'The System'-by WAJsal

[Shah01]

I think it's better if it gets media attention. Worst case scenario nothing comes out of it and you guys still have to pay money to keep the land. Best case scenario it may put pressure on those goons to back down or put pressure on the government to deliver justice.

Yeah true. I could try but as I said it probably be more expensive for the first case but second case most definitely it is going to media.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Yeah true. I could try but as I said it probably be more expensive for the first case but second case most definitely it is going to media.

How much more expensive would it be for the first case? U could try a public funding campaign online like on GoFundMe. It's about time we the people take matters into our own hands. So anarchy? Also I've got tons of student loan so for ur funding campaign I would only be able to afford about $20 worth of anarchy

 

[Shah01]

How much more expensive would it be for the first case? U could try a public funding campaign online like on GoFundMe. It's about time we the people take matters into our own hands. So anarchy? Also I've got tons of student loan so for ur funding campaign I would only be able to afford about $20 worth of anarchy

Haha yes could try. Good idea thanks

 

[Cookie Monster]

WAJsal has alluded to the obstacles in the way of Pakistan's system meeting the standards set by the western world, but he doesn't seem to give any suggestions on as to how we should go about doing that. Military intervention is merely one of the many facets of those obstacles and one that is increasingly used by the corrupt political dynasties as a scapegoat to blame for their own corruption incompetencies. In Pakistan's case, It merely slows down the process of political reforms but unfortunately no decisive attempts are being made to that end.

Let's talk about political reforms. Here I would suggest to readers the study of the working of the Parliment, its history and also the contrast between the nomination of prospective parliamentary candidates in Pakistan and the western world. Britan would be a good place to start. The problem, as you have pointed out, is the complete domination of dynastic politics headed by business tycoons and landowners, you can call them the second estate, though second to none in rank, or Pakistan's very own Lord Temporals If you will. The only difference is that they sit in both the upper and the lower houses. There is the clergy, of course, but comparatively of little consequence in the politics. These Lord Spiritual equivalents tend to claw at the political systems from the outside of the Parliment. Our political lairds run their political parties by nominating smaller landowners, sons of landgrabbers and the like, in exchange for inducements that cannot possibly be afforded by the honest-to-god people we would like to be governed by. Another unfortunate reality, one that cannot be helped (not right away in any case) is the electorate, no more sane than a crowd from the middle ages cheering for the executioner, which decides to vote based on unqualified intuition and the charm of his laird.

The way to initiate these political reforms would be to set up a political party headed by well-known intellectuals of one mind, with a clearly defined party politics, charter and manifesto. Not a conservative party, not a liberal party but a labour party. But this time, it would not be headed by the landowner Bhutto but by the people. This party will nominate its candidates with selection committees composed of upstanding citizens and will nominate candidates based on merit and merit alone. Only this sort of representation will get you the political reforms at the pace they're needed. As for the Judicial reforms, they're trickled down from the legislative assembly. So political reforms should be the primary concern here.

It's true that these reforms are badly needed but as the old saying goes "who will bell the cat". These reforms can only be made by the people who genuinely care for the country, the system and the people. We lack those kind of people in our top leadership, parliament and other institutions who hold the power to introduce such reforms.

Personally I'm of the view that a new system(or a heavily modified version of the current, essentially making it new) is needed where human nature is taken into account. Exactly like when u put a lion in the zoo, u take the necessary precautions keeping in mind it's nature.

Over centuries as people realized the dangers of immense power in the hands of one man for his entire life(monarch), they moved to a new system. In this system(democracy) ideas such as limited terms, separation of powers, checks and balances were introduced. This takes into account the human nature of where power can go to our heads and essentially puts a stop to it(for the most part).

However there is a second element that has always existed in every form of government and might always exist unless a new system is introduced that puts a check on that. This second element in every form of government is money. Money and power have always been coupled throughout history.
Examples:
Emperor(Power)/Aristocrats(Money) - Europe/Elsewhere
Emperor(Power)/Shoguns(Aristocrat with an army) - Japan
Consuls/Emperor(Power)/Senators(Money) - Rome

this coupling of money and power was hardly addressed in the system called democracy and this is why it still plagues us. The idea behind it was noble(a government for the people by the people) but overtime that government became more and more like an elite club with a few select members that collectively rule(if not one then another). This is definitely true in case of Pakistan(parliamentary democracy) and just as true in the US(a representative democracy).

A system built on the following maybe a step in the right direction.
New - Separation of money and power
Old - Separation of Powers
Old - Checks and Balances

Add to this some stern accountability and there might be a system that has the least amount of sold out/corrupt ppl working for self interest. Coming up with such a system would probably be very hard.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Did you really have to do this? What is the difference between a Muslim State and an Islamic State?

.......... The distinction between a Muslim State and an Islamic State was overlooked. Sri Prakasa, India’s first High Commissioner to Pakistan, knew Jinnah well. Both were members of the Central Legislative Assembly. He received preferential treatment from the Governor-General. One day Jinnah lost patience with him. “I asked him if he would permit me to say one thing; and would not take it at all amiss. I should, I added, like to apologise to him beforehand, and would say what I desired to do only if he permitted me to do so. ‘Out with it’, he said; ‘I have plenty of flatterers. I want a friend who would speak to me quite frankly. Do say what you want to say.’ I was encouraged by what he said, but was still nervous, particularly because of my position as a diplomat accredited to his State. I therefore added that I regarded myself as a friend, and that I might be assured that he would not mind. On his repeated assurance, I said – and I remember my words clearly even at this distance of time : ‘I know that the partition had been effected on the basis of differing religions. Now that this has taken place, I see no reason why stress should be laid on Pakistan being an Islamic State.’ I ventured to go on to tell him that if there should be no talk of Pakistan being an Islamic State, non-Muslims would be assured and not be flying away as they were doing. I told him of how I had seen deserted places in the interior, and had been dealing with thousands of persons anxious to leave their homes and all they held dear.

“At this he said that he had never used the word ‘Islamic’. He added: ‘You are a responsible man, and you should tell me where I have done so.’ I ventured to add that only the day before, Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan (the then Prime Minister of Pakistan) had said that Pakistan was an Islamic State. To this he replied : ‘Have it out then with Liaquat : why quarrel with me?’ I would not give in, I said ; ‘In your broadcast from Lahore on August 31, you had yourself spoken of Pakistan as an Islamic State.’ He was quite sure that he had not done so, and asked me to let him have the original version, if I could. At this he suddenly got up. I could see he was visibly livid with rage. I was summarily dismissed.

“Unfortunately for me, I was very sure that he had used the word ‘Islamic’ in his broadcast. Next morning I walked up to the office of the Hindu Editor of a leading daily paper of Karachi, whom I knew well, and asked for the issue of early September that contained the full text of the broadcast. The Editor’s curiosity was naturally aroused, and in confidence, I told him of my interview with Mr. Jinnah on the previous evening. As is unfortunately the way of some journalists, he could not keep the matter to himself, but publicized this talk in his own way in his paper. Thereupon I had a letter from Mr. Jinnah in which he rightly complained about my giving a public report of an after was helpless. I sent my apologies to Mr. Jinnah, and I also enclosed a newspaper cutting giving the broadcast.

“I had studied the same very carefully. As a fact, the word ‘Islamic’ had not occurred anywhere there. The words ‘Muslim State’, however, were found at more than half a dozen places. I told Mr. Jinnah in my letter that I was sorry, I had mistaken the word ‘Muslim’ for ‘Islamic’; and that, generally speaking, the lay public will not see much difference in the two, particularly when the Prime Minister and others were constantly using the word ‘Islamic’ and not confining themselves to the word ‘Muslim’ in their public speeches and writings. Evidently the Qaid-e-Azam did not intervene. I never had a reply from Mr. Jinnah. But naturally I thought within myself as to what could be the difference between a ‘MuslimState’ and an ‘Islamic State’.” (Sri Prakasa; Pakistan: Birth and Early Days, MeenakshiPrakashan; Delhi; 1965; pp. 56 -58).


http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/secular-jinnah-the-islamic-undercurrent/

 

[Musafir117]

And what all this above ^ related with Pak Politics?:sar khujaeing:

 

[WAJsal]

@Zaki , have you read this?

 

[Hyde]

@Zaki , have you read this?

I did read Sir and was the first person to give you positive rating and I also wrote a response but it became quite lengthy so I decided not to post it.

I do agree with your post besides one or two points which I will highlight later

 

[WAJsal]

I did read Sir and was the first person to give you positive rating and I also wrote a response but it became quite lengthy so I decided not to post it.

I do agree with your post besides one or two points which I will highlight later

Oh, i thought i would squeeze out a positive rating out of you. Waiting for your reply my good friend.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Without education democracy does not works

 

[Mr. Aussie]

System is developed by peoples and people wants this system so let them have or they will change it.

 

[Arsalan]

System is developed by peoples and people wants this system so let them have or they will change it.

People are made to believe that they really do not have any other choice. This is how it works. All those who stay silent or have compromised do not essentially agree with it, they are just made to believe that there is nothing they can do.

 

[Salik]

Democracy is the way forward. But there is element of doubt in people's mind about the very democracy that whether it is western system or is there any room for democracy is Islam or not. They have even declared first four Caliphs of Islam as the dictators with absolute powers. They may live under democratic system and utilize it but would never own this system. Eventually they would wait for a magical figure to take over than working in democratic system and producing a leader by themselves.

First of all, four Caliphs of Islam were already elders of their respective tribes. With the recommendation of some and consent of others they were made head of the state. They were accountable before the people, as Umer R.A had to answer about the dress he made from his share of cloth which was not enough to make a full dress. There was no formal opposition leader but there was opposition.

However there are accounts that suggest that there was military coup by Umer R.A. against Hazrat Ali's rightful place of first caliph. Nonetheless the companions of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him were not actual source of Islam, but the Prophet himself. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him did alienate himself from the wrongful doings of his companions. Supposed dictatorial actions of the Companions shouldn't be labeled on Islam and dictatorship as the system of governance of Islam.

So what actually Islam offers as a system of governance and mechanism to appoint a leader or head of state? For this we'll have to go into the life of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

When the Prophet received his first revelation, he didn't stand up the next morning saying, "Last night I got a message from God so now you are bound to obey me". Instead, he talked to people, addressed the gatherings, did corner meetings, met the visitors of Makkah, told them about his program that he had received from God, and faced hardships as well in this process. It took him a decade to gather enough people to establish a state in Madinah. He also erected an army to protect that state.

Now, that he has gathered enough people and established a strong army, he would go against his own 'making' and conquer the world and become a dictator? Definitely not. His military struggle was basically defensive and against the monarchs of Rome and Persia. The areas he conquered, he appointed his administrators to fill the gap of ruler. It was evident from the advice that he gave to his envoys i.e. if they didn't find any solution in the Quran or Sunnah, use best of their judgement.

Historically this had been the method of all the prophets of God, they lived in people, talked to them and convinced them to vote and accept their manifesto. Sudden appearance and imposition of one's agenda is dajjal's trait. Dajjal will be the biggest dictator.

So how much noble agenda you have, you have to spend time with people. This way education, awareness and democracy go side by side.

 

[The Accountant]

Democracy is the way forward. But there is element of doubt in people's mind about the very democracy that whether it is western system or is there any room for democracy is Islam or not. They have even declared first four Caliphs of Islam as the dictators with absolute powers. They may live under democratic system and utilize it but would never own this system. Eventually they would wait for a magical figure to take over than working in democratic system and producing a leader by themselves.

First of all, four Caliphs of Islam were already elders of their respective tribes. With the recommendation of some and consent of others they were made head of the state. They were accountable before the people, as Umer R.A had to answer about the dress he made from his share of cloth which was not enough to make a full dress. There was no formal opposition leader but there was opposition.

However there are accounts that suggest that there was military coup by Umer R.A. against Hazrat Ali's rightful place of first caliph. Nonetheless the companions of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him were not actual source of Islam, but the Prophet himself. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him did alienate himself from the wrongful doings of his companions. Supposed dictatorial actions of the Companions shouldn't be labeled on Islam and dictatorship as the system of governance of Islam.

So what actually Islam offers as a system of governance and mechanism to appoint a leader or head of state? For this we'll have to go into the life of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

When the Prophet received his first revelation, he didn't stand up the next morning saying, "Last night I got a message from God so now you are bound to obey me". Instead, he talked to people, addressed the gatherings, did corner meetings, met the visitors of Makkah, told them about his program that he had received from God, and faced hardships as well in this process. It took him a decade to gather enough people to establish a state in Madinah. He also erected an army to protect that state.

Now, that he has gathered enough people and established a strong army, he would go against his own 'making' and conquer the world and become a dictator? Definitely not. His military struggle was basically defensive and against the monarchs of Rome and Persia. The areas he conquered, he appointed his administrators to fill the gap of ruler. It was evident from the advice that he gave to his envoys i.e. if they didn't find any solution in the Quran or Sunnah, use best of their judgement.

Historically this had been the method of all the prophets of God, they lived in people, talked to them and convinced them to vote and accept their manifesto. Sudden appearance and imposition of one's agenda is dajjal's trait. Dajjal will be the biggest dictator.

So how much noble agenda you have, you have to spend time with people. This way education, awareness and democracy go side by side.

Brother you have not defined the democracy correctly ... Democracy means that people has right to make any law with majority which is against islam ... As per islam all the laws and governance has to be under the islam ... In islam the method of selection of leader is open and any method can be used ... Ao election is fine but election ahould not gave you the right to make interest halal but unfortunately the democracy gave power to the parliament to pass a law that makes interest halal despite it is clearly haram aa per islam ...

In islamic democracy khalifa is for the welfare of people can be chosed by elwction and is accountable to people ... Has veto power just like preaisent of united states but cannot bypass the quran and sunnah ...

 

[Salik]

Brother you have not defined the democracy correctly ... Democracy means that people has right to make any law with majority which is against islam ... As per islam all the laws and governance has to be under the islam ... In islam the method of selection of leader is open and any method can be used ... Ao election is fine but election ahould not gave you the right to make interest halal but unfortunately the democracy gave power to the parliament to pass a law that makes interest halal despite it is clearly haram aa per islam ...

In islamic democracy khalifa is for the welfare of people can be chosed by elwction and is accountable to people ... Has veto power just like preaisent of united states but cannot bypass the quran and sunnah ...

Ultimately every ruler will have privilege to make laws whether democratic or dictator. If a dictator makes rules, its your luck. Whereas in democracy a rule is discussed in public, figuratively implemented and practiced before it is brought into the parliament, because people are convinced to do so. After elections and formation of government, that thing is literally and formally made a law. A dictator is void of this facility. He will bring a law that majority will resist resulting in bloodshed. Remember Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had minimum bloodshed in the history of revolutions.

Now if you have an issue with a law passed in a democratic system by the people, the blame is not on democracy or the people but effort and ability of yours to convince the people otherwise.

Coming to Islamic laws mentioned in the holy Quran, certain laws were suspended by Umer R.A. There was no uproar in public upon this action of Hazrat Umer, because people were aware of the reasons upon which he suspended those laws. This ability to judge laws comes from education and awareness. Why should only few people have that knowledge and not everyone. Dedicated team of specialists of Islamic matters would rule and others would follow them blindly, there's no such concept in Islam that some people will have knowledge and they will rule. Knowledge has to be for everyone and it requires hard work.