|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230 |
This post is neither political nor religious. I was simply surprised to learn the above, from an article I just read about Japan's not sennding troops to Iraq: In reply to:
Japan's move made it but the latest important potential troop contributor to refuse- after India, Pakistan and, most important of all, Turkey, which would have signalled the first significant involvement of or Muslim nation.
I'm not sure what the "or" was doing in there, but that typo, and the implication that Pakistan is not Muslim certainly had me questioning the skiills of whoever served as editor for the piece. Or did I misread the statement?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear max: Have the Pakistanis found out yet that they are not Muslims? Will they be surprised?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
Probably something missing between of and or: an Asian or Muslim nation -- the implication that any of the countries mentioned could have qualified (Asian and Muslim overlapping).
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
max, your right, is a matter of 'loose language'.
Pakistan is not a Muslim country, nor is Turkey, nor is the US a Christian country.
All three are democratcies (of varying orders) two of which have a population that mostly consist of muslims, one of which as a population that is mostly christian...
there are country's who's basic law- (civil and criminal) is based on religious tenets, their courts of law, are administered by religious leaders,
- and there are countries that have a majority of the population that hold the same values, (based on religion) and while these values might have an influence on the laws passed, the court systems are control by civil authorities...
Pakistan, and Turkey, and India, and US, would all be part of the latter group.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Bingley and of troy: you-all have just impressed the heck out of me! I would never have thought of either of those utterly rational responses. [bow]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
All three are democratcies
Pakistan is not a democracy, oftroy; it is currently a dictatorship and has been a dictatorship for almost three decades of its existence. As for being a muslim country, the conventional long, formal name of the country is ' The Islamic Republic of Pakistan'. And the law in the country is the Muslim Shariah law.
PS: Hey! I just discovered something. If you type [/ blue] before the text and [ blue] after, the part that you wanted to highlight stays black and the text of your post turns blue!!! Neat, eh?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
One board I used to habituate continued to apply unclosed tags to the rest of the page.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
the implication that Pakistan is not Muslim
Max, as I read it, there is no implication that Pak is not a Muslim nation. All the writer seems to say, is that Turkey might have been the FIRST Muslim nation to involve itself with the post-war reconstruction. The operative word seems to be - first.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Maahey!
I appreciate your points about the Islamic Nation of Pakistan, and even about the preponderance of military disctatoships in its history (after all - I lived through the 'blackouts' in Bombay during the 1970 war), but it was my understandng that most of the Generals, even, in Pakistan, have opposed the use of Shariah law. In fact, if Shariah law were followed constitutionally, would Benazir Bhutto have been allowed to become Prime Minister?
cheer
the sunshine "Hindu-Chini bhai-bhai" warrior
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
thanks maahey, i stand corrected.
there is , in US press, a distressing tendecy to use the term muslim country as disparaging term..
and there is some anti-islamic feeling,in a percentage of US population.
i am more or less a christian (with emphisis on less) and was raised catholic.
i can identify, readily, all the good thing the catholic church as done (they were drilled into my head, as a child in school)
glossed over, and sanitized (in school)were some of the less savory actions..(inquisition, etc). i try not to lump all muslims into the 'same catagory'--just as there are right-wing fanatics (who call themselves 'christian', but who preach hate, and bigotry) there are also saintly christians, who are willing to give up their lives for others (one group of nuns, has volunteered to become human testers of AIDS virus vaccine.) I recognize that government and laws can 'take the worst case example', and make it the law, (with or with out a 'religious' excuse).. and that's wrong..
One of the sticking point in 're-uniting ireland used to be the irish constitutional prohibitting of divorce. --the catholic church, in certain circumstances permits divorce.. but the irish government used not to recognize a divorce even when rome (catholic church) did.. stupid really. some predominatly muslim country's are 'just as stupid'--but.. all too often the US press fails to note 1)'christian' goverments stupidity, 2)and presents facts (out of context) that show islamic based laws in the worst context. 3) they also fail to note that a particlar law, might be exceptional, and not realy common to most islamic experience.
(so they would present a case, along the lines of 'Divorce, is total outlawed, even when religious leaders recognize it.. this results in women being abandon by their husbands, who go to other countries, and take new wife's. the first wife is left, with no legal recourse.. she often can not buy or sell(jointly held) property, because if she is legally married, she need her husbands co-signature, nor can she collect allimony.
but her husband, can legally sell a home that his wife is living in, (if she is not listed as a co-owner)right out from under her, and leave her, and children homeless.
this was the case in ireland, but it is not 'common or usual' in countries with large christian (or even catholic populations)..and if presented as 'an example' (and not as an anomaly) it paints a skewed picture...
i think, very often, the US press is guilty of 'presenting facts' about islamic/muslim countries in just that sort of way... it make the government/laws seem very unfair, unjust, and uncomprihensible...
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,363
Members9,182
|
Most Online3,341 Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
0 members (),
512
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|