[cewIdeatovace]

One of the problems with us is that we have all been educated with a modern nation-state as our experience, we do not know anything different. Some of us may have theoretical knowledge from books about what a khalifah might look like and operate...but because of our modern experiences we might model it on the nation-state (a strong centralized authority with lots of control etc.). Maybe there is no model and even making detailed plans of how it would be is inappropriate....maybe aside from a few general laws people are left to govern themselves. The more regulations and laws there are imposed by the centralized authority the more corruption there is.

Lao Tzu:
: "The more restrictions and limitations there are, the more impoverished men will be ... The more rules and precepts are enforced, the more bandits and crooks will be produced. Hence, we have the words of the wise [ruler]: Through my non-action, men are spontaneously transformed. Through my quiescence, men spontaneously become tranquil. Through my non-interfering, men spontaneously increase their wealth." I would recommend listening to this long lecture, not because I advocate his ideas, but just to gain a different perspective on the problem of government and to recognize that there are many different ways to govern without creating a centralized nation-state or empire. The Usmanli khalifah did not call itself an empire, the west called it the ottomon empire, but they called themselves the dawla....this is a less rigid, centralized and bureaucratic form of Islamic rule, empires are rigid and controlling designed to enrich people in the centre of government.


If you get a chance watch this:

Hoppe in Sydney 2011: "Society Without State - Private Law Society"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=TBER0noHGC8