Doesn't Mollah Omar believe in what he is doing? Didn't bin Laden believe in what he was doing? Were they merely the robots programmed by ISI or America?
I missed your examples of work-in-progress countries. If you don't mind I will ask you to mention them one more time. How would the finish goods look like? Would you kindly shed some light on it?
Yes, all political parties including AL can be violent. Does it mean that we should shy away from specifically calling Jamat a fascist party? I don't think so. This is the political blunder of BNP. I don't know if the nation will remember this. BNP has a lot of freedom fighters who have been marginalized and made voiceless by the dictatorial power of Khaleda Zia who does not seem to understand and appreciate the significance of the great spirits of our liberation movement. BNP is in wrong hands. Khaleda has turned BNP into Jamat's puppet.
Islamic rule and Muslim rule are not synonymous. A Muslim ruler can be secular but an Islamic ruler cannot. The latter is essentially divisive in a multi-religious country. It cannot but be biased against the religious minorities. Aurangzeb turned to Islam only to weaken the great Mughal empire.
If I were you I would not have measured theocracy and other forms government on the same scale. A theocracy is run by representatives of God and they follow the divine authorities. They follow rules and laws rooted in holy and revealed scriptures. Because of all these, a theocracy is flawless and infallible. The other forms of government are run by a whole bunch of humans who bring with them their human limitations. I have said all this because you have high regard for theocracy.
Sent from my iPhone
I was only trying to offer an explanation from "Islamic perspective". Since some of the members are not aware of some information. If you feel strongly about secular system, I respect your opinion.
I count myself as a true "Mukto-Mona", so I have no attachments with any political parties. In this forum, I made in abundantly clear, I am against ALL sort of "Violent politics". Unfortunately all major political parties have "Violent people" among them and frequently they are "Used" by their respective parties. I think we have to go beyond name calling and take legal and solid measures to stand up against violence. Unfortunately our highly educated members in this forum (Most of them) are UNABLE to get out of their party affiliation and think FREELY.
Mullah Omar was no a tool used by ISI. Don't think they had "Promotion of Islam" in their hearts!! I have given you some SPECIFIC examples of countries which I called "Work in progress". NO matter what system we prefer, we have to honor democratic system (So power always stays to common people).
Islam have shown the world how to live in a mufti-religious country. So we have hundreds of years of experience to fall back into. One member recently said, even in India, religion was NOT imposed by Muslim rulers.
5. I have mentioned the period of Khulafa-e-Rashedeen as one of the best periods in Islamic history. My point was that even this period, although run under the complete guidance of God, could not guarantee a system free from power struggle.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are NO system, where you don't find "Power struggle". Don't know why this simple fact escaped your imagination. :-)
Shalom!
-----Original Message-----
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 4, 2013 8:35 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: এই জলে আগুন জ্বলে
1. Nobody will say that people enjoyed less religious freedom during the time when one of the state principles was secularism. Introduction of religious flavor in the constitution by Zia and Ershad was obviously for political purpose. People in general don't care. It is the political elements (they may not have any personal political ambition) who try to convince them about the necessity of mingling religion with politics, legal system, and socio-economic system. The so called educated people should stop doing this. They do not realize that knowingly or unknowingly they are simply encouraging Jamat kind of politics only to divide the country.2. I really wonder why you do not consider Jamat as a fascist force. Look at its history. Particularly reflect on the anti-Ahmadiya riot it incited. Look at its present activities. Look at its attitudes towards our independence.3. Work-in-progress! Was Afghanistan under Mollah Omar not a finished good? Or was it still a work-in-progress? Can you please mention some countries that can be called works-in-progress? I am curious.4. The modern world is multi-religious. Any particular religion must not get priority. If Manu, for example, has any thing good in it, it will obviously have respectable place in the legal system or constitution. It does not need to be specifically mentioned. The constitution and legal system of any modern secular state are the best that one society can have. It has evolved over time. And it is still evolving. It has captured every thing good in the various religious, social, legal, and political systems from the past. Take a particular religion of your choice and compare it with, for example, 1972 constitution of Bangladesh. Do you really need any thing different from the 1972 constitution except the fact that it can still be improved?5. I have mentioned the period of Khulafa-e-Rashedeen as one of the best periods in Islamic history. My point was that even this period, although run under the complete guidance of God, could not guarantee a system free from power struggle.
From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com; history_islam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: এই জলে আগুন জ্বলে
1. The concept of "complete code of life" stretched beyond personal religious life is nothing but a political slogan by those who want to capture the state power.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Partly true. There are millions of people around the world believes in it without having any political ambitions.
but those who use religion to capture power absolutely are. These people are divisive.
>>>>>>>>> I agree. Religion should NOT be "Abused" as a tool to get to power.
However since Islam offers a complete solution, it can be offered as an alternative to whatever other choices people may have. Therefore, we should NOT be banning any system from "Free people", rather allow people to pick the best system of their choice.
This is the situation in Egypt and Turkey today. Both place have Islamic parties came to power via pure democratic process and if they FAIL to deliver, people will retain the power to revert back to a better system for themselves.
Jamat is a prime example. It is not possible for them to offer a peaceful and cooperative pluralistic society. They have other vices too.
>>>>>>>>>> This is a popular perception of Jamaat and unless they work hard to change this, they will have VERY hard time to be accepted to common people.
The era of Khulafa-e-Rashedeen ( or Kingdom of Ashoka to take as another example) may be an exception although that period was also not free from internal conflicts.
>>>>>>>>>>> Having a theocratic state is NOT an utopia but assuming there are some system which will ALWAYS remain "Conflict-free" is an utopia/pipe-dream. Even the best among us always had some opposition or some groups who actively opposed them.
You can think of Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Jesus son of Mary (PBUH), Muhammad Bin Abdullah (PBUH), Hazrat Ali (RA) etc. Even Rabindranath had quite a few serious critics during his time. Therefore, even the best countries of the our world have to have police, army, courts etc to punish bad people and preserve peace for rest of us.
You will probably never aspire to live in an Islamic theocratic state like Talibani Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or even Iran (don't take this personally as this applies to anybody who believes and loves theocracy.) You will probably prefer your kid being in Harvard to being in a world renowned madrasah.
>&g
