Imran Khan along with other PTI karkunaans are playing simply dramatic role, the scenario is unlikely to overcome the anger and self-obesity, which is not favorable for the nation. Whereas some media channels creating anarchy while others are watch dogs of the state. Does anybody can measure the loss caused by Azaadi March? Well Azaadi march seems to be an inside job i.e a conspiracy by Chaudry Nisar Khan under the supervision of some military generals, to threat Nawaz government. However, the political instability and Bizarre tactics by Imran khan and his co-workers shows ambiguity. Pertaining to clarify Ik's vision of being Prime Minister, thus he could not manage to serve even in single province. I'm a follower of Imran khan but i still sustain my self for current government, Since the intervention of Nawaz Sharif's government, we calmly observe progress in not only one but every sector of the state. Meanwhile law and order situation at karachi was far better than last two decades, continuous growth in economy, decrease in dollar, construction work in 100 percent progress, power plants inaugurated, foreign trade goes up, easily available business visa, revival of economy. By looking all above aspects current regime, Azaadi March or TUQ can be an other diplomatic cold war initiated by Americans to again destabilize the economy of Pakistan.

There lies a major point of concentration, Islam works more like a 'cause' then a simple set of 'religious beliefs and rituals'. It would require a highly strong 'will' and 'determination' to stand before a cause because people can 'lay their lives to protect their cause' . The reason for why it works like a cause as well as religious belief is our holy prophet (saw) and his disciples proved it by making achievements, this is unlike other religious beliefs whose prophets just 'preached' and any achievements were made by 'lateron followers' . So I think we have something bigger then what European Christians had when they 'secularized'.

forgot to add the word 'morals', 'religious beliefs, morals and rituals' .

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Just as I said, that reform can't come from within the system, it has to be forced on it from the outside. I'd say the separation of religion and state will be forced upon Pakistan by world events, but that may take a very long time, maybe even a century

You know there's a concept in evolution that fits your words perfectly. According to natural selection, that gene survives which is the most well equipped for its OWN survival. Remember, its OWN survival, not the survival of the organism in which it resides. Of course, mostly a gene's survival depends on the survival of the organism, but that is not always the case.

The same applies to politicians. They may be well equipped for their own survival, but their survival is harmful to the country (the organism in this case).


.

Hahahah! I would be fine with voting for sexy people

Yes, but a charismatic person wouldn't necessarily be able to run a country. Its funny if you think about it this way, you wouldn't hire a person to run your factory just on the basis of his charisma, but a person can rule a country on that basis

BTW, many people claim that even though democracy is flawed, there is no system that's better and personally, I find it hard to refute this point because democracy is the only system that is self-correcting. All others will rapidly disintegrate into total dictatorship.

True, but there's another force at work: Time. In his book, Richard Dawkins talks about a changing Moral Zeitgeist and while we may not agree with Dawkins about many other things, here he is absolutely right that throughout the world, values and morals are moving in a particular direction (they are becoming more liberal). The rate of change is slower in some countries and faster in others and there are temporary reversals, but over a long period of time there IS change and this change is in one particular direction.

Personally, I feel that he's right. Observe how this change is slow in Muslim countries and there are reversals such as in Pakistan, but even then, on a longer timescale, say a 100 years, we can see that he's right.

I'm sure that in the long run, maybe over 100-200 years, the moral Zeitgeist would have shifted so far from traditional beliefs that the mixing of religion and state would become impossible. It maybe sooner, maybe later, but it will happen.

Muslims need to get their act together. The world is changing and we must change with it. Time stops for no one and those who try to stop it are crushed as it passes by.

Yup, internal rebellion, natural disasters and external aggressions have been major causes of shaking status quo and this pattern has beem repeated throughout history of rise and falls of civilizations, the only difference today being that the civilizations are so big it requires equally bigger level of catastrophe . I agree world will try to force something and such attempts will meet resistance, eventually fit traits for survival in this environment will triumph . Such competition can also result in some new trait for the world. So perhaps possibilities are endless I guess and we may not focus in only 'one possible outcome' .


How can the 'selfish gene' survive if the organism doesn't, the selfish gene cannot reproduce and spread itself . But yeah it's true that 'selfish genes' exist, and they exist in 'every organism' so somehow nature balances 'selfishness' by making it 'tough for survival' . Adaptation is a vital trait, the 'selfish politicians' will soon adapt with the reality once nation gets a direction . Right now we are in dire need of direction I suppose.



I agree charisma alone is not enough, which is why I mentioned Pakistani people build stupendous expectations from charismatic personalities . Perhaps the whole nation is inept and we cannot blame just one particular class , they come from us. There is an old saying 'jaise log waise hukamran' . But evolution doesn't stop so perhaps there is always a ray of hope in the end, but evolution is a long natural process and a lot of it depends more upon the environment then our 'wishes'.

This is the biggest question in my mind as well, what is being resisted in this culture??? Democracy certainly has excellent features and everyone claims to desiring that, then why people often come out complaining about democracy here??? Personally I feel 'free market' that promotes 'economic elitism' under democracy has something to do with that.

Yes it's right that morals and values change with changes in environment. The basic reason for existence of these is to ensure survival, so changes in environment would definitely affect the survival strategy and in turn affect moral and values as well. But continuous tilt towards liberal side would perhaps depend upon the forces pushing it to that side's power and that the environment continuously support it. Ofcourse massive advancements in technology and weaponry has reduced the risk of big wars so 'traits of manhood' are less favored and economic reliance on others in turn favor liberal values, but will there be no problems and 'liberalism will never turn tyrannical' is still a question. Don't forget we are also witnessing a reversal in Russia, which is not a 'Muslim country'

BTW despite not agreeing with the cause Dawkins promotes, I have remained his fan

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

You're right, in fact, I thought that Pakistan would at least partially secularize as a result of the destruction caused by the Taliban, but the opposite happened! Clearly the death of 80,000 is not enough to shake the status quo. This also shows that there is a tendency in Muslims to shift the blame for religious violence to non-religious factors and a reason for this may be the fact that Muslims power was at its greatest when the Muslim states were theocratic, while the Europeans were already partially secularized when at the height of their power.

Some genes manipulate the individual to behave in ways that increase the chances for their own survival, but not the organisms, a case in point being the mating behavior of some mosquitoes; the mosquitoes are killed in the process of mating


Not only Pakistanis, others do it too, just like Americans did with Obama. It happens all over the world, but Pakistanis and Indians take personality worship to a whole new level.

Exactly. As Obama said, we live in a world where the tide of war is receding. The world may be chaotic, but it is way less chaotic than the 20th or 19th centuries (and the 20th century was less chaotic than the 18th, with the World Wars being an exception). Another important factor is the intermixing of people from different parts of the world. I feel that in the long term, this trend will continue and 22nd century Earth will be a more tolerant, peaceful and prosperous place.

Another thing that Muslims are ignoring is the rapid empowerment of women. The full and total equality of men and women is now inevitable, the question is not IF it will happen, but WHEN. I'd say women in Western countries would have attained economic equality before the century is up, although they will have to wait longer for political equality.

How so? Wouldn't the divide between the rich and poor be much sharper in a dictatorship?

Russia has always been weird haha But this is a small reversal, the BIGGEST reversal in the 20th century was the communist era in Russia.

So have I. May not agree with him regarding my personal beliefs, but the man's logic is sound and his arguments clear and convincing. Not to mention his wit

Yup this is exactly what I was trying to point out, you found the right words before me . There is another fact that even liberalism is inherently problematic, and Muslims feel they can save the world from its evils . And democracy pushes far too much towards liberal side, so beside 'free market' liberalism is perhaps another reason why it is resisted . I will be back shortly, this discussion is going interesting

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Yes, a major problem with Muslims is that they do not understand the concept of change. They don't understand that what worked for back then may not work now

Will be waiting

Ok so here goes, in brief without touching a lot of details (because earlier I had wrote a detailed post but bijli chali gayi). It is a fact that in today's environment evolution favors liberalism in Western world, but it doesn't in Muslim world. Although there is 'resistance to old tyranny' in Muslim world; we still don't have the environment of western world to accept liberalism, at-least in its 'present shape'. In short it can be perceived as 'perhaps Muslims are not yet ready to break the strong bondage (of kith and kin, bloodline etc) and compete with each other in daily lives', so what evolution favors in Muslim environment is 'religion' because 'religion favors that bondage'. But yes, if the current global trends continue and 'liberal powers' are successful in maintaining their hegemony over the world for sometime then yes there is a probability it will start taking roots, but it won't be without chaos and violence. During all that period there is always a chance of 'reversal'. Remember Muslims, Pakistanis included, still largely rely upon 'kith and kin' for 'protection and well being', not upon 'civil institutions'. Any democratic government that forms in this environment is bound to look for political support from those 'groups' and thus 'the groups maintain their political dominance over the state' and you have 'corruption, favoritism and nepotism'. So if a democracy can't promise 'freedom' and individual liberties granted by law are still 'controlled indirectly', it keeps facing challenges because 'change is not really felt'. The biggest mistake is 'bundling global liberalism with democracy' and not allowing 'liberalism to evolve naturally'. In Pakistan it appears 'democracy' simply doesn't have the 'guts' to stand before groups .

This is a dark side of liberalism, you can easily notice it promotes individualism and loneliness and isolation are an increasing problem in the western world . There are some other dark sides to it too, but let's keep it to this at-least for now . Muslims, perhaps, are vary of that. Liberalism has indeed produced great results in West, but today, atleast as I feel it, the western world faces greater internal problem of 'excessive liberalism'. Individualism and Collectivism are both parts of human nature, at times one is preferred over the other, depending upon the environment and survival strategy, so there have always been attempts to balance the two but somehow it only remains for some time and 'excesses take place'. Moreover liberalism has all the elements of going 'tyrannical'; for example the United States is leading the liberal world, and it has comparatively 'higher wealth gap', is comparatively 'more religious', 'aggressive', has a comparatively 'higher crime rate', 'drug abuse', 'gang culture' and is 'exporting liberalism' (just like a dictatorship would initiate wars when it has grown 'internal problems'). Iraq war just shows that elites in democracy can do something even if the public doesn't support it. This would be another dark side perhaps.

Talking about Pakistan, recent wave of urbanization and propaganda have indeed caused decline in old trends, indeed there is less racism and group oriented thinking and liberal thinking has a chance to come to surface now, moreover militancy and extremism have put a dent in 'sectarian status-quo', but largely the state apparatus is the same and so is politics. So the result of all it is sheer non-sense in shape of Azadi and Inqalab . At social level frustration and irritation caused by 'disagreement' has increased, and it can be noticed at economic and political level as well. It can cause a new phenomenon, because evolution is still favoring religion here since there is a huge 'skill gap' which can allow safety for 'liberalism' (that's the most convenient term I could think of, for example an institution that can give safety to liberalism is judiciary but the 'judges are not mostly safe').

Well what is called 'dictatorship' these days is infact a form of political system that favors 'strong groups'. Usually, when gone bad and astray from real purpose (for example continuous monarchy has such tendencies), the kind of tyranny that comes is of political in nature, not economic; such as 'not giving rights' or inflict 'harsh punishment' or 'not allowing expression of views and protests for political reasons', or in more broader terms 'taking total control of individuals for favor of groups'. Typical of 'dictatorship' is 'controlling by use of force' and 'enforcing certain morality which confirms to group behavior'. Wealth gap is a phenomenon of 'capitalist societies'. If under a 'totalitarian regime' the environment is depleted of resources you will usually hear 'trumpets of war' as it attempts expansion, or 'revolt' if the elites become too tyrannical for others and comfy for themselves . Dictatorship would go to the 'extreme opposite side of liberalism'. When there are lots of 'strong groups' in the world you will have increased 'big wars', 'urban violence' is a phenomenon of 'liberal world'.

P.S. all these are my personal thoughts, not well researched so please correct me .

In simplest of terms, perhaps Muslims are helpless.

P.s. forgot to mention above that Strong groups are usually organized under a ideology, somewhat carrying elements which are called 'totalitarian'

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Research says that higher income inequalities lead to higher social, psychological and health problems. So brother Kashif you are right on that one.

UK was an agricultural society ruled by landlords. Industrialization introduced capitalists to the parliament and then the capitalists decide to invest their newly acquired wealth in the whole world via colonization. I might add here that in England the residents are the 'subjects' of the Monarch and not citizens, so I don't think England is a democracy as some people erroneously believe.

All US presidents are descendents of a single royal English. Did you know this?
http://wakeup-world.com/2011/07/04/a...dents-related/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lish-king.html

So US is not a democracy as people think.

Question is do we have an ideal democracy in the world?

I think there is a parallel in history where the 'ideal' theory was practiced without understanding the actual practice. I do not know what i have said but what i want to point out is follows.

(coming back )

excerpts from the following:
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/...wentyEight.pdf

"First, his- numerous writings were translated into Latin and were circulated and conserved, while his original Arabic texts were either burnt or proscribed due to the antagonistic spirit against philosophy and philosophers. Secondly, Europe during the Renaissance was willing to accept the scientific method as viewed by ibn Ruhd, while science and philosophy began in the East to be sacrificed for the sake of mystical and religious movements. In fact, he himself was affected by this conflict between science (and philosophy) and religion. Religion won the battle in the East, and science triumphed in the West."

so the west decided to go with the scientific method and got rid of Religion because they were so fed up with christianity. That naturally lead to secularism. which means that secularism was an 'accident' and not a result of conscious deliberations. Why I call it an accident is because Ibn Rushd never prescribed secularism. His efforts were only to defend philosophy from the attacks of the theologians of the time. What he was trying to say was that the way to God is not just through theology but though philosophy too:
"Having established that rengion has apparent and inner meanings, symbolic
for the common people and hidden for the learned, ibn' Rushd endeavours in
his book: al-Kashf `an Mandhij al-Adillak to find out the way to God,
i.e., the methods given in the Qur'an to attain to the belief inn the existence
of God and to the knowledge of His attributes, according to the apparent
meaning, for the first knowledge that every reasonable man is entitled to
obtain is of the way which leads to the belief in the existence of the Creator.
"

So Ibn Rushd was trying to find God through reason. His methods were formulated to find God through reason and not to say him farewell as the west did! Secularism through reason is a different topic. All i want to say for now is that Secularism was an accident.

Same is the case with democracy. US and UK re not true democracies as is known but the theory came to the East just like Ibn Rushd's theory reached the west . the west got secularism, the East has now Democracy.

It is in the East that democracy will find its 'theoretical' truth, if any. Rest I am tired .

Nice discussion by the way. Goes over my head most of the time . but thanks to both mhmmdkashif and Hassan bhai.

Found the right word 'controlling equal opportunity' . Typically a 'dictatorship' would not allow competition between individuals of the group in order to maintain 'group cohesion'. Ofcourse it can go to excesses at times and look good at other times

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.