05-31-2005, 02:26 AM
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I understand the difficulties. But lets say i can change one heart, just one. which due to conviction chnages another and another and another. I know it is a dream but what is wrong with putting your efforts to achieve it. Let say I die doing efforts for it and my coming generation dies likewise and thier comming likewise atleast s'where there would be a differences. All the revolutions in history of the civilizations had been made like this. After all I'm pursuing the purest and true way of harmony and peace.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There is no guarantee that mankind will enter the next century completely healed from totalitarianism. To understand this it is sufficient just to look at the growing popularity of right extremism in France but inspite of the benifits the danger of totalitarian ideology is that it is not only the wide masses of population that are subject to its influence, but also the intelligentsia which provides it with apologists and translators, and multiplies the number of people subject to totalitarian ideologies.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">your choice of words, I realise that you think i'm assosiated with some religious group which is working to achieve what i've written earlier. If you think that way, you are mistaken the truth is, I'm not assosiated with any group/sect etc. I'm an individual who believes that see the problems and has been analyzing various solutions and has now reached a point with conviction that the best solution is what i've mentioned earlier. That is a simple equation of why i say what i say.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Guess I am the only one to vote for oligarchy, [)] but most do not know what it means. Of course, it is a real big open catagory...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i guess it is only the perception of the word "democracy" which makes it aligned with the Islamic principals and/or make it unaligned. You the democracy which is practiced now a days where every individual has a power of "one" vote to choose the leader is not what Islam has tought. And I personaly believe this should be like this. As an educated and an ignorant cant be and are not the same. So why give equal power to both. Secontly you see the importance of shura to which you are pointing you must be aware that shura constitutes of the "greatest" scholars.
Then in modern democracy if you are elected as a ruler of the country you are taken to a palace which is surrounded by number of guards. you escot costs God knows how much and a common man can not have access to you. While in Khilafa, once you are elected as a ruler, even if you are most richest person of the nation you can not increase living standard more than that of a middle class average family, which off course puts you in a better position to find out about the problems of the majority of your nation. And if a person in a Friday sermon can point out Omer(ra) and hold him accountable for taking extra piece of cloth from the 'bait-ul-maal' then you can very well imagine the extent of 'freedom to speak' and 'democracy' and 'transparancy' at the top level. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Before one can argue what the best form of government would be, the real purpose/role of government should first be established. It exists to establish order. In order for that to happen, those under the government must forfeit some rights, otherwise you'd have chaos, and the society wouldn't progress. The level of freedom one must give up, is thus one of the major differences among all those forms of government mentioned.
But what should determine that? The priorities of the people. Is the good of the community important enough to make sacrifices for it? Is personal well being most important? Obviously it's impossible for everyone under the same government to agree on the form and role it should take. However if the majority is satisfied, you have a generally better functioning society. But this idea doesn't necessarily lend itself to democracy. A socialistic society would work as well as a democracy in such a case.
However all this supposes ideal situations. Idyllic democracy wouldn't work unless everyone was well-educated. That's why the government has controls (e.g. the electoral college, etc.). On the same token, pure communism would only work if each party performed its function properly (leaders not becoming corrupt, lol)
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It was good to talk to you <b>Desert Sleet</b> and share views with you. hope to see you around. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I do my best. S*o*briety makes all the difference in my posts. [)]
__________________
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>The Only True Wisdom Is In Knowing You Know Nothing </b> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There is no guarantee that mankind will enter the next century completely healed from totalitarianism. To understand this it is sufficient just to look at the growing popularity of right extremism in France but inspite of the benifits the danger of totalitarian ideology is that it is not only the wide masses of population that are subject to its influence, but also the intelligentsia which provides it with apologists and translators, and multiplies the number of people subject to totalitarian ideologies.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">your choice of words, I realise that you think i'm assosiated with some religious group which is working to achieve what i've written earlier. If you think that way, you are mistaken the truth is, I'm not assosiated with any group/sect etc. I'm an individual who believes that see the problems and has been analyzing various solutions and has now reached a point with conviction that the best solution is what i've mentioned earlier. That is a simple equation of why i say what i say.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Guess I am the only one to vote for oligarchy, [)] but most do not know what it means. Of course, it is a real big open catagory...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i guess it is only the perception of the word "democracy" which makes it aligned with the Islamic principals and/or make it unaligned. You the democracy which is practiced now a days where every individual has a power of "one" vote to choose the leader is not what Islam has tought. And I personaly believe this should be like this. As an educated and an ignorant cant be and are not the same. So why give equal power to both. Secontly you see the importance of shura to which you are pointing you must be aware that shura constitutes of the "greatest" scholars.
Then in modern democracy if you are elected as a ruler of the country you are taken to a palace which is surrounded by number of guards. you escot costs God knows how much and a common man can not have access to you. While in Khilafa, once you are elected as a ruler, even if you are most richest person of the nation you can not increase living standard more than that of a middle class average family, which off course puts you in a better position to find out about the problems of the majority of your nation. And if a person in a Friday sermon can point out Omer(ra) and hold him accountable for taking extra piece of cloth from the 'bait-ul-maal' then you can very well imagine the extent of 'freedom to speak' and 'democracy' and 'transparancy' at the top level. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Before one can argue what the best form of government would be, the real purpose/role of government should first be established. It exists to establish order. In order for that to happen, those under the government must forfeit some rights, otherwise you'd have chaos, and the society wouldn't progress. The level of freedom one must give up, is thus one of the major differences among all those forms of government mentioned.
But what should determine that? The priorities of the people. Is the good of the community important enough to make sacrifices for it? Is personal well being most important? Obviously it's impossible for everyone under the same government to agree on the form and role it should take. However if the majority is satisfied, you have a generally better functioning society. But this idea doesn't necessarily lend itself to democracy. A socialistic society would work as well as a democracy in such a case.
However all this supposes ideal situations. Idyllic democracy wouldn't work unless everyone was well-educated. That's why the government has controls (e.g. the electoral college, etc.). On the same token, pure communism would only work if each party performed its function properly (leaders not becoming corrupt, lol)
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It was good to talk to you <b>Desert Sleet</b> and share views with you. hope to see you around. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I do my best. S*o*briety makes all the difference in my posts. [)]
__________________
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>The Only True Wisdom Is In Knowing You Know Nothing </b> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
