It is necessary, that we live in a world of our own making, and if our making is of something brilliant and fantastic, or noble, then that reflects who we are, a fantastic and brilliant people. The hand and the mind that work together work in a symbiosis, the mind envisions, the hand applies, and the effort is doubled. Not all people have the correct vision, and not all people are fit for practical application. There are thinkers and doers. The thinker thinks, the doer commits to action.
Those who have a vision for Sudan are ideologues, and there are no men of action in Sudan. The Sudanese is by nature a spectator, observing progress going by him as he stays firmly fixed in one place in time. As the nations progress in technology, per capita GDP and Human Development Index, Sudan fails on progress on any level. The Sudanese is a dreamer whose vision of a successful state is one bound by Sharia and offering material prosperity, much like Saudi Arabia.
The Sudanese is also a coward, too cowardly to take his right; he expects that it happen by the will of Allah, a typical example of Sudanese laziness, which the Sudanese denies vehemently. He denies the forces of nature, and insists on Allah's hand arbitrarily sweeping through nations and installing new kings in their wake. Such a mindset cannot achieve anything, as it has denied its own will and paralyzed itself into inaction.
Every nation is a product of its people, even if it works within a system that was imposed on it. A successful democracy is the product of a successfully democratic people, Switzerland being a product of the Swiss, and Belgian democracy the result of a democratic Belgian nation. A failed state is the product of a failed people, Sudan being a failed state populated by a people who are foreign to the concept of limited government, social contract, rule of law and parliamentary rule.
Sudan can be a successful state, but it requires authoritarian rule, a sort of benevolent dictatorship that is aware of economics, politics, military warfare and the role of religion in the state. A democracy is not suited for Sudan, as it has been tried three times, each time failing and leading to a military dictatorship, after being won by an independence movement and two revolutions.
Every time there has been democracy, there has been bickering between the parties, leading to economic ruin and loss of security in the corners of Sudan, as well as political subjugation to the higher powers. The state is an arena where the ideological parties battle it out for control of the Sudan, while the masses watch, observe and comment in their own eccentric way. The Sudanese love for newspapers reflect a hobby that does not expend energy and tax the mind, a physically and mentally relaxed hobby.
The worst thing one can for the Sudan is give its political decision making to the masses. The masses demand the sadistic and grueling punishments of Sharia law, the persecution of minorities, the provision of one's lifestyle and the improvements of the standard of living from the government. The masses are vulgar, stupid, incompetent, and filled with megalomania and hubris. They cannot make decisions for a successful state, for all they have is speculation and ideology. They are not practical in any way.
If this country were handed to the masses by a democractic vote, the masses will overwhelming vote for a party that promises the cutting of thieves' hands, the persecution of the remaining Christians and their conversion to Islam under pain of death, the provision of a job, a house, an education and healthcare free of charge from the government. They want the luxury of the first world without expending the effort for it; they believe they are entitled to it, because they grace us with their presence, and if not given, they will cry out in protest.
The history of Islam is the history of tyrants, castles of gold and silver and a hungry populace. The caliphs overtaxed the peasants, who were punished by the taxmen with the most grueling punishments for not producing the tax money. The tax money was the caliph's personal wealth, which he spent on female slaves, gold and luxury. An Islamic state is by its very nature corrupt and Islamism produces failed states time after time.
The Sudanese masses have no proper interpretation of history. They believe the splendor enjoyed by the caliphs and ulema were enjoyed by the masses; they are indeed brainwashed. They rely on two epochs in Islamic history, the rule of the two Omars, Omar b. al-Khattab and Omar bin abdul-Aziz. These two epochs are the only periods in history to have justice permeate the Caliphate (s). They make the exception the rule, and rule out the rule altogether.
Men of nobility, of virtues, of the truth, of vigor, are missing in the Sudan. The masses are drunk with power and they forecast a revolution that will get rid of their scapegoat, the ruling regime. Once the hangover hangs over the heads of the Sudanese, will they realize their mistakes, and in the future pine for the present.
Those who have a vision for Sudan are ideologues, and there are no men of action in Sudan. The Sudanese is by nature a spectator, observing progress going by him as he stays firmly fixed in one place in time. As the nations progress in technology, per capita GDP and Human Development Index, Sudan fails on progress on any level. The Sudanese is a dreamer whose vision of a successful state is one bound by Sharia and offering material prosperity, much like Saudi Arabia.
The Sudanese is also a coward, too cowardly to take his right; he expects that it happen by the will of Allah, a typical example of Sudanese laziness, which the Sudanese denies vehemently. He denies the forces of nature, and insists on Allah's hand arbitrarily sweeping through nations and installing new kings in their wake. Such a mindset cannot achieve anything, as it has denied its own will and paralyzed itself into inaction.
Every nation is a product of its people, even if it works within a system that was imposed on it. A successful democracy is the product of a successfully democratic people, Switzerland being a product of the Swiss, and Belgian democracy the result of a democratic Belgian nation. A failed state is the product of a failed people, Sudan being a failed state populated by a people who are foreign to the concept of limited government, social contract, rule of law and parliamentary rule.
Sudan can be a successful state, but it requires authoritarian rule, a sort of benevolent dictatorship that is aware of economics, politics, military warfare and the role of religion in the state. A democracy is not suited for Sudan, as it has been tried three times, each time failing and leading to a military dictatorship, after being won by an independence movement and two revolutions.
Every time there has been democracy, there has been bickering between the parties, leading to economic ruin and loss of security in the corners of Sudan, as well as political subjugation to the higher powers. The state is an arena where the ideological parties battle it out for control of the Sudan, while the masses watch, observe and comment in their own eccentric way. The Sudanese love for newspapers reflect a hobby that does not expend energy and tax the mind, a physically and mentally relaxed hobby.
The worst thing one can for the Sudan is give its political decision making to the masses. The masses demand the sadistic and grueling punishments of Sharia law, the persecution of minorities, the provision of one's lifestyle and the improvements of the standard of living from the government. The masses are vulgar, stupid, incompetent, and filled with megalomania and hubris. They cannot make decisions for a successful state, for all they have is speculation and ideology. They are not practical in any way.
If this country were handed to the masses by a democractic vote, the masses will overwhelming vote for a party that promises the cutting of thieves' hands, the persecution of the remaining Christians and their conversion to Islam under pain of death, the provision of a job, a house, an education and healthcare free of charge from the government. They want the luxury of the first world without expending the effort for it; they believe they are entitled to it, because they grace us with their presence, and if not given, they will cry out in protest.
The history of Islam is the history of tyrants, castles of gold and silver and a hungry populace. The caliphs overtaxed the peasants, who were punished by the taxmen with the most grueling punishments for not producing the tax money. The tax money was the caliph's personal wealth, which he spent on female slaves, gold and luxury. An Islamic state is by its very nature corrupt and Islamism produces failed states time after time.
The Sudanese masses have no proper interpretation of history. They believe the splendor enjoyed by the caliphs and ulema were enjoyed by the masses; they are indeed brainwashed. They rely on two epochs in Islamic history, the rule of the two Omars, Omar b. al-Khattab and Omar bin abdul-Aziz. These two epochs are the only periods in history to have justice permeate the Caliphate (s). They make the exception the rule, and rule out the rule altogether.
Men of nobility, of virtues, of the truth, of vigor, are missing in the Sudan. The masses are drunk with power and they forecast a revolution that will get rid of their scapegoat, the ruling regime. Once the hangover hangs over the heads of the Sudanese, will they realize their mistakes, and in the future pine for the present.
No comments:
Post a Comment