Home | Welcome to Jawab!
Question
3 votes
Why do some people demand Pakistan to be a secular state??
Awais Amjad | 13 years ago
I've been using twitter a bit lately and there are quite a few people with bios suggesting that they want Pakistan to be a secular state.
These People are Pakistanis if you are wondering about that.
Most of them are somehow connected to PPP or Salman Taseer's Family.
Why would they ask a question like that??
Tags: Religion State Ideology
Comments
Isnt that the negation of the Two Nation Theory or in other words the foundation of our inception??
Awais Amjad | 13 years ago
+1
Faiq Latifi | 13 years ago
aap tension kyun ly rahy hian UPER ALLAH betha hai dekh raha hia .... sab theek kardega WO INSHALLAH
Iman | 13 years ago
if ONLY prayers could fix things, we would never have ended up where we are. But I do hope and pray that it happens k sub theek ho jaaey
Awais Amjad | 13 years ago
yaar jab Allah ka naam ly hi liya hai tou sabr rakho .... r waise bhi pata hona chaheye k umeeb py duniya qayam hai ....na umeedi kufr hai ....
Iman | 13 years ago
Asked by: Awais Amjad | 13 years ago | Answers: 5 | Views: 6870
Answers
3 votes
Sana MAK | 13 years ago
Answered by: Sana MAK | 13 years ago
Comments
@Zain: Firstly, please don't call Ammad close-minded. Having an opinion doesn't make anyone so.
"That may or may not be true. There are historians with both sides of arguments and quotes of Quaid and other leaders. What we should do is figure it on our own. What is best for the country. What is best for its people. God gave us mind to think and not just blindly follow what might or might not have happened 60+ years ago."
Well said, brother. What's best for people is Islam. That's how we started, that's how we exist.
"Regarding Bangladesh.
Weather its secular or Islmaic does not matter.. You say subcontinent was divided into two so that Mulsim and hindus could live separately because they couldn't co exist. Then why is that there are now two parts of Pakistan?? Why did it separate?? They were all Muslims then why couldn't they live under same flag ?? Why did Mulsims of Pakistan and Bangladesh co exist ???"
Please note that both countries on either sides of India were referred to as Pakistan. They weren't different. The reason why people from East Pakistan did not migrate all the way to West Pakistan is verrrrrrrrry simple.n Both sides had huge majorities of Muslims. Leaving all of their property & EVERYTHING that belonged to them, & travelling all the way to a completely foreign land was extremely difficult in those days, especially if you had one big, fat, vast expanse of violent India sitting in the middle. As simple as that.
"That may or may not be true. There are historians with both sides of arguments and quotes of Quaid and other leaders. What we should do is figure it on our own. What is best for the country. What is best for its people. God gave us mind to think and not just blindly follow what might or might not have happened 60+ years ago."
Well said, brother. What's best for people is Islam. That's how we started, that's how we exist.
"Regarding Bangladesh.
Weather its secular or Islmaic does not matter.. You say subcontinent was divided into two so that Mulsim and hindus could live separately because they couldn't co exist. Then why is that there are now two parts of Pakistan?? Why did it separate?? They were all Muslims then why couldn't they live under same flag ?? Why did Mulsims of Pakistan and Bangladesh co exist ???"
Please note that both countries on either sides of India were referred to as Pakistan. They weren't different. The reason why people from East Pakistan did not migrate all the way to West Pakistan is verrrrrrrrry simple.n Both sides had huge majorities of Muslims. Leaving all of their property & EVERYTHING that belonged to them, & travelling all the way to a completely foreign land was extremely difficult in those days, especially if you had one big, fat, vast expanse of violent India sitting in the middle. As simple as that.
Sana MAK | 13 years ago
And as far as the secularism in Bangladesh thing is concerned, please refer to the heading "Controversies" in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Bangladesh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Bangladesh
Sana MAK | 13 years ago
Pakistan kay already barray maslay hein yar... let's do something to make it a better place instead of whining over what's already happened. Lets be better Muslims y'all.
Sana MAK | 13 years ago
@Sana.. Couldnt agree wid u more!!! Its da rite time to unite for da rite cause instead of creating further divide!!
Ammad | 13 years ago
+1
I accept I might have been wrong about Bangladesh.
I totally agree lets not discuss what has happened or what should have happened. Lets focus on the betterment of this country in whatever way you can.
I accept I might have been wrong about Bangladesh.
I totally agree lets not discuss what has happened or what should have happened. Lets focus on the betterment of this country in whatever way you can.
Zain Awan | 13 years ago
1 votes
Anonymous | 13 years ago
Answered by: Anonymous | 13 years ago
Comments
Well actually the religion allows cr imes of even the highest degree in some cases. Which are very ambiguous.
e.g Salman Taseer's murder was committed on the basis of something said in the religion and people still openly support the murderer.
And to tell you the truth I have talked to people who actually support suicide bombings on shrines :(
And they do it openly. I remember back when Salman Taseer was alive. A khateeb of a very famous mosque in Peshawar offered an award of 5 lac for someone who will kill Salman Taseer. And you know what no action was taken against him.
You really think something like that would be tolerated in a secular country. The only reason he got away with such comments was because majority supported him.
e.g Salman Taseer's murder was committed on the basis of something said in the religion and people still openly support the murderer.
And to tell you the truth I have talked to people who actually support suicide bombings on shrines :(
And they do it openly. I remember back when Salman Taseer was alive. A khateeb of a very famous mosque in Peshawar offered an award of 5 lac for someone who will kill Salman Taseer. And you know what no action was taken against him.
You really think something like that would be tolerated in a secular country. The only reason he got away with such comments was because majority supported him.
Zain Awan | 13 years ago
@Zain.. Again u base ur argument not on da teachings of Islam but on the interpretations of a maulvi.. Why dont u understand that the hesitancy of the judicial sys is da fault of the judicial sys n not the religion but i guess u just want to blame the religion no matter what.. Action not being taken against da maulvi who claimed to reward da killer of Salman Taseer shows the weakness of the judiciary and not our religion. For goodness sake see the logic in it.. Furthermore, ppl who support suicide bombings are ignorant.. perhaps u too are ignorant of da fact dat Imam-e-kaaba has declared these suicide bombings against muslims as haram.. but u would not blame the illiterate individuals for that but rather the religion.. I am amazed at the logic u have.. And lastly u have completely ignored my question regarding the two nation theory being irrelevant nowadays.. I ask u again... "What part of the two nation theory does not hold true?? Da part where the two nations are mentioned (Islam and Hinduism) or the part where they cant possibly live together???"
Ammad | 13 years ago
@Zain.. hmmm he got away with it as the majority supported him??? really??? then i guess anyone who kills Asif Zardari would also get away wid it as this is wut 80% of the ppl of Pakistan want.. What a lame argument..
Ammad | 13 years ago
Sorry I should have phrased it better. He got away with it primarily because he was someone who holds a great religious position for some people so if they had taken an action against him there certainly would have been some reaction.
You talk about the weakness of judicial system. Now think why it suddenly becomes weak when religion comes into place?? Don't you think there is even a little tiny possibility that they are just too afraid to make decisions which will be hated by a sizable majority of the public. They are humans. You can't just expect them to make decisions fearlessly. Considering what happens in our country everyday I think I will do the same thing in there position.
And for the record I have never specifically named Islam in posts and I certainly never said that all these things happens because of Islam. I totally agree that this is illiteracy at its peak. But please at least except the fact that most of the crimes I mentioned have been done under the guise of religion. Weather that religion supports them is entirely another matter and there are so many different views that if one says this is wrong the other says no its right. Who should we believe ?? or rather on whose beliefs should we make the laws??
And lastly don't take the demand for secular country as a blow against Islam. I would support a secular country regardless of what the religion of the majority of its people follow.
I never once said that Islam or Islamic principles should be ignored while making laws in secular country but my point is that these type of actions will be more strongly condemned and punished by a secular govt. I sincerely believe that a secular country with majority of its population as Muslims is sustainable.
About two nation theory.
First of all the two nation theory was "There are two nations in sub continent Hindus and Muslims and both can't live together because of there cultural and historical differences"
It is a shame that they just ignored different sizable minorities from this equation.
Regardless. Two nation theory failed the day Bangladesh decided that it can't live with its Muslim brothers. Two nation theory suggest that hindus and Muslims can't live together. That means Muslims CAN live together. But we couldn't. And now Pakistan is divided into two. Major fail.
Secondly as many Muslims live in India as in Pakistan. Don't you think that violates the claim that hindus and Muslims can't live together.
Don't throw gujrat massacre of 2002 or bal thakray at me again. Or I will throw dogra incident and leaders of Jaish Mohammad and Jamut ul dawa at you and countless blasphemy cases against minorities without any basis in Pakistan.
These things happen and are realities of life. There will always be madmen around who will do such things. But you can't just judge a whole nation on the acts of few madmen.
Hindus are in majority in India. But at one point there President was a Muslim and there prime minster was sikh. Both minorities. I long to see such a day in Pakistan.
You talk about the weakness of judicial system. Now think why it suddenly becomes weak when religion comes into place?? Don't you think there is even a little tiny possibility that they are just too afraid to make decisions which will be hated by a sizable majority of the public. They are humans. You can't just expect them to make decisions fearlessly. Considering what happens in our country everyday I think I will do the same thing in there position.
And for the record I have never specifically named Islam in posts and I certainly never said that all these things happens because of Islam. I totally agree that this is illiteracy at its peak. But please at least except the fact that most of the crimes I mentioned have been done under the guise of religion. Weather that religion supports them is entirely another matter and there are so many different views that if one says this is wrong the other says no its right. Who should we believe ?? or rather on whose beliefs should we make the laws??
And lastly don't take the demand for secular country as a blow against Islam. I would support a secular country regardless of what the religion of the majority of its people follow.
I never once said that Islam or Islamic principles should be ignored while making laws in secular country but my point is that these type of actions will be more strongly condemned and punished by a secular govt. I sincerely believe that a secular country with majority of its population as Muslims is sustainable.
About two nation theory.
First of all the two nation theory was "There are two nations in sub continent Hindus and Muslims and both can't live together because of there cultural and historical differences"
It is a shame that they just ignored different sizable minorities from this equation.
Regardless. Two nation theory failed the day Bangladesh decided that it can't live with its Muslim brothers. Two nation theory suggest that hindus and Muslims can't live together. That means Muslims CAN live together. But we couldn't. And now Pakistan is divided into two. Major fail.
Secondly as many Muslims live in India as in Pakistan. Don't you think that violates the claim that hindus and Muslims can't live together.
Don't throw gujrat massacre of 2002 or bal thakray at me again. Or I will throw dogra incident and leaders of Jaish Mohammad and Jamut ul dawa at you and countless blasphemy cases against minorities without any basis in Pakistan.
These things happen and are realities of life. There will always be madmen around who will do such things. But you can't just judge a whole nation on the acts of few madmen.
Hindus are in majority in India. But at one point there President was a Muslim and there prime minster was sikh. Both minorities. I long to see such a day in Pakistan.
Zain Awan | 13 years ago
@Zain... O meray bhai agar laws Islam k mutabiq e hongay country k tou phir tou wo Islamic country e hua na.. I guess all u want is k we officially name "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" as jus "Pakistan"... and do u really think k secular state declare ker dainay say logon ki illiteracy kum o jaey gi.. U r jus beating about the bush instead of attending to the real problem of illiteracy.. Agar log illiterate hain n ankhain bund ker k maulvion k peechay chal pertay hain tou iss mein Islamic state honay ka kia kasoor... and even if u declare it a secular country tou even then the majority of ppl wud be Muslims.. Judiciary uss say kaisay "unbiased" o jaey gi?? Changing the name wont change anythin.. the core issue is illiteracy and not state religion.. hahahahaha "It is a shame that they just ignored different sizable minorities from this equation.".... seriously... so u think that the greatest minds of their age were stupid... Poor u!!! and as far as ur statement abt Bangladesh is concerned tou please go n study history.. Pakistan was formed on an ideology.. The separation of East Pakistan was not ideological but political.. and for that we all have to thank "Shaheed" Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who did not accept the majority of its political adversary and raised the slogan "hum yahan, tum wahan"... so the separation of East Pakistan is due to political biasness... and the two nation theory wud have been a failure had Bangladeshis decided to join India. so ur reason for failure of two nation theory holds no ground.. and its really sad to see our "educated" class becoming victims of Indian propaganda.. Really... At one point the president of India was a muslim... and that is why the same year he was made president hundreds of muslims were massacred in gujarat.. What power!! And please dont compare Baal Thakray with leaders of Jaish Muhammad and Jamat ul Dawa.. Neither of the two told the minorites in pakistan to convert to islam or leave Pakistan.. but as u mite know (or u mite not) Baal Thakray has on many occassions said himself that muslims in India should either convert to Hinduism or leave India.. and btw naming a muslim President by India was a political move to gain popularity as a secular state which it quite successfully did in international community and some educated class of our country who have always been fans of Star channels... :p
Ammad | 13 years ago
1 votes
Zain Awan | 13 years ago
This answer has been edited by the user
Answered by: Zain Awan | 13 years ago
Comments
@Ammad
I never said or will ever say that Islamic principles or teachings are at fault here. Having a state religion and adopting policies according to that state religion combined with high rate of illiteracy is the cause of this mess.
"stopping the ppl around you from committing sin is everyones responsibility. "
What your religion tell is a sin might not be a sin for someone else. Will you forcefully stop him from doing it ?? How is that different from hindus not allowing us to eat cows ???
"As far as killing "murtids" is concerned so it is an obligation" I very strongly disagree with this part on the basis of humanity and free will. But because this doesn't relate to the discussion of secularism so I will ignore it.
Judicial system is very able and quick to punish the rangers for the killing of Sarfaraz Nawaz but when it comes to punishing someone who kills on the basis of religion it suddenly becomes incompetent. What an oscillating judicial system have we :P
I never said or will ever say that Islamic principles or teachings are at fault here. Having a state religion and adopting policies according to that state religion combined with high rate of illiteracy is the cause of this mess.
"stopping the ppl around you from committing sin is everyones responsibility. "
What your religion tell is a sin might not be a sin for someone else. Will you forcefully stop him from doing it ?? How is that different from hindus not allowing us to eat cows ???
"As far as killing "murtids" is concerned so it is an obligation" I very strongly disagree with this part on the basis of humanity and free will. But because this doesn't relate to the discussion of secularism so I will ignore it.
Judicial system is very able and quick to punish the rangers for the killing of Sarfaraz Nawaz but when it comes to punishing someone who kills on the basis of religion it suddenly becomes incompetent. What an oscillating judicial system have we :P
Zain Awan | 13 years ago
@Zain.. So the problem is illiteracy and not the Islamic law. U have answered it urself. Furthermore stopping from sins involves only ur fellow muslims and non-muslims can only be asked not to do a sin like murder etc..
Gladly no MUSLIM would pay heed to your free will above the will of Prophet S.A.W. and the teachings of Islam. and just so u know u r the one who brought up this point in the discussion.. :) Ignoring this one point wont get u anywhere. ;)
Yes it was quick to punish the ranger and slow to punish the person who killed Salman Taseer. Is that the fault of Islam being the state religion or is it the fault of the judicial system. Where in the teachings of Islam is murder allowed except ofcourse in case of murtid. U r shifting the blame from a weak judicial sys to Islam being state religion. Lamest argument ever!!!
Gladly no MUSLIM would pay heed to your free will above the will of Prophet S.A.W. and the teachings of Islam. and just so u know u r the one who brought up this point in the discussion.. :) Ignoring this one point wont get u anywhere. ;)
Yes it was quick to punish the ranger and slow to punish the person who killed Salman Taseer. Is that the fault of Islam being the state religion or is it the fault of the judicial system. Where in the teachings of Islam is murder allowed except ofcourse in case of murtid. U r shifting the blame from a weak judicial sys to Islam being state religion. Lamest argument ever!!!
Ammad | 13 years ago
"So the problem is illiteracy and not the Islamic law"
Agreed.
"Yes it was quick to punish the ranger and slow to punish the person who killed Salman Taseer. Is that the fault of Islam being the state religion or is it the fault of the judicial system. Where in the teachings of Islam is murder allowed except ofcourse in case of murtid. U r shifting the blame from a weak judicial sys to Islam being state religion. Lamest argument ever!!!"
Think about it man. Why is it weak ??
Why has judiciary not given verdict for Salman Taseer's case ??
Isn't it because they fear for there lives. They may just be branded supporter of Salman Taseer and "wajbul qatl" by the same people who support Mumtaz Qadri and who showered him with flowers.
Agreed.
"Yes it was quick to punish the ranger and slow to punish the person who killed Salman Taseer. Is that the fault of Islam being the state religion or is it the fault of the judicial system. Where in the teachings of Islam is murder allowed except ofcourse in case of murtid. U r shifting the blame from a weak judicial sys to Islam being state religion. Lamest argument ever!!!"
Think about it man. Why is it weak ??
Why has judiciary not given verdict for Salman Taseer's case ??
Isn't it because they fear for there lives. They may just be branded supporter of Salman Taseer and "wajbul qatl" by the same people who support Mumtaz Qadri and who showered him with flowers.
Zain Awan | 13 years ago
@Zain.. so u principally base ur arguments on the distorted teachings of Islam that most of our so called maulanas are propagating instead of the true teachings of Islam.. That is why i am asking you to pleeeeeeeasssssseeeeeeee study the true Islam.. Plus a true judge would do justice without fearing for his life.. Furthermore it is ppl like me and u who are responsible for this too.. Like the west we have handed over our religion to the maulvis and maulanas like they limited their religion to churches as a result of which the teachings of Christianity were completely altered.. And we are heading on the same path.
Ammad | 13 years ago
"Ensuring justice is not related to secularism vs religious state. Secularism just ensures that no one religion can be enforced on others regardless of weather they follow it or not. And in one way or another that always happen in a religious state as clear by very few examples in my first post."
So you doubt the Islamic System of Justice just because it has not successfully been put to practice in our country? And for the sake of the same reason you want to alter the basis of our Foundation and because the Two Nation Theory doesnt mean anything to you coz its not relevant anymore(Although I seriously dont get why). Ideologies do evolve my friend but they do not negate themselves in doing so. Its not a principle of science that will be proved wrong in a new research.
"Secularism is not against Islam or Islamic principles. You need to understand this if you want a fruitful discussion. It is a governing method which ensures that state doesn't interfere in a personal matter."
Now remember that we are living in a state of 90+% Muslim majority, and lets just say if a person claims false Prophet hood in your country, would you sit back and let him do what he wants to do because it will be a secular state? Or if someone speaks against Islam or Naozobillah burns Holy Scriptures you'll just turn a blind eye coz the Constitution doesnt allow to act against them. Or you'll add it to constitution that,
Nobody is to claim Prophethood or offend Muslims coz otherwise we'll stop being a secular state and act against you to avoid civil disorder.
Or what if somebody makes caricatures of the Prophet. Would you imprison him for drawing sketches??
What does the word Tableegh even mean if religion was someone's personal matter.
And apparently this drama has been so insignificant that it gained no popularity if it started from the first day. And the same shall happen in future too.
People interested to live in a secular state should go and experiment that in a secular state. Coz that aint happening here. Atleast I dont see it happening.
So you doubt the Islamic System of Justice just because it has not successfully been put to practice in our country? And for the sake of the same reason you want to alter the basis of our Foundation and because the Two Nation Theory doesnt mean anything to you coz its not relevant anymore(Although I seriously dont get why). Ideologies do evolve my friend but they do not negate themselves in doing so. Its not a principle of science that will be proved wrong in a new research.
"Secularism is not against Islam or Islamic principles. You need to understand this if you want a fruitful discussion. It is a governing method which ensures that state doesn't interfere in a personal matter."
Now remember that we are living in a state of 90+% Muslim majority, and lets just say if a person claims false Prophet hood in your country, would you sit back and let him do what he wants to do because it will be a secular state? Or if someone speaks against Islam or Naozobillah burns Holy Scriptures you'll just turn a blind eye coz the Constitution doesnt allow to act against them. Or you'll add it to constitution that,
Nobody is to claim Prophethood or offend Muslims coz otherwise we'll stop being a secular state and act against you to avoid civil disorder.
Or what if somebody makes caricatures of the Prophet. Would you imprison him for drawing sketches??
What does the word Tableegh even mean if religion was someone's personal matter.
And apparently this drama has been so insignificant that it gained no popularity if it started from the first day. And the same shall happen in future too.
People interested to live in a secular state should go and experiment that in a secular state. Coz that aint happening here. Atleast I dont see it happening.
Awais Amjad | 13 years ago
1 votes
Nabeha | 13 years ago
Answered by: Nabeha | 13 years ago
Comments
"his vision was of a secular state"... No it wasnt. He said that he wanted a place where the muslims could practice their religion and that can successfully be done in a true Islamic state. I dont know but i guess France is a secular state too but has banned head scarves!! since when is that secular?? I m not sure but the same is case with Turkey.. O and if i am not well informed enough perhaps some Secular states also consider gay and lesbian marriage as legal.. Would that be your next point of debate??
You say that a secualr state is one where every religion is given equal rights. Please enlighten me with a single example of such a state.. Is it in India where ppl like Baal Thaakray roam around openly. Or is it a state like USA where a Christian is allowed to burn the Holy Books of the Muslims.. Or wait is it France where head scarves are banned.. Waiting for an example from your side.
FYI the only form of rule or law that GUARANTEES every person equal rights is the laws and teachings of Islam or perhaps you are not familiar with Islamic history where even the ruler of the state (A Caliph) was supposed to be in court if called. Only the true Islamic form of Government GUARANTEES equal rights.. Hit back if u think i m wrong
You say that a secualr state is one where every religion is given equal rights. Please enlighten me with a single example of such a state.. Is it in India where ppl like Baal Thaakray roam around openly. Or is it a state like USA where a Christian is allowed to burn the Holy Books of the Muslims.. Or wait is it France where head scarves are banned.. Waiting for an example from your side.
FYI the only form of rule or law that GUARANTEES every person equal rights is the laws and teachings of Islam or perhaps you are not familiar with Islamic history where even the ruler of the state (A Caliph) was supposed to be in court if called. Only the true Islamic form of Government GUARANTEES equal rights.. Hit back if u think i m wrong
Ammad | 13 years ago
I hit back. You are wrong :P
"He said that he wanted a place where the muslims could practice their religion"
You are 100% right here.
" that can successfully be done in a true Islamic state"
You are 100% wrong here.
A true muslim will be able to follow his religion wherever he is regardless of weather he lives in an islamic state or not.
"O and if i am not well informed enough perhaps some Secular states also consider gay and lesbian marriage as legal.. Would that be your next point of debate??"
What is wrong with it ?? Your religion doesn't allow it. But others don't believe in YOUR religion. So they can do whatever they want who are you to question there personal choices ??
"You say that a secualr state is one where every religion is given equal rights. Please enlighten me with a single example of such a state."
Turkey. It had very strict rules till few years ago some of which were against Muslims and Islamic freedom. But that is not the case anymore.
"He said that he wanted a place where the muslims could practice their religion"
You are 100% right here.
" that can successfully be done in a true Islamic state"
You are 100% wrong here.
A true muslim will be able to follow his religion wherever he is regardless of weather he lives in an islamic state or not.
"O and if i am not well informed enough perhaps some Secular states also consider gay and lesbian marriage as legal.. Would that be your next point of debate??"
What is wrong with it ?? Your religion doesn't allow it. But others don't believe in YOUR religion. So they can do whatever they want who are you to question there personal choices ??
"You say that a secualr state is one where every religion is given equal rights. Please enlighten me with a single example of such a state."
Turkey. It had very strict rules till few years ago some of which were against Muslims and Islamic freedom. But that is not the case anymore.
Zain Awan | 13 years ago
@Zain... And name a single country where Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely.. Furthermore your complete arguments are based on the fact that you dont want to adhere to the laws and boundaries set by Islam. Gay and Lesbian is unnatural and disliked by Allah. If they want to practice such acts they should leave Islamic state and settle somewhere else. So basically if u want the world to do wuteva they want then why not get naked and dance in the streets.. Its free will.. Why not kill anyone i want.. It is my FREE WILL.. Why not rape anyone coz its my FREE WILL.. so basically u want a society with no limits and no checks and balances.. Okay say i rob a bank and then tell u "Its my free will"...
Turey??? Are u kidding me?? the same turkey where all clerics were made to stand in a line and shot.. The same turkey where a lady can not put on a head scarf on "official duty".... For ur further info here is a little about ur secular turkey...
......According to Country Reports 2007, women who wore headscarves and their supporters "were disciplined or lost their jobs in the public sector" (US 11 March 2008, Sec. 2.c). Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports that in late 2005, the Administrative Supreme Court ruled that a teacher was not eligible for a promotion in her school because she wore a headscarf outside of work (Jan. 2007). An immigration counsellor at the Embassy of Canada in Ankara stated in 27 April 2005 correspondence with the Research Directorate that public servants are not permitted to wear a headscarf while on duty, but headscarved women may be employed in the private sector. In 12 April 2005 correspondence sent to the Research Directorate, a professor of political science specializing in women's issues in Turkey at Bogazici University in Istanbul indicated that women who wear a headscarf "could possibly be denied employment in private or government sectors."
Turey??? Are u kidding me?? the same turkey where all clerics were made to stand in a line and shot.. The same turkey where a lady can not put on a head scarf on "official duty".... For ur further info here is a little about ur secular turkey...
......According to Country Reports 2007, women who wore headscarves and their supporters "were disciplined or lost their jobs in the public sector" (US 11 March 2008, Sec. 2.c). Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports that in late 2005, the Administrative Supreme Court ruled that a teacher was not eligible for a promotion in her school because she wore a headscarf outside of work (Jan. 2007). An immigration counsellor at the Embassy of Canada in Ankara stated in 27 April 2005 correspondence with the Research Directorate that public servants are not permitted to wear a headscarf while on duty, but headscarved women may be employed in the private sector. In 12 April 2005 correspondence sent to the Research Directorate, a professor of political science specializing in women's issues in Turkey at Bogazici University in Istanbul indicated that women who wear a headscarf "could possibly be denied employment in private or government sectors."
Ammad | 13 years ago
Minorities can be given equal rights even within an Islamic state. Jinnah wanted an Islamic nation. He said: "Pakistan should be made on pure foundations of social justice and Islamic Socialism.. Not other isms!" - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150388999334251
Usama Hafeez | 13 years ago
@Usama... Totally agree wid u... Infact i wud edit ur first line "Minorities can be given equal rights even within an Islamic state" to "Minorities can be given equal rights only within an Islamic state"... :)
Ammad | 13 years ago
1 votes
Ali Iqbal | 13 years ago
Answered by: Ali Iqbal | 13 years ago
Comments
Well well.... Job well done at screwing up my brain even better, lol.
You're pretty good at it, you know :D I'm actually surprised you could come up with something like that. Something like Inception or Shutter Island or Da Vinci... aaaaargh!
You're pretty good at it, you know :D I'm actually surprised you could come up with something like that. Something like Inception or Shutter Island or Da Vinci... aaaaargh!
Sana MAK | 13 years ago
that is why it is helpful to keep a thought process that is independent and dissociated from the rest of your mind, a screwup in one place leaves no trace on any other thing. which reminds me of another posting on some other question about genders. i feel that women are good at keeping things together while men are good at keeping them separate... or maybe its not all the men but just me :D
Ali Iqbal | 13 years ago
Now this is a post that maketh sense.
I agree on your concept of separation of thoughts, depending upon their level of crappiness. And it isn't about gender... it's just about an individual's mind. Some people can do that & some cant. Having independent thoughts is crucial for a sound mind, but then again, it helps join the dots in certain situations :p
I agree on your concept of separation of thoughts, depending upon their level of crappiness. And it isn't about gender... it's just about an individual's mind. Some people can do that & some cant. Having independent thoughts is crucial for a sound mind, but then again, it helps join the dots in certain situations :p
Sana MAK | 13 years ago
thats why i used the word 'feel'... and that too due to the popular stereotypical notions flowing around. :P
Ali Iqbal | 13 years ago
lol.. somebody voted me down because they dont agree with me... hahahaha
its against the policy 'thingy'... lawl
its against the policy 'thingy'... lawl
Ali Iqbal | 13 years ago