The point is not what the judge said, the point here is the expectation that just because my religion wants me to do something I will do that irrespective of the rules of the school/company/country that I study/work/live in.
A secular state does not mean one can do whatever one's religion calls for. It means that there is equality for all religions.
You don't become secular by suppressing religions in society.
LOL.......... At least you admitted that there is more freedom in Pakistan on simple things like having or not having beard.:p
Pakistan is an Islamic state, so obviously there will be freedom to keep a beard :) India is not an Islamic state, so the same freedom does not exist. This dude has a right to complain if a Hindu or Sikh student is allowed to carry/keep his religious symbols but the Muslim student is not. That obviously is not the case here.
Tell me about any Madarsa in Pakistan which will allow a Hindu student to come in with "tilak" on his forehead or a Sikh student to keep a "kirpan".
You don't become secular by suppressing religions in society.
The question here is not about secularism. Its about private Christian school's right to not allow "overstretching" of religious (read Islamic) expression.
Why is that such a hard thing to grasp for you ?
As for secularism, I do not think India is secular since it has had a history of minority appeasement. However, this is definitely a step in the right direction.
So why is he disappointed if he used proper channels ?
Holy symbols such as Swastika were banned due the use of these symbols by intolerant and anti-minority terrorists.
Sadly at this moment, beard and hijab fall in the same category as Swastika, therefore it is time to ban these symbols of intolerance.
Pakistan is an Islamic state, so obviously there will be freedom to keep a beard :)** India is not an Islamic state, so the same freedom does not exist.** This dude has a right to complain if a Hindu or Sikh student is allowed to carry/keep his religious symbols but the Muslim student is not. That obviously is not the case here.
Tell me about any Madarsa in Pakistan which will allow a Hindu student to come in with "tilak" on his forehead or a Sikh student to keep a "kirpan".
Read my post. Beard, no beard; does not matter in Pakistan. But obviously it matters in India.:)
Great, now you admitted after so long that** religious freedom does not exist in India for muslims (or others )since it is not a islamic country*. **Bravo!*
'Some guppie' will have problem again if I say that is why Pakistan was created.
He did not have to 'compare' any discrimination to prove a discrimination. So why would he use a discrimination against any one else to make his case????
The christianity based school was not meant to teach religion or convert someone. He did not go there to learn religion. (besides for the third time: it is not against christianity to have a beard) .
Did you have to ask this question just to ask a question? :)
Madarsas in Pakistan were purely meant to teach religion. Which is not what they should be for. I was talking about any judge making comment like that or giving verdict like that does not exist in Pakistan since there is no such law regarding beard.
BTW: In my humble opinion, any religious school or madarsa where religion is taught must allow anyone to keep his/her religious attire or looks, whatever it maybe.
Because there was a bad judge sitting at the end of that channel.
Holy symbols such as Swastika were banned due the use of these symbols by intolerant and anti-minority terrorists.
Sadly at this moment, beard and hijab fall in the same category as Swastika, therefore it is time to ban these symbols of intolerance.
No one is banning anything .... this case is about the rights of a minority institution to enforce what is their right under the Indian constitution.
The case pertains to a christian institution which as per the Indian constitution can make its rules to run their institution. Under this right it has one of the conditions is that no student will have a beard. Now this rule applies to Muslims as much as it dos to members of other faiths who studies in this particular institution.
Now this ruling is specific to this institution and it does not reflect in any way on muslims and their beards.
Folks who believed Jinnah moved to Pakistan in 1947. Those who stayed back knew fully well that the right to religious freedom would be less than in an Islamic country, just by virtue of living in a non-religious (secular) state. They still made the choice to live in a secular country. And not being allowed to overtly assert religious freedom goes not just for Muslims, but for Hindus, Sikhs & Christians as well.
Besides the fact that schools in India stress on "uniform" appearance, whats ironic is that this guy wants to study in a convent (Christian) school but still sport a beard as an expression of his religious (Islamic) belief. He could very well do it in an Islamic school (madrassa) !!
And for your information, even in the US students are not allowed to bring "kirpans" to school :)
Pakistan was created for the sake of religous and political freedom for Muslims... So a Muslim country by definition would allow freedom of religion for those whom it was created for.
Re: Indian Supreme Court says no beard in school, doesn't want 'Talibanisation'
This is pretty retarded.. Another example of a pseudo secular society going out of its way to limit expression of religion..
A society does not need to hinder religous expression to be called a secular state.
India and other pseudo secular countries can learn a thing from the US which does not limit religious expression in public or private institutions.
And is it just me, or anyone else insulted by the title of this post... To automatically associate a beard with being "taliban" is pretty insulting, expecially as it comes frm a non Muslim Punjabee.
It just screams ignorance.
As for the Kirpan. Well there is very good reason for why its not permited in school! ITS A WEAPON! It can be used for STABBING purposes!
A beard on the other hand, is not considered a weapon, and so putting the two in the same category is just stupid.
You took sentence out of context.
He did not have problem with christianity and christianity does not have problem with beard.
School and judge were both wrong.
School, for two reasons:
1- Going against personal freedom. 2- Making a rule based on something which does not even exist in Christianity.
Judge for many reasons but more importantly for three reasons:
1- Going against personal freedom. 2- Acting on his own bias and not on any law known to mankind against having beard. 3- More hilariously by mixing talibanization with having beard!:D
This dude is not only an incompetent judge but also needs his head examined.
Please read your post again and then read my response. The school did not formulate the rule just because this guy joined the school. The rule was in existence even before this guy decided to join the school. Was this chap negligent in understanding the rules.
There is a fine line between personal freedom and discipline. Somebody would want to come to the school naked. He might cite personal freedom. What would you say then.
What is your fixation on Christanity here. It is just a coincidence that the school was run by Christians. It does not claim that the school is run on Christian principles. It is an ordinary school.
Yes, people are still justifying the reasons for the creation of Pakistan 60 years after its creation 
Are you guys still insecure about the reasons for the creation of Pakistan. As I mentioned, Pakistan has already been created and is in existence for a good number of years. So dont try to justify the creation of Pakistan another 100 years down the line..
No one is banning anything .... this case is about the rights of a minority institution to enforce what is their right under the Indian constitution.
The case pertains to a christian institution which as per the Indian constitution can make its rules to run their institution. Under this right it has one of the conditions is that no student will have a beard. Now this rule applies to Muslims as much as it dos to members of other faiths who studies in this particular institution.
Now this ruling is specific to this institution and it does not reflect in any way on muslims and their beards.
I really do not understand the fixation about Christanity here. I live in South India and there are lots of Hindu/Christian schools which enforce strict dress codes. As you rightly mentioned this rule is applicable to everybody and not just to a muslim. This is just a publicity stunt and needs to be treated as one. If he was so fixated on being a right muslim, he should not have joined the school in the first place.
Your post is absoutely out of context. Its not about christianity or islam nor it is about son or not a son.
The person attended school knowingly it was a christisan school and had no problem. He did not start problem. Besides there is absolutely nothing in christianity against having beard, hope you know it well.
*All religions proscribe to or at least are not against having beard. *
Just look around, lots of people have beard (from any religion) and are not taliban.
The decision from judge was wrong since judge represented the country law and he did not abide by it. Instead he made a judgement on wrong notion. An absurd relation to having beard with talibanization.
Tomorrow if taliban start shaving, should everyone start having beard?
Or should everyone start shaving their head since taliban are not known to do that?
They are known to use iphone, so everyone carrying iphone is taliban?
Oh, one more: Should everyone have long nails since taliban may be cutting their nails short?
Come on!
Its their bad horrible actions, not the looks which should be condemened or looked down upon.
The discussion is about not having personal freedom and that is not good on long run. Both, school and judge are wrong. Judge just wanted to please the school.
You are right, over stretching secularism is big no no,........ and is itself an extremism.
He joined the school after knowing all of its rules.
if beard is not allowed, then its not allowed.
and for the records, not only Muslims, but Hindus and Sikhs keep beard too, like you mentioned. so its not only a Muslim thing, but for all.
if he had to keep his beard, he could have moved out to some other school, and to be very honest,no private school here allows a beard. so either he would have to go to some madrassa, or to the central schools.
again no point in starting a hoo-halla about the issue. so, in a way, he did start the problem.
and yes, about the judge's connecting beard with talibanisation, well, the deeds of a section of a community manages to degrade the general image of the whole community. which is sad, but true.
to quote someone:
Holy symbols such as Swastika were banned due the use of these symbols by intolerant and anti-minority terrorists.
Sadly at this moment, beard and hijab fall in the same category as Swastika, therefore it is time to ban these symbols of intolerance.
though i dont agree to the second part of the post, but it does shows how actions of few influence the rest. and the Swastika wasnt even used by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, but by the Nazis.
and the judge wouldnt get a peanut for pleasing the school tho.
and about his comment on Burqas, well i am against the use of that particular clothing. a head scarf looks more dignified and modest to me.
Normally the school in India, especially the schools run by christian organisations have a strict dress code which includes the length of hair and also no beards policy, it is just to instill a sense of discipline. It has got nothing to do with any religious affiliations. Even the christian kids are not allowed to have a beard. And the SC was just interpreting the law as it is set. The minority institutions have rights which even the state cannot change!!!
This is another over reaction … don’t see such reaction when it is done in islamic Pakistan !!!
PHC says no to veiled lawyers
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Peshawar High Court (PHC) Chief Justice Tariq Pervaiz Khan has ordered women lawyers not to wear veils in courtrooms, saying they (the women lawyers) could neither be identified nor assist the court well in veils. “You (women lawyers) are professionals
The question here is not about secularism. Its about private Christian school's right to not allow "overstretching" of religious (read Islamic) expression.
Why is that such a hard thing to grasp for you ?
As for secularism, I do not think India is secular since it has had a history of minority appeasement. However, this is definitely a step in the right direction.
You seem to have only two arguments, when one fails you resort to the other one. My last attempt: If judge wants to allow the school's right of rules then just say that instead of crying Talibanisation.
A step in the right direction by the Supreme Court.
Overstretching religious freedom in a "secular" country should not be allowed. Today if this is allowed, tomorrow people would want to bring "kirpans" and "trishools" to school in the name of freedom of religious expression.
This behavior vindicates the behavior of the Taliban themselves. They were/are famous for shaving off heads of people who actually shaved their beards. This convent school is doing the opposite.
Also proves the point that at the end of the day, every form of government is dictatorial, its just the election process that is different.
You seem to have only two arguments, when one fails you resort to the other one. My last attempt: If judge wants to allow the school's right of rules then just say that instead of crying Talibanisation.
So you agree with the judge's ruling, just not with his choice of words ? I can live with that :)
This behavior vindicates the behavior of the Taliban themselves. They were/are famous for shaving off heads of people who actually shaved their beards. This convent school is doing the opposite. Also proves the point that at the end of the day, every form of government is dictatorial, its just the election process that is different.
No, there is a difference. In your country open expression of one's Islamic beliefs is accepted since it is an Islamic state. However, that does not hold true for other religions or even minorities within Islam (Ahmedis).
India is not a religious state and so private institutions can have their own rules for or against religious expression just as long as they are uniformly applied to all religions.
So you agree with the judge's ruling, just not with his choice of words ? I can live with that :)
Its not just the choice of words, it looks like the judge is afraid more people might exercise their religious rights. He didn't discard the case because he didn't believe in interference.