facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Miscellaneous > Forget Cricket

Forget Cricket Talk about anything [within Board Rules, of course :) ]

View Poll Results: Which is the best solution for a state?
Secular laws, seperating religion and society 18 62.07%
Sharia laws, religious Muslim laws applied 8 27.59%
Neutral, neither laws applied with freedom of speech 2 6.90%
Don't know 1 3.45%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 3, 2008, 09:10 AM
Moshin's Avatar
Moshin Moshin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 9, 2006
Location: London, United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Tamim Iqbal
Posts: 980
Default Secularism or Sharia, which is the solution?

This must be the hardest decision making of the governments of all countries. Saudi Arabia for example is one of the countries that has Shahriah law, but what does it really mean. It basically means following all the Muslim principles that applies to daily life for the people, it has affects on politics, economics, family and gender, the laws are mainly based from the Qur'an, the Hadith and many more. This law also does not allow freedom of speech in any sort of way, and has great affect on women's every day life, for example they are to wear full headscarf and cannot go out without permission or to mix with males, many countries see this as a violation of human rights and democracy and a few countries have this.
Secularism, is basically seperating religion from all aspects of life, these include in politics generally and daily life, making a country non-religious, for example Turkey does not allow religion to be discussed in politics and headscarfs are not allowed to be worn in schools or universities. But is this the best solution for a country, in Turkey secular laws have made Turkey a developed country making dramatic progress to the economy, so it shows there may be some advantages to this law that will make countries get rid of poverty, but is this the right solution for a country? :

1. It will bring down corruption in the country
2. Make people come towards the religion
3. It can be a solution for poverty
But are these the best solution for a country like Bangladesh, where it under poverty, huge amounts of corruption in violence and politics, will it be a solution?

Please discuss the matters and benefits that each laws will bring to a country, will it benefit a country, Bangladesh is neither a secular or does it have Sharia law, this allows people to have freedom of speech of whether they want to practice or not, but this has led to corruption and poverty to the country, so what can countries like these can do?

Last edited by Moshin; January 3, 2008 at 10:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old January 3, 2008, 09:45 AM
Hatebreed's Avatar
Hatebreed Hatebreed is offline
BC T-Shirt Design Winner
 
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Location: Camden, London
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 7,200

I am curious on what evidence did you base these conclusions that Sharia law would-

Quote:
1. It will bring down corruption in the country
2. Make people come towards the religion
3. It can be a solution for poverty
I just cannot agree with the fallacy of this logic that shariah law would somehow bring down corruption. Having Shariah law would simply give the corrupt and powerful people a reason to manipulate religion instead of democracy. We could lose whatever human rights and freedom of speech we have in the process, and our country become a breeding ground for extremism. The fault does not lie with secularism or democracy, it lies with application, which have failed to do since the birth of our nation. We should work harder towards that goal, and think of ways to achieve it, not ways to change.
__________________
My photography
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old January 3, 2008, 09:54 AM
Moshin's Avatar
Moshin Moshin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 9, 2006
Location: London, United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Tamim Iqbal
Posts: 980

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatebreed
I am curious on what evidence did you base these conclusions that Sharia law would-

I just cannot agree with the fallacy of this logic that shariah law would somehow bring down corruption. Having Shariah law would simply give the corrupt and powerful people a reason to manipulate religion instead of democracy. We could lose whatever human rights and freedom of speech we have in the process, and our country become a breeding ground for extremism. The fault does not lie with secularism or democracy, it lies with application, which have failed to do since the birth of our nation. We should work harder towards that goal, and think of ways to achieve it, not ways to change.
Oh sorry about that my mistake, Sharia law stedies economic development like Saudi for example, although it has the rich oil it has not developed really well, because if they do become developed just like the western world, there is a strong possibility that it will become corrupt by all the money and western influences actually. Thanks for pointing that out.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old January 3, 2008, 10:13 AM
Hatebreed's Avatar
Hatebreed Hatebreed is offline
BC T-Shirt Design Winner
 
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Location: Camden, London
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 7,200

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moshin
Oh sorry about that my mistake, Sharia law stedies economic development like Saudi for example, although it has the rich oil it has not developed really well, because if they do become developed just like the western world, there is a strong possibility that it will become corrupt by all the money and western influences actually. Thanks for pointing that out.
Therein lies the rub. Western influence and corruption in Saudi Arab is not a possibility, it is a reality. At least they have the oil to fund their economic development and have powerful allies, but we do not share the same luxury.
__________________
My photography
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old January 3, 2008, 10:45 AM
Moshin's Avatar
Moshin Moshin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 9, 2006
Location: London, United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Tamim Iqbal
Posts: 980

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatebreed
Therein lies the rub. Western influence and corruption in Saudi Arab is not a possibility, it is a reality. At least they have the oil to fund their economic development and have powerful allies, but we do not share the same luxury.
Corrupted, meaning no religion in mind and influenced by western culture such as, music and television etc. I am not sure whether Sharia law will get rid of poverty in Bangladesh. But I was watching a programme on AlJazeera called 1 On 1 East, some man part of a party which supports Sharia law, thinks bringing Sharia law to Indonesia will get rid of poverty and corruption, such as the conversion of people to Christianity which has led to mass killings.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old January 3, 2008, 11:12 AM
Hatebreed's Avatar
Hatebreed Hatebreed is offline
BC T-Shirt Design Winner
 
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Location: Camden, London
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 7,200

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moshin
Corrupted, meaning no religion in mind and influenced by western culture such as, music and television etc. I am not sure whether Sharia law will get rid of poverty in Bangladesh. But I was watching a programme on AlJazeera called 1 On 1 East, some man part of a party which supports Sharia law, thinks bringing Sharia law to Indonesia will get rid of poverty and corruption, such as the conversion of people to Christianity which has led to mass killings.
That does not makes any sense. Development does not mean Saudi Arab would become culturally more corrupt by western influence. Wouldn't that break the whole purpose of having Shariah law in place? Also, if that means Saudi Arab should stay under-developed, then it is only economically strong because it has oil. Therefore having Shariah law would serve no useful purpose in a country like ours. So is it not better to let people embrace other cultures, decide for themselves, than stay under-developed, in poverty and politically corrupt? As for the Indonesian example you gave, I don't see any correlation between fighting poverty/corruption and conversion. If it results in mass killings, what more proof do you need?
__________________
My photography
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old January 3, 2008, 11:33 AM
Rifat's Avatar
Rifat Rifat is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Favorite Player: Hashim Amla
Posts: 10,668

the problem doesn't lie with the style of government, the problem lies with the people.


even if we do adapt Shariah law in Bangladesh, there will be more violence since there would be a phase when people will adapt to this new style of government. forms of entertainment will be significantly reduced and currently many people in Bangladesh are entertainment driven, correct me, most people in the world right now, are entertainment driven, entertainment has become a need rather than just a form of satisfaction. the people will not like it if a country is Shariah based.

a shariah driven soceity is possible, however, when we gather all the muslim religious people and put them in one territory with same views, then shariah is possible since they will be capable and willingly abide by it. Bangladesh, our roots deny Islamic Extremism,(i think one of the reasons why Pakistan invaded us was because they thought we were kafirs, based on their extreme sense of judgement at that time). Mark my words, Bangladesh will never adapt Shariah, but certain laws of Shariah could be applied to Democracy to maximize social and economic benefit, like getting rid of interest, and cutting hands of thieves(however brutal it sounds, it will discourage people from stealing millions of takas and who knows what). however, Government should never dictate the lifestyle preferences of its people, Such as RELIGIOUS BELIEFS... that is why i oppose shariah, but sometimes love its teachings for its justice.

the truth is, i don't know, i voted i don't know because both systems have their ups and downs, but the probem/solution lies within the people
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old January 3, 2008, 11:54 AM
Kana-Baba's Avatar
Kana-Baba Kana-Baba is offline
ODI Cricketer
 
Join Date: January 26, 2003
Location: Virginia, USA
Favorite Player: Nannu, Ash, Mash
Posts: 906

One notable common misconception about secularism is to think secularism as absence of religion. But to be honest, secularism doesn’t necessarily means atheism; rather it imposes an equal opportunity and free society where state system would not get into way of people’s freedom of performing their own religion and would not tag someone as minority or majority or would not declare one as official religion while the others are not.

Corruption has no correlation with either secular or sharia law. Just look at the politicians all over the world (especially in Indian subcontinent), typically they are more religious than average people, yet they are more corrupted. How many times the politicians go to hajj or go to mandir comparing to the normal people?

Clearly the solution lies on implementing a secular state system which ensures free flow of information (so people get to know what is going on, no colonial hush-hush policy), freedom of speech restored, independent judicial system to try the corrupted segment of the society (corruption will remain forever, but steps are necessary to punish them), ruled by modern and up to date laws that can be changed with time (not by some thousand year old and unchangeable laws), and democratic environment where people get choose their liked one to govern.

__________________
পুরান পাগল ভাত পায় না, আবার নতুন পাগলের আমদানি... সুখ নাই ৱে পাগল!

Last edited by Kana-Baba; January 3, 2008 at 12:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old January 3, 2008, 12:37 PM
Moshin's Avatar
Moshin Moshin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 9, 2006
Location: London, United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Tamim Iqbal
Posts: 980

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Baba
Clearly the solution lies on implementing a secular state system which ensures free flow of information (so people get to know what is going on, no colonial hush-hush policy), freedom of speech restored, independent judicial system to try the corrupted segment of the society (corruption will remain forever, but steps are necessary to punish them), ruled by modern and up to date laws that can be changed with time (not by some thousand year old and unchangeable laws), and democratic environment where people get choose their liked one to govern.
You say there will be freedom of speech between religious and non-religious, well take a look at Turkey at the moment, it currently does not allow girls to wear scraves in the schools and universities, in a muslim country it does not allow that, but here in the UK it is allowed, i dont see a freedom of speech approached by the Turkish government, it's trying to abolish extremism of religion in the country, rather than allowing freedom of speech for people who practice.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old January 3, 2008, 12:11 PM
goru's Avatar
goru goru is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: jinjira
Favorite Player: James Bond
Posts: 2,095

I'm a little disturbed by the fact that some people voted for options other than the first one.
__________________
Dust That Sings
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old January 3, 2008, 12:13 PM
Rifat's Avatar
Rifat Rifat is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Favorite Player: Hashim Amla
Posts: 10,668

Quote:
Originally Posted by goru
I'm a little disturb by the fact that some people voted for options other than the first one.
how so?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old January 3, 2008, 12:19 PM
Parisa Parisa is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 22, 2007
Location: London
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 413

Quote:
Originally Posted by goru
I'm a little disturbed by the fact that some people voted for options other than the first one.
i'm more dissapointed than distrurbed.....religious laws will prevent more freedom in society....islamic laws will change people's daily lifestyle......it will be too depressing to live...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old January 3, 2008, 12:22 PM
Moshin's Avatar
Moshin Moshin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 9, 2006
Location: London, United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Tamim Iqbal
Posts: 980

Quote:
Originally Posted by goru
I'm a little disturbed by the fact that some people voted for options other than the first one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parisa
i'm more dissapointed than distrurbed.....religious laws will prevent more freedom in society....islamic laws will change people's daily lifestyle......it will be too depressing to live...
People having secularism is a bad idea as i have mentioned, in the coming hundred years or so, people will drop thier religion and have no faith at all, do you want that in a country, where people are converting thier religion, it will be devastating, its better having neither Sharia or Secular laws, freedom of speech where people do not question you at all.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old January 3, 2008, 12:24 PM
Parisa Parisa is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 22, 2007
Location: London
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 413

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moshin
People having secularism is a bad idea as i have mentioned, in the coming hundred years or so, people will drop thier religion and have no faith at all, do you want that in a country, where people are converting thier religion, it will be devastating, it better having neither Sharia or Secular laws.
i guess thats kinda true....i mean religious laws will definitely prevent people havin a normal lifestyle...like going out and havin fun instead of following islam all the time....but on the other hand havin no laws based on religion will turn people into demons....they wont have any guidance...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old January 4, 2008, 06:22 PM
shaad's Avatar
shaad shaad is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: February 5, 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD, USA
Posts: 3,583

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moshin
Sohel NR, so basically what you are trying to say is people have the choice if they want to practice thier religion or not, because they are not be forced in any type of way to practice, but bringing secularism to a country will make people very vulnerable to conversion of a religion, because people will be thoughtless of thier religion and they will question whether they are following the right religion or not, it will bring evilness such as the influence of the western world
Mohsin, you seem to labour under the impression that everyone here automatically agrees with you that Islam is necessarily the best and only way available to mankind, that everyone should be converted to it, and that everyone should be deterred from considering any other alternatives.

Why? The world, Bangladesh, and even this forum, contains people who are Hindus, Christians, Jains, Buddhists, Jews, agnostics and atheists, who don't necessarily agree with you. Why should your opinion be given more weight than theirs?

Second, it's not only non-Muslims who might disagree with you. Even among Muslims (particularly since Islam doesn't generally subscribe to a clergy that acts as an intermediary between the laity and the deity), there are different interpretations of how Islam should be practiced (witness for instance, the different sects, the different schools, the question of what constitutes proper hijab, whether shrimps and lobsters are halal, etc.). In a secular culture, people, even practicing Muslims, are not necessarily forced to submit to one particular tyrannical interpretation.

Third, you seem to have very little faith (pardon the pun) in the faith of your fellow Muslims, worrying that they could be converted easily to some other religion in a secular country. Frankly, if people need to be sheltered from foreign ideas and notions because their faith in their religion is so weak, then I have to ask: what good is their faith anyway? Moreover, didn't you post in some other thread about converting someone to Islam? I presume this was done in a culture that wasn't a non-Muslim theocracy. If so, I would find your position quite hypocritical: individually converting someone in a culture that allows you to do so, but trying to pass laws that prevent such conversions in your own culture.
__________________
Shaad
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old January 3, 2008, 12:16 PM
Moshin's Avatar
Moshin Moshin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 9, 2006
Location: London, United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Tamim Iqbal
Posts: 980

Sohel NR, so basically what you are trying to say is people have the choice if they want to practice thier religion or not, because they are not be forced in any type of way to practice, but bringing secularism to a country will make people very vulnerable to conversion of a religion, because people will be thoughtless of thier religion and they will question whether they are following the right religion or not, it will bring evilness such as the influence of the western world, look at the western world at the moment, every country has no idea where they are at the moment, compare it to the Muslim world, we are showing to the world that Islam is the strongest religion in the world, where people have strong faith in thier religion, if secularism stays for a very long time, the majority of the people will turn into athiests and you will see the religion has been lost, and people will die without having faith in Islam, that is what we are seeing in the Christian world, many people do not have religion because of secularism, so its a wrong idea to bring to a country.

Last edited by Moshin; January 3, 2008 at 04:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old January 3, 2008, 12:40 PM
Kabir's Avatar
Kabir Kabir is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: September 3, 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Favorite Player: Sakib - the real Tiger
Posts: 11,139

The solution is to stay quiet when you don't understand the meaning of Sharia and Secularism.
__________________
cricket is a PROCESS, not an EVENT or two. -- Sohel_NR
Fans need to stop DUI (Dreaming Under Influence)!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old January 3, 2008, 12:43 PM
Moshin's Avatar
Moshin Moshin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 9, 2006
Location: London, United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Tamim Iqbal
Posts: 980

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabir
The solution is to stay quiet when you don't understand the meaning of Sharia and Secularism.
Shows a lot of understanding there, then please correct me then.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old January 3, 2008, 01:13 PM
Parisa Parisa is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 22, 2007
Location: London
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 413

whats the difference then? make it very clear. no point stayin quiet.if u dont understand somethin then dont judge but u can always learn by askin questions then make ur opinions overheard.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old January 3, 2008, 01:20 PM
tonoy's Avatar
tonoy tonoy is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: February 25, 2007
Location: Canada
Favorite Player: Shakib Al Hasan
Posts: 7,663

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabir
The solution is to stay quiet when you don't understand the meaning of Sharia and Secularism.
another classic by kabir bhai.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old January 3, 2008, 01:20 PM
Moshin's Avatar
Moshin Moshin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 9, 2006
Location: London, United Kingdom
Favorite Player: Tamim Iqbal
Posts: 980

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonoy
another classic by kabir bhai.
yes yes another classic real nice.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old January 3, 2008, 02:44 PM
ammark's Avatar
ammark ammark is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 17, 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,090

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moshin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabir
The solution is to stay quiet when you don't understand the meaning of Sharia and Secularism.
Shows a lot of understanding there, then please correct me then.
Is there anyone offering lessons in Sarcasm 101?? Or better yet: Humility and Introspection? With a co-requisite course on dampening activists' zeal? Its about time we got those.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old January 3, 2008, 02:51 PM
DJ Sahastra DJ Sahastra is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: July 20, 2004
Location: US
Posts: 2,847
Default Simple solutions

IMO, subcontinet should be ruled by Dayal Baba, Pagla Baba and Kana Baba. Each of them drop true gems when it comes to wisdom.
__________________
Baba Tomar Bangladeshe Koto Kola Chao
Kola Bagan Chash Koira Kosto Koira Khao Baba Re
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old January 3, 2008, 01:57 PM
Nocturnal's Avatar
Nocturnal Nocturnal is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: June 18, 2005
Favorite Player: Rahul Dravid
Posts: 9,026

voted for-Secular laws, seperating religion and society

__________________
ভাই, ল্যাঞ্জা যখন বাইর হইয়াই গেছে, একটু নাড়ান না
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old January 3, 2008, 01:58 PM
Kana-Baba's Avatar
Kana-Baba Kana-Baba is offline
ODI Cricketer
 
Join Date: January 26, 2003
Location: Virginia, USA
Favorite Player: Nannu, Ash, Mash
Posts: 906

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moshin
You say there will be freedom of speech between religious and non-religious, well take a look at Turkey at the moment, it currently does not allow girls to wear scraves in the schools and universities, in a muslim country it does not allow that, but here in the UK it is allowed, i dont see a freedom of speech approached by the Turkish government, it's trying to abolish extremism of religion in the country, rather than allowing freedom of speech for people who practice.
I do not want to make any comment about Turkey, whatever they are doing I assume doing at their own will and doesn’t necessarily be the absolute expression of secularism. You are trying to show examples from different places, this and that - where may or may not be the ideal secularism exists.

What I would like to stick to is to have a secular and modern state system, where people will pursue their faith, but not the state (and the state should not create any obstacles on practicing people’s rituals, as long as that do not questions the authority of the state and violates basic human rights).

And I do not see the difference between secularism and freedom of speech. Secularism is definitely not the absence of religion. Period.

You, my friend are not getting the core idea of secularism, so no point to argue. I give up. Bye.
__________________
পুরান পাগল ভাত পায় না, আবার নতুন পাগলের আমদানি... সুখ নাই ৱে পাগল!

Last edited by Kana-Baba; January 3, 2008 at 02:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket