Also take a look at this article:
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/07/20/islam-post-modernity-and-freedom-by-muqtedar-khan/

Excerpts from this article:

"In the Muslim World postmodernism manifests in the form of religious resurgence which rejects modernist institutions such as secularism and nationalism and instead advocates a different moral/political ethic and a different political unit (Ummah)."

"Secularism and Nationalism, two of modernity’s worst diseases, are now well entrenched in many parts of the Muslim World. Ideologies emerging from the conditions of modernity such as Marxism and liberalism continue to compete with Islam in trying to shape Muslim societies. Even Muslim intellectuals who are seeking authenticity are compelled to succumb to modernist discourses, thereby furthering the agenda of modernity at the expense of Islam."

Take Care,
Your Muslim brother,
Ali

Dear Mazen,

You wrote:
"how do you know its only 4? Maybe I have more than one couple friends, maybe there is six of us and its one big happy orgy." "Also do not be sexist. Wives can husband swap too."
You seem to be interested in probabilities. So, here comes a problem in combinatorials and probability theory:
Suppose there are n women and they decide to swap their husbands. They write the names of their husbands on n pieces of paper, which would be randomly picked by these women, after being mixed in an indistinguishable manner.
What is the probability that none of them would miss the "big happy orgy". By definition a woman misses the "big happy orgy" when that woman, to her regret, picks that same piece of paper on which her "own" husband's name is written (if "own" has still its meaning among swingers).
When I was in highschool, I came across this problem. But it was about n women and n pairs of gloves. Apparently we were not "modernized" enough back then.

You wrote:
"If you believe in God then you believe he is powerful enough to impose his law and make people behave as he wishes. Since he did not do that and gave us free choise who the hell are you or any Sheikh to use the police and army to enforce what you believe god wants."
Mazen's imaginary conversation with prophet Mohammed (P.B.U.H.):
"Mohammed, you claim to be sent to us by god to bring us a new religion and lifestyle. Let me suppose you are honest with us and really sent to us by god (though I preserve my right to doubt about this claim.) But, keep it a private matter and don't try to impose on us those laws and restrictions upon which god has wanted you to behave. If you believe in god then you believe he is powerful enough to impose his law and make people behave as he wishes. Since he did not do that and gave us free choice, let me ask you with due respect, who the hell you or any of your followers are to decide for us what we are allowed to or prohibited from doing."

Take Care,
Your Muslim brother,
Ali

Here is what you said: That's your choice (all 4 of you, your friend, you and your wives.) That's no one's business. In fact my aunt's husband has been drinking alcohol in the Islamic Republic of Iran for more than 30 years now. What is forbidden in Iran, is producing, smuggling and selling alcoholic drinks. Similarly you cannot advertise something like swinging. Yes, you have no freedom to ruin the society. You are restricted in many ways in an Islamic establishment. If it sounds annoying to you, let me remind you that each and every establishment or state in trhe world has restrictions and red lines you cannot cross.

First of all how do you know its only 4? Maybe I have more than one couple friends, maybe there is six of us and its one big happy orgy. Also if alcohol cannot be sold how will I be able to buy it ? And who the hell are you to decide what "harms" society? And who the hell are the black-turbaned hypocrites to decide for all of us what is harmful and what is not? Who decides the restrictions? and the red lines? AND THIS IS THE iSSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE REAL ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In a democracy people write the rules and they can change them with new elections. The problem with religion is that the rules are "from God", they are "Gods rules" and who decides Gods rules? This is a problem? We have 4 schools of Jurisprudence in Islam, and the Jafari school in the Shia branch. Who decides? Who speaks for God? And who is arrogant enough to claim he speaks for God?

Do you see why I said you are living in the 7th century. This view is backward. You practice your religion in your own privacy and if your religion tells you to not drink, and not wife swap, and pary 5 times a day then you do it by YOURSELF! YOU DO NOT control others by using the state. If you believe God is all powerful then he does not your army, police, or security people to impose his rules. If you believe in God then you believe he is powerful enough to impose his law and make people behave as he wishes. Since he did not do that and gave us free choise who the hell are you or any Sheikh to use the police and army to enforce what you believe god wants.

I offer you the example of Denmark, and Sweden as a great system. Muslims are in Denmark and Sweden and practicing their religion freely and so are others. Its a free society where all people are respected and nobody can impose his ideas on others yet if you want to practice your religion whatever it is, you can.

Also do not be sexist. Wives can husband swap too.

Dear Mazen,

You wrote:
"The issue was which form of government to create and I believe in democracy and human rights and not the rule of religion."
Apparently you are out of touch with the reality. I challenged you with a very simple example, which you tried to highlight as the most important thing I'm worried about.
You speak of beautiful words like democracy and human rights. But until you show us how you will implement them these are just empty rhetoric. In fact you have a dream which I fully respect. But a dream is a dream and not a solution.

You wrote:
"keep in mind countries like Denmark, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and others and do not pretend these are societies ruled by sin, hedonism, corruption and wife swapping. Let's be seroius here."
The last sentence is in fact my advice to you. You refused to notice what I wrote after the swinging example:
"I don't believe that the west is all about pursuing morally wrong and religiously prohibited human desires. No, I don't believe it at all."
If you want to be serious, just google this phrase: "swinging in Germany".

You wrote:
"If i do not want to pray nobody can force me, if I want to drink alcohol and eat pork it is my right, and if i want to swap my wife with my friends wife for a night, that is also my right. get out of my business and get out of my bedroom."
I totally agree with you. You are free not to pray Allah. That's something between you and Allah. In an Islasmic establishment you are free to drink alcohol, eat pork and also swap your wife with your friend's wife as long as you keep it in privacy. That's your choice (all 4 of you, your friend, you and your wives.) That's no one's business. In fact my aunt's husband has been drinking alcohol in the Islamic Republic of Iran for more than 30 years now. What is forbidden in Iran, is producing, smuggling and selling alcoholic drinks. Similarly you cannot advertise something like swinging.
Yes, you have no freedom to ruin the society. You are restricted in many ways in an Islamic establishment. If it sounds annoying to you, let me remind you that each and every establishment or state in trhe world has restrictions and red lines you cannot cross.

Ali, wife swapping? Is this what your worried about? First of all I am not a defender of the US political system which is nothing but a politically corrupt system ruled by corporations and the military-financial-industrial complex so its not necessary for me to get into any discussion about democracy or rule of law or human rights and I will telll you why in a moment, but keep in mind countries like Denmark, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and others and do not pretend these are societies ruled by sin, hedonism, corruption and wife swapping. Let's be seroius here.

Now, the reason I do not need to discuss any form of government with you is because you already admitted you have lost the argument. You said the following:

"I never claimed to have found a final solution for how to form an Islamic establishment."

You're right, you did not tell us. All you did was raise slogans and make appeals to religion without any meaning or defintion. We still do not know what you want and we still do not know what form of government you are talking about. Until you tell us there is nothing to respond to. All I know is you are against wife swapping.

There is alot of hypocrisy in the application of international standards of human rights and international law. That has to do with international power relations. Please do not pretend that we are defending western wars, aggression, and hypocrisy, and wife swapping and YOU are defending Islam. This game wil not work. The issue was which form of government to create and I believe in democracy and human rights and not the rule of religion.

You have a right to practice your religion as you please and this is not generousity on my part, it is your right, but you have no right to impose your beliefs on others. I wonder if you also recognize the right of others to not practice their religion. If i do not want to pray nobody can force me, if I want to drink alcohol and eat pork it is my right, and if i want to swap my wife with my friends wife for a night, that is also my right. get out of my business and get out of my bedroom.

You said the following: "All of us should be aware of westerners' contribution to the well being of mankind" how GENEROUS of you giving that the computer you are sitting at was invented in the west, the car you drive was invented in the west, every modern technological or scientific advancement came from the west. If you get sick the medicine you take was produced in the west. If you go to a hospital every machine in that hospital was invented in the west. If you travel, you will travel on a plane produced in the west…etc…i can go on and on and on. However, in my opinion technology, science, and civilization is not western or eastern or christian or muslim, it is human. No such thing as "islamic science" or "Christian science" or "islamic mathematics" or "christian mathematics" …etc…etc….This is all a human endeavor which has no religion.

You talk about wife swapping and immorality and blame it on secularism, but how about the immorality of religion. Arent you aware of Muslim clerics issuing a fatwa for a one-night marriage? or a pleaure marriage? And giving it the sanction of religion. Let's not get into this its better for you and for the religious sheiks who often work as PIMPS as they speak in the name of GOD.

I was born into a very religious Muslim family and my background is as Muslim as it can be so do not force me to expose the hypocrisy and immorality of the religious leaders. And Muslims only pay the zakat not the "khoms" which is only paid by the Shia, a minority sect, and its paid to keep those buisnessmen in power and with influence.

I support solidarity and cooperation among all peoples, muslims and others.

Dear Mazen,

I don't care if you label me as a backward thinker living in 7th century, sticking to slogans originating from ancient traditions and opposing modernity, simply because I'm not what you have made of me in your mind.

All of us should be aware of westerners' contribution to the well being of mankind, as we should keep in mind the Islamic era scholars' contribution as well.

I never claimed to have found a final solution for how to form an Islamic establishment. Sure, Iran is not a country in which angels are ruled by other angels.

About 33 years ago the last king of Iran (Mohammadreza the Pahlavi King) replaced the solar hijri calendar with a Persian Kingdom calendar as a nationalist gesture. So, instead of year 1355 (solar hijri) we would have 2535 (Persian Kingdom). This change of calendars caused a great deal of criticism among Iranians. As a result the King was only able to maintain his preferred calendar for about 2 years.

as I mentioned before and you refused to notice, I'm not opposed to "Arab unity" . You wrote:
"You want to deny the Arab identity and jump to an Islamic identity and erase the Arabs and have them melt into the Muslim World. That will never happen. Its simply crazy to think you can unite all the Muslims into one group or one state."
"Arab unity" or "Muslim unity" does not necessarily mean "to eliminate the borders between Arab or Muslim states".
If on 27 December 2008 Arab league member states had requested an emergency meeting and held it the other day and concrete results had come out of that meeting (which would be to the benfit of our Palestinian brothers and sisters) I would have call it a sign of Arab unity for sure.
If the same thing had happened for the ICO (Islamic Conference Organization) I would have call it a sign of Muslim unity.
If an strategic alliance between Arab or Muslim states, that share common interests, enables them to take similar and powerful stances on the most important issues they come across, it will be interpreted as no less than Arab or Muslim unity.
Secularism separates religion from politics and state. As a result, religion (Islam in the case of Arab or Muslim majority states) will become paralyzed in playing its role to unite those states.

You argued that under a secular regime one could still keep and practice his/her religion. How generous an offer!
You are a good Muslim as long as you restrict your religious tendencies to:
- Praying 5 times a day (I'm sure you will remain as good, in case you increase it to 50 times a day)
- Holding your marriage ceremonies, funerals and the like, based on Islamic traditions
- Burying the dead while obeying all Islamic rules about burial and taking the Qiblah direction into account
- Paying "khoms" and "zakat"
- Fasting in Ramadan (no one cares if you fast all year long)
- Using halal slaughter and paying attention to the Qiblah direction in the process
- Going to hajj at least once in your lifetime (you will face no objection if you go to hajj every year)
and so on and so forth.
But all hell will break loose if your religious tendencies inspires you to take part in an Islamic political movement. You will be labeled a fanatic fundamentalist, a backward thinker or even a potential terrorist.

Let me agree with you on one point. Many religious political movements have gone the wrong way and ended in catastrophe. But that does not necessarily mean that religion is incapable of laying down the foundations of a just, moral and progressive system of governance. Also keep in mind that non-religious political movements have done no better (if not worse).

You wrote:
"When I say secular it means I am calling for a secular state with democracy, human rights, freedom, and one person one vote system."
That's a beautiful dream which may come true only in utopia. These terms sound great:
- Democracy
- Human rights
- Freedom
- One person one vote system

But wake up my friend. Look around you and wake up to the real world. Instead of all these beautiful terms we have got "Mediacracy". Media are capable of manipulating public opinion in favor of their owners.

Virtually EVERYONE in the world was informed of a "human rights violation in Iran" when the late Neda Agha-Soltan was murdered by an unidentified shooter. But virtually NO ONE knows the story of the late Bassem Abu Rahmeh, a Palestinian who was murdered when a tear-gas canister fired by an israeli soldier penetrated his chest, or the story of "Rachel Corrie's Death".

The one person one vote system elected George W. Bush, a hawkish warmonger to be the president of US for two terms.

You have freedom to do whatever you want, as long as your behavior does not harm anyone else. But who should decide what actions are considered harmful?
Suppose that in a "secular" "democracy" with a "one person one vote system", a 51% majority arguing on "human rights" grounds demands "freedom" and legalization of swinging or wife swapping, while a 49% minority rejects it as being harmful to the society as a whole. The majority wins the debate and wife swapping becomes legalized. The minority though not happy with the outcome, respects the decision made in a "democratic" manner. And all this happens while religion is absent in the decision making process (although, some of those voting against swinging did it on religious grounds.)
Wow! How modernized these people are. They are not fanatic fundamentalists and religious prohibitions are no longer taboos for them. Nothing is untouchable and every dream concerning human unlimited desires may come true if democratically voted for by the majority.
The people living in this society are considered to be liberated from restrictive religious laws. The fact of the matter, however, is that some of them are slaves of their own unlimited desires.

To read more about swinging, please refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/socin/socin028.htm

I don't believe that the west is all about pursuing morally wrong and religiously prohibited human desires. No, I don't believe it at all. And as I mentioned before, I'm fully aware of westerners' contribution to the well being of mankind. My point is that your prescription of a secular society based on "democracy", "human rights", "freedom" and a "one person one vote system" may well lead us into a disastrous situation and ruin the society. Keep in mind that media owners are the decision makers!

And finally I advise you to read this article by Gilad Atzmon (titled "Left and Islam: Thinking Outside the Secular Box") :
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15280

Take Care,
Your Muslim brother,
Ali

Ali, its very difficult to have any discussion with you if you keep living in the 7th century. You raise alot of slogans about Islam that mean absolutely nothing at all. What worked in the 7th century is not something that has any applicablity to modern life. Islam is a religion like all other religions it is universal, but when you raise a slogan like "Muslim unity" it means absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. Modern life is formed around a state. Do you believe in a state? Or what? You still have not told us what you mean when you talk about Muslim unity and government? Do you mean like Iran and wilayit al faqih? Or the Taliban? Or the Muslim brotherhood approach? Or do you want a new caliphate? You cannot tell us because you do not know yourself. Its just a slogan. But when I talk about secularism I know exactly what I am talking about. Dont mix secularism with Arab nationalism. These are two different things. When I say secular it means I am calling for a secular state with democarcy, human rights, freedom, and one person one vote system. Its clear what Im talking about. That does NOT MEAN A SECULAR SOCIETY THAT FIGHTS RELIGION. Society can still be Muslim and people will remain Muslims and practice their religion as they please. I am advocating a free democratic state based on democracy and everyone knows what that means. Nobody knows what you or anyone else means when they refer to an "Islamic" government. If what you mean is what you have in Iran, no thank you! Keep your wilayit al faqih and the Khomeini system. We dont want it. We want a modern democratic system which is NOT incompatible with Islam contrary to what you think .

Second, Arab Nationalism is not a form of government. Arab nationalism is simply our identity. We are Arabs, we are not Turks, Persians, or Pakistanis. We live in one geographic area and speak one language, have one culture, one history, and one future together. It is in our interest to build a strong unifited Arab world. This does not mean we do not want friendly relations with Iran or Turkey or others. In the end we are all human beings, part of one human family and the whole world is our common home. But we do need to unite as Arabs. Its simply silly to call for unity between Morocco and Pakistan or Egypt and Indonesia. Thats absurd. And I already mentioned that any reference to an "Islamic government" is meaningless. Again, you cant tell us what that means.

YOU SAY: Europeans' refusal to take advantage of their common religion does not mean that we are obliged to do the same.

What does that mean? Again, this is meaningless. It has no definition. Do you want to eliminate all borders between Casablanca and Jakarta? Nobody knows what this means. Again, you need to live in the modern world not the ancient world of prophets. Your religion is your own personal private realm, you have freedom to practive your religion as you like, but this is not something to base modern world politics on. You simply need to live in the modern world.

YOU SAY: I believe that common religion (Islam in the case of Arabs) plays a pivotal role in uniting masses.
Sure, I agree to a point. Religion also played a role in unting Russia under the Orthodox Christian faith, and the same for the serbians. Religion can play a role. Now imagine what role it can play for the Arabs who are 90% Muslim Sunnis. The Prophet was an Arab, he spoke Arabic, the Koran is in our language, and we carried the message of Islam to the rest of the world. Im sure you read about the battle of al-Qadisiya. And not only that, but they also share a common history, language, culture, and geography. Its not just religion that unites them, but they are untied in every way also. In fact, there is notthing that separates them. So again, we are looking for Arab Unity. You want to deny the Arab identity adn jump to an Islamic idenity and erase the Arabs and have them melt into the Muslim World. That will never happen. Its simply crazy to think you can unite all the Muslims into one group or one state. We can have friendly relations, visit, exchange, tour each other countires, work on common issues, but thsi has to be based on a modern state to state relationsship.

And I know for a fact that Persians, the closest non-Arab Muslims do not like us Arabs very much. And many of them are very chauvinist towards the "desert bedouin Arabs". Many Persians still like to curse the Sahaba of the prophet. And many make pilgrimages to the grave of Abu Lulula who killed Sayidna Omar. And in the recent protests many Iranians were protesting Ahmadinajad for taking a stance on Palestine. They said "mardom chera neshastin, Iran shode Felestin!" (People, why are you sitting down? Iran has become Palestine!").

Lets be serious Ali. Lets live in the modern world. The modern world must be based on human rights, democracy, and rule of law, not on religion. For us Arabs, we also need to work towards unity and overcome the division that was imposed on us by western powers. Of course we can always work together and have good relations. But the days of a "caliphate" are over.

Finally, you mention Jews. Arab jews have lived with us for centuries with no problems. They are not our enemies. In a democratic state they will have one vote like every other citizen and so will the Arab christians, and I think the writer of this article was a christian from the name, Im not sure. And they wiill have equal rights and freedom of religion.

This does not apply to Zionists. Zionists are european settlers who have no right to be in Palestine. Palestine will be liberated and become part of the Arab world again.

Once again both of you fail to understand the point I'm trying to make. I'm not opposed to Arab unity at all (as you pretend I am). I believe that common religion (Islam in the case of Arabs) plays a pivotal role in uniting masses.

Secular nationalism is what you prescribe for Arabs, but keep in mind that if the prophets had taken your advice seriously, we wouldn't have religions to talk about. Prophet Mohammed (P.B.U.H.) brought a message from God. Was the message sent just for Arabs? No! the message was a universal one, And I'm happy my ancestors were among the receivers of that message.

Mazen wrote:
"Im sure you probably think this is a "Christian European unity" even though you didnt say it."
Contrary to what you think, I meant exactly the opposite. Europeans seem to be happy for getting rid of religion's involvement in political, economical and scientific issues. They have their own reasons for behaving the way they behave. But that does not mean that Muslims should follow the same path. Europeans' refusal to take advantage of their common religion does not mean that we are obliged to do the same.

Arabs and some of israelis have common origins. They are all semites. Does that mean they can unite? Theoretically yes!

Mazen wrote:
"What common interest does an Indoensian have with a Palestinian?"
A jew, regardless of his/her nationality and country of residence, can claim his/her share of the holy land. jews of different nationalities, ethnicities and skin color are living in occupied Palestine. Suppose that they would argue (like you) that "what common interest does an ethiopean jew have with an Iraqi jew?" Yes they formed an occupying state and their unity came at the expense of Palestinians.

Mazen wrote:
"You are also born into your religion just as you are born into a country. So does that mean that Hindus or Budhists have no honor?"
I talked about religion in general and Islam specifically in the case of Arabs and other Muslim nations.
This is what I wrote in my previous comment:
"There is "absolutely no honour" in being a Turk, Kurd, Arab or Persian, because that's decided for you by chance and long before your consciousness is formed. Being as such has implications. But surely there is honour in behaving upon a morally justified system of values (think of an atheist choosing his/her way of life and preferences for moral reasons not coming from any form of religious belief)".
I didn't even exclude an atheist from being honoured for the way he/she behaves and moral grounds that decide his/her preferences. But is it really important what nationality this atheist comes from?

We have a poem in persian, a rough translation of which would be like this:

There are many examples of a Hindu and a Turk that understand each other
There are many examples of two Turks being like strangers
So, mutual undestanding is something special
And that's more valuable than speaking the same language

Take Care,
Your Muslim brother,
Ali

Ali,

You really sound like you are living in the 7th century. You need to move forward. Religion is not a form of government. You say "there is no honor in being….." So there is honor in being a Muslim? You are also born into your religion just as you are born into a country. So does that mean that Hindus or Budhists have no honor? All human beings of all nationalities and religion are honorable people. You talk about Muslims pursuing their common interest? What common interest? What common interest does an Indoensian have with a Palestinian? You talk about "pursuing common Islamic values" Is this what this is all about? Pursuiing Islamic values? And how do we pursue Islamic values? How does a Pakistani pursue Islamic values? and how does he pursue Islamic values with an Egyptian? This is nonsense my friend. Also keep in mind that morality and values are common to all religions. Religions have different doctrines but the values and morality of Islam are the same as the morality and values of Christians, Budhists, and others.

This is not about religion. This is about a common national projects and Arabs need to unite and pursue a national liberation project. This is about the liberation of Iraq and Palestine. You oppose what you call secular nationalism, but you want to unite all the Muslims! Why are you opposed to uniting Arabs together but want to unite all the Muslims? I think you have a problem with the Arab identity and the Arab people. And if you want to unite the Muslims, why not start with Arab unity? Aren't the Arabs mostly Muslim people? Why not unite the Arabs from Morocco to the gulf as a first step? And then you can move on to Muslim unity from Casablanca to Jakarta. Its interesting you want to unite over a billion muslims from different parts of the world, but you oppose the unity of Arabs who speak the same language, and live in the same area. You mention the European Union. Im sure you probably think this is a "Christian European unity" even though you didnt say it. Europe united as individual states each with its own language, history and identity. Its not a Christian unity because the US, Canada, Mexico, and all of Latin America, and Russia are not part of it. The example of Europe should be applied to the arab states. They should unite and work together.

Finally, you are a little confused. You do not understand the difference between a Nation and a state. yes we have a kuwait, jordanian, and Lebanese state but there is not kuwaiti nation or a lebanese nation or a jordanian nation. There is an Arab nation. The arab nation is divided into states because it was divided by the western powers to weaken the Arabs. Dont confuse nations with states. States come and go but nations are alive.

You introduced words like "Islamic fight" and "sword" to this conversation. Did any of points I tried to make, imply violence?

There is "absolutely no honour" in being a Turk, Kurd, Arab or Persian, because that's decided for you by chance and long before your consciousness is formed. Being as such has implications. But surely there is honour in behaving upon a morally justified system of values (think of an atheist choosing his/her way of life and preferences for moral reasons not coming from any form of religious belief).

I didn't prescribe behaving in accordance to a specific religion for the world population. But Muslim nations can (should) take advantage of their common religion to form the unity they lack. You cannot deny or underestimate Islam's potential in resolving divisions among us created by nationalist attitudes of some of our leaders.

Liberal democracy is not an official religion, but it has its own believers and followers, some of whom are dogmatically trying to export it to other nations, even through wars. So secular societies' freedom from dogma is not a reality.

Dear Mazen,

By "Muslim nations" I mean different nations with a Muslim majority. We should work on our common interests that unites us. One of these common interests is the pursuit of Islamic values, which has enriched our societies throughout centuries.

People become Iraqis, Iranians or Egyptians by being born in Iraq, Iran or Egypt respectively. You cannot decide your nationality. So, there is no honour (absolutely no honour) in being an Iraqi, Iranian or Egyptian (though it may have implications).

Although many people's religion is determined by the family in which they are born, religion is decidable. Religion is both a system of values and a way of life. You can choose your religion based on your preferred system of values and lifestyle. You can change your religion, but you cannot change your birthplace and your nationality.

What formed the Europian Union, was Europian countries common regional interests, common values and common lifestyle.

We can have United Muslim Nations, or Muslim Nations Union, based on our common interests in which, religion plays a pivotal role.

But secular nationalism comes as a barrier to our unity and gives rise to the divisions among us. Prophet Mohammed and the "kholafa" after him where leaders of Muslim people and their leadership and the rules upon which they acted were based on Islam. If the prophets had acted upon your advice we would have no religion to be followed by people in a secular society as you suggested.

You wrote: Iranians "are as much an enemy of Arabs as the Israelis". This is a very good example of poisonous ideas promoted and encouraged by those who are afraid of Muslims' unity.

And what do you mean by being an "Arab". Being born and raised in an Arabic speaking society perhaps? Centuries ago Iranians wrote and to some extent spoke Arabic. Did it make them Arabs? By your own standards we do not have such thing as "Arab Nations". In Iran, we have Persian speaking, Kurdish speaking, Turkish speaking and also Arabic speaking people. You may call them Persians, Kurds, Turks and Arabs, but they are all Iranians.

Take Care,
Your muslim brother,
Ali

Ali, therer is no such thing as a "muslim nations" Islam is a religion and does not form one single group or nation of people. This is the thinking of backward people and this is why the Arab world will remain under occupation in Palestine and Iraq. Secular thinking is not "western" or "eastern", It is simply democracy where people vote and pick their leaders and are not ruled by religious figures. thats all. you can still be a Muslim if you want in a secular system, but if its not secular what do you want? You want an Islamic system? What's that? Like Iran? The Taliban? The brotherhood in egypt? Or the Saudi regime? Also remember the Arab nation has many different people other than Muslims. What about the Christians in the Arabworld? They are also arabs. Iran is a Muslim country but not Arab and they are using religion to expans their influence. They are as much an enemy of Arabs as the Israelis. Keep your religion to yourself and do not bring it into politics. That is the only way to move forward.

What befalls on us (the Muslim nations) is due to divisions among us and pursuing secular nationalist stances surely gives rise to these divisions.

extremely poisonous writings of Layla Anwar, for example, illustrates how destructive this kind of discource can become. Just take a look at this and judge for yourself:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m55622

One thing I did learn is that the author is an Arab nationalist, but not an anti-imperialist. Concretely, his advocacy of "a single, non-politicized, International standard of democracy and Human Rights" is empty rhetoric that serves imperialism.

Now as far as who are the real human rights abusers – I would like the reader to be the judge of that….

http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/the-human-rights-abusers/