Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'State'.
Found 3 results
Symbolic Monarchy is a Stain Upon Any Nation That Respects It by EZRA KRONFELD Within western countries, there are systems that liberate and systems that enslave. Democracy and justice serve the citizenry, while forces of demagogic injustice work to keep the people down. The monarchical form of government wherein unelected royals rule the commoners is a near universally despised and archaic tradition that has ended in most civilized societies. Certain peoples, however, have chosen to continue this system in a ritualistic sense, rather than a literal sense. They have decided as a society to look back at this oppressive tradition in sick admiration. England is of course the most notable western nation to maintain this sort of thing. English tabloids fawned over the wedding of Kate Middleton and Prince William in 2011, and scores of American citizens watched their nuptials on television. This is of no less vapidness than reality television or the Kardashians. These people are only of note to the public because their ancestors unjustly ruled the English masses, and for some reason, they’re still allowed to maintain some form of power. Of course the people of England haven’t all risen up to abolish the monarchy; it has been fed to them as a symbol of national pride by their media, thus making a criticism of the monarch akin to criticizing the whole of the United Kingdom. “Constitutional monarchy”, as displayed in the countries that maintain them (specifically European nations) is still monarchy. As long as there is still a systematically-preferential “royal bloodline”, wherein certain people are granted wealth, comfort, and national respect on the arbitrary basis of inherited power is certainly a harmful system. The tax dollars of the working man going towards a Sovereign Grant is outrageous. Even after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which had led to a limited monarchy in the United Kingdom, Queen Anne was still able to veto an Act of Parliament nearly two decades later. Imagine a post-slave trade nation implementing “symbolic” slavery. This would involve the descendants of the oppressed paying or working without pay to keep the lives of the oppressors’ descendants elegant, with all who occupy the country being taught to respect this system that they fought to end long ago. Well that is essentially what “constitutional monarchy” is. Well I ask that we not re-polish the rusted shackles that once bound us, that we cease national respect of the old systems that kept us powerless. I would compel the freethinking populace to oppose tyranny, and abolish it in all its forms. Ezra Kronfeld is an independent writer and journalist. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/02/symbolic-monarchy-is-a-stain-upon-any-nation-that-respects-it/
(bismillah) (salam) I hope you are all in the best of health and most firm in your Imaan. The separation of the Church and the state has been a matter of profound debate over the past few centuries. While I'm not here to discuss the issue in general - because that has been done to death already - I did find a particularly interesting video on the matter: https://youtu.be/EbUUNonUgE8 You can skip to around 3:40 for the relevant part but I would suggest watching the whole thing. Anyways, the part which piqued my interest most was when the scholar argued that hypocrisy is a natural product of an ideological state and that even in the time of the Prophet himself, this is something that could not be countered or mitigated, regardless of how perfect the ruler might be. This was particularly interesting for me and there are two aspects of this that I would like you guys to discuss and give your opinions about: 1. Is hypocrisy, as he states, a natural and inevitable product of an ideological state, such that in a secular state the problem would not exist at all? 2. This argument implies that even the Prophet's rule was not perfect. Now, we all know that it was, indeed, not perfect as there were bad people and so on but we mostly interpret that as a problem resulting from the bad people and that the system itself was perfect in and of itself (just like God created a perfect system but evil exists because of the people, to give a relatively similar analogy). This argument, however, claims an imperfection within the system itself. Do you agree or disagree? Or, would you just argue that this is an example of a problem resulting from the actions of the people and not a fundamental flaw in the system itself? Thanks.
I just came accross this. It's a strategy in which Israel deliberately targets civilians and civilian infastructure which they implemented in the 2006 Lebanon war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine "The first public announcement of the doctrine was made by General Gadi Eizenkot, commander of the IDF's northern front, in October 2008. He said that what happened in the Dahiya (also transliterated as Dahiyeh and Dahieh) quarter of Beirut in 2006 would, "happen in every village from which shots were fired in the direction of Israel. We will wield disproportionate power against [them] and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective, these are military bases. [...] This isn't a suggestion. It's a plan that has already been authorized. [...] Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah." Noting that Dahiya was the Shiite quarter in Beirut that was razed by the Israeli Air Force during the Second Lebanon War, Israeli journalist Yaron London wrote in 2008 that the doctrine, "will become entrenched in our security discourse."
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.