The Egyptian people collected 35 million signatures for a recall. That is more than is necessary here. Again, if they so believe they are oppressed or the president took what was not given constitutionally ( and he clearly did) he can be legitimately be removed. This the people's doing and no nebulous "we" did not impose the mood that brought so many thousands to the street. If the US had that recipe they would use it on Iran and China!

There can only be one of 2 possible starting point, some presuppositions about the nature of the human individual and personal autonomy or that the human individual is merely a component in a grand scheme, ie a religious perspective where as long as they affirm God  and that he instill in them the power and the authority to craft laws. There can always be no perspective ie anarchy but that in itself is naturalistic and produces formal rules if let to itself.

You will have to decide where in this scheme modern Muslim jurisprudence gets its force and I say that in general it is its belief that the traditions, life of the prophet, the necessity to preserve these first two and lastly precedence as long as it does not violate the first two.

Again, sharia without Islam is like the ten commandments without Yahweh. I know of no modern Muslim scholar who cites a  secular engine as a basis for the law. From Across history, when they do, they always will affirm secular understanding is actually the will of god working naturally but it cannot maintain itself except and until trimmed periodically  with keen reflections from the Koran. Again, no secular basis for sharia exists as far as I know. Lip services to democracy is always given and most Muslims believe it is the a good way but Muslim nations all reflect on religious interpretations for practically every legal precept.

I would love for you to illustrate for me a natural rights theory in islam...that is like lifting yourself up by your bootstraps.

Obviously President Obama disagrees with you on this.

I doubt Obama will disagree with me as to the right to remove despots. He disagrees with the military removing the president as they did probably believing compromise or methods with less options for the society falling into chaos could have been tried.

The above further illustrates my argument that it is an incorrect perspective from an incorrect premise. But your last statement is what I have been asking Mr. T to elaborate on since he made the remark. So far he has not done so.

And that is why from the beginning I was careful to limit my argument to this legitimately democratically elected official and not to any official. Regarding this particular case, the President has stated that the removal of Morsy was not right. Never a good idea to cloud matters up with irrelevant examples. They do nothing but create confusion. 

Now you are talking nonsense. There is no other premises available except where they source the basis for force in law. It has to be a natural rights setting or a divine rights setting. Each can have sub species of expressions but it is either a natural source or a religious source.

I do not care what you ask of Mr T. If you can claim there is a misunderstanding in the how Sharia is expressed in general you ought to clarify. Otherwise, it is as with the Koran and its special pristine linguistic elegance that resists non Muslim from grasping its core truths in the face of cognitive science that states  if a thing has meaning it can be expressed in any language.

You are partaking in magical thinking as usual. But even that has a beginning middle and end in its story telling. Where does Sharia begin in your mind?

You are still sadly mistaken about what shariah law is no matter how much you choose to believe that it is religious. You stating that I am talking nonsense has as much merit as you saying that today is Sunday. You may not care what I asked Mr. T to do but unfortunately you picked up the discussion from that request so while you may not have intended it to be that way, your participation originated from that request which makes it impossible for you to separate yourself from that simple request.

While I can discuss this matter with competence, it is not my responsibility since I did not open this door. It was opened by Mr. T and then collaborated on by you so while you may not have intended it, you became a willing participant when you picked up the discussion. But I am more than fine if you gracefully exit the discussion. You have a lot of knowledge. Obviously Shariah law is not one of them.

I never said I am a scholar on Sharia. I said I am fully capable as anyone who took first year philosophy to speak to the nature of justice and that is about foundations in the law. I also said, I know of no natural rights Sharia ;legal exponent  but can list you a dozen who all say it is sourced in the religious tenets of Islam and cannot be separate from it.

To this point you made no effort to clarify this profundity you alone seem to know and I have missed. But I dare say none such exist except the reality of what are available...either it has a natural rights basis or it has a religious basis. These can come in Crayola 64 colors or 8 but they are reduced to being in only one or the other of  two the only available shapes of the boxes.

pack up ur bags and go then. i doubt any muslim country will take u. and u would b shit scared to guh too. All u ppl who critical of America, should be shipped to the Taliban, wherever, they can be found. Or u fellas r the talibans in America.

So you saying that because someone criticize the US for an action he/she should get out. I have  news for you Most people would have to leave.  And where is tis Muslim country you talking about

That is because the burden is not on me to elaborate on any statement made by others and I don't intend to make it my burden. Mr. T made a comment and he has shied away from elaborating on it. If he feel free to shy away, why should I feel obliged to elaborate for him.

Your writing requires an English translator.

Can I remind you guys that in the last month the prime minister of Australia was removed and replaced by someone else without a general election taking place. The same happened to Margaret Thatcher in the UK. The prime minister is the effective leader in the UK and in Australia.

But within their constitutional provisions.  However, on Egypt, the coup was justified.

I wouldn't call the overthrow of Morsi a coup. The military put itself between the two opposing factions and had to eventually intervene in order to avoid a bloodbath at that moment in time. Neither the interim president and prime minister are generals, which would have been the case if it was a military coup.

Good point T.

The protestors were the other half of Egypt who did not vote for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) leader Morsi. [And let us not forget that the hastily-called elections did not give enough time for the non-MB parties to get up and running after 30 while the MB was a powerful organizing force. These protestors called for the ousting of Morsi and as their numbers grew pro-Morsi supporters rallied for a clash. The law-enforcement arm - the Police- and the defense force both had to do their duties in this brewing civil war.

Morsi got undone by politics. Even his own compadres in the MB were at odds with him as he sought to put himself above the law in confronting the pro-Mubarak judiciary.

The US gave him an out by asking him to appoint a new Prime Minister and other key legislators, while he kept reduced powers awaiting the constitution changes. He thumbed his nose at the US which was the go-between him and the Egyptian military.