it was probably under 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph, that the term caliph came into use

as a title of the civil and religious head of the Muslim state. In the same sense, the term was

employed in the Qur'an in reference both to Adam and to David as the vice-regents of God.
After them the title was borne by the 14 Umayyad caliphs of Damascus and subsequently by the 38

'Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad, whose dynasty fell before the Mongols in 1258
Dynastic struggles later brought about the Caliphate's decline, and it ceased to exist with the

Mongol destruction of Baghdad in 1258.
(britannica 2002)


khurrum,

"Hazrat Umer-bin-Abdul-Aziz (RA) has been regarded as not only true Muslim ruler but he is also

coinsidered as Hazrat Umer Sani, in Islamic history"

one person in these many centuries was proved in historyto be worthy of such a title . , what

about the others who followed caliphate and accomplished family based kingship in islam ?
in history of dynasties of muslims, there are so many black spots. that if we ,somehow ,attempt

to erase these with good words, it will only blacken more.

Good gornment as envisaged in islam consist of following things..

God's government , which means God alone rules , and we ,as human beings ,at best can be his

vice regents, orders of rulers are ultimate , we will not speak from mouth of God , but God will

speak in our mouth his dictates.

caliphate work under Gods commands,
and he is wel versed in Quran and hadith
theodemocracy , and not democracy ,not dictatorship , not kingship ,not aristocracy.
tenets of quran and sunnah are unchangable constitution of muslims, every law we make should pass

test of these two.


basic princple

adl

shura =consultation

freedom of speech , and right of expression
promote good and stop evil

creed, color, race, hereditary has no place in it. most rightous is most acceptable in eyes of

Allah.

ruler should be elected from will of the citizen .

judiciary and executive are separted from each other , before judiciary even calipha is another

common men.
where as in kingship ,king is above law. and furthermore kingship as envisaged by omyad and

Abbasid is illegal on more than two grounds
1. it doesnt confirm with will of people ,and people can not even speak what is truth . principle

in kingship is whatever king speaks is final word.
2. it is hereditary based ,and not virtue based so there are chances that ruler would not be

rightous.
3. they may or may not be well versed with Quran ,and hadith. where as caliphates must be.

as regards caliphate, consultancy is not the only way to select a leader as in caliphate , people

can vote in favor on a census basis and the other is based on selection by elite of learned

scholars , both ways possible , if we trace it in four caliphs of islam

Khurrum, with all due respect, you makes it base that islamic system was well in every form ,

while that of pakistan democratic system doesnt go well with country , and on that assumption

you move on to prove that it is pakistani system which has failed, because it is

democratic(people should not have right to vote according to your openion) ,
then you propose that islamic system has (inherent) good system of governance , now i dont think

your points about islamic governance and democracy are correctly laid down and further more

your proposal for class of intellectuals is even more vaguely prescribed.

pakistani people aren't satiated with respect to even their basic rights.

first is that people of pakistan are not happy as their problems are not addressed properly

like people who live in a country needs first of all proper care of three most important things

1. physical needs that is say it should provide shelter , food , health , clothing , and

prevention of ones life , in recent urbanization , our basic needs have increase to many more

things like provision of electricity, building of roads , shools , and many more to name .
2. mental needs that is to say it should provide us with system of education which causes

deveoplment of our reason and higher faculities of mind so that we reason correctly and arrive

at truth by ourselves with the help of our reason
3. spiritual neeed , spritual need has been without question , most essence part of nature ,in

many forms , our morality and buildup of character is traced back to how much we are cultured..

khurrum.
"When he was dismissed and Mr. Mueen Qureshi took the charge of undertaking prime minister, the

new prime minister revealed that how the economy of the country had been 'plagued' by yellow

color by such projects as yellow cab scheme as well as by the motor-way project"

we would believe on words of muen qureshi if we know that he is not another person elected by

unfair means, or that he was speaking these truths about nawaz sharif while being himself in

perfect harmony with truth values. that nawaz sharrif manipulated public in his favor by yellow

cabs and motor way thus crashing economy of the country and empty slogans . If nawaz sharrif

real acts are counted as his cheatings with people , it is quite possible that mueen sharif being

on the same position was defending himself by accusing another,which is what we usually do. we

always blame the other person to give ourselves way out of bad situation. is it not ? further

more when was the time ,tellme, when our economy has flourished ? temporary booms do not

constitute part of stable economy.
further more it is debatable topic if his yellow cab scheme , motor way scheme brought havoc to

economy , and exploited public openion. while theirs ,did nothing to economy and nothing to

public openion.

your refutation for nawaz sharifs government is grounded on the fact that common man doesnt know

about issues of government and therefore they are not able to judge for themselves whereas

leaders can manipulate them for their vested intrests. so, there should be government of

intellictuals who would know how to address problems of peoples.

Although i do not say that leaders dont mould public openion in their way yet ,public knows about

loopholes about government , in government of people ,people know about government. in government

of intellectuals ,intellectuals know about government.
our media is not only example of our strong openion about which government should be setup,who

should be elected and be in power ,it is also living example of our concerns about our country .

our critiscim which is directed day in and day out on heads of state, where was this possible in

kingly states ?.

So ,bro , with due respect, you fail to realise contradiction in your statements, you say people

do not kow about working of governement therefore they should be expelled from it, they should be

not be allowed right of vote. since sayer(khurrum) of this statment is also a part of people. if

people do not know about government how can they know that it should be changed ? and if some of

these people know that government should be changed ,that means, people already know that

government should be changed.

example sited that of driver which says that since driver who drives his truck has no knowledge

of government .would be very much tallying with the fact if truck driver really didnot know about

government .

government is the ultimately for business of the people , and people do not know their problmes

,therefore they should not either know their business thus unable to address it to rulers .
let us consider this analogy.
some one has headache and he proceeds to doctor for addressing his ailment , doctors after

diagnosing his problem , says that he needs some rest . he needs to avoid couple of irritants for

example alcohol, caffine and other beverages and perhaps he might also advice him to catch on

the last bit of lost sleep to allay his anxiety. If this helps , he would say that doctor is

good, and he has knowledge of his disease. if doctors prescription doesnt help patient ,he might

be reffered to another doctor or might be later on diagnosed as having brain cancer,which is

incurable ,and therefore now doctor can not do any thing.
in this example doctor may be likened to a person called a intellectual and patient who is

ignorant about his disease and just accepts advice of a doctor .now in a state there are few

doctors and many patients.(few intellectuals and many common people)
this example on the face of it , seeems quite logical to disprove democracy and that

intellictual should be allowed to rule for they know how to diagnose. and ignorants must be ruled

for they have to have their diseases treated .
but there are few loopholes in this examples too.
first, doctor, who knows about the disease , doesnot know the person who has this disease so,

patient has to come to him for his ailment ,if patient doesnt come to doctor, doctor wouldnot

know from all his knowledge to actually locate the patient and treat him , therefore , it can be

concluded that before knowledge of doctor, patient knew about his disease though in a narrowest

sense. yet , not in very narrowest sense as to be ignorant of his disease.
second, doctor knows about the disease ,yet who takes care that while treating disease of a

patient he doesnt break code of morality ? who knows if doctor interferes with his private parts

and abuses him ,or might even pluck out his kidney as has been recently shown in media .
and moreover doctor who has all the knowledge about the disease , and patient who is totally

ignorant about his disease.ARE there not chances that doctor would charge more,bein the man in

authority? being one to diagnose disease.
[ it is very much clear from this another analgoy, when things are in surplus their prices

decrease and when they are in scarcity , prices increase, if doctors are all knowers of disease

and patients all ignorants of their problems, that would mean that patient has entirely to rely

upon dcotors directions and has to say yes to charges of doctor for we aim to preserve our life

first .doctor is saviour]
and even if we exclude all these loopholes ,there is yet another problem, he may be of high

prestige and knowledge but doesnt know every thing about every disease. he may not even know all

things about one disease. and supposing for the sake of argument ,even if he knows every thing

about every disease, doesnt give him right to reason correctly , he may err,like other human

beings.
and, doctor might consider that every one other than doctor is patient ,therefore ill,which is

reasoning on wrong lines.

right of vote should not be granted to every one but to selected few, those selected few can vote

but can not be elected themselves. there is again a contradiction in it.
question is whom would they elect ? and intellictual or a common man ?
if they elect a commoner ,that means intellictuals are voting for a common man who doesnt know

about his problems(for a common man doesnt know about governmental issues as proposed) and yet it

is even more difficult for him to know problems of state .
but ,here i would grant that you didnot mean a commoner when you wrote down about selecting a

person for high level.
let us assume those one thousand people select a person who is intellictual. now here is inherent

problem too. if they select an intellectual who is not from his elite of intellictual , that

means justice was not done to him when he was not included in their elite. on the other hand if

we say that some intellictuals are not in group of intellictual ,which for me is absurd to

consider ,but for the sake of argument , i would lead it . then every one from their elite would

like not be in his elite for who doesnt have passion to solve problems of state amongst

intellectuals? each one ,indeed would like to help people solve their problmes.and in

effect,desire to be a leader .




idea of intellictuals is vaguely defined .


even if we remove those illogical fallacies from the the theory that intellectuals should be

given right to go in government , even then idea of intellectual is not explicit

Plato in REPULIC defines criteria for a philosopher king thus :
starting with his basic training from childhood ,consisting of music , stories , gynastics in

later years upto 20 year. this is first state. at this stage he still passes through another

phase , from then onward he becomes auxillary and a soldier and learns in knowledges like science

, mathematics and psychology for another ten years

After that those who are elible for being philopher kings go another rigorous stage of

understanding philosphy and mathematics and psychology .
at the age of thirty five years they are eligible to become philospher kings and will not fall to

worldly desire ,for they are no more controlled by their desires but by dictates of reason ,

passions , spirit and appetities being under control of his reason which reighns supreme .
but they are denied right of property and family. question could be asked , why even after thirty

five years of training and hardships they are still denied right to property and family ownership

? is their reason not able to see difference bw allurements of passion and right path still ?
what was in his mind when he didnot entitle him to family life and property ? was he foreseeing

that if such things came in life of a philospher king ,they would engage most of time in family

matters and less time he woud be able to spent on people . yes ! if philopher king kept property

, it would be necessary to define how much property he would keep , for if he should keep least

property , it would be said of him that powerfull person in state is not powerfull enough to

accumulate wealth , and if powerfull can accumulate wealth , he would accumulate more than any

one in state , for if reasons rules supreme it should be paid supreme . no ? its quite logical .




(this critism is not directed cos i have personal grudges against you. i have just tried to highlight few important aspects in ur reasoning. i respect ur writing skill.)