Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

West /Developed World Its Democracy As A Model For Pashtuns

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • West /Developed World Its Democracy As A Model For Pashtuns

    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)

    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.


  • #2
    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/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/


    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      stop using drugs. Its bad for your health.
      [SIZE="4"][B][CENTER][URL="www.quranawsunnat.com"]www.quranawsunnat.com
      [/URL]
      [URL="www.youtube.com/Sangartube"]www.youtube.com/Sangartube
      [/URL][/SIZE]
      Mullah 4 Life! [/CENTER][/B]

      Comment


      • #4
        Nadir shah and other friendSsare invited here for a meaningful discussion for learning and sharing.

        Comment


        • #5
          Some of the questions by a Political Islamist on democracy have been addressed
          here which I ll copy for ready reference.

          Conversing the truth, lies and intelligence pertaining to the assessment of the Pashtun population across the Durrand line.

          Comment


          • #6
            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

            Comment


            • #7
              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!

              Comment


              • #8
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Looks like somebody is a citizen of "Dreamland"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Qrratugai View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Millatpal Noorzai View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by osho View Post
                            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

                            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.
                            [SIZE="4"][B][CENTER][URL="www.quranawsunnat.com"]www.quranawsunnat.com
                            [/URL]
                            [URL="www.youtube.com/Sangartube"]www.youtube.com/Sangartube
                            [/URL][/SIZE]
                            Mullah 4 Life! [/CENTER][/B]

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X