Sure, any thing that helped shape the Renaissance should be mentioned ..

Regards ..

Dear stunner,
After much contemplation i have decided to opt IHC for my CE 2014 attempt, the reasons i can attribute to my decision are following:

1. The flair of subject is awe inspiring...
2. it gives us immense knowledge and this my friend is my ultimate purpose...
3. It has been very much scoring...
4. I have some subsequent knowledge of many of its contents like Moors in Spain, Ibn-e-Khaldun, genesis of Philosophy in Spain, Bait ul Hikmat of Abbasids etc...

but i have some apprehensions too that i would like to share with you and want you to ensure me that these risks can be hedged...

firstly i am afraid it can give low scores same as it did in 2010 i guess...
secondly what do you think about the pattern of the paper? will it remain the same or any change we can see in coming year exam?

and i am intending to study following books for that, ratify or make any suggestions from your side too...

History of Arabs by Philip K Hitty...
History of Muslim Philosophy by M.M. Sharif, (That i have already studied)
Morrs in Spain by Stanley Lanepoole (That i have studied twice owing to its splendour).....
Hope to listen from you soon...

__________________
Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation.
But when love is one sided, holding off is no more an option.

@ Stunner!
-
Q5. The role model for Muslim rulers may be as under:-
(i) Monarchy (ii)Khilafat (iii) Democracy
Which one is most practical and suitable to solve major problems of contemporary Muslim Ummah in the light of Islamic teachings?
-
How would you have tackled this question?
Kindly share your approach towards it.
Thank you.

__________________
I am a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it .

Stunner bro can answer this query properly...

Best form of govt may be " modified version of democracy".... as khilafat is not practicable in the contemporary era, and monarchy cannot be the ideal form of govt because it does not accommodate the institution of consultative body or shora which is the integral part of Islamic system of govt.
Ideal form of govt can be a combination of western and islamic democracy i-e modified form of democracy.

-
Thank you for your reply.
Well, i believe Righteous Caliphate system is applicable even today, but of course with some modifications. And according to my understanding, Islamic Caliphate is a system of dictatorship with elements of democracy in it.
Is this approach right?

__________________
I am a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it .

Your approach is near to the mark. but i must say :
you can't say it dictatorship because the consultative body (shura) has no place in dictatorship.
The system of righteous caliphate can only be applicable in a purely Islamic state which of course does not exist in contemporary world. Islam is not a dominant religion now a days, as it was in the era of pious caliphs. Muslim states are dependent on non-Muslim states for survival, therefor they can't adopt such a system which is not liked by their western counterparts.

I'm of a very strong view that any subject can produce high marks if one prepares it well enough .. The problem with Islamic History (for examiner) is that most of the syllabus is interlinked and if one prepares 1 or 2 topics, that knowledge can be used in answering a number of questions .. Now that may be a dilemma for the examiner, but the aspirants stand benefited .. In order to curb this issue the examiner uses some articulation while setting paper and asks questions somewhat differently .. In some cases he/she uses what I would call negative tactics and asks a totally irrelevant question from knowledge of Indo-Pak history etc .. However, in all cases the key to high marks is flawless preparation .. And that is possible by a combination of hard work and smart work ..

Your book selection is good .. Please also watch the documentaries which I mentioned in earlier posts of this thread .. Best of luck ..

I'll agree with VetDoctor here .. To me the most 'suitable and practical' way out is a combination of modern democratic and Khilafat principles .. The question almost answers half of the idea as pure Khilafat in contemporary times is highly desirable but not practical .. Khilafat demands a very dedicated following of the Ummah and that is not possible with such a divided Ummah today .. So to me a gradual evolution from Khilafat with democratic principles for each faction of the Ummah looks more practical .. Such a system would encompass the goods of both democracy and Khilafat .. And later with the process of evolution and differences removed one can predict a single Khalifa for the whole Ummah ..

I would suggest all to answer such questions and use your knowledge to produce an ideal but practical situation for each asked scenario .. Such answers depict independent thought and ability to analyze .. The good part is that one can use anything to support one's arguments in such an answer .. For example verses of Iqbal, excerpts from practices of Khalifas and modern day quotes and literature on democracy with pros and cons of both ..

Regards ..

__________________
You Have To Keep Breaking Your Heart Until It Opens .. !! Rumi ..

-
-
I got it , thank you.
Actually i had attempted this question and my stance was that muslim disunity was the major issue of Muslim Ummah today and mentioned some other issues as well. Then i put light on disadvantages of kingship and democracy finally coming to khilaaft (with modification) as the solution .
What i want to know is, i have always believed that Islamic Caliphate is NOT a democratic rule, it is dictatorship. And dictatorship is the solution to muslim ummah problems because democracy is a slow government . aur is wakt zarurat aesey system ki hai that can take radical steps on a fast pace.
-
Plus the examiner had himself put Khilafat and democracy as two separate options, means he also thinks these two are not same. When khilafat is not democracy , it definitely is dictatorship.
-
How much i am wrong in my views in your opinion?

__________________
I am a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it .

Muslims have experienced all three formats of government and results are obvious.
Democracy "seems" to be the most practical system in contemporary world but its prerequisites are not met in Islamic world. Uneducated people can not choose right people. Until and unless people don't know what is right and what is wrong, letting them make a decision is a huge risk. So decision making should be left to those people who are worthy enough to take decisions.
Khilafat is an adaptable system; we have seen during pious Khilafat that Hazrat Umar (R.A) introduced many improvements in system of government, Hazrat Ali (R.A) introduced proper police, so in current scenario many things can be adjusted.
Shura and vote of allegiance make Khilafat a democratic system.
So we need to either redefine democracy in Islamic teachings or redefine Khilafat with contemporary ingredients.

__________________
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness

Well I won't call the Khilafat system as dictatorship .. We had four rightly guided Caliphs and their way of government should be the binding precedent for an ideal Khilafat system .. Their election were democratic with the Shura choosing them and later the 'Bayt' confirming their right to rule .. Dictators are not chosen by any shura or community rather they impose themselves and they do not need any confirmation of their right to rule as they assume to acquire it when they take over ..

When one Caliph died the shura had to chose another and Khilafat was not passed to any family or kin without any consultation .. Dictators freely pass on the power to anyone they want and most dictatorships have been hereditary ..

The Caliphs were questioned for any alleged misuse of public money or property and they were bound to answer .. Even they had to appear in court to clarify if they were asked to and that means submitting to the jurisdiction of a judge .. Means if proven wrong they would even have faced punishment/penalty .. Dictators cannot be questioned and if they are, the consequences for the ones who ask too much are brutal .. Dictators do not submit to the jurisdiction of courts rather they chose their own judges to amend laws and rules in their favour .. Our Pakistani PCO example is one of them ..

There are numerous other examples differing Khilafat and Dictatorship .. They are quite opposed actually .. The problem now a days is that any sort of government which is a little different from modern democratic rules is termed as flawed or dictatorship by the West and our people simply submit to that propaganda ..

When the examiner writes/asks something and especially in analytic questions, it is not necessary to agree with him .. If you can propose a better solution than the one given in question then you must put it forward, backed by solid reasons ..

Regards ..

__________________
You Have To Keep Breaking Your Heart Until It Opens .. !! Rumi ..