How much Americans respect their soldiers for wars abroad

[TMA]

I wasn't talking about martial law (though if you can prove it was never unconstitutional then it would be appreciated). I was talking about how the military establishment seeps its influence into Pakistani society and brainwashes them into believing the military is uncorrupt, infallible and completely trustworthy. Voices critical of the military are quelled and those who rightfully demand civilian leadership of the country are deemed traitors and "liberals".

Military is definitely corrupt and definitely fallible and definitely not completely trustworthy.
But
Military is a definite necessity, even more than the Supreme Court or Senate or Parliament. (A nation can survive without senates, or parliaments, or supreme courts but cannot survive without defence, water and agriculture).

That is the issue...

 

[Safriz]

What do you mean the "military has the right to express themselves"? They are not meant to comment on civilian affairs. Their role is meant to be confined to catering to Pakistan's defence interests as laid out by the government. Any step beyond that is a step against the people of Pakistan as we elect politicians to serve us and if they don't, we get rid of them. Anyone who thinks the military should do that is insulting every Pakistani, effectively calling us incompetent. If you want to live in a world where you live under an iron fist where you blindly follow the leadership under the illusion they are infallible then you are a threat to whatever country you live in.
Do you even know what "liberal" means? I'm not asking for a copy-paste definition of the word, rather if you actually understand what you're saying when you accuse someone of belonging to a creed of thought, let alone equating liberalism with anti-nationalism.

Whatever you are smoking is pretty strong stuff. You elect politicians and you get rid of them? When did that happen ? Politicians rape you all they want and you keep shut like a paid prostitute. That's the best analogy for people of Pakistan.
Also there's no law barring armed forces from having an opinion about politics and expressing it. Truth is that your stupidity in electing thrives repeatedly, also effects army men as they buy the same everyday necessities at same price as you.

 

[Divergent]

They don’t criticise their soldiers as much - they do with their Government because they know it’s the Government that sends them there. They do usually prefer their soldiers home.

 

[SabzShaheen]

Military is definitely corrupt and definitely fallible and definitely not completely trustworthy.
But
Military is a definite necessity, even more than the Supreme Court or Senate or Parliament. (A nation can survive without senates, or parliaments, or supreme courts but cannot survive without defence, water and agriculture).

That is the issue...

No one is advocating to get rid of the military. People just want the military's role in everyday affairs to be limited just as it should be.

Whatever you are smoking is pretty strong stuff. You elect politicians and you get rid of them? When did that happen ?

Do you know what democracy is? You elect people to represent you and if you feel they don't represent you, you get rid of them.

Also there's no law barring armed forces from having an opinion about politics and expressing it.

Common soldiers are allowed to have their opinion, but the military establishment is prohibited from doing so. The military even admits this is the truth.

244 Oath of Armed Forces.
Every member of the Armed Forces shall make oath in the form set out in the Third Schedule.

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part12.ch2.html
(I advise you read the rest of this page as well).

This is the Third Schedule for the Armed Forces:

(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.)

I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law.

May Allah Almighty help and guide me (A'meen).

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/schedules/schedule3.html

Director-General Inter-Services Public Relations Major General Asif Ghafoor said on Monday that there is no danger to democracy as long as the fruit of democracy reach the people.
Speaking on a private news channel, Ghafoor said the army chief has also said that he believes in the supremacy of the Constitution and the law, adding that Senate elections will be conducted by the Election Commission of Pakistan and the Army has no role in them.
“This is third consecutive elected parliament which is completing its term. Whatever changes took place in the last 15 years, happened through a political process.”
“For the first time in history, the army chief went to the Senate, paying respect to democracy and the army chief has always said he believes in the Constitution and the rule of law which has to be supreme,” added Ghafoor.
The Army spokesman further stated that change in the country should be through political means. In regards to the upcoming general elections, the military spokesman said that the Army will follow all instructions, within the limits of the Constitution, pertaining to elections.

https://pakobserver.net/change-political-means-dg-ispr/

Pakistan Army on Wednesday "withdrew" a tweet sent out by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General on April 29 which said the Prime Minister Office's directives on the Dawn story inquiry report were "rejected".

"The tweet on April 29, 2017 was not aimed at any government office or person," an ISPR press release said Wednesday.

"Recommendations, as contained in Para 18 of the Inquiry Committee Report, duly approved by the prime minister, have been implemented, which has settled the Dawn leaks issue," it added.

"Accordingly, ISPR's said Twitter post stands withdrawn and has become infructuous.

"Pakistan Army reiterates its firm commitment and continued resolve to uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and support the democratic process."

https://www.dawn.com/news/1332244

 

[Safriz]

No one is advocating to get rid of the military. People just want the military's role in everyday affairs to be limited just as it should be.


Do you know what democracy is? You elect people to represent you and if you feel they don't represent you, you get rid of them.



Common soldiers are allowed to have their opinion, but the military establishment is prohibited from doing so. The military even admits this is the truth.

244 Oath of Armed Forces.
Every member of the Armed Forces shall make oath in the form set out in the Third Schedule.

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part12.ch2.html
(I advise you read the rest of this page as well).

This is the Third Schedule for the Armed Forces:

(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.)

I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law.

May Allah Almighty help and guide me (A'meen).

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/schedules/schedule3.html

Director-General Inter-Services Public Relations Major General Asif Ghafoor said on Monday that there is no danger to democracy as long as the fruit of democracy reach the people.
Speaking on a private news channel, Ghafoor said the army chief has also said that he believes in the supremacy of the Constitution and the law, adding that Senate elections will be conducted by the Election Commission of Pakistan and the Army has no role in them.
“This is third consecutive elected parliament which is completing its term. Whatever changes took place in the last 15 years, happened through a political process.”
“For the first time in history, the army chief went to the Senate, paying respect to democracy and the army chief has always said he believes in the Constitution and the rule of law which has to be supreme,” added Ghafoor.
The Army spokesman further stated that change in the country should be through political means. In regards to the upcoming general elections, the military spokesman said that the Army will follow all instructions, within the limits of the Constitution, pertaining to elections.

https://pakobserver.net/change-political-means-dg-ispr/

Pakistan Army on Wednesday "withdrew" a tweet sent out by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General on April 29 which said the Prime Minister Office's directives on the Dawn story inquiry report were "rejected".

"The tweet on April 29, 2017 was not aimed at any government office or person," an ISPR press release said Wednesday.

"Recommendations, as contained in Para 18 of the Inquiry Committee Report, duly approved by the prime minister, have been implemented, which has settled the Dawn leaks issue," it added.

"Accordingly, ISPR's said Twitter post stands withdrawn and has become infructuous.

"Pakistan Army reiterates its firm commitment and continued resolve to uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and support the democratic process."

https://www.dawn.com/news/1332244

YOu wrote another useless long paragraph.
The question i posted was simple. Where in the law the army men are barred from having an opinion about politics of the governance of the country? They can say what they want about the political government as the performance ofg civilian government effects every citizen of Pakistan including the army.
The law you posted simply says that the federal government can assign duties for the army and no court should question it. Yet during the Islamabad Dharna the federal government assigned the army the duty of dealing with protesters and the Islamabad high court questioned it.
Did you protest on that? No yo did not.
Yet you vent your spleen on something which is not illegal by any means.
Goes to show your ignorance and bias,

 

[SabzShaheen]

YOu wrote another useless long paragraph.

How about you read it and see where you're wrong?

The question i posted was simple. Where in the law the army men are barred from having an opinion about politics of the governance of the country? They can say what they want about the political government as the performance ofg civilian government effects every citizen of Pakistan including the army.

I've told you many times already that individuals are not barred from having their own opinions about politics as that is a human right. The establishment itself is not allowed to express its opinions on political affairs nor are they allowed to influence politics in any way, regardless of their opinions.

The law you posted simply says that the federal government can assign duties for the army and no court should question it.

What "law" I posted said that?

Yet during the Islamabad Dharna the federal government assigned the army the duty of dealing with protesters and the Islamabad high court questioned it.

Provide evidence for your claim and the source of it.

I'll tell you once kindly that my patience won't last forever. Read my last post in its entirety and take the time to understand it (which you clearly haven't) just as I read your posts.

 

[Safriz]

How about you read it and see where you're wrong?

I've told you many times already that individuals are not barred from having their own opinions about politics as that is a human right. The establishment itself is not allowed to express its opinions on political affairs nor are they allowed to influence politics in any way, regardless of their opinions.


What "law" I posted said that?


Provide evidence for your claim and the source of it.

I'll tell you once kindly that my patience won't last forever. Read my last post in its entirety and take the time to understand it (which you clearly haven't) just as I read your posts.

You posted links without reading yourself?
From the first law link you posted

245 Functions of Armed Forces.
651[(1)] 651 The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government, defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so.

652[
(2) The validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government under clause (1) shall not be called in question in any court.



Clause one says

(1)] 651 The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government, defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so.

Now read this news?
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1569502/1-ahsan-iqbal-appears-ihc-faizabad-hearing/

 

[TMA]

No one is advocating to get rid of the military. People just want the military's role in everyday affairs to be limited just as it should be.


Do you know what democracy is? You elect people to represent you and if you feel they don't represent you, you get rid of them.



Common soldiers are allowed to have their opinion, but the military establishment is prohibited from doing so. The military even admits this is the truth.

244 Oath of Armed Forces.
Every member of the Armed Forces shall make oath in the form set out in the Third Schedule.

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part12.ch2.html
(I advise you read the rest of this page as well).

This is the Third Schedule for the Armed Forces:

(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.)

I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law.

May Allah Almighty help and guide me (A'meen).

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/schedules/schedule3.html

Director-General Inter-Services Public Relations Major General Asif Ghafoor said on Monday that there is no danger to democracy as long as the fruit of democracy reach the people.
Speaking on a private news channel, Ghafoor said the army chief has also said that he believes in the supremacy of the Constitution and the law, adding that Senate elections will be conducted by the Election Commission of Pakistan and the Army has no role in them.
“This is third consecutive elected parliament which is completing its term. Whatever changes took place in the last 15 years, happened through a political process.”
“For the first time in history, the army chief went to the Senate, paying respect to democracy and the army chief has always said he believes in the Constitution and the rule of law which has to be supreme,” added Ghafoor.
The Army spokesman further stated that change in the country should be through political means. In regards to the upcoming general elections, the military spokesman said that the Army will follow all instructions, within the limits of the Constitution, pertaining to elections.

https://pakobserver.net/change-political-means-dg-ispr/

Pakistan Army on Wednesday "withdrew" a tweet sent out by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General on April 29 which said the Prime Minister Office's directives on the Dawn story inquiry report were "rejected".

"The tweet on April 29, 2017 was not aimed at any government office or person," an ISPR press release said Wednesday.

"Recommendations, as contained in Para 18 of the Inquiry Committee Report, duly approved by the prime minister, have been implemented, which has settled the Dawn leaks issue," it added.

"Accordingly, ISPR's said Twitter post stands withdrawn and has become infructuous.

"Pakistan Army reiterates its firm commitment and continued resolve to uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and support the democratic process."

https://www.dawn.com/news/1332244

You must know this is Pakistan we are talking about...not the UK, or USA... In Pakistan even the politicians/judiciary do not uphold the constitution...forgot about the military (although since Musharraf, it seems they are easing off relative to the old days)...

Also their are some in Pakistan who wanted to weaken the military even in a military sense...

And about Democracy, do you really want to know about it?

Listen to Allama Iqbal...

Whether it is the Glory of Monarchy or the "tamasha" of Democracy,
If "Deen" is separated from Politics, then all that is left is "Chenghizee".

Have you not seen the democratic system of the West?
Its countenance bright, but its interior worse than Genghis!

We have dressed Empire in the clothes of Democracy
When Adam has become a little bit self conscious and observant.

This secret has been revealed by a man of the Franks
However the Wise do not open open the core of the matter
Democracy is a form of governance in which
Servants are counted, not weighed!

 

[SabzShaheen]

You posted links without reading yourself?
From the first law link you posted

Of course, I read it. Why else did I tell you to read everything else as well as what I singled out for you to read as it proved you wrong? You made no mention of the specific law I mentioned.

245 Functions of Armed Forces.
651[(1)] 651 The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government, defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so.

652[
(2) The validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government under clause (1) shall not be called in question in any court.



Clause one says

(1)] 651 The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government, defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so.

So you conveniently skipped reading the part I selected for you to read which proved you wrong and dived into the link? Good for you, now I'll prove you wrong again.

Now read this news?
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1569502/1-ahsan-iqbal-appears-ihc-faizabad-hearing/

It's one of the jobs of the court to uphold the constitution so there's no point complaining about that. If they don't perform their job correctly then they are accountable for it. I don't have the knowledge to challenge a court — who are much more knowledgeable about the constitution and Pakistani laws in general than the average Pakistani — about whether they are doing their job correctly.

From the article:
“Prima facie, role assumed by the top leadership of army is besides the Constitution and law of land. Armed forces, being part of the executive of the country, cannot travel beyond its mandate bestowed upon it by the organic law of the country i.e. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” Justice Siddiqui observed and directed the government to satisfy the court about the constitutional role of the armed forces.

Amendment of Article 245 of the Constitution:

(2) The validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government under clause (1) shall not be called in question in any Court.

(3) A High Court shall not exercise any jurisdiction under Article 199 in relation to any area in which the Armed Forces of Pakistan are, for the time being, acting in aid of civil power in pursuance of Article 245:Provided that this clause shall not be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of any proceeding pending immediately before the day on which the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power.

(4) Any proceeding in relation to an area referred to in clause (3), instituted on or after the day the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power and pending in any High Court shall remain suspended for the period during which the Armed Forces are so acting."

Now stop trying to change the topic. We are not talking about the credibility of the court. We are talking about the influence of the military.

You must know this is Pakistan we are talking about...not the UK, or USA... In Pakistan even the politicians/judiciary do not uphold the constitution...forgot about the military (although since Musharraf, it seems they are easing off relative to the old days)...

Not everyone wants to live in the status quo. If every Pakistani excused corruption by saying "everyone else does it, so what's wrong with them doing it?" then no doubt Pakistan would rightfully fail as a state.

Also their are some in Pakistan who wanted to weaken the military even in a military sense...

Who are these people? Do you hold any evidence of such people? Where did you get this idea from?

And about Democracy, do you really want to know about it?
Listen to Allama Iqbal...

Look, thanks for being polite but I'm already frustrated at some other person on this thread. All I can say is you should read this:
https://www.dawn.com/news/540878/iqbalaes-view-of-democracy

Also, does it make logical sense that Iqbal would support Jinnah if he was opposed to democracy when Jinnah was a proponent of democracy? Do you think Pakistan would have been founded were it not for democracy?

 

[TMA]

Of course, I read it. Why else did I tell you to read everything else as well as what I singled out for you to read as it proved you wrong? You made no mention of the specific law I mentioned.


So you conveniently skipped reading the part I selected for you to read which proved you wrong and dived into the link? Good for you, now I'll prove you wrong again.


It's one of the jobs of the court to uphold the constitution so there's no point complaining about that. If they don't perform their job correctly then they are accountable for it. I don't have the knowledge to challenge a court — who are much more knowledgeable about the constitution and Pakistani laws in general than the average Pakistani — about whether they are doing their job correctly.

From the article:
“Prima facie, role assumed by the top leadership of army is besides the Constitution and law of land. Armed forces, being part of the executive of the country, cannot travel beyond its mandate bestowed upon it by the organic law of the country i.e. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” Justice Siddiqui observed and directed the government to satisfy the court about the constitutional role of the armed forces.

Amendment of Article 245 of the Constitution:

(2) The validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government under clause (1) shall not be called in question in any Court.

(3) A High Court shall not exercise any jurisdiction under Article 199 in relation to any area in which the Armed Forces of Pakistan are, for the time being, acting in aid of civil power in pursuance of Article 245:Provided that this clause shall not be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of any proceeding pending immediately before the day on which the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power.

(4) Any proceeding in relation to an area referred to in clause (3), instituted on or after the day the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power and pending in any High Court shall remain suspended for the period during which the Armed Forces are so acting."

Now stop trying to change the topic. We are not talking about the credibility of the court. We are talking about the influence of the military.


Not everyone wants to live in the status quo. If every Pakistani excused corruption by saying "everyone else does it, so what's wrong with them doing it?" then no doubt Pakistan would rightfully fail as a state.



Who are these people? Do you hold any evidence of such people? Where did you get this idea from?


Look, thanks for being polite but I'm already frustrated at some other person on this thread. All I can say is you should read this:
https://www.dawn.com/news/540878/iqbalaes-view-of-democracy

Also, does it make logical sense that Iqbal would support Jinnah if he was opposed to democracy when Jinnah was a proponent of democracy? Do you think Pakistan would have been founded were it not for democracy?

It's a certain type of democracy that Iqbal spoke out against. That type which is endemic world over.
Democracy means different things to different people.
There is a duality in Iqbals thought: Urdu/Dari for his compatriots and English for his Western audiences. This becomes clear in his works.

Do you think that Pakistan would ever been created if it were not for the oppressive British colonial rule in the Subcontinent?

 

[SabzShaheen]

It's a certain type of democracy that Iqbal spoke out against. That type which is endemic world over.
Democracy means different things to different people.
There is a duality in Iqbals thought: Urdu/Dari for his compatriots and English for his Western audiences. This becomes clear in his works.

Do you think that Pakistan would ever been created if it were not for the oppressive British colonial rule in the Subcontinent?

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I doubt Pakistan would have been created if the British didn't colonise us.

 

[TMA]

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I doubt Pakistan would have been created if the British didn't colonise us.

-you said without democracy, there would be no Pakistan implying that democracy is good.
-my reply was without British colonial rule, there would be no Pakistan, so is British colonial rule is also good?

I was trying to point out that just because "Democracy" played a role in Pakistan's creation it does not mean it is good given that democracy (that is and has been in Pakistan), as Iqbal as described in his Urdu and Dari literature, is just a sophisticated facade.

I would advocate the democracy of a great Pakistani ideologue the late Muhammad Asad, former director of the Dept of Islamic reconstruction in his book "The principles of State and Government in Islam".

http://www.muhammad-asad.com/Principles-State-Government-Islam.pdf

A short and easy book for the layman to digest.

 

[SabzShaheen]

-you said without democracy, there would be no Pakistan implying that democracy is good.
-my reply was without British colonial rule, there would be no Pakistan, so is British colonial rule is also good?

Without British Colonial rule, the idea of "Pakistan" would almost certainly have never come about, so it is up to you to decide whether it was a good or bad thing. I am saying that Pakistan would not have been achieved without democracy.

I was trying to point out that just because "Democracy" played a role in Pakistan's creation it does not mean it is good given that democracy (that is and has been in Pakistan), as Iqbal as described in his Urdu and Dari literature, is just a sophisticated facade.

I agree though I think it is the far better option given a choice between any amount of military rule—whether it is disguised behind the facade of civilian leadership or is an outright dictatorship— and leadership that is chosen through the means of the ballot.

I would advocate the democracy of a great Pakistani ideologue the late Muhammad Asad, former director of the Dept of Islamic reconstruction in his book "The principles of State and Government in Islam".

http://www.muhammad-asad.com/Principles-State-Government-Islam.pdf

A short and easy book for the layman to digest.

I apologise but I do not have the time to read this text in its entirety even in the next few weeks though I do intend to read it at some point during this year. I have, however, read the author's notes and I can only say that I agree with them and look forward to reading the rest of this work by Mr Asad (though not because I agree with it so far).

I am unsure as to what democracy you are a proponent of though that goes without saying as I am unfamiliar with Mr Asad's work. I am merely confined to the political thought that I have become familiar with living in the Western world and Pakistan, which I perceive to follow the Western political thought.

 

[TMA]

Without British Colonial rule, the idea of "Pakistan" would almost certainly have never come about, so it is up to you to decide whether it was a good or bad thing. I am saying that Pakistan would not have been achieved without democracy.


I agree though I think it is the far better option given a choice between any amount of military rule—whether it is disguised behind the facade of civilian leadership or is an outright dictatorship— and leadership that is chosen through the means of the ballot.


I apologise but I do not have the time to read this text in its entirety even in the next few weeks though I do intend to read it at some point during this year. I have, however, read the author's notes and I can only say that I agree with them and look forward to reading the rest of this work by Mr Asad (though not because I agree with it so far).

I am unsure as to what democracy you are a proponent of though that goes without saying as I am unfamiliar with Mr Asad's work. I am merely confined to the political thought that I have become familiar with living in the Western world and Pakistan, which I perceive to follow the Western political thought.

"This flexibility of thought disappears, however, as soon as a political concept is taken over ready-made by people who belong to a very different civili-zation and have, therefore, passed through different historical experiences. To such people, the political term or institution in question appears, as a rule, to be endowed with an absolute, unchanging meaning which does not take into consideration the fact of its historical evolution and, consequently, contributes to the very rigidity of political thought which the new conceptual acquisition had sought to remove."

He is talking about "democracy".

Muhammad Asad, page 19, The Principles of State and Government in Islam.

Without British Colonial rule, the idea of "Pakistan" would almost certainly have never come about, so it is up to you to decide whether it was a good or bad thing. I am saying that Pakistan would not have been achieved without democracy.


I agree though I think it is the far better option given a choice between any amount of military rule—whether it is disguised behind the facade of civilian leadership or is an outright dictatorship— and leadership that is chosen through the means of the ballot.


I apologise but I do not have the time to read this text in its entirety even in the next few weeks though I do intend to read it at some point during this year. I have, however, read the author's notes and I can only say that I agree with them and look forward to reading the rest of this work by Mr Asad (though not because I agree with it so far).

I am unsure as to what democracy you are a proponent of though that goes without saying as I am unfamiliar with Mr Asad's work. I am merely confined to the political thought that I have become familiar with living in the Western world and Pakistan, which I perceive to follow the Western political thought.

"One of the main reasons for the confusion regarding the idea of the Islamic state is the indiscriminate application - both by the upholders and the critics of this idea - of Western political terms and definitions to the entirely different concept of Islamic polity".

Page 18.

Without British Colonial rule, the idea of "Pakistan" would almost certainly have never come about, so it is up to you to decide whether it was a good or bad thing. I am saying that Pakistan would not have been achieved without democracy.


I agree though I think it is the far better option given a choice between any amount of military rule—whether it is disguised behind the facade of civilian leadership or is an outright dictatorship— and leadership that is chosen through the means of the ballot.


I apologise but I do not have the time to read this text in its entirety even in the next few weeks though I do intend to read it at some point during this year. I have, however, read the author's notes and I can only say that I agree with them and look forward to reading the rest of this work by Mr Asad (though not because I agree with it so far).

I am unsure as to what democracy you are a proponent of though that goes without saying as I am unfamiliar with Mr Asad's work. I am merely confined to the political thought that I have become familiar with living in the Western world and Pakistan, which I perceive to follow the Western political thought.

"Not infrequently we find in the writings of modern Muslims the assertion that 'Islam is democratic' or even that it aims at the establishment of a 'socialist' society; whereas many Western writers refer to an alleged 'totalitarianism' in Islam which must necessarily result in dictatorship."

Page 18.

 

[xyxmt]

If respect is to send your young men to get killed so some oil baron can make billions then we don't need to give this respect to our soldiers.