Bismillah to be dropped from (Bangladesh) Constitution

[Agnostic_Indian]

even if anything is not perfect in india(or any secular country) to be a perfect secular country that should not stop other countries to become more and more secular.everything can't be made perfect in one step..it takes years and years to perfect a system.a country starts from removing bigger flaws and then it progress to perfect even macro or micro level imperfections also..no secular country is perfect but we try to make it perfect day by day.

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

There is a country called Maha Bharat. Use your idea and theory there, and no need to teach us why bismillah is important. Well, from secular point of view Bismillah may not be important. But removing "Bismillah" will definitely divide the nation badly in to two. Why it is necessary to remove? For what purpose? And to serve whose agenda?

Finally, stay away from teaching us the importance of Bismillah. You simply are not eligible to talk here about out internal matters. You guys are disturbing. You guys think being gay is normal, on the other hand you call people Razakar for their personal choice in 71. Why trying to divide us everyday?

What the h***?? Why are you getting so defensive dude? This is an internet forum and everyone has a right to comment on everyone else's political matters. If you are so defensive about Bangladeshi internal matters, I would request you to refrain from commenting on India ever again.

Now, why do you think removing just a word from the constitution will 'divide' your county into two? Are you guys really that fickle that ONE WORD will divide you?

You ask why is it necessary to remove the word 'Bismillah'. Well, it's a religious word isn't it? Isn't it used by people of ONE RELIGION? Why do you want to exclude other religions from your constitution?

Imagine what would happen if instead of having "Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar-Rahim", Hindus in your country wanted to insert 'Har Har Mahadev', and Christians wanted to insert the words 'Christ is your saviour' in the constitution. How would you feel then? That is how minorities might feel in your country right now. So you asked for the 'purpose' and 'agenda' of this move? This move is intended to make Bangladeshi constitution more inclusive. Don't you want your country to be inclusive instead of divisive, what, ironically, you are accusing Indians of being?

As for your comments on gays etc., it just points to your closed and primitive mindset. Try to be more inclusive, will ya?

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

@Jana and everyone else: Please take your discussion to the Babri Masjid thread, where it is more suited.

 

[Spring Onion]

No the comparison is irrelevant just as Indians supporting the amendment is irrelevant to Bangladeshis. It's their constitution and they are making changes to it, we have nothing to do with it.

Also how do you know Bangladeshis don't support this, do you see any widespread protest in Bangladesh against the change? Any killing of governor, people en masse doing rally? etc etc?

The comparison is not irrelavent because your bharati member was calling Islamic symbols or phrase like Bismismillah as "stupids" so by same yardstick for us Muslims making a deity as witness or legal heir to property is also stupid and against secularism when it is accepted as individuals witness in court.

as far as any change in Bangladesh that is up to Bangladeshis. i was referring to forum members where you can see in this thread Bangladeshis are criticising this move while your bhartais are bent upon calling Islamic beliefs as stupid.

 

[LaBong]

The comparison is not irrelavent because your bharati member was calling Islamic symbols or phrase like Bismismillah as "stupids" so by same yardstick for us Muslims making a deity as witness or legal heir to property is also stupid and against secularism when it is accepted as individuals witness in court.

as far as any change in Bangladesh that is up to Bangladeshis. i was referring to forum members where you can see in this thread Bangladeshis are criticising this move while your bhartais are bent upon calling Islamic beliefs as stupid.

report the posts which you find offensive, let's not make this thread another babri masjid discussion.

 

[Moorkh]

The comparison is not irrelavent because your bharati member was calling Islamic symbols or phrase like Bismismillah as "stupids" so by same yardstick for us Muslims making a deity as witness or legal heir to property is also stupid and against secularism when it is accepted as individuals witness in court.

we are not saying that god being considered is not stupid, it is. we are saying that in that case, god is used as a representative of the people who believe in it. big difference

as far as any change in Bangladesh that is up to Bangladeshis. i was referring to forum members where you can see in this thread Bangladeshis are criticising this move while your bhartais are bent upon calling Islamic beliefs as stupid.

we are not calling islamic beliefs stupid. we are questioning the logic of inserting religious symbols in the constitution of a secular state

 

[notsuperstitious]

company ?? In hinduism as per claims of Indians you can worship nearly anything so how come anything become a company ? say for example how can you call any non-living thing as a company as legal heir to property or any other asset/s

Now I genuinely feel you don't understand legal concepts and / or english and you are not pretending this time just to post off topic flames.

BTW, what was the need to bring INDIA (or) BHARAT in this thread about Bangladesh?

Some identities are incomplete without the '' evil other''.

 

[Spring Onion]

we are not saying that god being considered is not stupid, it is. we are saying that in that case, god is used as a representative of the people who believe in it. big difference


we are not calling islamic beliefs stupid. we are questioning the logic of inserting religious symbols in the constitution of a secular state

How can you even question about religious symbols when in your own country your courts are giving verdict on the basis of religion in a secular country ?

How can you use god as a party represented by people in a court of a secular country ??

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

as i said everything is not perfect in india..but that should not prevent other countries to walk on the path of secularism.you should be happy being a role model for others to follow.

 

[Moorkh]

[MOD EDIT]
anyways. i see the point you are trying to make, or i think i do. i still cant agree with it. as isaac asimov once said - "never let your sense of morality get in the way of doing what is right"

 

[notsuperstitious]

The point is presence of preference of one religion over others. In a democracies its known as the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority exists in one form or others in many nations. The Muslims/Christians in India accepted the tyranny of the majority.

If you are not a Muslim MP, you don't have to recite those words in the Parliament.

So you are supporting tyranny of the majority in bangladesh? Thats what adding bismillah to the constitution means, no?

 

[fallstuff]

so what you are saying is that the core point is the peoples belief and that they might protest? is the decision of the govt being held hostage by religious beliefs which in this case are being taken as more important than equality?

personally i would be happier if the ban on cow slaughter in specific states is overturned. i remember clearly seeing beef being sold in hyderabad, a couple of years ago. and how do you think the leather industries around kanpur work?oh and the sacrifice of bulls in some parts of the country. so the cow slaughter ban is not pan india, and nothing "evil" happens even in places where the ban is not in place.

anyways. i see the point you are trying to make, or i think i do. i still cant agree with it. as isaac asimov once said - "never let your sense of morality get in the way of doing what is right"

Just because it is sold in some parts of the country illegally does not mean it is the stated policy in India. Once again if you are not Muslim you don't have to recite those words in Bangladesh.

I don't care much if "Bismillah" is in the constitution or not.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

Ma'ashallah!

 

[LaBong]

The point is presence of preference of one religion over others. In democracies its known as the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority exists in one form or others in many nations. The Muslims/Christians in India accepted the tyranny of the majority.

If you are not a Muslim MP, you don't have to recite those words in the Parliament.

Well preference works both ways in India, such as Danish cartoons have been banned in India because it's offensive to Muslims.

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

jana was very right in mentioning it because it were ....... hindue( indians) who objected Islamic preamble , it is some thing that every Muslim should recite before starting any work, so why not as preamble of constitution of a Muslim majority country. if bangali people are accepting it then its mean that they are distancing themselves from very basic tenet of Islam. and these are indians who always sours discussion by adding some very stupid comments that hurts even secular type Muslims. only a disbeliever can lend countenance to there stupid comments.