What happens after 23rd March, another marshall law? or not ?

[syedali73]

I vote Zarvan as Khalifa of PDF

Which Khalifa? I hope you are talking about the one who runs hair cut salon, solicits matchmaking, cooks food during weddings, and performs occasional circumcisions?

 

[rockstar08]

Which Khalifa? I hope you are talking about the one who runs hair cut salon, solicits matchmaking, cooks food during weddings, and performs occasional circumcisions?

hahahahahha actually we were talking about Real Khalifa like Abu Bakr Bhagdadi .. type

but you just make yourself a enemy of Islam by going against the Khalifa

 

[TankMan]

First of all , Prophet in early days did not Preach about life style , but his major focus was Islam , he was struggling to preach this new religion , which was completely Opposite from what Arabs have experience in Past ..
Basically if you ask my Personal Point of View , i would say Islam itself is a living way , that include almost all problems that a society can face , with proper solutions ... Sharia is just some interpretations , we have no way to trace the exact same Sharia which was in the time of Prophet ... but later on it was continued by Hazart Omar RA , and he did major modification in it , under Islamic ways ..... Hazart Omar RA , created the foundation to many new things, which was unknown to Arabs ... if you have read about his tenure you would have know ...

Yes, you are right.

so i guess what Mastan Khan is saying that Democratic rules are nothing new to Islam nor its impossible to implement , the problem is within our Nation , why people may Disagree with Islamic Democracy that they might think that the punishments are very strict , for the betterment of the society ... you steal, your hand will be chopped , but in our system , you will simply go to jail , for 1-2 years or may be more .. depends ..

Islamic law isn't just about strictness - its main point is justice and proportionality. You don't just chop off someone's hand if he stole a pencil from your desk; there is a strict legal criteria for punishments like that.

Most such punishments are intended to be deterrents, which is why they are strict.

You probably know that, but I am just saying it to avoid confusion when someone else misunderstands it and jumps into the argument.



The part I disagree with @MastanKhan is here:

Was it one day or was it 10 days----.

Democracy starts from day one.

It was actually decades, he had already established rule in Madinah which is how he was able to quickly enforce it in Makkah too. He didn't just show up out of nowhere and start a democracy - he spent years convincing people and laying the foundations for his state, first in Madinah then in Makkah.

Democracy is not enforced by a nation---it is enforced by a person---a person in power

Democracy can not be enforced by a person in power because Democracy requires that people elect a person in power first - it's a paradox, 'need leader for democracy, need democracy for leader' - I know it's not that simple or limited but that's the general picture.

No person can enforce anything without the will of the people.

 

[Viper0011.]

Please read peoples' posts before responding to them.

How is what @That Guy said any different from what you have said here? There is absolutely nothing different in your opinions on this matter - he is saying the exact same thing you are. Then why argue? Because he has a Pakistani flag and needs to be taught about Democracy?

With that aside, one point I wanted to add was that Islam and ideological Democracy have one fundamental bone of contention: Democracy believes that sovereignty belongs to the majority, while Islam believes that it belongs to God - but the reason I underlined ''ideological'' was because in practicality, Democracy never gives absolute sovereignty to majorities- there is always a set of laws, things like the constitution, human rights and minority rights that restrain it.
Thus, practical Democracy and Islam are compatible.

Was he saying the same thing? Are you sure? Either English isn't the main language you speak (no offense), or you need to re-read his and my statements about three times to get the conclusion out. Not trying to be hypocritical but you can't mix statements with different meanings all together and twist it.

Democracy has two meanings. One is applicable to individuals and the second, as a majority in the context of political environment. Individually, it ensures people do what they want to (obviously, using sense and not causing harm to others), and in the political context, it means that people with a majority of an opinion rule and the minority has to respect that. Doesn't mean that minorities need to be thrown away, in fact, the minorities become majority's responsibility as they are the ruling group. So democracy ensures everyone's individual freedom.

Laws and human rights don't restrain the democratic system, it actually strengthens it. Human rights, for example, make sure that no one's abusing the law, mother's right to live peacefully and safely (you are an IK fan so this is something IK totally ignored and blatantly violated when he shut down Islamabad and kids and others couldn't go to school, attacking parliament, indirectly was a human right violation as voting and coshing who to allow you to rule, is one of democratic systems' requirements, which obviously you or IK or others don't believe in as outlined in many posts here), but yet, you are clinging to the SAME seats given to you by the democratic system, but you don't leave them either. So the motto is, bash democracy but let's not let go of our power seats given to us by the same democracy!!! Nice!!
But if the human rights were followed all the way, the protests would've been peaceful in nature, no one had to die and no parliament attacks and billions of dollars of loss to the country's economy!! Not sure what more can I write about how human rights (IF FOLLOWED) can strengthen the democracy, not weaken it. People taking law and order in there hands abuse human rights, risk others lives at risk for their power of greed and it is SO undemocratic!

 

[syedali73]

The Prophet did not just immediately declare Islamic Democracy - he spent decades preaching Islam, laying the foundation and preparing society for the revolutions he was about to bring. God himself commanded the use gradual change in that situation, for example alcohol was gradually prohibited in a step by step manner, because it wouldn't be practical to just immediately change the law about it.

The Prophet (PBUH) did not declare Islamic democracy (is there anything like this?) but he practiced democratic values throughout his life (and preached them through example), even before his prophet-hoot. If you remember how he resolved the issue of the placement of the 'Hajra-e-Aswad' when the rival clans were about to go after each other on that petty issue, and it happened before his formal prophet-hood. Democracy is not the election of incapable people, but to elect the best people among the group of people and then question them if they fail to deliver. Mastan saheb is right, a society, any society for that matter, for people are basically selfish, is never ready to let go its privileges, rather she is made to do that through strong leadership.

 

[rockstar08]

It was decades, he had already established rule in Madinah which is how he was able to quickly enforce it in Makkah too. He didn't just show up out of nowhere and start a democracy - he spent years convincing people and laying the foundations for his state, first in Madinah then in Makkah.

well , you are right here ,that obviously it wasn't a easy job to completely change the life style , culture and values of people Specially Arabs , who were so different ... Prophet completely change them ....
and that is why it take years and years to build a new foundation in arabs based on Unity , and Oneness of God ..

Democracy can not be enforced by a person in power because Democracy requires that people elect a person in power first - it's a paradox, 'need leader for democracy, need democracy for leader' - I know it's not that simple or limited but that's the general picture.

No person can enforce anything without the will of the people.

well in that sense , we dont have Democracy and leader as well , we are like a pendulum , moving here and there ..
and if Democracy can not be forced or any other way cant be enforced , than problem is our nation is been enforced in to thing from the very beginning ..
From Ayub Khan to Nawaz, people are been used for vote, and than later on no body care and even look at them ... and on top of that , people already dont like Democracy for some Islamic reason , and later Zardari and Nawaz , just push the last nail in coffin on Democracy ... now if people are demanding ML , i dont blame them ...

 

[Viper0011.]

So, you're going to attack my title? You know, I was always at odds with your opinion, but at least I respected you. This personal attack against me? If you have a problem with me having this title, tell @Horus to take away my title, or @WebMaster, or @Oscar. Any one of them will do.

Seriously? This is what I said, you just reworded my comments, nothing more. To attack me and my title, to insult me, how dare you. Every time you and I have had a conversation, I've tried to be friendly, but this? **** this forum, I'm done. I've had to deal with bullshit from so many people because of my title, but this is the final straw. I'm done.
@Horus I'm done with this forum.

Well dude, if you want to leave the forum, that's obviously your own thing, I can't change your mind. Frankly speaking, it doesn't make sense. You are im'ing Horus and others, well, he may be a buddy of yours and he might ban all of us, but what good does it do to you? You should read the next part of my post a little carefully as it might help with something.

1) You are on an international forum. What that means, is you'll find a LOT of people from different cultures who don't think like you do, or like how you or Indians or others think inside their culture. I will give you my own example, I shoot straight, if you read my post, no one criticized you as a person. That would be wrong. But, some of your posts were what I mentioned that at times you are clueless as to how to respond to.
Remember, all of us are passionate about topics, sometime I write stuff that is dear to me, but not necessary for you. So for me to expect you'll know what I am talking about, it wrong. But, if you told me something and I flat out just refused to listen or even debate, than I am wrong. I should go do some research and see if I am wrong or if my understanding about something is wrong.
No one is right all the time. I am not, I've apologized to people on this very forum. And I think I've offended you, so please accept my apologies. Again, the criticize wasn't of you as a person. I am sure you are a wonderful individual like the rest of us made by God. But we are here debating and if we didn't have difference in opinion, than we wouldn't be here coloring pages after pages.
Every thread would have one topic and 10 responses saying "I Agree" and the thread would close. Take what I or others said with a grain of salt and try to get inside the skin of the message. Its not you, its just at times, it doesn't come out as you've done research when you respond and you are a TT so all the more reasons to research.

I had another TT who couldn't debate with me, but gave me a negative rating, instead of really debating and setting your position. So all this happens here. The last thing you want, is to take things personally.

 

[MastanKhan]

First of all, Democracy didn't originate in Rome but in ancient Greece - please don't call people names when your own information is less than perfect.

Secondly, The Prophet did not just immediately declare Islamic Democracy - he spent decades preaching Islam, laying the foundation and preparing society for the revolutions he was about to bring. God himself commanded the use gradual change in that situation, for example alcohol was gradually prohibited in a step by step manner, because it wouldn't be practical to just immediately change the law about it.

There's a similar principle behind Democracy too - just as people needed to be educated about Islam (they still need to), the reasoning behind it and its application, people need to be educated about Democracy.

Only this time, we don't have a Prophet to do it - we will have to find the right leaders eventually, through a trial-and-error process which we are currently experiencing. But there's no point if trial and error results in our country being dissolved, which is why we need stability.

The time under the Prophet (s.a.w), was different in too many ways- you can not realistically expect any of that to happen in Pakistan's current situation. It is good to think or dream about but in reality, @That Guy is right in a sense that Democracy will take time to actually reach a position in which it is fair, the loopholes and vulnerabilities have been reduced and it is a viable system of governance - and that too after a society is made ready for it, which takes time and education.

So unless you know someone who has a direct pipeline to God and can perform miracles and summon Angels for help, please don't suggest such impractical actions.

Anyway, there is no doubt about Islam's democratic qualities but I would prefer if it is kept away from Pakistani politics and politics in general - we should apply the Prophet's principles in all situations, including politics, but we should never try to assume his role.

Hi,

Right after the conquest of Mecca---they came in droves---in tens and hundreds----and for what---to be treated equal---same rule of law for everyone---no one above anyone----that was the message after the conquest of Mecca---right from day one---when Islam became powerful---that was the slogan. The democracy was enforced---before the conquest---it was okay whatever---maybe yes maybe no---we will see-----but when they came into real power and carried the banner for equality and justice that is what made the difference

Indeed the time under Prophet Mohammad was different----but the problem with you people is that you have no clue where to start---.

Someone tell me---what is important---rule of Law or is it Order in the society---?

 

[SQ8]

So, you're going to attack my title? You know, I was always at odds with your opinion, but at least I respected you. This personal attack against me? If you have a problem with me having this title, tell @Horus to take away my title, or @WebMaster, or @Oscar.

@Horus I'm done with this forum.

Chill out, you too @MastanKhan , Agree to disagree and move on. You take this forum as seriously as your feelings regarding your last burp.

 

[TankMan]

Was he saying the same thing? Are you sure? Either English isn't the main language you speak (no offense), or you need to re-read his and my statements about three times to get the conclusion out. Not trying to be hypocritical but you can't mix statements with different meanings all together and twist it.

Democracy has two meanings. One is applicable to individuals and the second, as a majority in the context of political environment. Individually, it ensures people do what they want to (obviously, using sense and not causing harm to others), and in the political context, it means that people with a majority of an opinion rule and the minority has to respect that. Doesn't mean that minorities need to be thrown away, in fact, the minorities become majority's responsibility as they are the ruling group. So democracy ensures everyone's individual freedom.

Laws and human rights don't restrain the democratic system, it actually strengthens it. Human rights, for example, make sure that no one's abusing the law, mother's right to live peacefully and safely (you are an IK fan so this is something IK totally ignored and blatantly violated when he shut down Islamabad and kids and others couldn't go to school, attacking parliament, indirectly was a human right violation as voting and coshing who to allow you to rule, is one of democratic systems' requirements, which obviously you or IK or others don't believe in as outlined in many posts here), but yet, you are clinging to the SAME seats given to you by the democratic system, but you don't leave them either. So the motto is, bash democracy but let's not let go of our power seats given to us by the same democracy!!! Nice!!
But if the human rights were followed all the way, the protests would've been peaceful in nature, no one had to die and no parliament attacks and billions of dollars of loss to the country's economy!! Not sure what more can I write about how human rights (IF FOLLOWED) can strengthen the democracy, not weaken it. People taking law and order in there hands abuse human rights, risk others lives at risk for their power of greed and it is SO undemocratic!

The mighty wall of text approaches....

Was he saying the same thing? Are you sure? Either English isn't the main language you speak (no offense), or you need to re-read his and my statements about three times to get the conclusion out. Not trying to be hypocritical but you can't mix statements with different meanings all together and twist it.

Yes, he was. My English is perfectly fine and I have read his statements. Unless you are mixing his statements with another poster's, there is no reason for you to argue at all.
This is what he said:

Democracy is about allowing people to have different beliefs and ideas. A democratic multiparty system allows these people a fair shot of running the country the way they think it should be run, and to let the people decide their own ultimate fate in the nation they call home. That is democracy, something those who advocate marshall law absolutely oppose. The idea of freedom of thought and expression frightens them.

This is what you said:

In democracy, religion is a personal choice. People's will to do what they want to, welfare, lifestyle, economy, right to free speech, right to a safer environment to live in, right to social / necessary services and safety is ensured.
I don't think there is ANY religion on this planet that says otherwise also. So religions also have democratic element in them. But, in a true democratic system, it is the PEOPLE who rule, and can worship whatever they want to in a peaceful manner ensuring others safety and rights, as well as their own.

You can keep your pretentious lectures with yourself.

Democracy has two meanings. One is applicable to individuals and the second, as a majority in the context of political environment. Individually, it ensures people do what they want to (obviously, using sense and not causing harm to others), and in the political context, it means that people with a majority of an opinion rule and the minority has to respect that. Doesn't mean that minorities need to be thrown away, in fact, the minorities become majority's responsibility as they are the ruling group. So democracy ensures everyone's individual freedom.

Individual freedom is an essential part of Democracy, yes - why was any of this needed? Nobody on this thread denied any of this.

Laws and human rights don't restrain the democratic system, it actually strengthens it. Human rights, for example, make sure that no one's abusing the law, mother's right to live peacefully and safely

I never said that Laws and Human Rights restrain the Democratic System. I said they didn't allow for Ideological Democracy as the philosophical principle of absolute power to the majority can never be practically applied.

(you are an IK fan so this is something IK totally ignored and blatantly violated when he shut down Islamabad and kids and others couldn't go to school, attacking parliament, indirectly was a human right violation as voting and coshing who to allow you to rule, is one of democratic systems' requirements, which obviously you or IK or others don't believe in as outlined in many posts here), but yet, you are clinging to the SAME seats given to you by the democratic system, but you don't leave them either. So the motto is, bash democracy but let's not let go of our power seats given to us by the same democracy!!! Nice!!
But if the human rights were followed all the way, the protests would've been peaceful in nature, no one had to die and no parliament attacks and billions of dollars of loss to the country's economy!! Not sure what more can I write about how human rights (IF FOLLOWED) can strengthen the democracy, not weaken it. People taking law and order in there hands abuse human rights, risk others lives at risk for their power of greed and it is SO undemocratic!

I am not an ''IK fan'' and this is not relevant to this discussion. If you post any of this nonsense again, you are getting ignore listed and you need to find someone else to give pretentious lectures to to bolster your ego.
Your obsession with IK and my political leanings is psychotic. None of this was relevant to this, and after all the changes and completely different situation in Pakistan, here you are with the same old drivel I crushed months ago.

I am not 'clinging' to any seats. I don't have any seats. None of this is relevant. The protests ended four months ago. Get a goddamn life.

People taking law and order in there hands

By the way, it's ''their'' not ''there'', Mister expert in English.

The Prophet (PBUH) did not declare Islamic democracy (is there anything like this?) but he practiced democratic values throughout his life (and preached them through example), even before his prophet-hoot. If you remember how he resolved the issue of the placement of the 'Hajra-e-Aswad' when the rival clans were about to go after each other on that petty issue, and it happened before his formal prophet-hood. Democracy is not the election of incapable people, but to elect the best people among the group of people and then question them if they fail to deliver. Mastan saheb is right, a society, any society for that matter, for people are basically selfish, is never ready to let go its privileges, rather she is made to do that through strong leadership.

I should have put ''Islamic Democracy'' in quotes, as I was referring to the argument the other post had made when I mentioned it - I agree with all you have said, but the points on which I disagree with @MastanKhan is that he seemed to be under the impression that the Prophet (s.a.w) implemented Islamic governance in Makkah from day 1 and that he didn't have to spend decades preaching and establishing Islam first - which he did.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

No one gives out democracy willingly----it is forced upon the people---. The privileged are forced to be democratic---they are made to fear the rule of law---and in order for one to fear the rule of law---there has to be order enforced in the society.

Democracy is talked about in Pakistan in same manner as it is stated that Z A BHUTTO gave freedom to the poor people---well in truth he did not do that----what he gave to the poor people was CHAOS and ANARCHY---. The poor are still the worthless in Pakistan.

 

[TankMan]

Hi,

Right after the conquest of Mecca---they came in droves---in tens and hundreds----and for what---to be treated equal---same rule of law for everyone---no one above anyone----that was the message after the conquest of Mecca---right from day one---when Islam became powerful---that was the slogan. The democracy was enforced---before the conquest---it was okay whatever---maybe yes maybe no---we will see-----but when they came into real power and carried the banner for equality and justice that is what made the difference

Indeed the time under Prophet Mohammad was different----but the problem with you people is that you have no clue where to start---.

Someone tell me---what is important---rule of Law or is it Order in the society---?

Sir what you aren't understanding is that when the Holy Prophet conquered Makkah, he had already established a state in Madinah and had a proper system of governance - all he needed to do was integrate the newly-conquered Makkah within that system.

Yes, I agree with you and @syedali73 that a strong leader is needed to push people to the right direction - but this leader will have to spend years if not decades gaining a support base and educating people before he can establish a concrete Democracy or any other form of governance (Khilafat etc). We don't have any such leader yet.

 

[I.R.A]

You remember someone Mohammad---the prophet of the muslims---the one that you call your prophet----some 1400 years ago in mecca---so---how many days did it take for him to instill democracy----.

Was it one day or was it 10 days----.

Youngman---democracy never starts when the nation is ready----because the nation is never ready and will never be ready---. Democracy is not enforced by a nation---it is enforced by a person---a person in power----.

Hello sir,

I support your ideas of democracy here, for me democracy is when the rich get taxed and poor are afforded the opportunity to meet their ends and become employed and contribute to the economy no matter how little that is (Most probably like a Zakat system). Democracy is when everyone is afforded the chance to prosper, and then it depends on people what they make of that chance. Democracy is when I get to question the governor about his actions, when he is answerable, accountable.

But what we see in our democracy in Pakistan is tax the one who works his a$$ off, rip the state of its resources, kill the merit, nepotism rules everywhere with each government that comes into power. Rich useless dynasties get richer, mediocre hardworking working suffer and poor get poorer. Though the taxes are there, resources are there but whats not there is the preference of National interest over personal interest.

 

[Viper0011.]

The mighty wall of text approaches....

Unless you are mixing his statements with another poster's, there is no reason for you to argue at all.
This is what he said:

This is what you said:

You can keep your pretentious lectures with yourself..

If you carefully examine, you may see my post wasn't an answer to that content of his post. If was to the content at the of the post I responded to......

 

[syedali73]

I should have put ''Islamic Democracy'' in quotes, as I was referring to the argument the other post had made when I mentioned it - I agree with all you have said, but the points on which I disagree with @MastanKhan is that he seemed to be under the impression that the Prophet (s.a.w) implemented Islamic governance in Makkah from day 1 and that he didn't have to spend decades preaching and establishing Islam first - which he did.

Pardon me if I am missing something out but the conquest of Mecca was indeed the establishment of the Islamic rule. Now there were many things, as you have pointed out correctly, that were not prohibited right away such as alcohol consumption, even the interest-based transactions (only declared illegal during the last sermon). However, I see those prohibitions more like the evolution of moral values of the Arabs and not really as the establishment of democratic values. My friend if you read the history of Arabs (of-course you have read), it was a fierce tribal culture with all the good and bads that are associated with such a system. If Mohammed (PBUH) had not practiced democratic values from day one, the Arabs would have never accepted Islam in the first place, let alone the rule of Islam in Mecca. It was through that democratic system the Prophet (PBUH) manged to deal with the various clans who were literally killing and robbing each others for ages. The archangel Gabriel brought Allah's message to the Mohammed (PBUH) much latter whereas Mohammed (PBUH) had already established himself as a leader and visionary and an honest gentleman long before. Arabs used to listen to him and follow not because of the divine message he preached, but for his righteousness, kindness, tolerance, and forgiveness. Thats my two cents. I admit I might not have understood your point completely.