View Full Version : West /Developed World Its Democracy As A Model For Pashtuns


Badlun
05-17-2010, 06:41 PM
Communism and Political Islam or religious Extremism are the other options but for Muslims generally and Pashtuns specially I prefer the westren model of democracy , human rights, liberty, liberalism, utilitarianism. equalitarianism, egalitarianism, fundamental rights , all baisc freedoms like freedom of speech, modern education, development, scince and technology, economic prosperity, wealth in private hands, free market economy, competition, western dress, no confinement of women to homes, no child labour , rule of law, strong justice system, no discrimination etc etc

For Islam only its status as a religion can be maintaned which means only beliefs in supernatural entities, prophets etc,, worship and a kind of morality. Only Quran and only those Hadith which dont contradict Quran and reason are recommendable and interpretaion of Quran that it can be adjusted with modern times is the dire need of the time. islamic sufistic and spiritual elements are also worthy to be followed.

Communism is not at all to be considred which ignores the basic human instinct of private owner ship and believes only in utopias, barbarims, brutality and blood shed.

All other ideologies like Fascism, Nazism , Anarchism, extreme Conservatism, Rexism, Utashas, Zbor are equally not worthy to be considered like Communism and Political Islam and religious Extremism for Muslims and Pashtuns.

All this I recommend keeping in mind that Pashtunwali with its positive values should not be foresaken. Pashtunwali can remain our cultrure and Islam as a religion and spiritual system.

I dont understand that why we dont accept West as our model and why dont we leave all this stuff in shape of Religious extremism and other evils. Whats bad in learning from West. All of us as indivisuals wish to be in developed countries of the west then why dont want the same west for our countries and our people?????

When I talk of Liberalism then I mean the following

(taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism))

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government.

All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

I dont find any harm if we label ourselves as Liberals, democratic etc . Its just matter of nomenclature and describing your ideology and approach in more formal and terminological way.
I believe in cultural and political relativism and even in religious relativism. All cultures, societies , religions, polity etc have their own requirements as things are relative not absolute.

Thats why with democracy, free market economy , liberalism etc I merged Islam as a religion and spiritual system and Pashtunwali as culture and social code for Pashtuns. Pashtunwali have mainly social and cultural elements but no political( except Jirga system) economic, religious ,philosophical etc dimensions. These short falls in Pashtunwali can be added from democracy, liberalism etc and Islam as a religion( beliefs+worship+morality) and spiritual system.

some one may give the example of Iran but its is not suitable here. I oppose both Shah as he was a Shah(king), a dictator and also the Islamic revolution purely on religious grounds. If the revolution was supported by communists then again it was fueling the fire further. If Shah was supported by USA then USA has the right to choose between Shah and religious clerics in their own national interests. There are some good things too in the Islamic Revolution but the human rights situation and the role of religious scholars are the main two negative aspects.

Private owner ship and free market economy with democracy and liberalism have made west and the developed world as they are now that's why I consider it as pre requisites for becoming like west in development and prosperity.

When I say West is my model then from the west I don't mean only USA but first the G8 countries(Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia(with out the remnants of communism and dictatorships), the United Kingdom, and the United States) then some of the G20( besides the G 8 ,also Argentina ,Australia ,Brazil ,Japan, Mexico, South Korea) + countries like Switzerland, Sweden ,Norway, Finland , New zealand, Spain etc.

One can oppose few policies of USA but for me its the dream land of humanity. a country , a state at its climax , an ideal to be followed by others.I look at all these countries as economic and political models for Pashtuns and Muslims. As I mentioned for culture and social aspects , the model is Pashtunwali with few reforms and for religion and spirituality Islam , again with reforms.

(http://www.pakhtun.com/Majlas/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=41#p55)

Badlun
05-17-2010, 06:45 PM
Few questions and comments on my above post and my answers.

What is a free market economy actually based on?

A free market economy is an economy in which the allocation for resources is determined only by their supply and the demand for them. This is mainly a theoretical concept as every country, even capitalist ones, places some restrictions on the ownership and exchange of commodities. Better term used can be Market economy which is an economic system based on the division of labor in which the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system set by supply and demand. This is often contrasted with a planned economy, in which a central government determines the price of goods and services using a fixed price system. Laissez-Faire can be another extreme. Capitalistic Economies or free market economies have the biggest advantage of giving people what they deserve rather than putting everybody in the same plane. Success of countries practicing free market is only evident with the growth of the USA, the Scandinavian countries, Germany and France as major world powers.



How do private ownership and private income increase? What are its implications for both the bourgeoisie and proletariat classes?

For answering this question we must understand whats Capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded by private individuals either singly or jointly and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy. Each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers.

In a capitalistic and market economy, the bourgeoisie become owners and the proletariat become the labor who can be skilled labor or non skilled. A firm or factory can be owned by an owner or group and there from the general manager , engineers to the security guard all, become the labor. each one earns according to it s capacity, qualification, hard work, dedication, out come, and if one keep on earning and saving, then one day the labor becomes the owner. This we practically see in the west where multi national organizations is one extreme and small firms and industries another end of the market economy. Competition makes the scene go and the end result is prosperity and development for all. G-8 countries is the prominent example of this.

And please tell us something about the 'western dress'.

From western dress I mean shirt paint , coat , tie etc for both men and women. Although Shalwar kameez can be maintained as our cultural identity but for work at least western dress can be used.Western dress does not mean only mini skirt or bikini, it can be the decent dress we see in offices of western world , the formal dress, the informal dress at homes and beaches can be an individual choice.

How does communism ignore the basic human instincts? What is the relationship between private property and private income? How does communism believes in 'utopia, barbarism, brutality and bloodshed' (no examples from whatever the Kremlin Bureaucracy did!)?

Communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership of capital, which referred to the means of production in Marxian terminology.In Marxist theory, socialism is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatize, to collective ownership. communist states are a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof.

Its basic human instinct that when you own some thing you take care of it. If you are the not the owner then you dont take care of the property of others. This simple thing happens to communist economies. All are owners and none is the owner. Its like the famous story that a king asked all his citizens to bring one glass of milk and to pour it in a pool. All thought at night that I ll carry water and will mix it with the milk of others and in the morning the pool was full of water only. Look at government schools and private schools. Government owned industries and private ones.

Communism is an utopia because we never see it in practical shape which market economy or capitalism is a success story.

Critics of communism specially focus on their economic performance compared to market based economies. Their human rights records are thought to be responsible for the flight of refugees from communist states, and are alleged to be responsible for famines, purges and warfare resulting in deaths far in excess of previous empires, capitalist or Axis regimes.

According to economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, countries where the means of production are socialized are not as prosperous as those where the means of production are under private control

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_socialism)

Communism was the bloodiest ideology that caused more than 120 million innocent deaths in the 20th century. It was a nightmare which promised equality and justice, but which brought only bloodshed, death, torture and fear.
http://sociologiac.net/2006/03/04/th...-of-communism/ (http://sociologiac.net/2006/03/04/th...-of-communism/)


It is OK to learn from the West or anyone but there should be a difference between copying/following the West, becoming their lapdogs and learning from them.

I have replied to this above when I said I believe in relativism.

Just tell us how was Venezuela doing when she was following the model you are such a big fan of?

I know Venezuela. Its past is not so good neither its present. Its the most dangerous country to visit in south America. It has the worst poverty stricken population in south America. It will become very soon another Cuba under the leadership of Chavez. For looking a model , we may look at G 8 or some of the G 20 countries not countries like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia whose better economy only and only is because of the gift of the nature in the shape of oil not because of their economic system or government policies.

شمله ور خراساني
05-17-2010, 07:07 PM
stop using drugs. Its bad for your health.

Badlun
06-13-2010, 06:39 PM
Nadir shah and other friendSsare invited here for a meaningful discussion for learning and sharing.

Badlun
06-13-2010, 06:55 PM
Some of the questions by a Political Islamist on democracy have been addressed
here which I ll copy for ready reference.

http://pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?t=735

Badlun
06-13-2010, 06:58 PM
In bold are the questions/comments of my friend

In various corners of this forum, a person by the name of Osho is typing allot preaching democracy and secularism and rejecting Shari'ah.

Yes I promote the idea of democracy and secularism in Pashtuns but I dont reject Sharia. Any one can prove copying my words where I have rejected Sharia.

Yes I consider Sharia only for religious issues not for secular issues. From religious issues I mean faith, worship and morality. From secular Issues I mean, culture, society, politics, economics, philosophy, psychology, social sciences, natural sciences, law, mathematics, technology etc etc.

Democracy:

1: Explain what democracy is.

Democracy is the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives . Democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. In Islamic or other religious societies the religious aspects of life like faith, worship an dmorality may be goverened by the religious injunctions as described in the holy scriptures or other religious books.

Democracy is a political government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy).

Etymologically the term is derived from the Greek: "rule of the people",which was coined from (dêmos) "people" and (krátos) "power", in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.

Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes: equality and freedom.These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power. and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution

Mainly taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Badlun
06-13-2010, 07:01 PM
2: Explain how public representatives can actually act on behalf of the voters and not follow their own desires.

Practically in this world no body can do everything by himself or herself. You always have to select some representative, attorney, lawyer, deputy, agent, assistant , vicegerent etc who can act on your behalf. You cant reach everywhere yourself and also you cant do everything yourself. You must have some one else to act in your place where you cant or does not wish to do it yourself.

If your representative does not work as you wish , you can change it and nominate some one else in his or her place.

The same happens in democracy. A common citizen cant run a government or cant legislate . He has to be represented by some one else. The prophet of Islam also used to send his representatives or envoys to other places and other people. there used to be a council of ministers or advisors to reperesent the general public.

How does the representative performs his or her job, is not the problem of democracy or the people who choose their representatives. If the reps act as the their choosers wanted then he or she will have a new chance if not and act as his or her own wishes then better reps will be selected.

This is the beauty of the checks and balances and accountability of democracy. This is what practically going on in most of the non muslim world and even in many Non Arab Muslim countries. Even the Pashtun Jirga system is representation of the Pashtuns by their leaders. Otherwise then we have to stop these jirgas too.

Practically the representatives do take care of the wishes of the electorate as they have to face them again.they are usually capable people and know well their job.

I dont see any better and practicable political system than this. If there is one then I would like to know that. As earlier said representation include democratic elements, the opportunity for all citizens to hold representatives to account at the end of the term and to dismiss them if their performance in office is judged unsatisfactory.

3: What can you say about a situation where a society decides to legalize sex with 3 year old children and allow people to sodomize 3 year old children because "the people" have voted for legislators in favor of legalizing sex with 3 year old.

Democracy in one or other shape is being practised in the modern word since few centuries but in all these years never a case has been seen as youn are describing above. Thus its practically impossible that a society will become so corrupt that it will ask its political reps to legislate for legalizing sex with babies or minoir age children.

All democracies in the world have constitution and almost all constitutions guarantee fundamental human rights and doing sex with a child is against any standard of human rights. Moreover there are always laws which prohibit sex with those who are not adults and there are severe punishments for this.

No legislation can be made against constitution or an established law and amending constitution or a law needs often two thirs majority in parliament and i dont think that human as a race will be so down graded that two third majority of legislators will vote for legalizing sex with a 3 years old baby.

The separation of powers or Trias Politica is a model for democratic governments. The government or the ruling party never has unlimited legislative powers which are being checked by judiciary or opposition.

This is very strange that marriages and sex with minors is very common in Muslim countries and even many consider it a Sunna as they quote that The prophet contracted marriage with a minor of 9 years hazrat Ayesha!

Badlun
06-13-2010, 07:02 PM
4: What do you know about the power of the lobbyists? It is an inherent aspect of a democracy. So what do you have to say about lobbyists?

Lobbyists are men and women who speak to legislators and other government officials on behalf of "special interest groups" or those who have a strong interest in a certain piece of legislation. Lobbying is considered a controversial practice, and it is generally regulated by the government to different degrees of effectiveness.

Though lobbyists do often have a negative impact on democracy, that is not the full story. Lobbyists also work for many important causes and have had prominent roles in securing landmark legislation like the Violence Against Women Act. Lobbyists are not all corrupt and do not do all of their influencing with bribes and fancy dinners; sometimes they simply use statistics, logic or moving stories. Further, lobbying can sometimes be private citizens' only way to have a meeting with their elected officials and have an influence on issues that have personally affected their lives.

Lobbysts do influence the policies and decisions of their representatives. Some are motivated by their own or their shareholders' interests; others by a desire to achieve particular outcomes which they believe will be of benefit to the society or some more narrowly defined sectional interest. Most people would regard such contact as a legitimate and basic right in any democracy

Briefings given by the lobbysts are often very informative and helpful in the legislative side of work in terms of understanding of issues.Lobbysts are just technical advisors and consultants as well as motivators for legislators.

No doubt that more transperancy is required on lobbying. Always good democratic states have checks and controls on lobbying. Election Commission, Press, Anti corruption departments etc regularly check lobbysts and dont let them do any thing which is against the constitution, law or the public interest.

parts of this post is taken from

http://www.ehow.com/about_4678137_lobbyists.html

Badlun
06-13-2010, 07:03 PM
5: What do you think of the power the bureaucracy has over the decisions taken by the legislature and implementation of laws and policies? Does that in any contradict your democratic dogma?

Bureaucrates are technical people and are only the executers or implementers of what politicians or legislators decide to do. Legislators are policy makers while bureaucrates are policy implementers. Usually there is a limited number of legislators or members of parliament or assembly or congress members and they cant reach every where to implement what they legislate. Bureaucrates are not only working in democracies but also in others politicals systems and forms of governments.

If a law is made for example on education or health, then who will implement it? Bureaucrates, and whom the people can contact for solution of their problems in their cities, towns and villages,,,Bureaucrates. One memebr of parliament from a vast area of his or her electorate cant reach every where to solve problems of general public.Bureaucrates have to implement what public reps think better for the people they represent.

Democracy always has checks and balances on bureaucrates. Bureaucrates are subordinates to the members of parliament and they have to obey what the public representativesb Muslim countries bureaucrates may abuse their powers but even there the situation is improving and they have to obey the orders and intructions of the public reps and are accountable to them.

If bureaucrates misuse or abuse their powers then its not the problem of the institution of the democracy but the politicians themselves. Education of the society also plays a role in this regard. The more the society is educated, the more powerful are the public reps and the weaker the bureaucrates. In the developed world you will even not know who are bureaucrates- Every where only the public reps have their sway.

For further details you may read
Bureaucracy and democracy , a Happy Marriage BY William T. Gormley.

Millatpal Noorzai
06-13-2010, 08:27 PM
Looks like somebody is a citizen of "Dreamland"

Roshina
06-13-2010, 08:32 PM
I don't see anyone making any attempts to contravene Osho's statements or posts, but all I see in response is nonsense like "stop using drugs" or "looks like someone's a citizen of dreamland." That has nothing to do with the discussion at all.

Seriously, boys? You can't come up with an argument to refute what's being said here? If you disagree, say so. Or then don't enter the discussion 'cause you sound REALLY ignorant, to say the very, very least, when you intentionally go off-topic this way. It just means the person makes so much sense you don't know how to refute his/her points.

Millatpal Noorzai
06-13-2010, 08:39 PM
I don't see anyone making any attempts to contravene Osho's statements or posts, but all I see in response is nonsense like "stop using drugs" or "looks like someone's a citizen of dreamland." That has nothing to do with the discussion at all.

Seriously, boys? You can't come up with an argument to refute what's being said here? If you disagree, say so. Or then don't enter the discussion 'cause you sound REALLY ignorant, to say the very, very least, when you intentionally go off-topic this way. It just means the person makes so much sense you don't know how to refute his/her points.

Or maybe not everyone has that much free time on their hands to be spent on imaginary topics.

Roshina
06-13-2010, 08:56 PM
Or maybe not everyone has that much free time on their hands to be spent on imaginary topics.

Oh, that's perfectly understandable. But the comment you wrote earlier doesn't at all indicate that you don't have time, bro. It indicated that you couldn't refute what Osho said, so you decided to say something that is totally irrelevant to the points he raised.

شمله ور خراساني
06-13-2010, 09:03 PM
Some of the questions by a Political Islamist on democracy have been addressed
here which I ll copy for ready reference.

http://pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?t=735 (http://pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?t=735)


That's like the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. But since you are going to embarass yourself, people have the decency to copy-paste my reply to your nonssense.

Badlun
06-13-2010, 10:39 PM
Isn't Democracy as dogmatic as believing in different castes in a society? Yes/No and why yes or why not.

No democracy does not believe in different castes in a society. Democracy is another name for equality. I dont understand where from you have taken this notion that Democracy is dogmatic as believing in different castes in a society? If you explain your question a little more with examples then I ll try to elaborate on it.


Secularism

1: Give us an example of a secular society that is actually secular. That is, a society where the laws of the land are not based on religion.

Secularism is separation of religion and politics . Another aspect of secularism is giving freedom of the choice of religion and no one should be forced into any religion. Secularism is totally in line with islamic approach as Islam never claims to be a complete system with its own political system and it forbids compulsion in religion.

Most of the societies in the world have one or another kind of religion but the religion is limited only to faith , worship and some times morality.

Religion has influence on the laws of the land only in religious affairs nit in political , economic or other affairs. A religious leader does not head the government or run the parliament.

Even in Saudi Arabia the rulers are kings and princes not mullas or religious scholars. Secularism is the main policy in Turkey and violating secularism is a crime. the whole developed world separates religion from politics.


2: Isn't rejecting influence of religion in the government by itself not a sign of dogmatic beliefs of some sort?

Religion is meant for religious aspects of life like faith, worship and personal morality. It has nothing to do with government or other political or economic issues. Church must be separated from the state as both are two different things. Spiritual and mundane are to be delt by different people. Popes and Mullas may run theur religious institutions and politics may be left for politicians.

As Khushal Baba says that

TORA CHI TERIGI KHO GUZAR LARA KANA
ZALFI CHI WALAWAL SHI KHO KHPAL YAR LARA KANA

WALI RATA WAYE CHI PA KHKOLO NAZAR MA KA
STARGI CHI PAIDA DI KHO DEDAR LARA KANA

SHEIKH DE MONZ ROJA KA ZA BA DAKI PIYALAI AKHLAM
HAR SARAI PAIDA DAI KHPAL KHPAL KAR LARA KANA

Badlun
06-13-2010, 10:43 PM
Some more explanatory notes in response to my Political Islamist friend

The reason I consider for all this is the lack of modern education and considering Islam as a complete way of life which entails in terrorism, religious extremism and fundamentalism. I wana change the situation where we are living in and this change will only be efefctive if we accept modern values like democracy and shun religious exremism and considering Islam as a complete system of life.

I dont like communism. Still the introduction of communism in Afghanistan brought enlightenment specially in Pashtuns. They became more nationalist and less religious fanatics. It was unfortunate that the West used Mujahideen against communists and now we are reaping the results of using religion in politics in the shape of Taliban and Alqaida and the lethal combination of religious extremism and Pashtuns.

I have very good intentions for this discussion and this you can note from my tone. I never desrespect you as a person and I understand that many like you have been brain washed by the religious pandits and the stooges of the arab imperialism. You are not the only one who consider Islam as a complete way of life and hate democracy. There are many like you. May be there are few like me among Muslims who consider Islam only as a religion and consider true democracy as a panacea for all the ills of Pashtuns specially and Muslims generally.

I wish our discussion should be impersonal and only dedicated to what is said not who says it. I am learning a lot from this discussion and I hope we ll reach a very good conclusion. We just make our minds open to new ideas and may be ready to break the idols already we have in our minds. You can first reply to all my answers to your questions an dthen may comment on my these posts as replies to your replies to my posts.


On the definition of religion, I would like to tell you that I have read lot of books on the comparative study of religions , theology and religion it self. But as like any other definition , you cant give a deifintion on which all agree. Defining some thing is the most difficult task in the academic world and always you have controversies. After reading all importnat definitions of the religion I have reached to the conclusion that almost all definitions include these 3 basic elements. FAITH+WORSHIP+MORALITY.

I also agree with both the definitions you have referred to, as well as your concept of religion which you consider as the sum of what Allah says and what the Prophet did. I agree that Quran have injunctions about beliefs, worship and all Ahkam what you have referred are basically moral or ethical. We dont find any constitutioon in Quran or a complete economic system like capitalism or communism in Quran nor in Hadith.

All the commandments are about moral aspects of life like adultry, drinking, usury(exploiting others by exorbitant interest) etc. I agree that Quran describe few economic aspects of life like inhhiretance, zakat(which is also moral being equivalent to charity) etc but all these are very rudimentary and have moral underpinnings and can never subtitute a complete economic , political, legal or cultural system and were never never applied in the 1400 years of muslims except few years when there was no other alternative as monorchy at that time.

If we separate religion from politics, economy, culture and society then the laws made will be only for these aspects of life while the religious institutions as church or mosque will look after the religious spheres. State or government will not interfere in those religious spheres and may support the religious institutions.

The problem arises when Muslims like you and religious people as Mullas, taliban etc start interfrerring in political and other non religious aspects of life. They want to make laws, implement laws and do every thing about each and every activity of life and the result is the chaos we see now a days in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Arabs and other Muslim countries except Somalia, Iran, Sudan are safe from this menace as they have separated religion from government and have relatively more peace and stability. I dont say that they are democracies but still they keep religion under political control and dont let the religious bandits to be at the helm of affairs. Pashtuns are specially suffering from this lethal combination of Religion and Politics.

Laws regarding secular spheres of life are to be made by parliament and religious aspects may be governed by Holy books etc.

Please explain it further as how it is absurd to claim that democracy and Islam cant co-exist???If democracy can function in the majority of the countries of the world why not in Muslim countries. And you may know that even in non arab Muslim countries democracy is funtioning including the REPUBLICS of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Presenting yourself as candidate for a post is something very normal and natural. The whole world go for interviews for jobs and present themselves. The same happens in political world. How can you say that its not good for Muslims?

Quran and hadith is for the religion not for the non religious speheres of life. How can you get injunctions from religious books about modern sciences, technology, politics, economy etc. these dont exist in Quran or Hadith. Whatever you refer to are moral injunctions or very fundamental concepts not a systematic description of laws regarding politics, economy etc.

Their man-made laws, and poltical orientation is good for the non Muslims as well as for the Muslims including Pashtuns. Whatever is harmful we may rejcet but the practical implementation of these laws have made them developed and we may not remain behind by considering them not Islamic.

The Iraq, afghanistan wars by the West may be better understood if we think sincerely that how Arabs started from Makkah and Madina and conquered the whole world known at that time. Arabs not only invaded all those countries and civilizations but conquered them completely and made them part of the Arab kingdom of that time. USA may have their presence but still local pople are ruling these countries and USA has not made yet Afghanistan and Iraq as their states.

The questiuon of Israel can also be understood if we think impartially that Jews have conquered that part of the Middle east by power and design because they think it belongs to them as their promised land. Arabs inpite of their numerical strenght could not oust them. Every one of us have the right to expand and develop. Its all power politics , struggle for the balance of power and Realism.

Badlun
06-13-2010, 10:50 PM
That's like the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. But since you are going to embarass yourself, people have the decency to copy-paste my reply to your nonssense.
I have copied some of my posts related to democracy and the West. I had replied to all your questions systematically but I failed to find any of your reply coherent or to the point. If you disgree with this then copy or once again try to criticize my replies to your questions again. In that topic of your questions you then engagaged in replying to other members posts and you forgot to comment on my replies to your questions except the first one or two which I also replied back.

What I wish here in this thread to present the model of democracy, liberalism, capitalism for Pashtuns and to criticize Political Islam and Communism as alternative models as I have done above.

Badlun
06-13-2010, 10:54 PM
Looks like somebody is a citizen of "Dreamland"
Dont you the practical application of democracy in the whole world including some countries of Non Arab Muslims world too. How its a dreamsland. What alternative you have. The kingdom of Saudi, or the Taliban regime or teh dictatorship of Muslims like Umayyads, Abassids, Mughals in past 1400 years of the history of islam pr what......Democracy is the most concrete and achievable goal, How it can be a dream. I fail to understand.

Badlun
06-13-2010, 10:56 PM
Democracy and capitalism has already showed us what its capable of doing hasnt it?
What it had showed...are you talking of the financial crisis in few countries. Its almost over except may be in Spain or Greece. And crises are common. problems come but are solved. You may know about the great depression of 30s in USA but now you see USA is the world super power but others like USSR and so called islamic kingdoms and Emarates of taliban hav ebeen crashed for ever.

شمله ور خراساني
06-14-2010, 01:03 AM
I have copied some of my posts related to democracy and the West. I had replied to all your questions systematically but I failed to find any of your reply coherent or to the point. If you disgree with this then copy or once again try to criticize my replies to your questions again. In that topic of your questions you then engagaged in replying to other members posts and you forgot to comment on my replies to your questions except the first one or two which I also replied back.

What I wish here in this thread to present the model of democracy, liberalism, capitalism for Pashtuns and to criticize Political Islam and Communism as alternative models as I have done above.
liberalism means you allow your daughter to have multible boyfriends. You want that to mix with Pashtunwali? Are you on drugs?

Abdali
06-14-2010, 01:07 AM
^That is not what it necessarily means.

Levanaye Zalmaye
06-14-2010, 01:10 AM
liberalism means you allow your daughter to have multible boyfriends. You want that to mix with Pashtunwali? Are you on drugs?

Sangar my friend, I'm afraid you haven't the faintest idea what liberalism is. This is exactly the sort of mud our glorious malagaan (peace be upon them) spew to deter people from getting out of their grasps.

It's actually quite telling, you know... Like it shows where a Mullah's mind really is. He's thinking about sex and perverse things all the time. And when he's confronted with a new idea, he goes to his base instinctual emotions and says, "hey, your daughter will be with many men!". It's disgusting and despicable. But that's okay for molvi standards.

Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) what liberalism actually is.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"[1]) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality.[2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, free trade, secularism, and the market economy. These ideas are often accepted even among political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the 18th century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the 20th century.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as hereditary status, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings (or moulvis in our case).

شمله ور خراساني
06-14-2010, 01:12 AM
Sangar my friend, I'm afraid you haven't the faintest idea what liberalism is. This is exactly the sort of mud our glorious malagaan (peace be upon them) spew to deter people from getting out of their grasps.

It's actually quite telling, you know... Like it shows where a Mullah's mind really is. He's thinking about sex and perverse things all the time. And when he's confronted with a new idea, he goes to his base instinctual emotions and says, "hey, your daughter will be with many men!". It's disgusting and despicable. But that's okay for molvi standards.

Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) what liberalism actually is.
Bachoo, I study John Stuart Mill, and you think you can come here and tell me what liberalism is? LOL

Levanaye Zalmaye
06-14-2010, 01:15 AM
Bachoo, I study John Stuart Mill, and you think you can come here and tell me what liberalism is? LOL

Bachu, you're the one who made this post:

liberalism means you allow your daughter to have multible boyfriends. You want that to mix with Pashtunwali? Are you on drugs?

Perhaps you should devote more time and attention to Mr. Mill.

شمله ور خراساني
06-14-2010, 01:24 AM
Bachu, you're the one who made this post:



Perhaps you should devote more time and attention to Mr. Mill.
I did. And I also paid close attention to Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Foucualt etc etc.

And the conclusion I draw is that Liberalism is nothing but moral corrution, promotion of vice, gay parades, fornication, sexually transmitted diseases, fatherless children, social benefits being exploited by single moms, the elderly being locked up in old peoples houses and people constantly complaining about trivia.

In fact, I have experienced liberalism in Western Europe for the past 16 years.

So who are you to tell me what liberalism is?

Levanaye Zalmaye
06-14-2010, 01:33 AM
I did. And I also paid close attention to Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Foucualt etc etc.

And the conclusion I draw is that Liberalism is nothing but moral corrution, promotion of vice, gay parades, fornication, sexually transmitted diseases, fatherless children, social benefits being exploited by single moms, the elderly being locked up in old peoples houses and people constantly complaining about trivia.

In fact, I have experienced liberalism in Western Europe for the past 16 years.

So who are you to tell me what liberalism is?

Despite all those vices, I've been witnessing people here for 20 years who will sell their mothers to be fed to dogs so that they can go to the West.

By the way, STDs don't need a political system to be transmitted. With the right sort of contraception, they don't prosper. Of course, patience is the best way of prevention but no where does liberalism say that you must have unprotected sex with infected people.

Lastly, the 'vices' you've posted above are nothing compared to what we read in our local newspapers everyday - husband kills wife with axe, husband slaughters daughters then kills himself, father kills son, slaughtered woman found on the roadside, cousin kidnapped for ransom then murdered, uncle rapes niece, etc, etc... Should I start posting the daily Dawn Metropolitan and Daily Jang from today onwards so you can see what authoritarianism results in?

And there's nothing wrong with gay parades and single moms. Of course, it's preferable and recommended to have a full family but is it really a woman's fault if her husband leaves her? And the day a homosexual man forces you to go out with him is that day you can complain about homosexuality. Whatever they do to each other is their own business, not yours.

شمله ور خراساني
06-14-2010, 01:37 AM
Despite all those vices, I've been witnessing people here for 20 years who will sell their mothers to be fed to dogs so that they can go to the West.

By the way, STDs don't need a political system to be transmitted. With the right sort of contraception, they don't prosper. Of course, patience is the best way of prevention but no where does liberalism say that you must have unprotected sex with infected people.

Lastly, the 'vices' you've posted above are nothing compared to what we read in our local newspapers everyday - husband kills wife with axe, husband slaughters daughters then kills himself, father kills son, slaughtered woman found on the roadside, cousin kidnapped for ransom then murdered, uncle rapes niece, etc, etc... Should I start posting the daily Dawn Metropolitan and Daily Jang from today onwards so you can see what authoritarianism results in?
What authoritarianism.

You must be joking. Pakistan is like a failed immitation of what UK is like. it is an immoral piece of junk. Who cares what dumb Pakistanis do to themselves?

As if I support filthy and corrupted Pakistani society and denounce Modern Western societies.

YOu make no sense what so ever.

All I am saying is the gospel of liberal democracy is not paradise. And for those dumb fools who would sell their mother to go to the west, who cares? They are stupid. It's their problem.

Levanaye Zalmaye
06-14-2010, 01:49 AM
What authoritarianism.

You must be joking. Pakistan is like a failed immitation of what UK is like. it is an immoral piece of junk. Who cares what dumb Pakistanis do to themselves?

As if I support filthy and corrupted Pakistani society and denounce Modern Western societies.

YOu make no sense what so ever.

All I am saying is the gospel of liberal democracy is not paradise. And for those dumb fools who would sell their mother to go to the west, who cares? They are stupid. It's their problem.

Be it Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Indonesia or Iraq - they have the same social problems. And they're all authoritarian states with a tag of republic on them. They have no liberalism whatsoever except perhaps in very few circles.

And those dumb fools number in the tens of millions and they're from African and Asian Muslim countries and they're forcing themselves into places like Holland, where the native people want them out but our people STILL wanna go and live there.

What system do you propose then since you hate freedom of speech, the idea of constitutions, the idea of government by choice, the idea of self-rule, the idea of equality under the law, the ideas of elections and human rights, etc... you hate all these things because they will result in our daughters going out with multiple men. What do you propose then? An Islamic idealistic Utopia that never was and never will be?

شمله ور خراساني
06-14-2010, 08:51 AM
Be it Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Indonesia or Iraq - they have the same social problems. And they're all authoritarian states with a tag of republic on them. They have no liberalism whatsoever except perhaps in very few circles.

And those dumb fools number in the tens of millions and they're from African and Asian Muslim countries and they're forcing themselves into places like Holland, where the native people want them out but our people STILL wanna go and live there.

What system do you propose then since you hate freedom of speech, the idea of constitutions, the idea of government by choice, the idea of self-rule, the idea of equality under the law, the ideas of elections and human rights, etc... you hate all these things because they will result in our daughters going out with multiple men. What do you propose then? An Islamic idealistic Utopia that never was and never will be?
Bachoo, you are being so silly I dont even want to reply to such silly posts.

But I will have to do it any since it is my own fault to reply to you in the first place.

First of all, there is no ideal Islamic utopian state. There are Islamic values and our own culture and tradition that give us an indication of who we are and what we are about.

On the other hand, we see the advanced economies and societies of the west where they have moral corruption and all other sorts of social problems.

What we as Muslims argue is that we should not import stuff and end up like a brothel that Pakistan is turned in to. But we must import only the useful and beneficial aspects of advanced socieites. Which is education, science, rule of law etc.

But somehow in your communist brain maybe due to the braindamage you have developed from drinking all that Maskovskaya Vodka, you keep re-interpreting everything I say into somethign silly and ridiculous.

Badlun
12-16-2013, 05:53 PM
The model is not caliphate

Whenever I hear yet another call for establishing an Islamic Caliphate that will govern the Muslim ummah from Indonesia to Morocco, I shake my head in wonder at such ignorance of the real world.


Consider: the Muslim world is divided as never before as Shias fight Sunnis; secular modernists battle fundamentalists; Deobandis blow up Barelvis; mainstream Muslims consider anyone with a slightly different belief to be a non-Muslim; and Arab Muslims regard other believers as their inferiors on racial grounds. How would one group possibly accept a Caliph from another?
If we cant agree on the precise manner of praying, how could we be on the same page about who the Caliph should be? In an earlier and simpler tribal period, a handful of elders could choose their leader. But when over a billion and a half Muslims are spread across the globe, how is a consensus to be achieved? The sad truth is that Muslims are divided not united by their faith.


If you think I am exaggerating, just look at what is happening here in Pakistan, and across the Middle East and North Africa. In Tunisia, where the Arab Spring was first sparked off, Salafist extremists have almost paralysed a nascent democracy. An acute polarisation has built up between hard-line militants and secular Muslims in perhaps the most Westernised Arab country.


Libya is being torn apart due to tribal and sectarian tensions as allies of the Muslim Brotherhood seek to carve out an Islamic state based on the Sharia. Opposing them are the democrats who spearheaded the battle against Colonel Ghaddafis tyranny. Armed groups fight the shaky government for control over territory and petroleum revenues. Meanwhile, the country has virtually ground to a halt as anarchy and violence become the norm.
In Syria, a vicious civil war has now entered its third year as government forces fight jihadis, many of them foreigners, as well as democratic rebels. Simultaneously, the Islamists are battling secular groups who were the first to begin the struggle to topple the Assad regime. Alarmingly, the fighting is also increasingly between Alewites and Sunnis, with ethnic cleansing going on in areas either side controls.


Iraq is suffering from relentless terrorist attacks as an Al Qaeda affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), slaughters thousands across the country. According to a recent Time Magazine report, nearly 8,000 civilians have been killed in the country in 2013 alone. The report also quotes American officials who suggest that in two and a half years, Syria has drawn as many fighters to its battlefields as Afghanistan did in two and a half decades of war.


Egypt is split down the middle between the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters on the one hand, and the military and its liberal backers on the other. Although President Morsi was democratically elected, he alienated much of civil society by his crude attempts to Islamise a liberal Egypt overnight. The ongoing standoff between the two sides has eroded democratic values and given legitimacy to a military coup. The wounds inflicted on the Arab worlds most important country by its own people will take a long time to heal.


Despite a nominal end to its civil strife, Yemen remains a country at war with itself. Tribal rivalries and tensions between fundamentalists and military-backed modernisers have created large spaces that have been filled by Al Qaida in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP).
Several Sunni sheikdoms and Saudi Arabia on the Gulf have substantial Shia minorities that are oppressed and angry. In Bahrain, a Sunni ruling family has marginalised the majority Shia community. Months of unrest and rebellion have been quelled with Saudi assistance. How long the present uneasy status quo will last is unclear.


In Pakistan, we know only too well how Shias have been targeted by extremist Sunni groups, with Hazras being specially singled out because of their distinctive features. In Afghanistan, too, the Taliban killed hundreds of these unfortunate people because of their Shia belief.
While much of the tension dividing the Muslim world can be traced back to the original split between Islams two major communities, another factor has contributed to the recent flare-up in violence. This is the Wahabi/Salafi strain of Islam followed in Saudi Arabia. Since the country hit the jackpot following the oil embargo of 1973, it has deliberately exported its intolerant beliefs across the Muslim world by financing madressahs in poor countries, and mosques as well as chairs for Islamic studies in the West.


A generation later, its hard-line version of the faith has taken root in many Muslim countries, suppressing gentler, more tolerant strands of Islam. Sufi thought and traditions, centred around the shrines of revered saints from Libya to Mali to Pakistan, have been selectively targeted.
By dint of its money and its position as the custodian of Islams holiest sites, Saudi Arabia exerts great influence across the world of Sunni Islam. Sadly, it is also the most retrogressive Muslim state in the world, and over the last four decades, other Sunni countries have followed its example of intolerance and backwardness.


In a bid to neutralise Iranian influence, it is allegedly financing some of the most nasty jihadi groups fighting in Syria where many Saudi fighters are reported to have taken up arms to topple Assad. Money from the Gulf emirates and Saudi Arabia is reported to be financing Al Qaeda, the Taliban and sundry Salafi groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
One reason oil-rich Arab royal families are underwriting the global jihad is that they hope to export this poison out of their societies and placate their clerics. Thus, they seek to preserve their thrones and their perks while reshaping more progressive Muslim societies into their repressive mould.
If there is to be a Caliph, I have little doubt the Saudis would like to have their monarch appointed to the position. And petrodollars could go a long way in achieving this goal that is being pushed by many extremist groups.

One Caliph to rule them all - DAWN.COM (http://www.dawn.com/news/1074159/one-caliph-to-rule-them-all)

RevolutionThroughReason
12-16-2013, 07:31 PM
A lot of these are valid points; but there are a lot of inaccuracies (ex. claiming that Democrats in Tunisia spearheaded the revolution....total lie)

But most of these issues are issues that Islam opposes and stands against, like sectarianism and ethnic nationalism, tribal rife. So maybe the author needs to think that the reasn why it won't work is inspite of Islamic principles not because of them.

I know one thing, if the world was ruled by Pashtunwali; we'd have been extinct a long time ago. LOL