Nawaz Sharif ran away from interview wanted to see questions first

[rubyjackass]

the law is simple! Ahmedis are ahmedis. but NOT MUSLIMS. now ahmedis can do as they please but not call themselves muslims simple. they can go vote as minorties if they wish to i guess.

I know the law. I just want to put it in words that in Naya Pakistan too, Ahmedis won't have the freedom of religion.

 

[Albatross]

I know the law. I just want to put it in words that in Naya Pakistan too, Ahmedis won't have the freedom of religion.

You seem oblivious to facts if in pakistan hindus and christians can live why cant ahmadis but yes they wont be allowed to defame and damage Islam by introducing themselves as muslims but I guess this thing is too difficult for indian brains to grasp.

 

[Jango]

Nawaz Sharif never comes on live shows, it is anfact that has been discussed many times.

the contrary, IK almoat always comes to live talkshows, with Hamid Mir and on Dawn etc.

I know the law. I just want to put it in words that in Naya Pakistan too, Ahmedis won't have the freedom of religion.

They have freedom of their own religion as long as it doesn't trespass into Islam, as long as they don't mess up Islamic teachings.

 

[ice_man]

I know the law. I just want to put it in words that in Naya Pakistan too, Ahmedis won't have the freedom of religion.

freedom of religion is given to christians,hindus,parsis & sikhs! even ahmedis hence they have their worship places (that were bombed in 2010 by terrorists)!!

we have no obejction to them worshipping whoever they want BUT we do have a problem with them calling themselves muslims. they can call themselves qadyani or whatever BUT NOT MUSLIMS.

 

[rubyjackass]

^^
So Ahmedis do not, in fact, have complete freedom of religion. That is what you are all saying.

 

[Jango]

^^
So Ahmedis do not, in fact, have complete freedom of religion. That is what you are all saying.

They are not Muslims, that is all he is saying

 

[ice_man]

^^
So Ahmedis do not, in fact, have complete freedom of religion. That is what you are all saying.

they have complete freedom of religion. please don't try to play with words. they can do as they please as long as they don't call themselves muslims. otherwise they can work practise their religion and do as they please.

 

[Kompromat]

There is no right or wrong here. But he set his limits on his own Naya Pakistan. Waise, he shouldn't mind loosing Ahmedi votes as they are currently part of separate electorate.

Ahamadis don't vote. They have boycotted every single election....good for them.

 

[Jungibaaz]

He's a dim-witted man.
He doesn't have it in him to do such things.

 

[dabong1]

^^
So Ahmedis do not, in fact, have complete freedom of religion. That is what you are all saying.

please do elaborate on what you mean by "freedom of religion"......for instance could a rastafarian smoking weed ,walk around an indian city with out getting arrested?

 

[dabong1]

I know the law. I just want to put it in words that in Naya Pakistan too, Ahmedis won't have the freedom of religion.

Could you tell us why sikhs-jains-buddhist are classed as hindus in the indian constitution.......what about there "freedom of religion".

 

[Slav Defence]

nawaz shareef k khauf se baal jhar gaey

 

[rubyjackass]

Could you tell us why sikhs-jains-buddhist are classed as hindus in the indian constitution.......what about there "freedom of religion".

They are free to call themselves non-Hindus. There is no ban on that. The definition you talk about is in relevance to Civil code that they are supposed to follow. Please read about the subject matter before bringing it up.

Smoking weed does not come under civil law. And there is rule of law in India. Not to mention that weed laws are not enforced with vigour here. So not just rastafarian, even others can smoke weed rather freely. If weed smoking is indeed mandated by a religion, then I guess the religious people can claim relief before Indian courts.

 

[dabong1]

They are free to call themselves non-Hindus. There is no ban on that. The definition you talk about is in relevance to Civil code that they are supposed to follow. Please read about the subject matter before bringing it up.

They might have the "freedom" to call themselves what they want but according to the constitution of india there classed as hindus.
At present, Article 25 of the Constitution of India describes Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism as parts of the Hindu religion. Sikhs have long been seeking amendment to this Article to grant Sikhism an independent identity under the law.

In a significant move, Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar today allowed Shiromani Akali Dal’s Khadoor Sahib member Rattan Singh Ajnala’s private member Bill to amend Article 25 of the Constitution to meet the community’s pressing demand.
The Bill titled ‘Constitution Amendment Bill 2012’ seeks to drop Explanation II in Article 25, which — while guaranteeing a right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion — defines Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism as components of the Hindu religion.
The statement of object and reasons behind Ajnala’s private member Bill listed for introduction in the Lok Sabha tomorrow wants Explanation II dropped and says, “The drafting of sub clause (b) of Clause 2 of Article 25 tends to ignore the separate and distinct identities of Sikh, Jain and Buddhist religions. Rather, it shows that these religions are either part of the Hindu religion or associated with it. This has resulted in avoidable confusion across the world about the independent identity of these three religions. This Bill proposes to amend Article 25 with a view to distinctively refer to Sikh, Jain and Buddhist religions along with Hindu religion.”
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Main News

Smoking weed does not come under civil law. And there is rule of law in India. Not to mention that weed laws are not enforced with vigour here. So not just rastafarian, even others can smoke weed rather freely. If weed smoking is indeed mandated by a religion, then I guess the religious people can claim relief before Indian courts.

Trying the "civil law" line doesn't really as criminal law comes into effect went it come to smoking weed in most nations,thus you are using crimminal law to curtail there "freedom of religion".

 

[rubyjackass]

They might have the "freedom" to call themselves what they want but according to the constitution of india there classed as hindus.
At present, Article 25 of the Constitution of India describes Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism as parts of the Hindu religion. Sikhs have long been seeking amendment to this Article to grant Sikhism an independent identity under the law.

In a significant move, Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar today allowed Shiromani Akali Dal’s Khadoor Sahib member Rattan Singh Ajnala’s private member Bill to amend Article 25 of the Constitution to meet the community’s pressing demand.
The Bill titled ‘Constitution Amendment Bill 2012’ seeks to drop Explanation II in Article 25, which — while guaranteeing a right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion — defines Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism as components of the Hindu religion.
The statement of object and reasons behind Ajnala’s private member Bill listed for introduction in the Lok Sabha tomorrow wants Explanation II dropped and says, “The drafting of sub clause (b) of Clause 2 of Article 25 tends to ignore the separate and distinct identities of Sikh, Jain and Buddhist religions. Rather, it shows that these religions are either part of the Hindu religion or associated with it. This has resulted in avoidable confusion across the world about the independent identity of these three religions. This Bill proposes to amend Article 25 with a view to distinctively refer to Sikh, Jain and Buddhist religions along with Hindu religion.”
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Main News

True. Where is the contradiction? Sikhs are now trying for their own civil code and they may soon get it. And btw who in the world is confused between Sikhs and Hindus? I have heard of Sikhs getting mistaken for Muslims and getting attacked. You are mistaking populist gimmicks of Akalis for real issues.

Sikhs were classed(in so far as that they have to follow the 'Hindu' civil code) as Hindus so that a lot of rut in Hindu religion perhaps common to them can be banned.

Trying the "civil law" line doesn't really as criminal law comes into effect went it come to smoking weed in most nations,thus you are using crimminal law to curtail there "freedom of religion".

We also curtail Sati and domestic abuse using criminal law by bringing them out of civil code and who wants them back under civil law?