"One person"

Like I said I've been in the islamic world for a decade. I've studied Arabic/Turkish music in Iran, Egypt, Turkiye, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. It's not like "I met one muslim". I have spent about 20 hours per week for the past decade teaching Syrian and Yemeni refugees in Istanbul and Ankara.

Please point me to a democratic, secular islamic nation. Just one? As far as I can tell this only existed for the brief period from when the Turkish Cumhuriyet was established until Ataturk drank himself to death. Most are kingdoms run by rich tribal warlords.

> Please point me to a democratic, secular islamic nation. Just one?

Indonesia and Malaysia, for two.

Indonesia is not an Islamic nation even though a majority of its population is Islamic.

Malaysia is, as you stated, an Islamic nation. It is not secular, however.

How is Indonesia not an Islamic nation when now several of its provinces are legally ruled by shariah law interpreted by mullahs, not by representatives or leaders elected by the people, and when the government makes federal (parliamentary?) laws enforcing various muslim beliefs and laws?

Aceh is a weird exception in Indonesia. They were only intregrated into Dutch Indonesia in early 20th century and always had a tenuous relationship with the various Malay states and a very strong political and cultural connection with Turkiye (being a vassal of the Ottoman Empire at various times in it's history).

Also, the parts of Indonesia I've been to (mostly Java) feels much less "Islamic" on the ground than Malaysia. Yes I see hijabs fairly often, but to me at least, Islamic motifs seemed much more prominent in Malaysia and even Singapore than Java.

Indonesia is not an Islamic state, but it is an Islamic nation. These are different. Malaysia's constitution guarantees freedom of religion, making the state secular despite the official religion.

FWIW, the structure of your reply implies that "secular islamic nation" is a contradiction in terms. Maybe that was intentional, but if so it works better as a reply to GP.

By this logic such a nation does not exist, as you can’t be both Islamic and secular at the same time. You can say the same about Turkey as Indonesia, it’s a secular nation even though the majority of its population is Muslim. I think the OP comment meant to ask about a secular democracy in a country where most people are Muslim. And in that case Turkey could be an example, even though Erdogan is fairly dictator-ish, we’ll see how their elections go this year

It should go without saying that you cannot have religion be part of a secular democracy.

Turkiye has not been a secular nation for a very long time. Go read hurriyetdailynews.com, a moderately pro-government site. Currently the government is trying to make it illegal to be gay by attaching it to a bill that supposedly protects the rights of turbanli (covered women). The full text of the bill practically Turkiye into every other shariah nation.

Also read up on "Imam hatips", which are failed religious school the government forces us to pay for. Nobody wants to go to them, because the educational quality is garbage, so they actually started forcing students to go to them.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's democracy could have been the most inspiring democracy the world has known, but the democracy itself died within 10 years of him. I think we're on our 6th constitution since then.

During the 2 year "state of emergency" after the coup, he rewrote the entire constitution.

Currently there are over 250 politicians in prison from the HDP (Kurdish party), and EVERY major name in the CHP is being prosecuted, or has been convicted of "insulting the cumhuriyet" in the past 3 months.. This is the most democratic nation in the ummah. :(

> you can’t be both Islamic and secular at the same time

Yes. There is a difference between an Islamic nation and a nation of Muslims.

Currently, there is not, as all nations of muslims are ruled by a-secular, illiberal dictators.

> all nations of muslims are ruled by a-secular, illiberal dictators

This describes none of the Arab monarchies. Neither does it describe Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan. (Indonesia and Malaysia are political science’s Rorschach tests.)

Secular dictatorships in the Muslim world are the exception, unless we’re using highly unorthodox definitions of secularity or dictatorship. (Secular government in Muslim-majority countries is common; most are not dictatorships [1].)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

“Show me a theocracy that’s not theocratic! Checkmate!!!”

Indonesia? Really? Malaysia, maybe, but Indonesia? I'm sorry, but you are completely misinformed on this.

Shortly after the 2004 tsunami, Aceh province, the hardest hit area in Indonesia, converted to Shariah for their "legal" system. I could go much further, but right there shows that Indonesia is by definition NOT secular.

If you can go much further, that would be appreciated because this comment was not substantive or constructive.

How was this not substantive?

I gave you a very solid example of how in one large province of Indonesia, democracy and the rule of law were entirely removed and put in the hand of islamic "leaders".

> Just one?

Honest question, how does Jordan fare in democracy?

You should ask the king that question.

From my limited experuence, Jordan seems to be the closest example of a democrcy in the Arab world I know. Sure, it is by no means democratic when compared to Western democracies. But they do not use totalitarian and draconian measures to surpress the population on a regular basis. Nor is Jordan an outright relogiously motivated chauvinist regime. And compared to other, more democratic nations like Tunesia or Marocco, Jordan is extremely stable. Which is a value in itself.

But this is just my impression as an outsider.

Plenty of democratic countries have monarchs. Most of Europe still has monarchs, because they're constitutional monarchies -- which is a fairly common democratic form of government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

What matters is not whether there is a king, but the details of how the specific powers are allocated between the different parts of government. Sweden is also a constitutional monarchy, with a king.

Two of European monarchies are also peculiar in that they are elective: the Vatican and Andorra. (The Vatican is also technically a theocracy)

I get your point but isn't there a built-in inconsistency in term "Islamic secular state"? I. E. Would a secular state by definition not be Islamic (or Christian etc)? Or do you mean a state with predominantly Islamic population that is democratic and secular?

Without getting into the semantics it's valuable to note that Wikipedia has a list of religious democracies, both historic and contemporary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_democracy

Note that several of these are Islamic.

You're correct that Western style democracy and secularism contradict Islam. We as Muslims don't look at those notions as measures of prosperity.

As if that is by choice? Not foreign interference?, be it from the east or other Arab countries.

And I've lived there for longer, and I speak the language and I continue to know people and travel there frequently. My points still hold.

> Please point me to a democratic, secular islamic nation.

Western style democracy and secularism are contradictory with Islam. To us, it is not a measure of success or prosperity. On a side note, there aren't really any fully Islamic states today - practically all of them have remnants (or more active engagement) of Western colonization and influence. I'm sure you're aware of how things have been after the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate.