My point is, that the countries listed in my last post have implemented the democracy in some-what true sense and their facts and figures shows that its working.

Where is Islamic rule? be it Iran or Saudia, (both champions of Islam) portray that they have implemented sharia law, but that’s just on the face of it, both countries have a long history of human rights violation and have parliament / shura to support the legislative implementations. Whereas the other countries (mentioned in last post) have a very clean record.

I hope you understand my point. I was never against the true sharia law implementation, but it was always used as a political tool to get the votes and make governments, none ever even tried to implement one.

If democracy is implemented in true sense, (that is having an opposition party’s involvement in legislation and other matter (which ensures checks and balances) then implementation of law through the society members) then only a country can have ideal socio-politic-economic condition in a country…………….. am I right? Correct me if am wrong!!!

If you want example of whatever I have written in above paragraph, then I can name Singapore, Malaysia, Greenland, Canada, etc.

every "thriving" democracy of yours (usa, india, brittan, france, germany) are downing in problems. false economies liek usa and india where the state is in billions or trillions in debt cannot be called thriving can they?

tzaidi,
i am talking about an islamic state where the head of state and council of representatives will be elected. how is that even comparable to tehreek-e-talibaan pakistan who are takfiri idiots who want to impose their will adn their interpretation of islam on others without room for representaives deabating on interpretations etc?

democracy, is not only what you have mentioned above, it allows for exploitative laws to be created and implemented. if you refer above i have already proved democracies represent minorities whose interests are safeguarded.

can you argue with that?

Since Amir Mauwiya enthroned, the caliphate nominations were given on hereditary grounds. Amir Mauwiya son, Yazid attacked Kaaba and Medina during his second year of rule, needless to mention his other crimes, the whole Abu Sufiyan bloodline was like that ………….. then came banu Abbas, who were no less then banu Ummiyah ………… Ottoman caliphate ………… you can still visit Turkey and witness the remains of the lavish life they used to live on expenses of muslims during their time. If you want I can give you account of each and everyone of them through the most reliable historian, ‘ibn-e-tabri’, so please stop comparing the so called Islamic caliphate system with democracy.

Democracy is the based on the principal of selecting among the people and empowering them to make legislation and implement it in the best interest of the people. Isn’t that exactly what Islam has taught us???

Whatever you are trying to prove here, simply leads to whatever Tehrik-i-Talibaan Pakistan is trying to implement in Northern Pakistan ………….. but you hear it and hear it loud ………….. there is no place for taalibs in Pakistan, specially in Karachi.

The biggest testimony supporting my point is that Democracy is thriving in more then 100 countries (in some forms) and your Caliphate is no-where to be seen ….” …

"The lubay-lubab of the discussion is that the democracy is tried and tested" <— tested to fail and cause misery and pain. I have statistically and theoretically shown you that democracy is a fools-gold kind of "dream on" concept which cannot to truly implemnted. Can you refute that democracy is a front for capitalism which has caused all the wars and bloodshed, and exploitation of weaker nations?

"whereas, you alternative, the Capihate is impractical, confusing and undemocratic. Even the mullahs of Iran opted for western style of democracy instead of Caliphate." <— confusing? maybe for you. everything is confusing at first until you try to understand it. again. being un-biased is the key. <b> Impractical ??? ummm… its more practical than any other ideology since it existed as a state for over 1000 years, whereas its competitor socialism died out as a state in less than 50 years and capitalism/democracy has shown its flaws and uselessness within the span of the last 200 years at max. If you dont want to believe in history, then its more practical theoretically too since divine laws would always be better than laws made out of human intellect. logically also, its more practical because a state which does not allow exploitation of people based on their necessities would always be more welcome and be stronger than others. I can go on.

"To me it’s a choice between a 08 Reg – X-5 BMW 4×4 (top of the ranger) aka “Democracy” – tested and accepted or a donkey cart with no donkey (for the sense of direction)….(no witty answers of preferring a donkey cart)….the choice is obvious!" <— look… you are showing your bias again. Khilafah laster more than 1000 years in great condition and democracy which has no perfect example in the world because every democracy has to keep invading others or keep exploiting its own people to survive since it is not based on divine law or nature but on lies and deception just like it calls itself majority rule while i have proved in my earlier post that it is almost impossible for a democracy to be a majority rule.

"Any system of government has certain elements that distinguish it from other governments. These elements concern themselves with 1) How the government is formed? 2) What are the institution of this government 3) How is this government changed?" <— yes agreed. system of government and ideology are two different things. islam is an ideology and caliphate is a system of govt through this ideology. you can have a so called democracy where people vote representatives and elect a ruler but the only law impletmented is sharia law and no law is made from any other source excpet sharia then that is also an islamic state. I am not an avdocate of only khilafah. Any system which does not allow man-made legislation based on anything except sharia is an Islamic system and i support it. By the way, there is no sure shot answer from democray’s perspective either, for the questions you have asked. govt is formed by electing a president in usa, while in india and pak it is done by electing parliment where the majority stake holding party selects a prime minister from themselves. hence demcracy does not define how govt is to be made. Its all done differently everywhere. Same with islam. do correct me if im wrong and lets discuss.

"<b>based on a man made constitution known in history as the Mesaq-e-Medina. The constitution and the government that resulted from it was political and not spiritual mind you." <— the prophet (peace be upon him) defined laws just like i am saying islamic state will. the laws are BASED on shaira laws and nothing else. Look at the points in it. <i>Point#23 Whenever you differ about a matter it must be referred to God and to Muhammad. This clearly shows that there is no law to be made or matter to be settled other than from sharia :)

There are no points in misaq e madina based on anything else other than shaira of that time.

"The final arbiter of that was the Prophet (PBUH) himself and he decided according to the existing laws of the time, without any divine intervention." <– already point 23 has been mentioned above which answers your allegation. divine intervention is something else bro and i never said divine intervention makes laws in an islamic state.

"<b>Even during the period of the pious Caliphate we see that the election of each Caliph was different from the other." <— i can every easily point out such discrepancies about selection of head of govt in democratic govts too.

1) Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique (RA) was elected by notables after the demise of the Holy Prophet. <— like a parliament selecting a PM

2) Hazrat Umar Bin Khitab (RA) was appointed by Abu Bakr and confirmed through “bait” by the rest. <— that is incorrect. he was NOMINATED not APPOINTED. Bait of the majority of representatives of people or by majority of people directly decides a khalif in normal circumstances.

"Islam as an ideology does not give a political system. Instead it seeks to reform the individual who can then go on to work diligently and honestly within the system" <— within the system? Every ideology gives a political system brother. Have you not read the hundreds of ayaat and hadith about social system, economic system, imam being the leader and he too not being followed if he implements other than sharia? etc etc

"<b>Political system is result of evolutionary thought, and not the result of ideology. Ideology thus works within the system to establish itself, but it is not concerned with the working of the system as such.that Islam and Democracy are incompatible…"<— yes… islam is an ideology while democracy is a form of govt.

"in the case of which we will have to do away with Islam completely (because people like you have corrupted it) or you can expound upon the rational true Islam and state Democracy and Islam go hand in hand …" <— i didnt get what you are trying to say, except blaming me of corrupting islam or democracy or both… :S

"What is the meaning of Caliph first. Does he need to be elected, or he need to enforce himself. Because when you say democracy and caliphate are diametrically opposed, I presume you think army rule in the name of Islam is Caliphate. Or did I misunderstood you." <— you misunderstood me dear brother. Again i am pro-islamic-state not only pro-caliphate. IF there can be any other form of implementing islamic state i shall agree to it.
Now, khalif has to be elected under normal circumstances. elected by the majority of the people and then given bayt by the rest is the best condition. Otherwise the people can elect representatives from amongst them and these representatives can elect the khalif as per majority vote/bayt and then the rest have to give bayt. however in a worse case scenario when there is some really crazy conditions going on, a khalif can seize power directly and ask for people’s bayt. If they give bayt to someone else he will become the khalif and this seizer will be removed. That is my understanding from all that i have studied.

"Second if you think, that Caliphate means, a central authority for Muslims. It has never been after Khulfae-Rashid.But was it present during Khulfa-e-Rashid." <— It was still an islamic state where no laws other than those extracted from sharia were implemented.

"If so then tell me who was the true Caliph, Hazrat Ali or Hazrat Amir Muawiya."<— thats like asking who was the real president, clinton or bush. both. obviously one after the other.

"Pakistan’s Shria Law – My View…" <– paksitan has no sharia law bro. Our constitution says "man has the power to legislate" and we allow interest banking.

"According to Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology states in its report that just 2 counts carry capital punishment in Islam. That for cold-blooded murder & spreading ‘terror or mischief on earth’." <— if they cite this with credible references from sharia i agree with them.

"<b>Adultery carries symbolic flogging and just that…not stoning. <– adultry has types defined in islam, adultry between both un-married, one unmariied and other married and third is when both are married elsewhere. all have different punishments. stoning is only for when both people are mariied elsewhere and are cheating on their spouces.

"hence it can not be used as an example to inflict horrendous punishment on women." <— A criminal is a criminal whether man or woman. Do not try to use sexist tactics int his discussion. man, woman, whatever, there are laws for every thing. If as you said it can be proved through islamic shaira refernces that a certian punnishment or any other law is wrong that is ijtehad, ijma, and qiyas come in. Islamic state as necesary system in place to deal with such issues like the need for changing a law.

dude… listen… if you have ideological objections lets discuss them.

I hope i have clarifies some misunderstanding and a few misconceptions.

waiting for response.

salam all!

i will try kai ap ke suhbat ikhteyar karon aur ap ke tarha sai meethi meethi batayn karkay gala kaat doun, maan gaya janab maan gaya UMER Aur Tajarbay ka ko koyee challange nahi kar sakta, grandpa

@seskey: Shamsi and freespeaker are right .. swearing and using low grade language only makes people take u less seriously ..

@Shamsi: rightly said … India is an Enemy of Pakistan.

behave urself dude, street urchins & people who have access to PCs and blogs shall have some difference.