Dont Worry Democracy is Here!

[fatman17]

The Puritans from the Mayflower had none of those issues, or solved them in short order. (Of course some of them, like nukes, weren't even possible back then.) The difference between America's excellent performance compared to Pakistan is that in America, especially Yankee America, democracy is a bottom-up affair, organized first locally, then regionally, then nationwide, whereas Pakistan is a state ruled by an elite and its "democracy" is mostly a trickle-down affair.

Democratic institutions established without democratic values in both the populace and the elite tend to be flawed and unstable either because the elite crafting them isn't committed to the cause or the populace isn't alert enough to any shenanigans that may be taking place.

At the point where the situation becomes intolerable, it may be beneficial to craft a new system. Decent electioneering and honest ballots at the local level, ignoring totally any objections of current politicians, to supersede by popular and undeniable legitimacy the old system. Once local democracy is established, then a constitutional convention to expand the new franchise to the regional and national level. The superior legitimacy of the new system being so evident that the old one throws in the towel or fades into obscurity.

right - the democratic system in the US works for its citizens, it cannot work for for the citizens of Iraq, afghan or for that matter pakistan. leave that for the people of each country to decide - why force it on these people when they dont want it! - democracy can have different meanings for different countries!

 

[SQ8]

You are always welcome my friend... I always maintain that discussion is the way forward for the world... Why cant we all Americans, Africans, Europeans or Asians, sit down and discuss the issues... This is of utmost importance in America and Europe today than any time before where evil people whose hearts have nothing but hate towards Muslims have been trying to stifle all debate... Sadly Chogy, you and I can do as much as a man can in his individual capacity... the elites and governments in the west have their heads stuck up their back side and see nothing of the misery of the world... It is hoped though that with responsible consideration of the problems that face all mankind, many people will come to the conclusion that real co operation amongst nations is possible and the world has enough resources to provide comfort to everyone... We are always hoping for a better tomorrow...

Wish you a good weekend!!!

Unfortunately.. the elites of most Muslim nations have their heads stuck up in a similar fashion.
And evil men arent restricted to the west...
The difference in hatred though is similar yet distinct.
Most western critics spew hate towards Muslims from comfortable condo's and BMW's.
Their hatred sparks the likes of the man who burned the Quran in times square..
It is quite likely he was simply a red neck out for some fun.. but it is equally likely that that man too is burdened with taxes.. a disintegrating family, friends lost in Afghanistan or Iraq.. and finds no other channel to express his anger except at Islam.
Most critics from Muslim Majority states are also in comfortable positions.
The person burning the US flag on the street is usually unemployed, tired.. frustrated.. not directly at the US.. but the his condition which is a result of US support for successively corrupt governments.
His anger at Israel..and Iraq.. is because he himself is going through hardship.. and the injustice he sees done to people whom he considers his brethren by religion is fuel to the fire of desperation inside him. He is however cajoled on by people with otherwise pristine white beards and folded bottoms.. crisp arabic pronunciation and a whole heap of Scripture based injunctions..
yet this man will head back in a luxury SUV, have a hearty meal.. and probably commit the same sins as his counterpart in the west..albiet with a public "Bismillah, Astagfirullah".

For those of us who are privilged enough not to worry about the next meal.. our best effort against the excesses of Israel(and others) and the absurdity of inaction displayed by the world is usually confined to forums and civil society protests standing with plastic women. After all, a full stomach leaves very little room for motivation.


I dont support the flavour of democracy in most Muslim countries...
The elected representatives are usually the ***** of the nation.
However, the Khilafat proposed must be updated for the times.
Back then.. it was mostly an agarian society...and business and economics was more personal. The world had not "shurnk" either.
Also, the concept of Khilafat has not been mentioned in the Quran directly.. rather it was the system for that time.. a good system..
but oblescent for our days..
Just as the Hudood laws.. it needs to be updated.

I could be way off the bullseye on the reality on all of the above..
but its just one observers opinion.. based on experience walking the streets.

 

[desiman]

You are always welcome my friend... I always maintain that discussion is the way forward for the world... Why cant we all Americans, Africans, Europeans or Asians, sit down and discuss the issues... This is of utmost importance in America and Europe today than any time before where evil people whose hearts have nothing but hate towards Muslims have been trying to stifle all debate... Sadly Chogy, you and I can do as much as a man can in his individual capacity... the elites and governments in the west have their heads stuck up their back side and see nothing of the misery of the world... It is hoped though that with responsible consideration of the problems that face all mankind, many people will come to the conclusion that real co operation amongst nations is possible and the world has enough resources to provide comfort to everyone... We are always hoping for a better tomorrow...

Wish you a good weekend!!!

Some nice post, good to see someone here who puts a lot of effort in what he writes, keep it up.

 

[Solomon2]

right - the democratic system in the US works for its citizens, it cannot work for for the citizens of Iraq, afghan or for that matter pakistan -

What is the basis for your judgment? I'm fairly sure U.S.-style bottom-up democracy can work in Iraq. I'm less sure about today's Pakistan - so much promise has evaporated since independence. As for Afghanistan, I thought the U.S. made a big mistake by convincing the king to bow out in favor of Karzai - a constitutional monarch is preferable when the population is extremely diverse, poorly educated, and lacks developed party institutions.

why force it on these people when they dont want it!

Why did the U.S. force democracy upon Italy, Germany, Japan, Iraq, etc? The best answer is that ever since that has happened these countries have been much more interested in the welfare of their people than the welfare of their rulers, and it follows that such continued good welfare means aversion to aggression. The people benefit and so does America's national security.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Salams Santro...

Your observations are very astute...

There are things that can be changed of course... For example how to choose a Caliph, there are different methods and so they can all be employed...

The leadership of Muhammad saw was obviously after the Ansar of Medina heard about him and discussed amongst themselves that this man seems to be the prophet that the Jews have been talking about and waiting for... So they came and accepted him as Rasool and the Prophet saw sent a Sahabi by the name of Musab RA who went to Medina and taught them the revealed parts of the Quran... This established the ground work and the strongest tribes of Medina, Ows and Khizraj both invited Hazrat Muhammad saw to Medina... BTW the Prophet had asked 40 tribes for help before he got it from the Ansar...

2. After the Prophet saw, there was a serious tussle between the Ansar and Muhajireen... One of the Ansar wanted the successorship of the Prophet for the Ansar but the Muhajireen stepped in and told them that they need to be careful about the tribal setup of Arabia... The Quresh had the leadership role even before the arrival of Islam... So after this verbal tussle (and at one moment one of the Ansar even tried to take out his sword which Hazrat Umar punched out of his hand)... but the Ansar themselves decided to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr RA...

3. Abu Bakr nominated Umar Bin Khattab as the Caliph...

4. After the martyrdom of Umar... there was election between Uthman and Ali RA... People said that they want an Ameer who would lead like Umar RA did... Uthman said he would do this... Ali RA said that he had some disagreements on some matters with Umar RA and he would replace those aspects with his own ijtihad... Thus Uthman was elected the Caliph...

The point is that there is room for adoption in how to elect the Caliph... There is an ijtihad about this also and I see no harm if we allow all Muslims to vote and choose their Caliph... However the very first of the Caliphs cannot possibly be chosen with this method...

So just to elaborate from my own mind about what you said that the times have changed and we have to keep the reality of today in mind... I think we can certainly adopt new ideas for administration of a state...

As for the points about business and economics... Santro... There are quite a few books discussing the economics and business models that can be easily be integrated with a global model and the current reality of these things... However certain rules are absolute... like there can be no room for an interest based transaction...

The concept of Khilafah is there in the Quran... although the word Khaleefa is used in a different sense... but the concept that we are discussing is mentioned...

"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you". [TMQ 5:48]

Because the word Ma (what) is general in its meaning, it signifies that the order refers to all of the aspects of governing that have been revealed, and not merely a part of it.

"..Verily the 'Hukm'(command, Judgment) is for none but Allah.." [TMQ 12:40]

This ayah states that the priviledge of rule is reserved for Allah alone. In fact, it is an aspect of tauhid to refer to Allah for solutions to all of life’s affairs, and one of the names of Allah is "The Legislator".

"Whoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers" [TMQ 5:44]
" Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are oppressors" [5:45]
" Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are transgressors" [5:47]

Again, because the word Ma (what) in this verse is general, so it includes everything that Allah has revealed.

"O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you" [TMQ 4:59]

Allah (swt) has made it obligatory upon Muslims to obey those in authority, i.e. the ruler... This indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory upon Muslims... because the presence of the ruler is needed for Muslims to then be able to obey the ruler...

and in Shariah the ruler is called a Khaleefah...

There are a good few difference between the Caliph and other types of rulers like Presidents and Prime Ministers and Kings and Dictators... But these few points have to be understood...

1. Caliph is to be the leader of all Muslims regardless of nationality or ethnic origin.

2. Caliph is bound by the rules of Islam... If he openly engages in a crime, he is also to be punished i.e He is not a King above the law or the source of law.

3. Caliph has to be chosen and given the pledge of allegiance... Without this, he cannot claim leadership... This is why many scholars state that Yazid was not a Caliph because his pledge was taken by force by his father Ameer Mawviyah...

....

As for Hadood laws... thats another discussion and require indepth thinking... We should simply understand that Islam is a system of mercy... Under the entire 1300 years of the Islamic State only three people were ever stoned for adultery... and they all self confessed to their crime... Similarly only 20 people had their hands chopped off for theft... This is because there is plenty of room for forgiveness... Infact one of the man who confessed to his crime of adultery, the Prophet kept turning his head away from him so that he would go away but he kept coming towards his face and keep saying that he had done a sin and wanted the Hadd to be applied on him... We need to realize that these punishments are mostly for deterrence... It is very hard to prove such an accusation against someone anyway... so they will be used very rarely...

 

[fatman17]

What is the basis for your judgment? I'm fairly sure U.S.-style bottom-up democracy can work in Iraq. I'm less sure about today's Pakistan - so much promise has evaporated since independence. As for Afghanistan, I thought the U.S. made a big mistake by convincing the king to bow out in favor of Karzai - a constitutional monarch is preferable when the population is extremely diverse, poorly educated, and lacks developed party institutions.


Why did the U.S. force democracy upon Italy, Germany, Japan, Iraq, etc? The best answer is that ever since that has happened these countries have been much more interested in the welfare of their people than the welfare of their rulers, and it follows that such continued good welfare means aversion to aggression. The people benefit and so does America's national security.

after nearly 200,000 casaulties in iraq, the americans dont get the message - then whats there to say - wait till the US draw down is complete and you will get what i am saying.

Iraq is about oil not democracy.

what happened in WWII is under totally different circumstances - japan was nuked, germany's economy destroyed, italy the same - they had no other choice!

and your last sentence says it all abt american mindset!

 

[Solomon2]

what happened in WWII is under totally different circumstances - japan was nuked, germany's economy destroyed, italy the same - they had no other choice!

All three countries were failed democracies. (So was Iraq.) Democracy was there, but once the elected elite was in power they undermined democracy's institutions. U.S. liberation and "imposition" of democracy actually restored the people's right to choose that their elect had taken away.

(Lest you think that armed restoration of democracy is an American-only affair, Germany did the same thing to France when they captured the French Emperor Napoleon III in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War.)

Although it may help, it doesn't have to take a foreign invasion to improve democracy. After throwing off the yoke of the British the U.S. found the Articles of Confederation too clumsy. After a decade a constitutional convention produced the U.S. Constitution and Bill or Rights, which balances federal power, state power, and individual rights well enough that it has sufficed (with amendment) for over two centuries.

Scholars still dispute whether or not the displacement of the Articles by the Constitution was legal. No one denies that those few displaced by the new Constitution accepted their fate without resorting to armed conflict.

 

[The Clarifier]

But aren't foreign invasions to 'improve' democracy often arise in puppet governments, hence a completely false sense of democracy?

 

[Chogy]

But aren't foreign invasions to 'improve' democracy often arise in puppet governments, hence a completely false sense of democracy?

Sadly, much of the puppetry and failures stem from their era... the cold war. Full-blown thermonuclear war was imminent on more than one occasion. It is hard to describe the fear unless you lived in the USSR, the USA, Western Europe, and the Warsaw-Pact nations, at the height of the tensions.

Both the U.S. and the USSR used proxy states to wage war. The Cold war wasn't cold by any means. It was a world-wide war of political ideologies and will. And many countries suffered, including the main players, the US and USSR. US blood was shed mainly in Korea and Vietnam, but also many minor "brush-fire" conflicts. USSR blood was shed in Afghanistan.

I personally despise so-called "nation-building." But there were sound examples of it between 1945 and 1955, with the resurrection of West Germany, Japan, and Italy, from the ashes of war, and the U.N. defense of South Korea. After that, it got dirtier, and despots were propped up by both sides, to the detriment of their citizens.

It is possible to "install" a truly benevolent and wise leadership + system in place of a brutal one, but too much can go wrong; life-long enemies will be made regardless. As I said, I don't like it. Armed conflict should be sharp, short, get out, and only as a last resort.

 

[SQ8]

Salams Santro...

Your observations are very astute...

There are things that can be changed of course... For example how to choose a Caliph, there are different methods and so they can all be employed...

The leadership of Muhammad saw was obviously after the Ansar of Medina heard about him and discussed amongst themselves that this man seems to be the prophet that the Jews have been talking about and waiting for... So they came and accepted him as Rasool and the Prophet saw sent a Sahabi by the name of Musab RA who went to Medina and taught them the revealed parts of the Quran... This established the ground work and the strongest tribes of Medina, Ows and Khizraj both invited Hazrat Muhammad saw to Medina... BTW the Prophet had asked 40 tribes for help before he got it from the Ansar...

2. After the Prophet saw, there was a serious tussle between the Ansar and Muhajireen... One of the Ansar wanted the successorship of the Prophet for the Ansar but the Muhajireen stepped in and told them that they need to be careful about the tribal setup of Arabia... The Quresh had the leadership role even before the arrival of Islam... So after this verbal tussle (and at one moment one of the Ansar even tried to take out his sword which Hazrat Umar punched out of his hand)... but the Ansar themselves decided to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr RA...

3. Abu Bakr nominated Umar Bin Khattab as the Caliph...

4. After the martyrdom of Umar... there was election between Uthman and Ali RA... People said that they want an Ameer who would lead like Umar RA did... Uthman said he would do this... Ali RA said that he had some disagreements on some matters with Umar RA and he would replace those aspects with his own ijtihad... Thus Uthman was elected the Caliph...

The point is that there is room for adoption in how to elect the Caliph... There is an ijtihad about this also and I see no harm if we allow all Muslims to vote and choose their Caliph... However the very first of the Caliphs cannot possibly be chosen with this method...

So just to elaborate from my own mind about what you said that the times have changed and we have to keep the reality of today in mind... I think we can certainly adopt new ideas for administration of a state...

As for the points about business and economics... Santro... There are quite a few books discussing the economics and business models that can be easily be integrated with a global model and the current reality of these things... However certain rules are absolute... like there can be no room for an interest based transaction...

The concept of Khilafah is there in the Quran... although the word Khaleefa is used in a different sense... but the concept that we are discussing is mentioned...

"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you". [TMQ 5:48]

Because the word Ma (what) is general in its meaning, it signifies that the order refers to all of the aspects of governing that have been revealed, and not merely a part of it.

"..Verily the 'Hukm'(command, Judgment) is for none but Allah.." [TMQ 12:40]

This ayah states that the priviledge of rule is reserved for Allah alone. In fact, it is an aspect of tauhid to refer to Allah for solutions to all of life’s affairs, and one of the names of Allah is "The Legislator".

"Whoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers" [TMQ 5:44]
" Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are oppressors" [5:45]
" Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are transgressors" [5:47]

Again, because the word Ma (what) in this verse is general, so it includes everything that Allah has revealed.

"O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you" [TMQ 4:59]

Allah (swt) has made it obligatory upon Muslims to obey those in authority, i.e. the ruler... This indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory upon Muslims... because the presence of the ruler is needed for Muslims to then be able to obey the ruler...

and in Shariah the ruler is called a Khaleefah...

There are a good few difference between the Caliph and other types of rulers like Presidents and Prime Ministers and Kings and Dictators... But these few points have to be understood...

1. Caliph is to be the leader of all Muslims regardless of nationality or ethnic origin.

2. Caliph is bound by the rules of Islam... If he openly engages in a crime, he is also to be punished i.e He is not a King above the law or the source of law.

3. Caliph has to be chosen and given the pledge of allegiance... Without this, he cannot claim leadership... This is why many scholars state that Yazid was not a Caliph because his pledge was taken by force by his father Ameer Mawviyah...

....

As for Hadood laws... thats another discussion and require indepth thinking... We should simply understand that Islam is a system of mercy... Under the entire 1300 years of the Islamic State only three people were ever stoned for adultery... and they all self confessed to their crime... Similarly only 20 people had their hands chopped off for theft... This is because there is plenty of room for forgiveness... Infact one of the man who confessed to his crime of adultery, the Prophet kept turning his head away from him so that he would go away but he kept coming towards his face and keep saying that he had done a sin and wanted the Hadd to be applied on him... We need to realize that these punishments are mostly for deterrence... It is very hard to prove such an accusation against someone anyway... so they will be used very rarely...

Good points again.

The election of a new khalifah by nomination may have been valid back then since unlike most of us (whom I consider unbelievers compared to the sahaba) the choices of the first two caliph's were generally based on pure intentions and goodwill..and for most cases the choices were the best.
In current times.. the idea of nominating your successor would be a little too much to digest for the population unless the outgoing khalifah was a very popular one.
Otherwise there would be serious political ramifications for it.
One could think of something like the papal elections albeit modified to include not just men of religion but men and women from all branches of society.
I am no fan of popular vote since in my view not everyone should be entitled to a vote, simply because many due to their lack of education and exposure to the outside world are more gullible to false promises and oratory displays.

Taking the whole problem of starting with a new Khilafat in Islam, it will be a difficult one. What will be the Khalifa called?
Will he be a Khalifa of the prophet? The prophet has left his wordly abode. and that state that was Medina no longer exists.
Is he to be a Khalifa of god? (Something the Queen considers herself as)
Or should he(if such a scenario arises).. pledge his khilfat to the Imam Kaaba?..in my view.Something that may legitimize his rule and avoid awkward accusations.


I despise the whole concept of interest.. Its like a sword on the neck of morality and ethics.
Its sole purpose is unethical and lazy profit...
Whether the newer concepts of Islamic banking are a good alternative to it is another debate.

My critique of the Hudood laws currently in vogue has less to do with extra-martial or pre-marriage adultery(common in almost 70% of Muslim populations now).
Rather the misuse of Hudood in sexual assault cases..
I believe that with the advent of DNA tests and other forensic advances. The concept of Shahadah needs to be changed.
A positive DNA match of a rapists fluids should be taken as shahadah.
Verification by the test conductor should complete the formality of the human witness.

I am however a staunch advocate of the theft punishment, albeit backed up by a sound investigation.
The psychological impact of a hand or foot cutoff in one person on potential criminals is undeniable.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Yes... I also agree with your point of nominating a successor like Abu Bakr RA did... From my understanding there are a couple of points in this, one of which you have already mentioned... that Umar RA was obviously the best or at least one of the best to be nominated... But more importantly perhaps what needs to be considered is that people willfully gave pledge to Umar RA... It was a nomination that the people willingly accepted... When Ameer Mawviyah nominated Yazid, people were not willing to accept it and Mawviyah tried to bribe them and plead with them but people were not giving him support so he then forced them and the historians have written that he ordered two soldiers to stand behind the important Muslims with their swords drawn out and if they did not agree to give pledge to Yazid, their heads should be chopped off... That is not a nomination rather oppression for obvious reasons...

We should also remember that Umar RA when he was attacked and was about to pass away gave a few names and told Muslims to select their leader from amongst them and then the list was reduced to Usman and Ali RA... This list did not include his son Ibn Umar who many Muslims considered would have been a worthy leader himself!!!

I also agree with your point about giving the vote to all Muslims... I quoted that opinion from the scholars that I have studied who have put efforts in reviving the thought about the functioning of the Islamic State and Unity of Muslims... My understanding is that such a system where all people choose their Khaleefa simply cannot happen in the initial return... So we are talking about a time perhaps after a few years of establishment where the state works to improve the economic and social matters of Muslims, focus on education and also to instill responsibility and Taqwa (genuine fear of God) in people... Go down hard on corruption and theft... perhaps then we have a generation that can choose their leaders wisely... The way these scholars have explained it is that the election for Caliph can be done by shortlisting candidates from the council of representatives... In this manner common men who have worked for the good of their people can be presented to the citizens for their choice of the office of the Caliph...

But perhaps most importantly... this discussion is in the context that we can certainly adopt new methods to administer and develop statecraft...

Another example that occurred to me was the adoption of records system that Umar RA adopted after the conquest of Persia... Umar used that to record and compile the names of the soldiers in the standing army and that helped in setting up their fixed monthly wages... Often we Muslims forget that there is no restriction for Muslims in using latest science, technology and administrative advancement within our religion...

As for not restricting the election of the leader to the scholars well I think we should actually EXCLUDE all scholars from such election because Islam is not a theocracy... there is no such thing as clergy in Islam... the role of scholars is to teach and advise Muslims rather than rule...

But yes of course a scholar if he has good administrative capability can also become a representative of Muslims and leader as well... I believe in Fiqh (jurisprudence) there are a few conditions which a leader for Muslims should have... These include being Male, Muslim, Just, Free, Sane and a few other qualities that I cant remember at the top of my head now...

The new Caliph can be called Ameer Ul Momineen which is a good enough title... He can also be called Caliph because simply speaking he is the leader of Muslims to rule Muslims according to the justice of Islam... I think there would be no problem with his official title... and as Muslims we are all to act as Godly people inviting people to God and his mercy and message... The Caliph is the leader who then organizes all the affairs of Muslims... which sadly speaking in our current reality are completely messed up...

Legitimacy of the Caliphate has one yard stick that we can measure it with... that is... is the Caliphate representing Islam... Are Muslims able to live in peace and harmony in such a state... Are the poor and the orphans and the widows being looked after... Is the Caliph a decent man ruling with Justice... Are Muslims being looked upon by the world as a super power that strikes fear in the hearts of unjust and evil people...

or perhaps you are asking about the very first of the new Caliphs? Well he has to have the support of the powerful amongst the Muslims... I said this before... I believe that the Armies in the Muslim world are the key to this revival... Our uncles and cousins and brothers serving in the armed forces need to look at this system, study all the books they can find about it, so when the time comes that Allah rewards us with the blessing of a good leader, they can keep check on the leadership and correct him if he deviates from the right plan... I say this again and again... We will never be able to come out of the current sad situation and reality unless we start talking about completely changing the system that we are stuck in today... At least we should have an open mind for this alternative... It served Muslims very well for hundreds of years as a whole, there is no reason to think that it cannot serve us now...

The pledge is a two way process... We give pledge to the leader that we will obey his leadership and he gives us this pledge that he will serve us as our leader... It is like a contract between the Caliph and the Ummah... Neither parties should break this pledge and if they do, the contract gets broken... So the Caliph does not have to pledge to the Imam of Kabaa...

There is a hadith about Mahdi which states that Mahdi will bring out the standard of the Prophet saw... This flag is in Istanbul at Topkapi Palace today... This is why some scholars say that the Caliphate would come back from Turkey again... God knows best...

Oh come on Santro... How can you say 70 percent of Muslims have had pre marital ***... True we have a lot of problems but I would say rather the opposite is true of such a thing... Most Muslims actually have good Jazba about Islam... and even if someone has indulged in sin, as long as there is no evidence against them, we cannot go around punishing people on mere suspicion...

Your point about Hadood on women who are punished despite suffering Zina Bil Jabr (****) is the very sad reality that we should change... Hadood in the absence of the rest of the system of Islam has become a tool for the powerful to oppress the poor and for the strong Zalim to destroy the weak Mazloom...

I dont know if DNA can be used in the courts as evidence... I have nt looked into it in detail yet... If it is not accepted, perhaps there could be a reason for this like avoiding someone being framed for a crime they did not commit... I shall inshaAllah ask my mentor about this issue... A quick search however brought up the following link...

DNA Analysis as Court Evidence in Criminal Cases | IslamToday - English

Masalam

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

A point about economic system is that if we simply remove interest from our system, we will become very isolated as a nation from the rest of the world... This is why I think such an experiment can only be done in a state where there are plenty of resources which can survive direct and indirect attacks from the enemies of Islam... The economic system is however more complex... There is also the issue of Gold and Silver backed currency... The abolishment of all oppressive taxes... Declaring energy resources like Gas, Coal and Oil as public property and all its revenue going into matters of public support instead of private bank accounts like what happens in Saudi Arabia or all the rest of Capitalist countries... Ending import duties and taxes on everything... Utilizing all usable land for economic output, Kharaj and Ushar funds, proper implementation of Zakat (savings tax) and importantly developing the most powerful, fearsome and courageous military in the whole world...

Yes Pakistan Army... there is always room for improvement...

 

[SQ8]

While I agree on almost all accounts..
I beleive your assessment of the Pak Army's leadership is overrated. Dont get me wrong.. they are excellent in their capacity as military leaders. But when it comes to ruling the roost.. they are not the choice I would choose.. and its leadership isnt all pious.. I too have close family in all three branches..and the police...and most of the top tier is professional.. but few even consider a khilafat.. the bottom tiers are usually picked by these men...
Being a Strict Muslim has no relation to being professional.
However, here is the million dollar question.. who is better than them in this pot of misfits.
Well.. the answer may be found if we look into a college of intellectuals. People from the learned parts of society. I am not talking about just Scientists,Doctors,Engineers..or the like. Every person.. from every branch.. be it farming.. should be considered for a electorate to find a suitable person amongst them.(people from Showbiz..not journalism are exempted.. I have seen that world first hand.. its ****** to the extent I would not like to elaborate).

Also.. the 70% I refer to have in some form or the other been exposed to zina.
I wish I could rephrase that to zina.. and its varieties. intercourse isnt the only form of it.

The pledge for the Caliph is one that every President, PM and other loon in the government takes..not too much good has come out of pledges.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Well I think Santro, you need to consider the changing dynamics of the world... We have already changed from a nation of America Lovers to one of America bashers... Our country is in a mess and getting worse with each passing day, and the younger generation have been living in the information age for almost a decade and a half... The other day Abu Zolfiqar was saying that even his little niece was talking about "the system"... These are all signs that there is desire for change in our nation... With rapid problems emerging in the west and Capitalism badly shaken to the core in its own homeland be it America or Europe... it is not unreasonable to think that the elite within our military will also get influenced by these things... and those who are strongly opposed to change or corrupt in their hearts and deeds will eventually retire...

Furthermore... and this also deals with your issue of our sinful state in the present... consider the fact that the Sahabi who got the title of being the "Sword of Allah" Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed was a bitter opponent of Islam and even killed many Muslims in battle (specially Ghazwa Uhud)... but then even his heart turned towards Islam and he sat before Hazrat Muhammad saw repenting what he did in his life as an enemy of Islam... Today we remember him for his bravery and military strategy which he skillfully employed against armies many times bigger than ours... those of Rome!!! So anyone can change for the better... and no matter how sinful we are... I have seen that Pakistanis have tremendous Jazba for Islam in their hearts... It just needs a proper direction in my opinion to become fruitful...

So even though we are a nation of sinners, we should remember that there is room for repentance... I think one of the reasons for our sinful situation is because we are frustrated and confused in the matters of deen... There is little advice and understanding given to us from our parents and the so called scholars... People made Islam as a means of gaining votes to be able to become MNAs and MPAs... Then there are other groups who have tried to make everyone grow a beard and go to Raiwand and even claimed that politics has no place in Islam... turned our deen into mere rituals and worship actions... then internationally the things associated with Islam have been shameful and negative... Be it the antics of Taliban during their rule of Afghanistan or terrorism of Al Qaeda or tyranny in the form of Saudi Arabia where women cant even drive a car or Theocracy in the form of Iran... all of this will naturally put people away from life of devotion to God as a Muslims... Everyone wants to make a quick buck and survive another day...

The most suitable person for leadership is the one who understands what the true role of leader is... He needs to understand the road map of this change... and of course be a man of great character... In my mind however, the system is more important... Every country has had good and bad leaders... but the ones who lead the world like the US and the west in general, are those who have strong institutions... This is something which I have been saying to some of the Turkish Islamic leaders that we will fail if we only talk about the promised Mahdi appearing and sorting out our mess (although I do not doubt that one man with power can do great good if he uses that power in the righteous manner)... but rather than focussing on good people, let us tell the Muslim world about the good system itself so that they can see its beauty and make demands for it... Let us learn that we have the right to sue our leader if we have proof against him... that we have the right to find out where he has gotten money from... we should know how much the Caliphs are allowed as salary for their role as leaders... that we cannot allow agriculture land to remain unused for more than three years, or allow oil and gas to become privatized... This is regarding your point that taking pledges does no good at the end of the day... Obviously in this system the kind of dogs that have become our rulers, nothing they say can be considered as truthful... with the kind of rulers that we have today in the Muslim world... we dont really need enemies

Lastly... who is better? Well I think I told you before that the hadith about the return of Caliphate as recorded in Musnad of Ahmed states that the Caliphate will return upon the method and mercy of Prophethood... After all Muhammad saw is a mercy to mankind... So although my faith in man cannot be a hundred percent... it is hundred percent in the messenger of Allah and what he has told us... The next Caliphate will not be like that of Ummayads or Abbasids or even the Ottomans... it will be on the method of the Prophet saw... and this is what all Muslims wants... leaders like Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali RA...

I would be happy with a Khaleefa like Haroon Ur Rasheed even...