[tabcdyop]

It was commented in another thread:

Getting rid of the head does not change anything. Just like when they got rid of Mubarak, nothing has really changed in Egypt, ...

Others too have asked similar questions.
So do we really have a plan for any post revolution country?
I think we don't.
Yours truly also thinks that we should really have a plan.
I suppose the plan would differ for each situation.
We are not living in Shariah Days.
I suppose a simple declaration that today onwards Shariah is in effect might be made but that does not take us far.
Practical problems have to be addressed.
How to go about that in different actual practical situations is the question.
Syria, for example.
In fact question may be asked even in the context of Muslim countries.

[flower-buy]

The problem is economics and riba. The revolutionaries after the Arab Spring are just continuing with riba they have no plans to change it...it is halal because they have called it "Islamic Banking".

The plan should be to get rid of the haram first, not change it or make it halal through a legal trick. Stop taxing people so much, collect Zakaat and redistribute it, change the currency from paper to a commodity like gold and silver, cut back government red tape and allow people to trade in halal ways.

Constitutions and democratic elections are designed to keep the same system in power, just change the faces 'in power'. In the background from democratic politics the same people control the economy and enslave everyone.... democratic politicians act like a firewall protecting the in-back bankers.

[jenilopaz]

Here is what brother Zahed wrote but then deleted:
Most of the muslims have no idea on whom to be supported. After withdrawal of Soviet forces, situation in Afghanistan worsened. Now in Syria people are supporting FSA, who neither have Deeni background nor have Deeni intention. They are only fighting for toppling the president. What will happen after achieving the goal? I am taking the liberty to put it back because he understood exactly what is the problem. I shall remove it if he so wishes.

I do wish to discuss these points because there is a general accusation on us Muslims that we talk about a Shariah which is like a pie in the sky, bye and bye. So given a chance to rule what is going to be our modus operandi? We got to have an answer for it - even if it is very rudimentary. Till now we do not have even that. It is no use criticizing MB when we do not present the alternative. Saying Shariah does not solve the problem. For once people like MB too will assert that they are on Shariah.

In a sense when we assert that Islam is a complete way of life then even at theoretical level we are supposed to answer and propose solutions to all the problems of the world. That is what will be demanded of us, whether we like it or not.

[mudozvonf]

Dear Hazrat, its my pleasure that you've noticed my opinion. I deleted it because later I added some J!h@d related sentences.

[expomeHattePe]

Dear Hazrat, its my pleasure that you've noticed my opinion. I deleted it because later I added some J!h@d related sentences.

Jami-'at (comprehensiveness) is an Islamic attribute - this is what gives you strength - Bi-idhnillah. In fact in Tasawwuf courage and strength and Jami-'at are synonymous. Apart from Iman-Salah-Zakat-Saum-Haj both J!h@d and Ihsan are part of Islam. Considerations of Jami-'at warrant that we include both of them in our discourse. But it has been explained in the Forum Rules that former will not be discussed here. As Muslims it is incumbent upon us to honour those rules. Hence we do not talk about that here. Personally I am at peace with this. This of course leaves the matter of Jami-'at unsolved. Yes it does. I suppose no one will claim here that we we are high on Jami-'at. In spite of that whtever is being served here has high degree of Jami-'at. And we do know what is missing! So there.

I suppose you will understand that above is not directed at you. I just used the opportunity to amplify on a very crucial and relevant issue.

[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

[dexterljohnthefinanceguy]

The secular democratic nation-state creates slave populations. The government together with other rich controllers in the background take out debts and make us the payers of the debt. This is completely unacceptable from the point of view of Islamic law. How can I or anyone else borrow money from someone and say that you and your family will pay it? I have not asked you if you agree...you have no control over how much I can borrow and what rates or anything else. Yet this is what governments do. Now you tell me if I have the power to do this to millions of people who I govern...even if it is every 4 years before there are elections...will I be corrupt or not? Will I worry about spending too much money on senseless wars? Will I treat this money like it is my own hard earned wealth that I could lose if I am reckless? No I will be corrupt and my class will be corrupt. This is why democracy is so useful to these criminals they have been given immense power and there is no one left to restrict them.

Democracies sell the practice of universal suffrage (where everyone after the age of 18 can vote for their rulers) as a positive thing which expands freedom. In actual practice it just creates a big mass of people who have no power because it is dissipated and dispersed...if some minority group with alternative views has the potential to grow...their votes are cancelled out by millions of others who have equal votes. An intelligent and learned voter who knows the issues well, is equal to a ignorant voter who knows nothing. Such a mass is easier to govern, control and manipulate by rigid centralized governments.

[broksaksaak]

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:


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

Society without state - that sounds like a western problem. A theoretical construct. We have a concrete problem at hand.
We can state it simply: How to implement Shariah. Or how to go about implementing Shariah. Unfortunately one might end up sounding like Anjum Choudhury but ultimately this is the question that we have to answer. I suppose we should ask in every geographical location about our plan to implement Shariah. In India we have five year plans for development by the government. And there is a planning commission that plans twenty years in advance. Since Muslim world is in a state of flux a clear cut plan for future actions is not a bad idea - rather it is a necessity.

[infollafago]

It is not a western problem, it is a Muslim problem many of us want a shariah state.

Shariah implimentation?

People themselves follow shariah....government enables this. How does government enable this? By getting rid of plans and control.

How can you plan five years in advance when you do not even know what will happen tomorrow? It is a sickness...people with too much power and too much money that they steal from others. India and Pakistan cannot even feed their own populations and they have nuclear weapons. How many millions were wasted on this?

Society without state - that sounds like a western problem. A theoretical construct. We have a concrete problem at hand.
We can state it simply: How to implement Shariah. Or how to go about implementing Shariah. Unfortunately one might end up sounding like Anjum Choudhury but ultimately this is the question that we have to answer. I suppose we should ask in every geographical location about our plan to implement Shariah. In India we have five year plans for development by the government. And there is a planning commission that plans twenty years in advance. Since Muslim world is in a state of flux a clear cut plan for future actions is not a bad idea - rather it is a necessity.

[xanaxist]

It is not a western problem, it is a Muslim problem many of us want a shariah state.

Shariah implimentation?

People themselves follow shariah....government enables this. How does government enable this? By getting rid of plans and control.

How can you plan five years in advance when you do not even know what will happen tomorrow? It is a sickness...people with too much power and too much money that they steal from others. India and Pakistan cannot even feed their own populations and they have nuclear weapons. How many millions were wasted on this?

These are relevant questions but on the periphery of the present topic.
Mahmood Mamdani, in Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, narrates the plight of some of the Mujahideen after USSR withdrew from Afghanistan. They just did not know what to do after that. So little bit of planning is not out of order. The main query is that all this turmoil that is there in Muslim world at the moment should lead to some order. What is our plan for that? West does have a plan. West already knows what they want in Afghanistan and they work for it. Question is do we know the corresponding answer? In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, Lebanon and so on. US in particular and west in general have rolled out a juggernaut of democracy. They have implemented their agenda with vigour and energy. Do we have a vision of our own. My impression is our vision will be simpler and less complex then theirs for Deen is simple.

[Sydaycymn]

Yes when I was at university I did a module on geographic resource management, and it showed how much planning they did. I was very impressed with the statist methods. I was young and easily impressionable. Holland reclaimed land from the sea and built schools in preparation of children being born now.

To implement a plan you need money, how are Muslims going to raise money?
Depending on how they raise money whether it is shariah compliant or not, they will be able to bring their plan to fruition. Most Muslims in Syria and the other places you mention would continue with the present system of finance, and with a democracy, therefore we would get countries that operate like other countries already.

After a long destructive war, people need to start making things and trading again, only then will they be able to generate savings which can be used to plan and build for the future. Germany after WW2 was completely destroyed, its cities and its people were badly damaged, yet within 30 or 40 years it was a powerhouse of development....much of it was financed by America, yet Britain the winner of WW2 declined even though it had finance from America as well.

I do not have the answers.

[Cabinanteerip]

Yes when I was at university I did a module on geographic resource management, and it showed how much planning they did. I was very impressed with the statist methods. I was young and easily impressionable. Holland reclaimed land from the sea and built schools in preparation of children being born now.

To implement a plan you need money, how are Muslims going to raise money?
Depending on how they raise money whether it is shariah compliant or not, they will be able to bring their plan to fruition. Most Muslims in Syria and the other places you mention would continue with the present system of finance, and with a democracy, therefore we would get countries that operate like other countries already.

After a long destructive war, people need to start making things and trading again, only then will they be able to generate savings which can be used to plan and build for the future. Germany after WW2 was completely destroyed, its cities and its people were badly damaged, yet within 30 or 40 years it was a powerhouse of development....much of it was financed by America, yet Britain the winner of WW2 declined even though it had finance from America as well.

I do not have the answers.

Good points.
In response to the original question of the thread there might be several responses.
One response could be to think of a development plan for a country.
This is secondary on my mind.
The primary concern is to adopt Islamic world view and attitude in thinking as well as in actions - to conduct your national, social and personal affairs in Islamic manner. This includes business, society, defense and reconstruction as well as reorganization of the society.