[DrunkMans]

warea;800706]1) Democracy existed long before French Revolution. Terror could be associated with caliphate wanting groups like al qaeda too and therefore is self refuting. The Greek city states are not exactly the same as the post French Revolutionary democracy is it? The only thing the same is the word, otherwise only land owners made the laws, the rest were ruled, and they were small towns by todays standards. The Terror unleashed by the French Revolution was real Terror lasting many months and years with hundreds and thousands of citizens slaughtered by other citizens (so much for fraternity).

2) those banking arguments don't neccessarily apply to democracy. And one could also argue that such laws don't make it really free,and hence they are not really pure freedom. Or the ideal concept of "freedom" espoused by them is not being practised by them. Banking became what it is today under Democracy.


If caliphate and kingship is similar then why the distinction ? If the distinction is purely based on application of shariah by caliph, then

1) was the post ummayad era rulers not applying shariah anymore ? Did they submit to something other than shariah? Did Muslims support rulers espousing something other than shariah for 1000 of years? You had good Kings and bad Kings, some applied the and followed the shariah more than others.

2) how exactly is personal rule of one man more closer to islam then democracy, if lets says democracy also submitted to shariah ? The argument against democracy is that "islam is not guided by whimps of population". Fine. But then that makes Islam even further less guided by whimps of one man. So at the end of the day it is submission to shariah thats key and that can happen with a "caliph"(no one here has explained how a caliph would even be elected) or a kingship or a ruler elected through larger representation of the people(democracy). Personal rule is not like democracy they are very different. Even if we agree that democracy is actually rule by the masses (it is not), it creates a hidden elite with more power than millions of the people, who has the power to object to their rule? If you protest in the streets the police deal with you, it is not freedom. Read Edward Bernays do a search for some of his quotes if you do not believe me. One ruler is held accountable to the Divine Law...Democracy makes its own laws and abandons Divine Laws as unacceptable.

Furthermore, the first four caliphs were mujthahids on their own. Who exactly is the mujthahids of present era qualified to be a caliph? If the caliph is not mujthaid then religious opinion are automatically diverted to the large ulema to deduce and thier ijma while the personal opinion of the leader (whether you call him "caliph" or "king" or "president") is only relevant in non-religious secular issues, and so your back to where you started arguing against. The rule of the Ottomons lasted for 600 years, they were not perfect, but their model of rule is still applicable, Atuturk imposed his secular anti Islamic republic on Turkey but it is a dismal failure. If you look at how their Khalifs ruled they had fuqaha and jurists who served the government.