Thanks for the replies, and sorry for the delay in replying back... suleimanibnsalim: I guess the point I am really trying to make is that those protests symbolise, to me, progress. They symbolise enlightenment replacing jahiliya. I mean, these were movements that stuck two fingers up at the systems of oppression that drew strength from religious backwardness which sternly demanded that people keep their head down at all times, unquestionably 'obey' and never ever think for themselves. The protestors were young, tech savvy and fought for their rights and freedoms through twitter and social networking media. Clearly they were inspired by what they saw in the West. The Imams and everyone of later generations are still by and large in the clutches of this jahiliya imo and to them, such acts of civil disobedience is just incomprehensible. Abd ar Rahman: You are right, it is not really possible to precisely define Democracy. All I'll say is that it doesn't neccessarly mean 'balloting' - ie. one person one vote. To me it's about consensus and the idea that people should have a say in matters that affect them. Further, I don't see democracy as a "man made" concept at all - it is universal value that we all hold dear but somehow religion has managed to condition people to think otherwise (militantly so). We human beings need personal autonomy and flourish when we have it; we become mindless automatons incapable of progress when we don't. ibn Mikael - great posts. I agree that governments should never enforce Islamic values - but disagree that people should. People enforcing their values? How would that work in practice? As regards your second post - good idea, but you're presupposing the Sharia is infallible. We must remember that the Shariah is 'man made' - it consists of fiqh which is merely the opinion of classical jurists in expansionist Abassid Period - it isn't really divine.