Work begins on first Hindu temple in Islamabad

[El Sidd]

This does not fall in the category of a 'special tax imposed on a community for the purposes of propagation or maintenance of another religion'.

If you believe that the constitution supports your interpretation, then the proper avenue, assuming the Federal government allocates funds for this temple (you could consider land allocated in 2016/2017 as funds) is the courts.

Oh i have no intentions of taking matters to the court for a temple.

The land allocated may have grieving parties as all land is easily disputed, they should take it up.

I am just innit for academics.

 

[Longhorn]

You know what you sound like?
A white racist guy who says i have that one black friend.

Intolerance is defined as unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group. Now let yourself be the judge here where you stand.

Its not about being ashamed about being a muslim or proving a point to west its about following the teachings of your own religion which protects the right of minorities to practice their religion and against forced conversions.

You dont need to hide your bigoted overtones under the cover European neo fascism retaliation. You should revisit your fargile muslmaniyat which is broken by just seeing a church or mandir, if Islam really is the one true religion and protected by divinity why are you scared of 1 mandir as if it will convert the whole country.

The bit in bold is the first thing that came into my head.
Every racist says the same thing.
These Uber Musselmans are the ones that have dragged the name of Islam through the gutter for decades.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Oh i have no intentions of taking matters to the court for a temple.

The land allocated may have grieving parties as all land is easily disputed, they should take it up.

I am just innit for academics.

I understand.

Academically speaking, the allocation of government funds for a temple/gurdwara/church etc in any way does not constitute a 'special tax'.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

good for Pakistan's image in the international world.

You have money you have good image

 

[Longhorn]

Every minority, no matter how small has the right to build their places of worship and attend them openly and without fear.
Muslims do not have the monopoly on God.

Hai sabhi unhi ko pukarte
Koi soz mein koi saaz mein

 

[Cliftonite]

You have money you have good image

Money comes through foreign investment. A vibrant multicultural society attracts foreign investment. Noone will invest in a Mullah state.

 

[Iltutmish]

This act will do good for Pakistan's image in the international world.

Pakistan should revive its economy rather than going for this virtue signaling PR stunt. Nothing against Hindu temples, the 5 Hindus of Islamabad have a new place to go now, but please pay for it for yourself. Government shouldn’t fund religious buildings - including mosques - if people have the need for public places of worship they will manage to build them on their own!

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Money comes through foreign investment. A vibrant multicultural society attracts foreign investment. Noone will invest in a Mullah state.

India isn't getting funding? Xinjian isn't getting funding?

 

[Cliftonite]

India isn't getting funding? Xinjian isn't getting funding?

China is self made. They have a monopoly over the world economy. India also has a market of 1.4 billion.

We are totally dependent on foreign investment. No one wants to invest in our country. Ab Allah Allah karke mulk ka image behtar ho raha hai KHUDA KE WAASTE apne yeh Islam ka qilla aur Shariah nizaam ki ratt laga ke mazeed aur kharab mat kardena.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Every minority, no matter how small has the right to build their places of worship and attend them openly and without fear.
Muslims do not have the monopoly on God.

Hai sabhi unhi ko pukarte
Koi soz mein koi saaz mein

I think the argument here, when you cut through the noise, is one of whether the government should spend taxpayer money to construct religious places of worship.

I don't see anything prohibiting the government from doing so, however, the government should be careful about setting a precedent that could be used by the much larger Muslim community to argue for government funds to construct more mosques.

In general, outside of historical buildings and other exceptions such as forcible possession/occupation/destruction of places of worship after 1947, that the government was responsible for preventing, I would tend to side with those opposing government funds for constructing ANY religious places of worship.

 

[Cliftonite]

I think the argument here, when you cut through the noise, is one of whether the government should spend taxpayer money to construct religious places of worship.

I don't see anything prohibiting the government from doing so, but at the same time, the government should be careful about setting a precedent that could be used by the much larger Muslim community to argue for government funds to construct more mosques.

In general, outside of historical buildings, I would tend to side with those opposing government funds for constructing ANY religious places of worship.

The Muslims don't need to ask for government funding. They can illegally occupy park and amenity plots and start asking for chanda to build the mosque. Let's not even pretend that doesn't happen here.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Muslims don't need to ask for government funding. They can illegally occupy park and amenity plots and start asking for chanda to build the mosque. Let's not even pretend that doesn't happen here.

Oh, absolutely - I agree with you on that. Muslims in Pakistan don't need any government support for Mosque construction nor is there a shortage of mosques for the majority community.

My point about not setting a precedent is primarily from the perspective of the rabble rousing extremists such as the Lal Masjid type who will demand government support for constructing/expanding their mosques and madrassa's and use government funding for Temples and Gurdwara's as justification.

What I would like to see is the government start exercising more control over the construction of religious places of worship that, like you pointed out, encroach on land illegally and follow no zoning or other rules. The application of laws has to be consistent across the board, even though the majority has gotten away with the equivalent of 'murder' when it comes to mosque construction/expansion wherever they want.

 

[Longhorn]

I think the argument here, when you cut through the noise, is one of whether the government should spend taxpayer money to construct religious places of worship.

I don't see anything prohibiting the government from doing so, however, the government should be careful about setting a precedent that could be used by the much larger Muslim community to argue for government funds to construct more mosques.

In general, outside of historical buildings and other exceptions such as forcible possession/occupation/destruction of places of worship after 1947, that the government was responsible for preventing, I would tend to side with those opposing government funds for constructing ANY religious places of worship.

The government already spends on religious projects, as far as I know although I am prepared to be proven wrong on this.
The Aukaf department develops, runs and profits from mazars such as Data Sahib, which are Muslim religious sites.
I get your point, which is a valid one, but I think the underlying problem most objectors have is that it is a Hindu Mandir being constructed in Pakistan.
The rest is a smokescreen.

 

[fisher1]

As i already said you really dont need to hide your bigotry behind "taxpayers money" excuse because you would be all praises dor government if it were the 1B $ world's biggest mosque they were making. Nust say it out loud you dont want minorities in Pakistan and if there are any living here they should lock themselves in their houses so you dont have to see them, i am sure lot of people will come out in your support besides its Islamic republic of Pakistan who told Hindus to live here, right?

What you're doing is called a strawman fallacy.

Me not wanting to spend money on building mandirs doesn't mean i hate minorities or don't want them. That's like saying if i don't want a dog in my home, it means i am an animal hater and want all animals exterminated.

Imran Khan should convert the whole Bani Gala to Mandirs and Churches and Gurdwaras ON HIS OWN EXPENSE.

Don't spend my money on Shirk.

 

[Longhorn]

What you're doing is called a strawman fallacy.

Me not wanting to spend money on building mandirs doesn't mean i hate minorities or don't want them. That's like saying if i don't want a dog in my home, it means i am an animal hater and want all animals exterminated.

Imran Khan should convert the whole Bani Gala to Mandirs and Churches and Gurdwaras ON HIS OWN EXPENSE.

Don't spend my money on Shirk.



What a hypocrite you are.

For Imran Khan you forsake your religion.

I didn't know about that hadith but you do and still you don't feel any anger when Prophet Muhammad (saww) hadith is ignored.

You want Pan Niazi Pakistan

If it wasn't for funds, loans and investments Pakistan gets from mushrik countries and organisations, Pakistan would have been bankrupt a long time ago.
The biggest hope of economic well-being and progress is funded by mushriks. Most of the money owed by Pakistan is owed to mushriks.
So it could well be argued that technically, all of the money the government spends isn't yours at all.