| |
|
I haven't used the word 'civilised' in my posts because I don't really find it that useful in describing societies (a peaceful tribe of hunter-gatherers would be less 'civilised' than a technologically advanved nation that bombs other nations to in order to force its will upon them, etc.) I've used the more nebulous terms good/bad, better/worse, which I admit aren't particularly helpful in themselves, but seeing as we're all on broadly the same page (i.e, nobody on this board would want to live in the sort of society Al-Qaeda et al. wishes to create) they're the best terms I can use.
To answer your question: I wouldn't call Pakistan a 'good' nation, or Musharraf a 'good' leader. This said, the BBC2 show 'The New Al-Qaeda' had lengthy interviews with Musharraf, his head of Intelligence (I don't know whether it's the same guy who gave $100,000 to the 9/11 ringleader a week or so before the attacks, but maybe) and several generals fighting on the Afghan/Pakistani border and they seem to be moving Pakistan in the right direction (Musharraf now requires Masalas, religious schools, to teach other subjects besides the Koran for example) though how far they will go towards making Pakistan a better place remains to be seen.
Also, I wouldn't say that Shariah law and Democracy are incompatible. In theory a country could elect a hard-line Islamist party, live for four years under Shariah law then vote in a secular government. However, it is often the case that those imposing Shariah (and those who wish to impose it, like Al-Qaeda) would be totally unwilling to relinquish control to people they would consider kaffirs. |
|
|
