[Unakjyfk]

any portion of the constitution that goes against islamic laws is a secular law.

And MB does not anywhere claim to promote laws that go against Islam. You could criticise them as modernist or whatever,yet its not enough to declare somone like Yusuf al Qardawi as a secular who must be fought.. I.e., there i a difference between someone openly declaring a unislamic law as valid from someone who declares a unislamic opinion based on false understanding of Islamic laws.

a government may be bringing in islam gradually to the constitution but that government does so by taking time to change unislamic laws. it does not make new unislamic laws and say this is islam. as proof the post below mine has given some examples. i have further proofs by morsi's govt that show they are clearly secular and not gradualists. YouTube videos arent proof. And there are enough number of road blocks for just one man Morsi to apply whatever he thinks. And neither is proof based on issues that can be differed upon. Is there a ijma that Muslim government has to by necessity impose hijab in the clothing of women or otherwise it is kufr ? Something being permissible or a government promoting or facilitating hijab is different from imposing through sticks and threats the duty of hijab.

tableegh and armed struggle. this is how islam was spread by the Holy prophet (PBUH). you have to break the worldview of the west. Every person in the world does tableeg. So that's irrelevent.

Armed struggle seems to be the final basis upon which all your criticism is founded upon. You seem to be have already declared tto yourself the idea of armed struggle and so anythingelse would be faced with criticsm. Do you consider armed struggle as obligation is ijma, and opinions besides this as kufr? Also, now lets say armed struggle. But armed struggle against whom? Muslims? Are you going to do jihad against muslims ? Do you declare Muslims as kafir whose blood can be violated? Reminding you that the question is on bringing shariah to muslims rather than the boogeyman America.

no this is what United States has done over the years. this is not an assumption: 'have control over muslim governments'. why were libya and iraq attacked? do you know why US insists strongly everyone trade in US dollar? why did the US insist on democracy in muslim lands whose mujahideen they had helped against soviets? why did US insisted on democracy in pakistan and brought secular parties in pakistan to the fore at height of TTP war with NATO and pakistan army? if you do not believe or think they are assumptions this then you are missing some vital knowledge on these matters. of course MB will bring american version of islam. even if, lets say by some miracle they do impose a constitution that is almost shariah then they will still be stooges of US like saudia. And these are just inductive assumptions wtih no ccertainity. Your conslusion at the end is, any person who gets support or keeps a relationship of non-enimity with America or does not accept the clash of civilization doctrine, is either a kaffir himself or a stooge to the kaffir. This is a just simplistic unfounded conclusion. Secondly you confuse such real relationship from that of mere establishing foreign relations. There is no basis that Muslims have to be in all time enemity with every non-muslim or non-muslims government as principle obligatory creed or method. There are plenty of instances where kaffirs have been generous to muslims and suported their efforts throughout history. And finally, by these guilt by associtaion method, you have declare Taliban and alQaeda who had support of America as itself a tool of US.

talking about so-called assumptions you yourself and the MB apologists make huge assumptions about what MB may or may not do w/o looking at what they are actually doing. I'm not a MB apologist. My ulema would declare Sayyid Qutb and Mawdudi as deviant modernist heretics. But i do see that MB has evolved much from that time and do not engage in trying to create their own personal version of Islam and instead leaves that to scholars. They merely focus on getting pious muslims in position to power and exert influence from the state level.

your opinion matters when you are a scholar fit to speak about islam. List down the names of these living scholars whose opinion the people of Egpyt should matter about today.

i have given my answer: one should support those movements that emulate the example of the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions: tableegh and armed struggle. look at how many battles were fought between the Holy prophet (PBUH)' s coming to madinah and then conquest of makkah. Your confusing fighting non-Muslims with fighting Muslims, confusing permissible with obligatory, confusing communal obligation with individual obligation, confusing difference of interpretation as a instead a sole valid opinion. And finally, it remains mere a theoretical claim with no look at the reality on ground today in Egypt.

you can disagree with all of the above but i suggest you read fiqh of war so that you understand how armed struggle in islam is different from armed struggle of the kuffar. this way anyone who picks up arms for the name of islam will not seem like a terrorist to you. [/quote]
I disagree on your personal application of the fiqh of war based on certain assumptions and notions of worldview.