Usama & 'Mohamed MALLECK, Swift Current, Canada': A couple of points:

It is incumbent on Muslim countries to replace the regimes. To be sure, foreigners can (and do) impose regimes. But the oppressive regimes that now rule almost all Muslim countries has been the norm for hundreds of years. In other words, it is not the fault of the 'West', and it is incumbent on the population of each country to replace the regime. After a while, all a foreigner will do is work with the government, whatever it is. To give an example, the 'West' cooperated with the Soviet government, simply because it WAS the government.

Another point is that majority Muslim countries have a long tradition, that carries into today, of oppression of other religions. (Yes, Christian societies also went through that stage, but have overcome it). (I am not even considering Saudi Arabia). I did not get the sense from either of your posts that you expect non-Muslims to have religious freedom; I only saw a hint of expectation that as long as non-Muslims 'behave', they may exercise their religion. With all due respect, that was the attitude of the Ottomans (and to an extent still is in Turkey); the result of course is that the Ottomans lost most of the Christian areas, and the Turks eliminated those that remained.

Evidently, the Erdogan model is the ideal. That he is now ready to find a compromise candidate to Abdullah Gul as President is also very eloquent as how much Islamic practice can be as tolerant as the message of the Holy Quran and the pratice of the Prophet (p.b.u.h). What should be noted with Erdogan's approach is that he does not rely on a "shura" -- Council of Islamic experts --- to rubber stamp decisions that he would have quietly taken in an authoritarian fashion for the 'shura to' propose and approve publicly. The enormous abuse of power that, for far too long has been impunitively shoved down the throats of the peaceful Muslim Umma is the notion that the Ruler of any Muslim country is, somehow an Imaam-ul-Mujahideen-cum-Ameer-ul Mu'Mineen (Leader of the Believers and of those who struggle in the name of Allah). It is implicitly claimed that, since Quranic teaching is that "The best among you is the one who is most pious", this wisdam can be turned on its head to assert that: " The one who rules is the one who is the most pious and therefore the best among you." That is how religion is instrumentalised by corrupt rulers such as those who , right now, are readying to purchase 20 billion dollars' worth of weaponry from those who have invaded two Muslim countries (at least one of them illegally) and by even more corrupt, satanic imperialists who, as M.J. Akbar recently reminded us in a WAPO commentary, had, in the run-up to WWI, proposed to Ibn Saud the idea of a Southern Caliphate to counter the Norther, Ottoman Caliphate. Ibn Saud wisely refused then. After the Iranian Revolution of 1979, they kind od half gave in to the seductive notion, and that is how tens of thousans were sent to fight 'godless communism' in Afghanistan and inherite 9/11 and its hellish sequels.
Erdogan, Allah's name be blessed, is ready to accommodate a fair measure of Kurdish aspirations, is modernising while being wary of "westernisation' that does not fully respect Islamic values, is seeking peaceful development with West and East as friends and --- why not? ---let them all embrace Islam if they feel it is a succesful model, or let them be as they are if they are satisfied with themselves, provided they don't bully others, don't instrumentalise their religion or our religion to divide us between Sunnis and Shias and provided they realise that the are completely free to pursue happiness, but ina non-predatory way.

When it comes to the political future of the Muslim world, there is no reason for Islamic parties to coelesce to the authority of the current crop of dictatorships and corrupt regimes that oppress the Muslim world. Islam inheritly demands the highest standards in morals, ethics, and principles in governance.

The Prophet Muhammad (saw) IS the model ruler and his state was the pinnacle of ethical and moral conduct. No amount of "power sharing" or 'compromises' can give credibility to evil, corrupt, despicable regimes. Rather, folks that seek to protect their own greed, power, corruption, immorality, indecency, and otherwise unethical ways seek to force Islamic parties to compromise. Islam has a very rich textual and traditional culture of high ethical and moral governance. The Prophet (saaw) regularly gave all of his wealth to refugees, orphans, the needy. In contrast, Muslim regimes are the worst, killing refugees, forcing the needy into crime, and pilfering the assets of orphans, not to mention lists of terrible deeds. Most rulers have 100s of millions in personal wealth stashed away in foreign accounts.

As well, the Muslim world is composed of dozens of worthless tiny nation states too weak to provide for themselves, dependent on foreign aid, foreign trade, foreign protection. And foreign powers use these circumstances to control the rulers and the people. Islam would reunite people with ideas rather than race or nationality, combining resources and potential to advance all people equitably, rather just one tribe, or one family or one elite clique. Folks miss the true potential which Islam offers to the Muslim world. They are caught up in bias and ignorance of the best which Islam stands for, and may Allah open your eyes to the Guidance.