I'm not contending the concept of tarbiyah, culturing, enlightening which enables people to leave jahiliya to enter iman and be more receptive to Islam. But I don't agree with what has emerged as "gradualism" as it manifests in political affairs. How does this allow for a political party such as an Nahda to implement haram and work within an unIslamic political system? And how is this justified when the Prophet (saaw) refused to do as such? Let us take note: advocating liberal capitalist economic measures (privatizing what belongs to the people, legalizing riba private banking, etc). I don't mean to be argumentative, but I honestly want to understand how you understand it and present it. I am wary of attempts to restrict the meaning of the Makkan period to ONLY this or that. It was common for some time for a salafi to assert that the Prophet (saaw) taught ONLY Tauhid in Makka for 13 years. This is not a permissible restricton of the Risala. But in any case, the matter is about ADVOCATING RULING BY HARAM AND KUFR. This is what government fuqaha and even some rulers have initially claimed that they will gradually bring Islam. Sadat. Medienne in Turkey, and a host of other PM and presidents promised to bring and support Islam while ruling by kufr and enforcing haram. Thus, if you agree with hizban Nahda, how do you accept ruling by kufr or haram laws and with what textual evidences?