What's new

UP college makes headscarves must

Status
Not open for further replies.
nhaee bhai ji main itna bhee ****** insan nahee hoon ki ub bhaion per hi haath saaf karoon :D

din mein bhai raat mein char pai :D-- sab maloom hai mujhay- dost hi keh deta izzat bach jati tere- :lol:-
 
din mein bhai raat mein char pai :D-- sab maloom hai mujhay- dost hi keh deta izzat bach jati tere- :lol:-

he he he he bvhai ji hamree izzzat koi sazishee maqboozaa nahee hai ki jo chahe lutf le le khair per bhai mujhe nawabee showk nahee hain albatta biwi aaj mayke chalee gayee hai hum santoshee jeev hain jo mil jaye usee me kaam chala lenge :D

kya samjhe he he he he he he he he he :D
 
Google it yaar why r u asking to me ? it's your personality , she is secular activist , who fucked many times zaid hamid .

in one face to face interview she fired on zaid hamid , he couldn't speak a word properly .:lol::lol:

So. Where's the funny part in all this.
 
So. Where's the funny part in all this.


no it's very serious global warming thing !!!! :lol: When she fired on him, his face was producing huge amount of heat which increased temperature of earth by 5 degree C. and there was tsunami in south east asia. :rofl::hitwall:

..... :lol::rofl:
 
It was a contextual response to a post.

And you wrote an unrelated paragraph on it. And then started a communal diatribe by calling Indian Muslim community backward because they follow a backward religion - is it. And contrarily, the Hindu progressive nature of Indian Hindu religion was expounded by you.

We are not discussing religion here. It is an Indian school's decision under discussion. Earlier there was an Indian who would not allow a Muslim girl with a scarf enter her class room in UAE. The other day you guys were having convulsions when girls in a village were ordered not to use a mobile phone.

Have a heart yaar. :)

No it is not an unrelated paragraph. The other poster said that India is in a mess. And you wanted to strengthen his statement saying Sati would be made legal.

This is obviously about religion and religion being used to make rules for people. The school or college, is a minority institution. If not for religion why would they come up with head scarves for girls? I dont mind Muslim girls wearing scarves, but why should Christians, Hindus and other religious groups be FORCED to wear it even if they dont want to? Dont they have their rights?

And I personally consider such rules made for religious reasons as backward. I only gave another example, the Shah Bano case where Muslims protested the Supreme courts ruling because of which a Muslim woman suffered. If anything backward is being done then in these cases it is the Muslims that did it. This is merely fact. It isnt a communal diatribe.

Lastly, I dont know about the UAE case, but that Indian does not represent India, a country of 1.2 billion people. Its like picking out a Mullah from Pakistan and saying that he represents Pakistan. That wont be right. And yes the protests against girls being forbidden to use mobile phones is indeed the right reaction. I believe that women should have social and sexual freedoms and anyone going against these freedoms should be put away. But the fact that they weren't generates anger amongst the sensible folks. This does not display a lack of heart, it only displays that most Indians have a large heart.
 
no it's very serious global warming thing !!!! :lol: When she fired on him his face was producing huge amount of heat which increased temperature of earth by 5 degree C. and there was tsunami in south east asia. :rofl::hitwall:

..... :lol::rofl:

I think you need to take a hold yourself. You are trolling like a tin horn.

Either comment on the topic or pick some one else to respond.
 
I think you need to take a hold yourself. You are trolling like a tin horn.

Either comment on the topic or pick some one else to respond.

It was a contextual response to other posters.:hitwall:
 
This is dumb, you can't force anyone to wear what they don't want, i agree with the cell phones in the class ban though, cell phones do not belong in class.
 
No it is not an unrelated paragraph. The other poster said that India is in a mess. And you wanted to strengthen his statement saying Sati would be made legal.

This is obviously about religion and religion being used to make rules for people. The school or college, is a minority institution. If not for religion why would they come up with head scarves for girls? I dont mind Muslim girls wearing scarves, but why should Christians, Hindus and other religious groups be FORCED to wear it even if they dont want to? Dont they have their rights?

And I personally consider such rules made for religious reasons as backward. I only gave another example, the Shah Bano case where Muslims protested the Supreme courts ruling because of which a Muslim woman suffered. If anything backward is being done then in these cases it is the Muslims that did it. This is merely fact. It isnt a communal diatribe.

Lastly, I dont know about the UAE case, but that Indian does not represent India, a country of 1.2 billion people. Its like picking out a Mullah from Pakistan and saying that he represents Pakistan. That wont be right. And yes the protests against girls being forbidden to use mobile phones is indeed the right reaction. I believe that women should have social and sexual freedoms and anyone going against these freedoms should be put away. But the fact that they weren't generates anger amongst the sensible folks. This does not display a lack of heart, it only displays that most Indians have a large heart.

Well, most Indians I have come across do not display a large heart.

That said, the world is full of different communities, cultures, religions, societies etc and the rights of all are protected under the UN charter. However, it is a mere paper which has something written on it and nothing more.

The Mormons in the US have a dress code which is respected though their right to polygamy is not, many US states and many countries have rules which forbid inter-marriages between cousins whereas being in love is an accepted universal phenomenon, the animal rights are protected in many countries whereas they are also slaughtered in large numbers, though humanely etc etc.

There is a difference between enforcement of enacted laws by various nations and the respect due for various communities, religions and groups. When the balance unduly tellingly tilts towards one side, the problems arise and this is the case in most parts of the world.

Many years ago, no one was even pushed as to who wears a scarf and who doesn't, but these days everything even remotely related to Muslims as an entity turns in to a matter of major debate. At most times, this is also related to historical baggage between various religions and cultures.

Those Indian Hindus who are against women covering themselves as per their wishes, surprisingly, also relate it to the invasion of Muslims. They say, it was primarily done to avoid the invading Muslims from abducting their women and therefore, the women were told to cover themselves and now they shouldn't. Incidentally satti also supposedly falls in this category. But both these practices are still apparent in India even today.

I wonder if your opinion is based on what you saw and absorbed while growing up or is it based on a communal viewpoint or is it based on your own thinking - which must have a basis hidden somewhere or in something.
 
Well, most Indians I have come across do not display a large heart.

That could either be the fault of an Indian. Or it could very well reflect the fact that you dont have a large heart. Its a two way street.

That said, the world is full of different communities, cultures, religions, societies etc and the rights of all are protected under the UN charter. However, it is a mere paper which has something written on it and nothing more.

The Mormons in the US have a dress code which is respected though their right to polygamy is not, many US states and many countries have rules which forbid inter-marriages between cousins whereas being in love is an accepted universal phenomenon, the animal rights are protected in many countries whereas they are also slaughtered in large numbers, though humanely etc etc.

There is a difference between enforcement of enacted laws by various nations and the respect due for various communities, religions and groups. When the balance unduly tellingly tilts towards one side, the problems arise and this is the case in most parts of the world.

That is why we need to have one set of laws for all. And we need to guarantee religious freedom for all. Now since this is a democratic process people need to be able to sacrifice some of their religious leanings for the sake of the nation. That is why secularism is important. We can give communities respect, and let them have their freedoms, but we cannot have different communities pulling the state in different directions because of their beliefs. That would only lead to chaos. As it is the case today.

Many years ago, no one was even pushed as to who wears a scarf and who doesn't, but these days everything even remotely related to Muslims as an entity turns in to a matter of major debate. At most times, this is also related to historical baggage between various religions and cultures.

Maybe. But this can also be attributed to changing times. I am sure a 1000 years ago people wouldnt have protested towards such a conservative move. Today however, in the 21st century this practice is outdated. So you have one section of society which has moved forward, and one section of society regressing, so to speak. That definitely causes conflicts. However since everything needs to be done in the interests of the nation, this particular community should adapt to changing times. This refusal to adapt is what most people have problems with. Not historical baggage.

Those Indian Hindus who are against women covering themselves as per their wishes, surprisingly, also relate it to the invasion of Muslims. They say, it was primarily done to avoid the invading Muslims from abducting their women and therefore, the women were told to cover themselves and now they shouldn't. Incidentally satti also supposedly falls in this category. But both these practices are still apparent in India even today.

The reason this argument of yours falls apart is because you are comparing two different timelines. If Muslims are invading India TODAY and abducting women, then probably I'd agree with this school's decision. However, today that is not the case. No one is invading or abducting anybody. This is merely Islamic law being forced down someone else's throat. As I said earlier, let the Muslim girls wear headscarves or burkas or whatever they want. But why force others that dont want to?

BTW Sati has been abolished in India. If at all it happens anywhere, it is an extremely rare occurrence mostly in the most underdeveloped parts. Less than 10 occurrences in the last 20 years, where the women werent forced but were mad enough to jump into the fire. That is not a reflection of either Hinduism or even India. It is not even a reflection of that particular social evil being present in a country of 1 billion Hindus.

I wonder if your opinion is based on what you saw and absorbed while growing up or is it based on a communal viewpoint or is it based on your own thinking - which must have a basis hidden somewhere or in something.

Like I said it is based on observation. Dont get me wrong, am not biased toward Muslims in this respect. Hinduism has its own set of flaws, superstitions, backward concepts etc., Similarly Christianity and Judaism too (Infact all 3 Abrahamic faiths, atleast according to me are more backward than Hinduism). Therefore it is not communal in nature. I personally consider religion itself to be dogma. I consider religion itself to be backward. I dont subscribe to ideologies. But let me not go on and on about my Atheism/Anti-Theism.
 
Muslim extremists favorable Samajwadi Government is turning UP is worst possibility
 
That could either be the fault of an Indian. Or it could very well reflect the fact that you dont have a large heart. Its a two way street.

That is why we need to have one set of laws for all. And we need to guarantee religious freedom for all. Now since this is a democratic process people need to be able to sacrifice some of their religious leanings for the sake of the nation. That is why secularism is important. We can give communities respect, and let them have their freedoms, but we cannot have different communities pulling the state in different directions because of their beliefs. That would only lead to chaos. As it is the case today.

Maybe. But this can also be attributed to changing times. I am sure a 1000 years ago people wouldnt have protested towards such a conservative move. Today however, in the 21st century this practice is outdated. So you have one section of society which has moved forward, and one section of society regressing, so to speak. That definitely causes conflicts. However since everything needs to be done in the interests of the nation, this particular community should adapt to changing times. This refusal to adapt is what most people have problems with. Not historical baggage.

The reason this argument of yours falls apart is because you are comparing two different timelines. If Muslims are invading India TODAY and abducting women, then probably I'd agree with this school's decision. However, today that is not the case. No one is invading or abducting anybody. This is merely Islamic law being forced down someone else's throat. As I said earlier, let the Muslim girls wear headscarves or burkas or whatever they want. But why force others that dont want to?

BTW Sati has been abolished in India. If at all it happens anywhere, it is an extremely rare occurrence mostly in the most underdeveloped parts. Less than 10 occurrences in the last 20 years, where the women werent forced but were mad enough to jump into the fire. That is not a reflection of either Hinduism or even India. It is not even a reflection of that particular social evil being present in a country of 1 billion Hindus.

Like I said it is based on observation. Dont get me wrong, am not biased toward Muslims in this respect. Hinduism has its own set of flaws, superstitions, backward concepts etc., Similarly Christianity and Judaism too (Infact all 3 Abrahamic faiths, atleast according to me are more backward than Hinduism). Therefore it is not communal in nature. I personally consider religion itself to be dogma. I consider religion itself to be backward. I dont subscribe to ideologies. But let me not go on and on about my Atheism/Anti-Theism.


I just posited a reflective thought process intended to appreciate the divergences in governing environment with inherently dichotomized belief systems and conflictive conciliatory processes.

And you are talking about Orwellian response.

Well --- Thank You.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom