[TEFSADDERFISA]

this is classic 'valid difference of opinion' card. and it is invalid because his opinion is a minority. please use the search function on SF to read why are such opinions discarded.

his opinion and he is entitled to it. however there were several Islamic 'states' before colonialism. weak fact he gave.
and the islamic state is not based on any european models. anyone who has read shariah law and european law(s) can tell you that.this further weakens the arguments however.

as if the two things are mutually exclusive. come visit pakistan or turkey sometimes.

sure. lets see it. but let us begin with the definition of 'state' and how the first four caliphs governed their dominions. i am sure this has been dissected in the 'democracy' thread and the author's views are hence incorrect. any third person reading this can check in the in-depth islam section.

well the relegation is ground reality in secular muslim states isnt it?

he himself is confused. religion and state and politics are not disconnected. he has chosen to disconnect the first two and joined the last two and then assumed that is correct. and his solution to 'mediate it' is again his own opinion whch he has presented as fact.

it is not a reality. i do wish seculars would quit stating their opinions as facts.
his intolerance can be seen in the port i put in bold. he has again assumed that basic islamic laws have to evolve with time. hence to him pre and post colonial fundamental laws have to be different. it is this thing which is the bone of contention between seculars and the supporters of shariah.
otherwise shariah is very flexible. so yes post colonial traumas can be handled w/o the secularists.

ah. can you produce the quote from ibn taymiyyah (rh) directly from the book he said it in. we would like to see it.
also since when has religious piety and the individual's capacity to fulfill ethical and professional code of the job become mutually exclusive? there needs to be both. and to assume an individual can follow ethics constantly while not even practicing islam fully is ridiculous.
he (or the author) quotes khalid bin walid's (ra) appointment as example.
can khalid bin walid (ra) be compared to a hardly practicing modernist secular? no he cannot be.
hence the comparison is immediately null and void.
curiosuly why was Hadrat Abu Bakr chosen as first caliph? ask yourself that.
then again, if that really is what ibn taymiyyah said it is irresponsible to not see what other scholars have said on this. have the majority of fuqaha held the same opinion?

Yes I do invite readers to visit the what is democracy thread and carefully analyse all the arguments.
modernist secular is a title you invent to divert people that we are bent on an atheistic agenda because of the misconception in muslim minds about these concepts. A muslim realist or pragmatist is something we favour. WE dont live in fantasy land. Al-shabab, al-qaeda, taliban, now the bamako can play around with their cartoonish ideologies of the role of Islam in the 21st century and how it should influence people and community. we see the views of these vile people not only as impractical, dangerous but as a mockery of Islamic history.
Yes not only Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that so does Ibn al-qayyim al JAwziyya and so does Imam Ghazzali. All of them conclude according to Anaims' research of the ''necessity of separating the religious dimension of any individual from his function or role in the state, which must be entrusted to those who are best qualified to accomplish the task''

they are not mutually exclusive but invariably the best religious ascetic/scholar cannot pragmatically be the best health minister, the best urban engineer, the best in political science and theory, the best sociologist or anthropoligst e.t.c. Even if theoretically possible there rarely are examples of these in modern society. Thus all in public office dealing with health, education, infrastructure, political organization should be selected as the best and experts in their fields not the most 'religious pious'(an indeterminable concept which only Allah can decipher) vying for these seats. your sharia state i would assume would keep mullahs in these seats just because they study ilm of fiqh or hadith as a career and now are interested in making the hospitals of the country islamically governed so that 'they would run better'.

By the way muslim zionist in the referenced article unknown entity posted is an excellent title for the lot who argue against the secular state. You want to make the state into an idol of religious submission and all muslims submissive to this human-interpreted divine state which might not represent the prophet or Allah's will at all and force its conclusions/madhabs/cultural stance view on my consience/reason/faith/family.
Reaching, learning, knowing and worshipping Allah is a journey and responsibility not dependent at all on state affairs and thus we are arguing for and actually most of us are living in a secular terrain which gives no hindrance to bringing out the best muslim potential in me and for the people in my society. I argue against the notion of sharia state because its the only political hypothesis which would actually infringe my religious liberties. it has communist orientations with a monolithic political party, dispensation of legal pluralism and ruthless powers to coerce and force submission to an entity other than Allah.