt Islamic or secular or a combination of both will need to interact with the west one way or another.

 

[Bismillah]

what are the core principles that are so different that we cannot overcome disagreement?

The blatant imperialism and exploitation of the people of the Mid East would demand that any time crimes were committed against Muslims, every able bodied man must come to their aide.

Of course we are as yet unable to see if that is possible because there arnt any Islamic Governments to use as an example.

I have four.

If one mentions Saudi or Iran we always get the answer that's not true Islam

It is a basic delineation of the definitions of the words "monarchy" and "Caliphate. If you think they are mutually exclusive I assure you, by the fundamentals of Islamic governance they are not.

The most "conservative" Shia in Iran acknowledges that a true Islamic government is impossible until the 12th Imam and many Shia scholars believe a sultanate or some form of autocratic government to be a preferable interim government.

Trying to impose the negative aspects of modern countries as a picture of Islamic governance is a very ignorant thing to do.

 

[kai]

The blatant imperialism and exploitation of the people of the Mid East would demand that any time crimes were committed against Muslims, every able bodied man must come to their aide.

What ???

I have four. And???

It is a basic delineation of the definitions of the words "monarchy" and "Caliphate. If you think they are mutually exclusive I assure you, by the fundamentals of Islamic governance they are not. not sure thats what i am talking about but maYbe one of your four is?

The most "conservative" Shia in Iran acknowledges that a true Islamic government is impossible until the 12th Imam and many Shia scholars believe a sultanate or some form of autocratic government to be a preferable interim government. OK

Trying to impose the negative aspects of modern countries as a picture of Islamic governance is a very ignorant thing to do.

so enlighten my ignorance

 

[Bismillah]

What ???

I am talking about things such as attacking Iraq or drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. Such acts would clearly constitute an act of war as well as breaking off economic relations with the aggressing party.

And???

"if that is possible because there arnt any Islamic Governments" That is not a true statement.

not sure thats what i am talking about but maYbe one of your four is?

"If one mentions Saudi or Iran we always get the answer that's not true Islam" You are asserting that S.A is the likely outcome of an Islamic government. I am telling you that by simple definitions S.A cannot be held as an Islamic government.

so enlighten my ignorance

Iran and S.A are largely irrelevant of building a Muslim nation.

 

[kai]

I am talking about things such as attacking Iraq or drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. Such acts would clearly constitute an act of war as well as breaking off economic relations with the aggressing party. An act of war against whom? so who exactly is breaking off economic relations Egypt? So Egypt breaks off economic relations with the US because of drone strikes in Pakistan against Aqueda or Taliban targets?

"if that is possible because there arnt any Islamic Governments" That is not a true statement. forgive me i should have said "true Islamic governments"

"[/COLOR]If one mentions Saudi or Iran we always get the answer that's not true Islam" You are asserting that S.A is the likely outcome of an Islamic government. I am telling you that by simple definitions S.A cannot be held as an Islamic government. I am not asserting any such thing , what i am asserting is the notion that there are no true Islamic governments to use as a yard stick.

Iran and S.A are largely irrelevant of building a Muslim nation.

Except in S.A. and Iran of course! i would hazard a guess here and state that should Egypt become an Islamic state of any description somewhere another Islamic state and other Muslims even ones in Egypt would declare that Egypt wasn't a true Islamic state. I believe that a true Islamic state is impossible until all Muslims have the same view on what an Islamic state should be, until all Muslims have the same interpretation of Sharia. Thats not going to happen is it?

 

[Sahar]

Of course we are as yet unable to see if that is possible because there arnt any Islamic Governments to use as an example. If one mentions Saudi or Iran we always get the answer that's not true Islam I guess we will have to wait and see, In the mean time the west has to deal with so called Islamic Governments because realistically no country can be so isolated as to not interact with another in this day and age.

Try to understand what I was saying before repeating your old boring speech about "true Islam" blah blah blah!! The Islamic movement includes the extremist, strict and the moderate, the armed and the unarmed...Never heard before that King Abdullah constitute a stream of that movement. Iran is on one side and the regime of KSA is on a completely different side (I made a distinction between both in my previous post). It's just stupid like saying the Yemeni or the Egyptian past regime is a part of the Islamic movement.

A new Government in Egypt Islamic or secular or a combination of both will need to interact with the west one way or another.

Of course.

 

[Bismillah]

An act of war against whom? so who exactly is breaking off economic relations Egypt? So Egypt breaks off economic relations with the US because of drone strikes in Pakistan against Aqueda or Taliban targets?

The aggressor , in this case the U.S. Any people that fall under the realm of the caliphate would be compelled to fight such oppression of their brothers and sisters through conventional and economic war until a state of war ceased.

forgive me i should have said "true Islamic governments"

Again I have four.

I am not asserting any such thing , what i am asserting is the notion that there are no true Islamic governments to use as a yard stick.

I am sorry for assuming that was what you were hinting at. Your clarification I reject as well however.

Except in S.A. and Iran of course!

Of course not. The current government is largely irrelevant in building a Muslim government were they given a "clean slate".

I believe that a true Islamic state is impossible until all Muslims have the same view on what an Islamic state should be

You are confusing "ideal" with "true". Sunnis, be definition, would except any government ruled on the basis of Shariah. As of yet there is not one.

You may have a point about Shias, but they do constitute a minority of Muslims.

 

[kai]

Try to understand what I was saying before repeating your old boring speech about "true Islam" blah blah blah!!

The Islamic movement includes the extremist, strict and the moderate, the armed and the unarmed...Never heard before that King Abdullah constitute a stream of that movement. Iran is on one side and the regime of KSA is on a completely different side (I made a distinction between both in my previous post). It's just stupid like saying the Yemeni or the Egyptian past regime is a part of the Islamic movement.

Of course.

Ok! but its not my speech its one of the first things i learned here from Muslims along time ago when i criticized the actions of current regimes that called themselves Islamic.Is it no longer relevant? are you saying the KSA and Iran and all others in between are representative of Islam just different aspects of the same.

 

[kai]

The aggressor , in this case the U.S. Any people that fall under the realm of the caliphate would be compelled to fight such oppression of their brothers and sisters through conventional and economic war until a state of war ceased. OK as long as you accept that the west is entitled to do the same.

Again I have four.
Is that a secret?
I am sorry for assuming that was what you were hinting at. Your clarification I reject as well however. Well who are they?

Of course not. The current government is largely irrelevant in building a Muslim government were they given a "clean slate". Sorry but they rule by their interpretation of Sharia and pronounce themselves to be Muslims what other criteria is there?

You are confusing "ideal" with "true". Sunnis, be definition, would except any government ruled on the basis of Shariah. As of yet there is not one. none of your 4?

You may have a point about Shias, but they do constitute a minority of Muslims.

Sorry again but i dont see much agreement with Sunni interpretations of an Islamic state. Maybe your 4 are in agreement ?

 

[Bismillah]

OK as long as you accept that the west is entitled to do the same.

Every soveregn nation is isn't it?

Is that a secret?

A secret? I think they are common knowledge.

Well who are they?

Of course the four succeeding Caliphates after the Prophet's death.

none of your 4?

They are historical standards, but today no country has taken any steps to emulate them.

Sorry again but i dont see much agreement with Sunni interpretations of an Islamic state. Maybe your 4 are in agreement ?

By Sunni interpretation a person comes to be Caliph through Shura and establishes Shariah law. Though there may be some varying interpretation between the four maddhab (schools) that is to be expected. Varying interpretations does not disqualify the state is Islamic however and various opinions can be instated throughout various regions even within one state.

 

[kai]

Every soveregn nation is isn't it?

A secret? I think they are common knowledge.

Of course the four succeeding Caliphates after the Prophet's death.

They are historical standards, but today no country has taken any steps to emulate them.

By Sunni interpretation a person comes to be Caliph through Shura and establishes Shariah law. Though there may be some varying interpretation between the four maddhab (schools) that is to be expected. Varying interpretations does not disqualify the state is Islamic however and various opinions can be instated throughout various regions even within one state.

Ah the Rashidun , you had me there my friend.



Heres my thinking Bismillah, Muslims are so far flung and diverse that a Caliphate wont work because of the ethnic diversity of Muslims, the Rashidun were Arabs in an era of Arab expansion and war that held it all together. Its too big now, too diverse,there are too many cultural and ethnic influences.Thats the reason we have varying degrees of Islamic societies at each end of the spectrum from KSA at one end to Iran at the other with all shapes and sizes in between.

 

[Bismillah]

Heres my thinking Bismillah, Muslims are so far flung and diverse that a Caliphate wont work because of the ethnic diversity of Muslims, the Rashidun were Arabs in an era of Arab expansion and war that held it all together. Its too big now, too diverse,there are too many cultural and ethnic influences.Thats the reason we have varying degrees of Islamic societies at each end of the spectrum from KSA at one end to Iran at the other with all shapes and sizes in between.

I disagree Kai. In the Muslim world there is a widespread consensus of both discontentment of their leaders and importance of religion in daily life.

After all the Rashidun did expand to various places such as North Africa and Persia, places inhabited by totally different people and different cultures.

Also how would the ethnic diversity or cultures play a part in politics? Sunni Islam makes a very heavy emphasis on egalitarianism.

The cultures and diversity of the Muslim world is still unified through a single Islamic facet and that unity is all that is needed.

 

[kai]

I disagree Kai. In the Muslim world there is a widespread consensus of both discontentment of their leaders and importance of religion in daily life. Sure but individually thats true but each is different culturally.

After all the Rashidun did expand to various places such as North Africa and Persia, places inhabited by totally different people and different cultures. Yes militarly and assimilated them.That was a long time ago times change and i think nationalism is on the rise too, people are asserting themselves as Egyptians or libyans.

Also how would the ethnic diversity or cultures play a part in politics? Sunni Islam makes a very heavy emphasis on egalitarianism. Nationalism and cultural interpretations of Quran ,Hadith and sunnah

The cultures and diversity of the Muslim world is still unified through a single Islamic facet and that unity is all that is needed.

If you say so but it hasn't done much unifying so far , the only time it all held together in unity was under Empire. Maybe some kind of Islamic league of nations? but all one nation cant possibly work to many variables.

 

[Bismillah]

Sure but individually thats true but each is different culturally.

Could you give me an example?

Yes militarly and assimilated them.That was a long time ago times change and i think nationalism is on the rise too, people are asserting themselves as Egyptians or libyans.

Not really the Persians are still Persian. I would argue that Islam trumps any call to Nationalism and what we see instead is a just a widespread movement against despotic rulers.

Nationalism and cultural interpretations of Quran ,Hadith and sunnah

Could you define how culture and nationalism has bought about different variations of Islam?

If you say so but it hasn't done much unifying so far

Sure it has. Islam has been dead politically for centuries but it has retained its ability to bring about social cohesiveness.

the only time it all held together in unity was under Empire

The Empire never instituted Islamic law but instead pick and choose and came to be defined as a monarchy. You can even tell how incongruous it is just by calling it "the Empire" which has no roots in Islam.

Maybe some kind of Islamic league of nations?

What I believe is that through social reform and political pragmatism a model country using Islam to guide its political stances would be the catalyst to a reversion to such rule of law.

but all one nation cant possibly work to many variables.

Such as?

 

[kai]

Could you give me an example? sure Iran.

Not really the Persians are still Persian. I would argue that Islam trumps any call to Nationalism and what we see instead is a just a widespread movement against despotic rulers. But Persians are now Muslims because of the expansion for the Arabian peninsular, I agree with the movement but whether all these diverse peoples could find consensus is doubtful to me.

Could you define how culture and nationalism has bought about different variations of Islam? Cultural influences in Islam are everywhere form the Burka to the Hud punishments, I should clarify that Islam is an influence on the cultures and an aspect of being Iranian or Nigerian.

Sure it has. Islam has been dead politically for centuries but it has retained its ability to bring about social cohesiveness. Where? can you give me an example where Islam has been the prime influence in social cohesiveness?

The Empire never instituted Islamic law but instead pick and choose and came to be defined as a monarchy. You can even tell how incongruous it is just by calling it "the Empire" which has no roots in Islam. But without it it would have splintered empire was an ingredient along with islam that held the Ummah together once the Empire diminished nationalism began to rise whether that arab nationailsm or not

What I believe is that through social reform and political pragmatism a model country using Islam to guide its political stances would be the catalyst to a reversion to such rule of law. OK

Such as?

People! Theres nothing in history to suggest that that many people can converge into one entity.

 

[Bismillah]

sure Iran.

Sure but I already noted that Shias would be the exception according to their beliefs. I am focusing more so on Sunnis.

But Persians are now Muslims because of the expansion for the Arabian peninsular

Sure but they still retained their cultural heritage (i.e language). Muslims have various cultural heritages such as those in the subcontinent, Indonesia, Africa etc. etc. They were not assimilated, but rather replaced those social conventions that went against Islamic teachings and largely retained their way of life. That said there are no regional interpretations of Islam that have any significant variance.

I agree with the movement but whether all these diverse peoples could find consensus is doubtful to me.

Why not? Each move is dictated by religion and they all agree on religion do they not?

Cultural influences in Islam are everywhere form the Burka to the Hud punishments, I should clarify that Islam is an influence on the cultures and an aspect of being Iranian or Nigerian.

Kai the premise for a Islamic government is political pragmatism, as one commentator of the MB put it "they are not concerned with regulating skirt lengths". Such things are not major obstacles and even various opinions on things such as hud are not a big deal as various opinions can be implemented in different regions.

Where? can you give me an example where Islam has been the prime influence in social cohesiveness?

The typical example would be the Hajj where people from every nationality gather in the largest annual human congregation in the world. Various nations, tribes, ethnicities united in their religion.

A atypical one would be khutbas given long ago in Islamic India which praised the Ummayad dynasty even though the Abbasids had long taken over or that the same Muslims lived under the same laws as an Egyptian Muslim long after the segmentation of Muslim lands.

But without it it would have splintered empire was an ingredient along with islam that held the Ummah together once the Empire diminished nationalism began to rise whether that arab nationailsm or not

No the Ummayad and Abbasids were actually a huge catalyst for provoking the fissures in Islamic society. The elevated status of Arabs and the degraded status of converted people quickly lead to animosity. The appointment of Arabs in political positions in non-Arab lands and the machinations of this empire was focused on consolidating the power of a few families.

In my view it fermented the seed for the downfall of Muslim civilizations.

The Ummah was held together in spite of the government not because of it. The only respected Qadi was the one who refused political appointments (even at the risk of his own safety). While the upper echelons of Islamic society abandoned religion it was the masses that kept it alive.

[qutoe]People! Theres nothing in history to suggest that that many people can converge into one entity/[/quote] They already are one identity. They are Muslim.

 

[Bismillah]

Here is an unrelated job description for an Imam in Istanbul, not really related just interesting.

Imam of the Grand Mosque of Istanbul (time: Sultan Sulaiman al Qanuni (the Lawgiver, otherwise known as the Magnificent in Europe who ruled Ottoman Turkey between 1520AD-1566AD)

Requirements:

# To have mastered the languages of Arabic, Latin, Turkish and Persian
# To have mastered the Qur’an, the Bible and the Torah
# To be a scholar in Shari’ah and Fiqh
# To have mastered physics and mathematics up to teaching standard
# To be a master of chivalry, archery, duelling and the arts of Jihad
# To be of a handsome countenance
# To have a strong melodious voice

 

[kai]

Sure but I already noted that Shias would be the exception according to their beliefs. I am focusing more so on Sunnis.
Pakistan, KSA any country really.

Sure but they still retained their cultural heritage (i.e language). Muslims have various cultural heritages such as those in the subcontinent, Indonesia, Africa etc. etc. They were not assimilated, but rather replaced those social conventions that went against Islamic teachings and largely retained their way of life. That said there are no regional interpretations of Islam that have any significant variance. All those retained cultural heritages are what you have to contend with when they interpret the Quran ,Hadith and Sunnah.All those cultural heritages are what you have to contend with in any efort to establish a caliphate, a daunting task.

Why not? Each move is dictated by religion and they all agree on religion do they not?They agree on the term Islam but not on its implementation within their cultures otherwise we would see uniformity right now.

Kai the premise for a Islamic government is political pragmatism, as one commentator of the MB put it "they are not concerned with regulating skirt lengths". Such things are not major obstacles and even various opinions on things such as hud are not a big deal as various opinions can be implemented in different regions. Ok so that's the MB spiel . in reality you couldn't have such variances, well in fact you could! its what we have now.and Hud punishments are one of the biggest deals surely?

The typical example would be the Hajj where people from every nationality gather in the largest annual human congregation in the world. Various nations, tribes, ethnicities united in their religion. Ha Ha that's great but that only works because its temporary such diversity would end in friction if it was to last longer and theres the fact that Mecca is holy and say Mogadishu isnt.

A atypical one would be khutbas given long ago in Islamic India which praised the Ummayad dynasty even though the Abbasids had long taken over or that the same Muslims lived under the same laws as an Egyptian Muslim long after the segmentation of Muslim lands. sure but thats not the case now is it. India and Egypt are quite distinct.

No the Ummayad and Abbasids were actually a huge catalyst for provoking the fissures in Islamic society. The elevated status of Arabs and the degraded status of converted people quickly lead to animosity. The appointment of Arabs in political positions in non-Arab lands and the machinations of this empire was focused on consolidating the power of a few families.

In my view it fermented the seed for the downfall of Muslim civilizations.

Yes all Empires end sometime

The Ummah was held together in spite of the government not because of it. The only respected Qadi was the one who refused political appointments (even at the risk of his own safety). While the upper echelons of Islamic society abandoned religion it was the masses that kept it alive.

[qutoe][/COLOR]People! Theres nothing in history to suggest that that many people can converge into one entity/

They already are one identity. They are Muslim. [/QUOTE]


Thats one identity amongst many and one that hasnt had the effect of unification.