'Why don't you go to Pakistan?' : PM Hasina to Khaleda Zia

[LaBong]

I don't think BD will ever be secular, secularism is for rational people.

 

[Luffy 500]

Don't you think that there needs to be a reconstruction of religious thought in Islam too ? A bit more ijtihad then taqlid ! The non-muslims of today can't be seen as Dhimis anymore due to the contemporary system of a Nation-State and the concept of citizenry...don't you think we should working on that too ?

ijtihad is the domain of scolars, not people like you and me. ijtihad doesn't allow fundamental changes in ISLAM as
doing that will fall in bidah, but ijtihad allows changes or introduction of laws that doesn't go against the principles
of ISLAM, for eg organ donation is directly not mentioned in Quran or sunnah but the scolars unanimously gave a verdict that organ donation is permisible when the donators life is not in danger( like you can not donate your heart, or both of your kidneys), you can not donate organs for money which is prohibited. As for the Dhimis, well
they were just taxed because they were not recruited in the army. Were they discriminated in daily life?no. In todays
circumstances both muslims and non muslims citizens have to be taxed but non muslims shouldn't be allowed
in some significant post like COAS, intelligence chief, or Prime minister/ president since the question of loyalty
comes in. I agree that they should be allowed in the highest post of bureaucracy, MP, ministers, generals, senate members ects but not the most significant posts. Would you agree to make a hindu or christian the chief of ISI
or would India allow a muslim to be army chief ever

 

[LaBong]

There was Muslim Chief of Air Stuff and Christian COAS in India. Indian Army doesn't discriminate people based on religion. Merit is the only criteria.

 

[scholseys]

ijtihad is the domain of scolars, not people like you and me. ijtihad doesn't allow fundamental changes in ISLAM as
doing that will fall in bidah, but ijtihad allows changes of introduction of laws that doesn't go against the principles
of ISLAM, for eg organ donation is directly not mentioned in Quran or sunnah but the scolars unanimously gave a verdict that organ donation is permisible when the donators life is not in danger( like you can not donate your heart, or both of your kidneys), you can not donate organs for money which is prohibited. As for the Dhimis, well
they were just taxed because they not recruited in the army. Were they discriminated in daily life?no. In todays
circumstances both muslims and non muslims citizens have to be taxed but non muslims shouldn't be allowed
in some significant post like COAS, intelligence chief, or Prime minister/ president since the question of loyalty
comes in. I agree that should be allowed in the highest post of bureaucracy, MP, ministers, generals, senate members ects but not the most significant posts. Would you agree to make a hindu or christian the chief of ISI
or would India allow a muslim to be army chief ever

strong xenophobia in your post. All religion is an opinion, you can't force your beliefs on someone else. Its simply discrimination if you can't have a hindu general or a hindu prime minister. I see nothing wrong voting for a hindu as a prime minister.

 

[Luffy 500]

strong xenophobia in your post. All religion is an opinion, you can't force your beliefs on someone else. Its simply discrimination if you can't have a hindu general or a hindu prime minister. I see nothing wrong voting for a hindu as a prime minister.

Where did I say religion should be forced? What I said is that an Islamic sate doesn't allow nonmuslim to be PM/pres or COAS
for various reasons that doesn't mean discrimination against them since they will be allowed in all other walks of life. Do you think that a
average bangladeshi will vote a Hindu for PM without hesitation or an Hindu Indian will vote for a muslim for PM? you are living in fools paradise if you think like that. Religion always plays a part and this is where the secular myth get busted.

BTW no muslim state including BD has laws barring non-muslims from state power and most likely there won't be any such
laws in the future as well. SO seculars like you need not worry.

 

[scholseys]

Where did I say religion should be forced? What I said is that an Islamic sate doesn't allow nonmuslim to be PM/pres or COAS
for various reasons that doesn't mean discrimination against them since they will be allowed in all other walks of life. Do you think that a
average bangladeshi will vote a Hindu for PM without hesitation or an Hindu Indian will vote for a muslim for PM? you are living in fools paradise if you think like that. Religion always plays a part and this is where the secular myth get busted.

BTW no muslim state including BD has laws barring non-muslims from state power and most likely there won't be any such
laws in the future as well. SO seculars like you need not worry.

A more educated Bangladeshi would vote for a hindu PM if the candidate was a catch. Religion shouldnt matter in order to judge one's credibility. Hindus, buddhists should have the same rights as muslims, they should also be able to tell their children "you can be anything you want to be"

 

[jetti]

ISLAM is for all times and islamic laws are universal. You can not give eg of taliban since they
don't have the certificate to represent ISLAM, and we don't know much about taliban. It was all
one sided propaganda by the West. For eg woman must wear the Hijab, it a must for them and
it can not be changed by giving excuse of modernsim. I have cousins who live in the US and they
study in the best US institutions with full time Hijab, it doesn't effect their life in the US.Its
time that has to adapt with ISLAM not the other way round.

No one has the certificate to represent Islam. Everyone can follow Islam. And its sad to know you are adctually defending taliban. We know about taliban. THey have caused great misery in Afg for 10-12 years. And its not that they got blamed for a small thing forcing women to wear hijab, by the way they forced them to be in a full burkha,. Women were treated as objects and physically battered in many cases. Bamiyan buddhas were destroyed. This is not propaganda. they supported Indian plane hijack. They are terrorists period.
But Islam can be universal but it doesnt mean other ways of life is not valid or not good. And no religion can be for all times.islamic values like christian or hindu or buddhist values may be timeless. But other things like instructions need to be changed according to times. and this is for all religions. you cannot say that people are dhimmis and expect that they will respect islam. you cannot say that , non muslims cannot be the head of state of and expect people to believe islam treats non mulims equally or with respect. these are not islamic values . these are islamic adminsitration issues. so the problem comes when islam becomes so rigid and says its only one way or war. which is why there is no progress in the islamic world and they have a bad name.

 

[jetti]

ijtihad is the domain of scolars, not people like you and me. ijtihad doesn't allow fundamental changes in ISLAM as
doing that will fall in bidah, but ijtihad allows changes or introduction of laws that doesn't go against the principles
of ISLAM, for eg organ donation is directly not mentioned in Quran or sunnah but the scolars unanimously gave a verdict that organ donation is permisible when the donators life is not in danger( like you can not donate your heart, or both of your kidneys), you can not donate organs for money which is prohibited. As for the Dhimis, well
they were just taxed because they were not recruited in the army. Were they discriminated in daily life?no. In todays
circumstances both muslims and non muslims citizens have to be taxed but non muslims shouldn't be allowed
in some significant post like COAS, intelligence chief, or Prime minister/ president since the question of loyalty
comes in. I agree that they should be allowed in the highest post of bureaucracy, MP, ministers, generals, senate members ects but not the most significant posts. Would you agree to make a hindu or christian the chief of ISI
or would India allow a muslim to be army chief ever

when you say a capable person cannot be the head of any role then that is discrimination in daily life. in pakistan even a cricket player had to convert to islam to captain the pak side. so ridiculous has religious obsession become, that its not even religion anymore. It was silly of the Pak team to come on the ground and start doing prayer during WC semifinal. they fix matches on one hand (i believe wc semi was fixed because pak should have won) and on other hand they pray during the same match. its ironical that the practitioners of islam are give it a bad name.

 

[jetti]

Where did I say religion should be forced? What I said is that an Islamic sate doesn't allow nonmuslim to be PM/pres or COAS
for various reasons that doesn't mean discrimination against them since they will be allowed in all other walks of life. Do you think that a
average bangladeshi will vote a Hindu for PM without hesitation or an Hindu Indian will vote for a muslim for PM? you are living in fools paradise if you think like that. Religion always plays a part and this is where the secular myth get busted.

BTW no muslim state including BD has laws barring non-muslims from state power and most likely there won't be any such
laws in the future as well. SO seculars like you need not worry.

when we say that islam needs to change with times, its things like the part in bold that needs to change. is islam such a weak religion that just because a non-muslim becomes a head of state the religion will suffer? its only in islamic coutries that religion is such an intrusive part of public life and unless this changes islam will never gain respect in non-muslim lands.
BTW india voted in a sikh PM, and if sonia came to power it would have had a christian PM, but she did not become PM only because she was viewed as a foreigner NOT because she was christian.
Our Defence Minister is called AK Anthony .

 

[LaBong]

What's the point of arguing with closet Talibunnies. You will be at peril of being called Islam hater who wants to see all Muslims to be exterminated.

 

[rubyjackass]

You know give me an Umar bin Khattab and I'd want a Caliphate too but do we have people of that calibre ? Don't you think that in our current condition religious and legal pluralism along with impartiality and not secularity per se (an argument stemming from the Quran may still be entertained provided it is acceptable to the masses) isn't such a bad thing either.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? Religious and Legal Pluralism with impartiality is secularity(sic) by definition. So it would seem that finding a person with calibre is not the problem here.

A little off topic, can somebody answer, is Umar bin Khattab regarded that highly by Shias also?

 

[trinity]

hasina is trolling
khaldazia should say why dont hasina go to india,

i mean seriously zia cant be that much of a lackey, hasina can be and she has literally proved herself one

zia taking money from pakistan is rediculous, ISI can only give money to some where it has influence,ISI has no influence on bangladesh or bangla army

YOu must be smoking something illegal if you believe what you wrote.

 

[TopCat]

Where did I say religion should be forced? What I said is that an Islamic sate doesn't allow nonmuslim to be PM/pres or COAS
for various reasons that doesn't mean discrimination against them since they will be allowed in all other walks of life. Do you think that a
average bangladeshi will vote a Hindu for PM without hesitation or an Hindu Indian will vote for a muslim for PM? you are living in fools paradise if you think like that. Religion always plays a part and this is where the secular myth get busted.

BTW no muslim state including BD has laws barring non-muslims from state power and most likely there won't be any such
laws in the future as well. SO seculars like you need not worry.

What a bullshit?? I dont think majority BD population will have a problem with a non Muslim PM or President. Your kind even used to advocate that they had problem with Femaile leader too.

By the way, we had the law barring non Muslim as the president of Pakistn till 1971. Pakistan still have the law.

I don't think BD will ever be secular, secularism is for rational people.

Bangladesh is secular to its true defintion unlike India

 

[idune]

Not that it is matter, why indians and awamis like to see hindu or non muslims as PM? Does having non Muslim PM have any benfit for the country?? and how? And what does it any matter for the thread topics?

 

[Luffy 500]

What a bullshit?? I dont think majority BD population will have a problem with a non Muslim PM or President. Your kind even used to advocate that they had problem with Femaile leader too.

By the way, we had the law barring non Muslim as the president of Pakistn till 1971. Pakistan still have the law.

BD population will vote for a non-muslim when sex, gamblimg, going to disco, night parties become
a norm for majority BDs not now when people still go to the mosque for everyday prayers. I am not against women PM since we are ruled by 2 women but a general Bangladeshi would question the
loyalty of a hindu as PM just as a Indian would question the loyalty of a muslim as PM. BTW
Pakistan has parliamentary system where president has no executive power.

Bangladesh is secular to its true defintion unlike India

Bangladeshis would never discriminate against non-muslims because we are muslims and don't
need western style secularism. Post 1975 have proven that. Its just awami's master india that
want to impose secularism on BD.