Proud to be a Pakistani

ehson · 05-31-2005, 11:58 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Desert Sleet
 There is no guarantee that mankind will enter the next century completely healed from totalitarianism.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'd say that the concept of totalitarianism is some what different from the Khilafa. You see the totalitarianism still follows the man made laws. Where as in Khilafa man made laws are only subjected to places where the devine guidance is quite. In totalitarianism "the individual is subordinated to the state". In Khilafa the individuals are subordinate of the Khalifa only if his verdict are in accordance to the devine guidance, otherwise capital punishment might become applicable for the ruler and an individual is no more bound to do as ordered by the govt. as is the case in the totalitarianism. Again in totalitarianism "opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed" where as in Khilafa it is an obligatory duty for the ruler to maintain the worship places of all the religions.

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Desert Sleet
 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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Still the difference prevails the totalitarianism is led by the intelligentsia who may mould it as per thier benifits as is the case in the capitalism and socialism. Khilafa still is different and I belive the best way to govern.

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Desert Sleet
 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...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It sure is a big open catagory. I only advocate the Khilafa, however.

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Desert Sleet
 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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
And suppose the orders which you to establish are the divine orders. So as with little education all can be very well aware of them and can hold the ruler accountable for any discripancy.

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Desert Sleet
 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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">You see the freedom in case of the Khilafa ruling-in case of an individual-is only taken to the extent which is described in the divine books. So, as mentioned earlier, you educate people about how to live, and give the code of conduct, they will very well know about the extent of freedom and the extent of submitting ones freedom. The govt. does forfiet power in the case of Khilafa the in the example which i wrote in my previous post the Khalifa was held accountabe by an idividual merely becuase he thought that the 'public' property has been miss used.
Security to public property to this extent is not visible in any form of the govt. other than the Khilafa. I suppose.

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Desert Sleet
 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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> And now i yet again write that the freedom given away should be determined by the divine guidance not what the individuals want and how much they can sacrifice. Had individual given this to deciede the poor and non influenceial would still be deprived and the uneven distribution would lead to social unrest.

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Desert Sleet
 However if the majority is satisfied, you have a generally better functioning society.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Read "Animal Farm". By your writing I asume you are a frequent reader. This book would hardly take 2-3 days of reading (if done in spare time). It is a very good example of what happens when majority is satisfied. You see to satisfy the majority there should be leaders who represent the majority (idealy taken from that majority). Now when these leaders are given powers they are again taken to the palaces and esscorted by huge squads. It doesnt take long when these people become same as those who represnt the minority (rich) in this case. Now as their status change, thier attitude, thinkin, behavioural aspects change and the vicious circle starts again. So in pursuit of 'good' system we lose some potential revolutionists. Again this is personal thinking.

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Desert Sleet
 But this idea doesn't necessarily lend itself to democracy. A socialistic society would work as well as a democracy in such a case.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> socialism has seen its slum without actually reaching the boom. Now as far as the democracy is concerned you can see what is happening around in the world. Where the difference between the rich and poor is widening (around the globe i.e.). And social unrest is at its peak.

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Desert Sleet
 However all this supposes ideal situations. Idyllic democracy wouldn't work unless everyone was well-educated.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">None of the system can be properly implemented without actually educating 'everyone'. Utopia, which is i guess, as difficult as pursuing the dream of an ideal govt.

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Desert Sleet
 I do my best. S*o*briety makes all the difference in my posts. [)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> ) at least your S*o*briety lets other say what they want to and likewise help them to share what a ginious like you has in mind.