Wednesday, February 08, 2023
12:08 AM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > CSS Compulsory Subjects > Essay > Essays

Essays Essays here

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Monday, July 24, 2006
I M Possible's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: I I I I I I
Posts: 1,688
Thanks: 0
Thanked 95 Times in 53 Posts
I M Possible will become famous soon enough
Arrow Future of Pakistan's politics

Future of Pakistan's politics

Future of Pakistan's politics is blurred. Pakistan is in a dire need of democracy but does it seems possible to provide a democratic future to Pakistani people? Will an Islamic democratic government be the future of Pakistan? Even if a democratic party got the chance to rule over Pakistan, how much time it will take to throw it away due to its mismanaged policies, bribary, crossroad games or whatever?

The very crux of the questions is that Pakistan's democratic polititians were exiled from Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. Now they are out of Pakistan but they are not out of the scence. The day they came to know about the upcoming elections in Pakistan, they just started struggle to renter the country in one way or other. They are even ready to enter through legal routes but alas they don't have the courage to face the court cases that are flying in the face of them. They have sown the wind so they should reap the whirlwind.

Charter of Democracy seems very much optimistic and ambitious but its only a hope if it would be practical otherwise ......... ! It may be only a legal document to renter the Pakistan. It may be a fulldressed rehercal to decieve Pakistanis. Pakistani leaders make hi-fi promises before elections and show cupboard love for Pakistan. After the elections if they are elected then they just do what comes on their minds. Well we are just surmising because only God knows better whats hidden behind the charter.

Thats sure that if a person lose his/her image once, then it become quite difficult to attain the same position back. It is not easy to prove oneself before the world. Pakistani people had faith in their polititians since day one. Pakistanis keep on voting for them and they listen to them at all. But what the polititians were gifting us in return? What they did doing for us? They just plundered Pakistan, they sucked the blood of Pakistanis, they played with the ambitions of the Pakistanis, they damn care about the amelioration of Pakistan and Pakistanis, etc.

Pervaiz Musharaf is not leting them renter the Pakistan even other Generals and Musharaf cronies are suggesting him to let Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif renter the country along with their charter of democracy. Musharaf has also got the chance to fish in troubled waters by keeping Nawaz Sharif and Benazir way from Pakistan. He can get the chance to win the elections. I agree that Musharaf has done something for Pakistan but he also has created some troubles for Pakistan in some way.

Keeping in view all these things, how can Pakistanis give another chance to their ever flirting politians to come up and make a democratic government? What about Musharaf? Will people have that much courage to bear military for another long term ruling over them? But one thing is sure that Pakistani people will again give a chance to somebody and would let someone rule the Pakistan. It is not new for them. They already have given a number of chances to their unreliable polititians and military men so let them do it once more.

Lets see which way the wind blows. But i think we really don't need a weatherman to know about the direction of wind. The experience of 59 years and the history of Pakistani politics is telling us clearly that Pakistan's polical future is insecure.

Well i sent this essay once but i dont how it was deleted from the essay list. You know i also got nice response and got a question about the issues i discussed..... Its so sad to know that my essay was deleted without my permision or even asking me. Anyways i am uploading it again. I hope it wounld not be deleted again. .........

Thanks
Regards
__________________
The world is my oyster!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Khuram's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: Medal of Appreciation
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In Thoughts!
Posts: 338
Thanks: 0
Thanked 21 Times in 16 Posts
Khuram is on a distinguished road
Default

I think this essay was mistakenly deleted for reason of just duplication of same topic and post in discussion forum. This thread still exists in discussion forum but there it does not contain my comments which I had posted here in essay forum... So it was just because of apparent duplication...

And since your few initial posts show your outstanding analytical abilities so I had asked for your comments regarding the issue of comparison between 'democracy' and 'good governance', and had asked whether you consider them as equivalent or separate/independent entities, and that whether our aim or goal should be 'democracy' or 'good governance'...????

Thanks!
__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Tuesday, July 25, 2006
I M Possible's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: I I I I I I
Posts: 1,688
Thanks: 0
Thanked 95 Times in 53 Posts
I M Possible will become famous soon enough
Smile True Islamic Democracy

True Islamic Democracy

Hiii Khuram

Hope you must be great there. I sent this reply once but it disappeared. Ok no problem at all. Now i am sending it again. I would like to say a bundle of thanks for admiring my writing skills and taking notice of my previous writings. Secondly you took notice of a minute thing in this essay of mine. Well i must say you are right on your behalf because when i read this essay i just find it okay but when somebody else read this essay he/she must point out this mistake. Actually i was writing this essay in a flow and i write it at once. I just rechecked and sent it.

Let me make it clear that i still agree that Pakistan is in a dire need of democracy - true Islamic democracy. I wrote it somewhere in the 1st paragragh. But i criticised Pakistani democrats and politicians because they are not providing Pakistan a true Islamic democracy. Either good governance or true democracy whatever we want for Pakistan cannot be faith of Pakistan through these politicians.

Like, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto worked to bits for the sake of Islamic democracy by throwing away Ahmadis from calling them true muslims. He kept the pace with modern world too but he also failed. There are many others who have set examples. Behind every failed politician and failed democractic government there are hands of other polititians and his own party people too. So we can just cross our fingers and hope that a day will come soon when Pakistani politicians will think about Pakistan and not about fighting against each other.

We are in need of a strong polictician/democrat who would be able to resolve social, economic, political, ethical and religious issues on national as well as international front. That polititian must be a man of caliber and who would be very active to respond to the world in a best way.

Thanks
Regards
__________________
The world is my oyster!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Khuram's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: Medal of Appreciation
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In Thoughts!
Posts: 338
Thanks: 0
Thanked 21 Times in 16 Posts
Khuram is on a distinguished road
Default

The recent CSS-2006 Islamiat exam included the question: "’islam-in The Mid Of Contemporary Manangements And Political Systems-possesses Its Own Polittical Management And Political System. discuss"

I, in my answer, had not equalized any form of democracy with Islamic political system. I wrote that Islam has not specifically prescribed any particular form of institutional set-up as its political system. First Caliph of Islam was chosen by the top Muslim leaders after consultation among them. Opinion of general population was not considered or invited in this process. At this stage, some Muslims had shown their disagreement with such a process and they had insisted that there were no need to choose any caliph, as the true 'Imam' i.e. Hazrat Ali (RA) had already been nominated by the Prophet (PBUH)). This difference of opinion however could not get any popularity at this stage and so Hazrat Abu Bakar Saddique (RA) was 'chozen' by the consultancy council of top Muslim leaders, as the first Caliph of Islam.

So originally, two alternative institutional set-ups i.e. first where Caliph was to be chozen by the consultancy council of top or most compitent Muslims and second idea related to the pre-nominated system of Imamat.

The first system continued up to the fourth Caliph of Islam i.e. Hazrat Ali (RA) and the same period is regarded in Islamic history, as the most effective political era.

After it, Caliphate was taken up by bano-Ommayad who turned up the institution of Caliphate into family based dynasty. The same system of family based dynasty was later on also adopted by Bano-Abbas as well as by the Ottoman empire. Contemporary Muslim governments have adopted many other forms of institutional set-ups like monarchy as well as democracy.

Then I argued that since Muslims have practiced different forms of institional set-ups in different phases of history, so we may not consider only one particular form of institutional set-up as 'Islamic' and other forms as 'un-Islamic'. For Example, Bano-Ommayad had brought about important change in the institution of Caliphate by converting it into a family based dynasty. It is also true that many of Ommayad Caliphs are not regarded as true Muslim rulers in the Islamic history. But at the same time, it is also true that at least one of Omayyad Caliphs i.e. 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. Now see that the existence of a true Muslim government could be possible in such an institutional set-up which was different from the original one. It means that true Islamic government can exist in different forms of institutional set-ups. What is needed is not any particular kind of institutional set-up but true spirite and essence of Islam.

Now come to modern democracy:

Democracy is such form of institutional set-up which subjects the legitimization of the authenticity of government to the approval of general public opinion. Secondly, this form of institutional set-up limits the tenure of every new government to just few years. So under democracy, a government would be considered to be 'legitimate' if it is officially backed up by the approval of general opinion. Secondly, even a publicly popular government would come to an end after the expiray of its tenure. To be remain in office, it again would have to be re-elected by the general public. One of the underlying idea is that under this form of government system, every government would work for the betterment of general public because if it would not do it, then it would not be re-elected by the general public after the expiry of its tenure.

This system is successfully functioning in some countries but in other countries like in Pakistan, this system has been subject to successive failures. My question related to the comparison between 'democracy' and 'good governance'. Under democracy, level of 'good governance' is measured in terms of level of general public approval to the policies and decisions taken by the government. Under dictatorship, level of approval of general public would become irrelevant and more emphasis can be given to the vision, goals and objectives of the government. Such aims, visions, objectives etc. may or may not be in hormany with the desires of general public. Secondly there can be difference in the dictator's perception about the betterment of country and that of general public as a whole. In such case, the dictator may do very sincere efforts for the betterment of country and may even get some achievements also but still may not find any support by the general public.

On the other hand there can be such a democratic political rular who may all the time think about getting more and more popularity among general public and even at the cost of larger interests of his country. Here I want to give the example of Nawaz Sharif's tenures of governments which were fully characterized by media campaigns and propagandas about any real or even ficticious sincerity of the personality of Nawaz Sharif for the general public. He, in his tenures, had initiated such projects and policies whose aims were not more than just to inspire general public about the sincerity of Mr. Nawaz Sharif for them. He launched Yellow Cab scheme with not any such motive as to provide any strength to the economy of the country. The underlying motive was very superficial whose aim was to just inspire general public that it were the desires of a common man which were being addressed by Mr. Nawaz Sharif. People could see many many yellow cabs here and there around the country and thus could 'see' that their prime minister was so much sincere about the welfare of common man. In addition, he constructed many recreationary parks with not any such purpose to provide some facities to the citizens but with such motives as general people could see here and there many "Nawaz Sharif Parks". Electronic media, in his tenures, had been busy in broadcasting very impressive National Anthems which included video clips of Mr. Nawaz Sharif helping out the general public with his own hands etc. His motor-way project also had such ulterior motives behind it. General public had no interest in knowing about the facts and realities of the economy of country as a whole. But they were crazy of being able to have a journey over such a beautiful and vast road in their own country. So Mr. Nawaz Sharif undertook this types of projects in his tenures and he did not take any proper care of the state of economy of the country as a whole. 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. General public however did not take any proper notice of these crucial facts and realities of the economy of country as a whole. Actually there can be nothing inspiring for the general public in the boring and complicated facts and figures of the economy. They can 'see' only 'visible' aspects of the performance of country. Thus if a government successfully reduces the burden of foreign debt up to a considerable extent and then also improves the level of forign exchange reserves in the country but ... does not provide yellow cabs to common man .... general public would consider such a government as non-sincere, non-friendly and even failed or flop.

Due to such reasons, I am not in favour of democracy. General public, in my opinion, should have no direct concern with the affairs of government. But intellectuals and experts of national/international affairs and experts of Economy etc. should have direct concern with the affairs of government. This would be the true Islamic system because this system most closly resembles to the original caliphate system of Islam where Caliph used to take decisions after taking advices from the consultation council. Only intellectuals of a country can better guide the governments and only they can better measure the performance of government. Also I can see no logic in fixing the pre-determined tenure for every government. If a government is performing well then it should continue to remain in office even after the expiry of tenure because otherwise the momentum of the performance would just uselessly be disturbed. A government should remain in office not subject to the approval of general public but subject to the approval of the class of intellectuals of country. There is no need to elect so many useless MNAs and MPAs and to provide them so many lucrative facilities. Better policy should be to select lets say at least 1000 top compitent individuals who should be thoroughly aware about the internal and external challanges faced by the country. These people should act like a 'think tank' for the country. They must be able to evaluate and analyze the policies adopted by the government. They must all the time monitor the performance of the government. Only they people should have right to vote but they should not have right to be elected in elections. Only proven compitent, experienced and internationally recognized personalities of the country should have right to become candidate for elections. Those 1000 intellectuals of the country should elect only 10 or 20 most compitent personalities of the country as members of government. Then those 1000 intellectuals and those 20 elected personalities should jointly elect the president from among the 20 elected personalities. These 20 elected persons should act like the Cabinate of country. President should have right to nominate any other person from the country as a new member of Cabinate. But president should do it after consulting the other cabinate members. Cabinate members and members of think tank jointly should have right to change the president with majority vote. There should be no fixed tenure for government but government must be changed as and when majority vote of cabinate and 'think tank' members favours so. 'Think Tank' members must not be offered any lucrative facilities but they must be provided with sufficient salaries. These 'think tank' members must face stiff competition for both joining and than to remain in the 'think tank'. And it is also important that all the provinces should be represented in that 'think tank'. There should be a commity comprising of top officials of the country who should monitor the performance of members of 'think tank'...


The above is just a skech of what in my opinion should be the solution to our political problems..

But since we are a lazy nation ... so we shall wait for the time when any new system shall be adopted by the western countries ... Then we shall just copy that new system...


Thanks!

Regards!
__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????

Last edited by Khuram; Tuesday, July 25, 2006 at 10:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Tuesday, July 25, 2006
I M Possible's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: I I I I I I
Posts: 1,688
Thanks: 0
Thanked 95 Times in 53 Posts
I M Possible will become famous soon enough
Lightbulb Islam, Democracy and Good Governance

Islam, Democracy and Good Governance

Well Khuram i must say that you provided me food for thought. I read your fulfledged article and now i am compiling my words to produce a workable reply. When i was talking about Islamic democracy, the points (that you mentioned now) came to my mind but i replied myself by saying that Islam is a modern religion, it allows positive changes for keeping the pace with time so if principles of modern democracy should be added to the real Islamic democracy then we can have a real Islamic democratic government in Pakistan who would be very much able to govern the country bestly.

No doubt, the things you write about Islamic Caliphats are correct. You have sketched the true picture of Islamic democracy. But i think it was okay for those times because at those time Muslims were in minority and they were united. It was a nation who impressed others in a workable way. Muslims ruled over SA (South Asia) for long. Their rule was a lively example for the world. People had faith in them. The muslim rulers were loyal to their government, they were enthuisiastic and they had zeal and furror to fight against enemies. History tells us that the day muslims forgot the prestigious principles of Islam, their decline started.

"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people."

........Abraham Lincoln.

This is a modern definition of democracy and we should follow it because it is true to bits. As Khuram said that only intellectuals should be involved in decision making process to elect from the polititians. But i think pakistani people had already given countless chances to the polititians to rule over pakistan then why they should not be listned once more time? They always found some caliber in politicians so they offered them to govern but politicians failed due to some reasons.

This is a modern world and no government can move forward without listening to the people so they should be listened. May be they are not that much capable of electing the government but its their country and they have the right to vote. A number of countries have stable democratic governments. But they are stable becuse they are loyal to their countires. Loyality matters a lot.

For Pakistan it seems like a dream to have a functional democratic government. People of Pakistan want democracy in Pakistan because they are fed up with four military coups. But they have to bear with the situation because politicians failed to hold a good democratic government because sometimes they try to be very much Islamic and sometimes they cant hold the government properly. Whatever the case may be but one thing is clear that military rule become the fate of Pakistanis.

I will conclude by saying that other countries have decent democratic systems, if Pakistan is intrested to develop a good democratic government and if Pakistan really want good governance then it should prefer today's Islamic democracy keeping all those old Islamic governments in considerations we should built a democratic government in Pakistan with the help of modern democracy. There is nothing wrong in adopting good principles of other nations because they also adopted our golden principles to walk on the glorious road of success. Principles of Islam and modern democracy should be amalgamated for the sake of good governance in Pakistan.

Thanks
Regards
__________________
The world is my oyster!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to I M Possible For This Useful Post:
neha rana (Sunday, March 06, 2011)
  #6  
Old Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Khuram's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: Medal of Appreciation
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In Thoughts!
Posts: 338
Thanks: 0
Thanked 21 Times in 16 Posts
Khuram is on a distinguished road
Default

Well, Thanks for comments..

First of all what about those defects in modern democratic system which I had pointed out while discussing the nature of Mr. Nawaz Sharif's policies...???

I am having honest opinion that general people have no direct concern with the affairs of government. Their decisions to vote are based on slogans and propaganda type things and their decisions to vote are not based on any solid thing like any critical evaluation of personality of candidate or any solid assessment about the policies of governments etc.

Decision to vote must be based on solid analysis and evaluation. Since all citizens of country cannot perform such solid analysis and evaluation, so all the citizens should not be given the right to vote.

But at the same time, citizens have not been disregarded by me. Whoever wants to get the right to vote ... he/she must prove himself/herself for this VERY RESPONSIBLE right. I am not denying the right to vote to any one. But one must prove that one knows sufficient about the affairs of government. Only then one would be considered to be eligible to be entitled this right. This is a basic mistake which has been committed by the modern democracy. I can see no solid wisdom behind Ibraham Lincoln's definition of democracy. If I am a truck driver and my daily activities have no concern with the affairs of government then it means that I can give no solid suggesstion or proposal regarding what government should do are which policy government should adopt. What would be the role of my vote? It would be such a foolish advice which shall be given undue weitage and importance and the next government shall be formed partially on the basis of my foolish advice.

But now consider that I am the same truck driver. But now I have developed interest in knowing about the affairs of government. Now I want that my opinion also be considered in the government affairs. Then I should struggle to join the class of that 'think tank' which I have referred in my previous post. I should compete with others and should prove my compitence. Once my compitency has been proved and I have become member of 'think tank', than I will be entitled to vote in elections. Now my vote would not be any foolish advice but it would be an 'expert' advice. Government affairs are not child play and so they should be based on 'expert' advices. After becoming the member of 'think tank', I will continue to doing the job of truck driver. But in addition, now onward I will be bound to submit my 'expert' opinions regarding various governmental decisions and policies to the forum of all the members of 'think tank'. Activities of 'think tank' would be under the monitoring of the top officials of government. So if my 'expert' opinions are found out to be sub-standard, or if I do not regularly submit my opinions, then my membership would be liable to be cancelled.

Only those individuals should vote who are really competent to vote. But every citizen must be allowed to try to prove his/her competency.

In such type of system, there would be no need of ispiring strategies like propaganda, slogans... but there shall be the definite need of solid stategies like achievements of stated objectives, improvements in various socio-economic sectors etc. etc. Because members of 'think tank' shall evaluate this type of things in their analysis as well as decision to vote.
__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Khuram For This Useful Post:
neha rana (Sunday, March 06, 2011)
  #7  
Old Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Deputy Commissioner's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Peshawar
Posts: 39
Thanks: 18
Thanked 28 Times in 14 Posts
Deputy Commissioner is on a distinguished road
Post Islam and democracy

1 : Islam does not allow adult franchise system of democracy.
2 : Pakistan cant be run by following the british system of democracy.
3 : Viable systems of politics in pakistan is islamic democracy and dictatorship only.
4 : Future of pak politics is dictatorship

TIME AND HISTORY WILL PROVE THIS.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Wednesday, July 26, 2006
I M Possible's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: I I I I I I
Posts: 1,688
Thanks: 0
Thanked 95 Times in 53 Posts
I M Possible will become famous soon enough
Smile

Khuram you are right on censuring Nawaz government but in my opine, it was a democratic government which failed because of some particular reasons. Nawaz government worked out a lot for the development of Pakistan. It is visible .... ... . .. .... but we can say that it is only and only visible. It could be active and workable if he would have amalgamated the Islam and modern democracy but it did not. So there is no cry over split milk.

Pakistani people are very easy to be fooled and our politicians do it very easily as i mentioned in my essay. It is a child's play for politicians to make an asinine of people. So, i think Khuram is right to an extent if he is talking about the intelectuals to elect the government but how to ignore a colossal population? That is totally inevitable. So i am still saying that we should consider the people at least we can have their says for the sake of Pakistan.

Well Mr. Depty Commissioner might be right on his behalf but in my opine things should not be like this.
  1. First of all I think Islam is a flexible and modern religion and it allows positive changes. What if it does not allows adult franchise system of democracy, we can go for adult franchise because it is the need of the day. We can arrange adult franchise in an islamic way.
  2. Secondly, i did not say that Pakistan should follow British government system at all. I just said that democracy is needed so Pakistan can pick up good principles of British democray system or any other successful democratic system but it should also consider Islam alongwith that.
  3. Thirdly, I agree with you if you are talking about islamic democracy because it will work in Pakistan but i am not agreeing with you if you are talking about dictatorship because i am scared if dictatorship would be strenghtened in Pakistan then it would be difficult for us to move forward with the world.
  4. Fourthly, future of Pakistani politics is a true islamic democratic government who could govern it by considereing both Islam and the modern world.
Thanks
Regards
__________________
The world is my oyster!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Sunday, July 30, 2006
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26
Thanks: 3
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Versatile is an unknown quantity at this point
Arrow Directed to Mr. Khurrum ,with utmost respect.

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.)
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Versatile For This Useful Post:
neha rana (Sunday, March 06, 2011)
  #10  
Old Friday, August 11, 2006
I M Possible's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: I I I I I I
Posts: 1,688
Thanks: 0
Thanked 95 Times in 53 Posts
I M Possible will become famous soon enough
Exclamation Let me add to it !!!

@Khuram

We already have discussed your stuff substantially and have concluded it. I was waiting that you may be reply "Versatile" arguements but you did not so i would like to comment over here.

I think Khuram has tried to show a picture of Nawaz government but he could not elucidated it so "Versatile" comente on it. But Khuram is right in a sense because we all know our polititians very well. That yellow cubs or whateve might be helpful for a little part of pakistanis but we also have to consider the other drawbacks of Nawaz government.

@Versatile

I agree that every Pakistani has the right to vote. Everybody should take part in peblicite. Not a single group can take the decision of the faith of a colossal country.

It is just great to read a detailed explanation of Islamic governments. You are right to an extent but i think it is the demand of the modern era muslims to unite. For unity, Islam is the main platform. I am sure you must agree on this point......If muslims have to unite then why we are denying Islamic democracy. Islam is our platform in a sense.

Islamic democracy is pretty clear but let me remind that:
  • Islamic democracy has emerged in the 7th century. It is not a modern democracy but Islam is a religion wchich always keep the pace with time and accepts the positive changes with open arms.
  • The Prophet (PBUH) said: "No man is superior to another except in point of faith and piety. All men are descended from Adam and Adam was made of clay."
  • Islamic democracy in believes in equity. Western dmocracy talks simply about equal political rights. Through manipulation of the non-restricted freedom, the capitalists make masses their wageslave. They through money turn their states in to great and enriched masses. But Islam is high above all things. It is not allowed in Islam.
  • In Islam, no man can be lord over others merely on the srenght of a swollen purse. Islam cuts the very roots of money gathering. It imposes zakat, etc.
  • Islam ensures social justice and economic security for a comprehensive system of cheeck and balances. Islam elucidates schemes for distribution of wealth and sources.
  • Islam has also recognized right for private property. islam is also imposing heavy social reponsibily on the shoulders of rich ones.
  • All the authority belongs to one and only Allah, the almighty.

Ok now come to your elucidation .... .... ...... Well i am not denying the reality. You are right on your behalf but we should see both sides of the picture. If Rashidi and Abasi Khalifats have failed to produce good government in some particular eras then it might be their own fault that they implemented governments improperly.

In fact, Allah has provided us a proper system of Islamic government and has also allowed us to add positive changes in it according to time. Then why we should only think over the bad experiences of Islamic democracy? Cannot we think of really good examples of Islamic democracy?

You can consider that when muslims entered South asia, how nicely they ruled over SA. how nicely they treated with minorities and mojorities, all of them. Because people were very able to say their say during this era.
But again they forgot the golden rules of good governance provided by Islam and they fell in the dark shadows of decline.

It is up to us that we have to pick the good things from a system either it is Islamic or non-Islamic and then it should be applied in a proper manner. Amixture of good things from western democracy and all lovely things from Islamic democracy can produce a good governance in Pakistan.

Thanks
Regards
__________________
The world is my oyster!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pakistan's History From 1947-till present Sumairs Pakistan Affairs 13 Sunday, October 27, 2019 02:55 PM
Images of Pakistan's Future moonsalpha News & Articles 0 Sunday, May 10, 2009 02:16 AM
The Globalization of World Politics: Revision guide 3eBaylis & Smith: hellowahab International Relations 0 Wednesday, October 17, 2007 04:13 PM
indo-pak relations atifch Current Affairs 0 Monday, December 11, 2006 09:01 PM
Report of Technical Commitee on Water Resources Yasir Hayat Khan General Knowledge, Quizzes, IQ Tests 0 Monday, January 16, 2006 02:53 AM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.