Leading Pakistani cleric chief Sufi Muhammad of Tehreek-e- Nifaz-e- Shariat-e- Muhammadi has declared democracy, communism, socialism, and fascism to be un-Islamic. Hmmm, that leaves what? Of yes, Islamic rule. He has also reaffirmed that it is unIslamic to be photographed.
Showing the depth of his thinking (or inability of thought), Sufi Muhammad declared democracy to be un-Islamic because it was invented by infidels, adding “I would not offer prayer behind anyone who would seek to justify democracy.”
Another problem with democracy appears to be that it insists on protecting democratic ideals and refuses to impose Sharia and Islamic law on citizens. “
The ideal system? Why it was the medieval Taliban regime: “Only the Taliban had enforced sharia when they were in power in Afghanistan.”
He also stressed that women in the perfect Taliban world were not allowed to come out of their homes for any reason other than to perform Haj.
here.For full story, click
38 thoughts on “Leading Pakistani Cleric Denounces Democracy as UnIslamic and Praises the Former Taliban Regime as the Model System of Governance”
Recently my father had an issue with purchasing a home. He is a veteran and the VA was giving him a hard time about using his VA loan. I encouraged him to write his congress men/women. He wrote a letter to both California Senators and to his representative. He was surprised that the issue got any attention and after only a week the VA had approved his use of his benefit.
I fully agree that not enough people use this remedy.
While addressing her district, she said tearfully that nobody should have to put up with the behind-the-back comments she took. ,
we do have a say supposedly in our elected officials. They do respond to phone calls and emails on particular subjects. Part of the problem is that not enough people write their congressmen/women on a regular basis to really be effective.
I would be happy if I could vote on every issue before the congress but what would happen is that most people would eventually stop voting and we would be left with the hard right and hard left running the country. The types you don’t like, the zealots, they would be the ones left voting.
The entire system has become a farce and our founders are wondering why they even bothered.
Government, Wealth and Corporations are an unholy trinity for the purpose of crucifixion of the masses. We foot the bill for Government and Corporations and the idle Wealthy.
I had a feeling you were going with the US is a republic route and that is true, or at least how we started out, what with limited suffrage and slavery. All governmental forms can be corrupted, as can all non-governmental forms. Humans have not risen far from the rule of the pack and from the toughest guy is the boss mentality. It is possibly genetic, but definitely has components of being socialized into us. What I mean by that is when you have Type A personalities and/or sociopaths among us, you will always have to deal with people trying to be in charge of other people.
The democratic concept is imperfect to be sure and the mob can at times be manipulated, but I’m more comfortable with a system where on some level I get to choose who leads me. As I
heard someone describe it years ago: Government, wealth and corporations are a gun aimed at my head and I’d rather have some say on whose finger is on the trigger.
A quote from Mr. Franklin:
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
We live in a republic not a democracy. There is supposed to be a check on the tyranny of the mob through our elected representatives. At least that is my understanding. Pure democracy would be mob rule or a parliamentary style government. Personally I like the checks and balances of our republic.
Thanks for the suggestion Jill. I am now up to 3 daily podcasts and 12 weekly podcasts. Not looking forward to when I actually start running out of time!
The more I think about Pakistan the more bleak the situation looks. The sad part is I think things would be drastically different if Benazir Bhutto was in charge rather than her husband. Ms. Bhutto was not afraid of the Islamists, while her husband doesn’t seem to mind kowtowing to their every demand. I’ve heard that the US is going to try to engage Sharif, but he is just as corrupt and incompetent as Ali Zardari. We should have just left Musharraf in place. The place sure seemed a whole hell of a lot more stable then.
“Democracy is not a good thing because the “mob” will not be concerned with the individual.”
Could you elaborate on that?
“I often wonder whether the West is just farther along a kind of social evolution compared to the rest of the world. Our countries are obviously much more advanced economically, technologically, and in nearly every way imaginable. This kind of prosperity has produced a sort of moderating influence, which is reinforced by democracy.”
Individual rights are the cause of our success. Our minds are free, we do not need to spend any energy on the irrational. Democracy is not a good thing because the “mob” will not be concerned with the individual. I should think the mullahs would embrace democracy.
The pathetic thing about all of this is that the US has a long history stretching back to Eisenhower, of supporting corrupt Pakistani Governments. Because during the Cold War India insisted on remaining independent of the aegis of both the US and USSR, the “wise men” of the foreign policy establishment and the MI Complex leaned toward Pakistan to balance things out, thinking India a tool of the USSR. Like in many other areas our “wise men” of foreign policy left us a legacy that returns again and again to haunt us. Then too the mixture of Fundamentalism and governance always creates a poisonous result.
Former Dem is paid by the word, or comment. He exists to disrupt and not engage. Just another whore, we just don’t know his price.
lottakatz and Matthew N.
There was a really good discussion of this situation on NPR’s Here and Now today:
Not a good sign:
Last I heard the technology was in place in at least one private imaging firm to take satellite picks with 1 meter resolution. If the government can’t beat that considering what we have been paying as taxpayers for imaging tech for the government I don’t know why we bother.
The problem may not be with the tech though. Finding facilities are probably the least of the problem. Facilities for refining nuclear material and fashioning something from it usually stay put. Knowing where they were last week generally means you know where they are next month.
Assembly into a weapon especially a small one is another matter, you can disperse the components and if they have mobile nuclear warheads and launching platforms the job becomes one of tracking their movement and if one loses track of them, being able to find them again knowing they have been disguised. That’s tough, labor intensive work. So is ‘sending in the marines’ to secure something. What a nightmare that could turn into.
HEY, GREAT BRITAIN!!!!
How’s that Sharia working out for you clowns?
Don’t worry Boys and Girls. The United States will back this guy in the next election/coup attempt.
Personally, I refuse to believe that we don’t know where Pakistan’s nukes are. We either know or have a pretty good idea, they just aren’t saying so publicly. I have no doubt in my mind that there are contingency plans in place for Marines/sailors in the Pacific to seize control of Pakistani nuclear facilities within a few hours should the need arise. Most people seem to believe that the only properly functioning part of the Pakistani government is the military, so I don’t know if their nukes will ever actually be in jeopardy.
1, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 am: Snap!
1, May 5, 2009 at 12:15 am: “Afghanistan is a failed state” Yes. Scary doesn’t begin to cover it. It is problematic at best that we don’t know where exactly the nukes are or what happened to the $100 mil or so we have given them to secure their sites and weapons. President Obama seemed to indicate that the Afghan military would not let them fall into the hands of the Taaliban but they, the Afgan military sources and allies, are also the folks that won’t tell us where the weapons are or where the money went. This I have read in the last few days. I don’t know if it’s true or not. The money could well have been directed into the pockets of high ranking military officers in order to buy just these assurances. I hope they’re true.
Pakistan is so intent on protecting itself from the threat from India, whether real or imagined, that it is making concessions to the Taliban that it will soon regret. Afghanistan is a failed state, and we cannot salvage it regardless of how much men and money we throw at the problem. When are we going to learn that we do not have the capacity to convert medieval tribal societies to western democracies? Iraq is much better off, of course, than Afghanistan, but religious and ethnic differences remain more important than the solution to common problems in that country. That will remain the case for the foreseeable future. The overriding legacy of the Bush administration in that part of the world is instability, and it was completely foreseeable.
Have you all noticed that Former Dem limits his comments to quotes from other people or organizations? Have you noticed that he’s never expressed a thought of his own? Have you noticed that he doesn’t appear to have any thoughts of his own and absolutely refuses to engage anyone in an exchange of ideas? Have you noticed that he attempts to emphasize the perceived importance of his statements by capitalizing them, much like seventh graders do when they pass really important notes? He has revealed enough about himself, however, to permit the following conclusions: 1. He is severely paranoid, and is therefore a firm believer in the right to possess firearms. 2. He fears what is happening in the country because he does not understand it. 3. He believes that any ideas that do not fit in with what he was taught in grammer school are somehow unAmerican and dangerous. 4. He is suspicious of those around him, particularly those of different ethnic and religious backgrounds. 5. He doesn’t socialize with people because their motives cannot be trusted and he pretty much keeps to himself. 6. He regards himself as a failure in life, and is concerned that others will discover that fact. 7. He limits his reading, if he reads at all, to short articles and propaganda pieces that reinforce his world view. 8. He declined to serve in the military because it would subject him to stressors that he was certain he could not handle. 9. He has been unable to sustain any stable personal relationships because other people always let you down in the end. 10. He professes a belief in God, but does not adhere to any particular theology because he thinks most churches are simply after his money. One hopes that he is not employed by the postal service.
Comments are closed.