Clergy maybe influencing politicians, but we're talking about is the system. In most secular and democratic countries religious test is not required to hold a political office. Person's faith is person's faith, no one should be forced to believe or not to believe in any particular religion, but if your religious beliefs help you make good person than all the power to you. I have no problem with that.
Well neither does any one of the 54 OIC member states. Require you to take a religious test that is. You are not required to be an Imam or a religious scholar to lead a Muslim country.
Anyway back to the original point - Politics and religion. Religion and politics are mixed every day in governments around the world. In some cases like the US it is very very subtle. In other cases like Italy and Saudi Arabia it is extremely obvious.
Well neither does any one of the 54 OIC member states. Require you to take a religious test that is.
Well, that is not true. I don't know about all the 54 OIC countries, but you can't president of Pakistan unless you're a Muslim. Same goes for most Muslim countries...or at least those with some democratic resemblance except Turkey. Most Islamic countries are de facto theocracies (including Pakistan with state religion), unlike in secular west where religion plays no or very minimum part in public policy making.
So? Shamraz you can't be president of the United States unless you are born in the US. That for nearly 160-170 years meant only white people could be president. As I stated earlier there has been only one Catholic president and if you read back in history you will see the fact that Kennedy was catholic was a major negative point against him.
Every government has the right to choose its own president by its own standards. Certain governments like the Russians have an unwritten law that only people from the military can run for office. They have to be "svolitksa" (or something along those lines).
Name one democratic country that has had a non-Christian denomination leader. Even Hitler had the blessing of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Mayans figured out the earth revolved around the sun before Galileo's grandfather was born. The Egyptians did so much in the way of agriculture development and basic architecture. The Greeks a very very religious society developed modern mathematics you are taught between grades 6 and 8 in any system around the world.
Did you even pass your basic middle school classes? All of this is taught at the 6th grade level.
Yes those were the foundation works but things revolutionised during last 500 years.
Abay what foundations? Google when Galileo and Copernicus did the work and when the Mayan did their stuff. The last so called 500 years were when the white people finally caught up with the rest of the bloody world. The only credit the past 200 years bring is the industrial revolution.
Ilm kisi ki miras nahee hota. Jo mehnat kurta hia wo hi phal pata hia.
And mayans were cut off people as they were in America.
When others failed to capitalize on their foundation works - the Mayans, the Egyptians and others, the whites took a leap bound and invented things such as engines, railways, aeroplanes, tv etc etc.
And now they are way above rest of the world esp the Islamic world which can not catch them at least in the next 200 years.
0 ...... Pakistan can never get "Talibanized" . Huge Majority has nothing to do with extremism and Talibanization. They just want to live a decent lives and be a good muslim. No wonder, extremist elements don't get any support outside tribal areas and in some areas of NWFP.
Thank BB and her last government for creating the Taliban monster, and for nurturing and directly supporting it for 3 years. These zealots who have wreaked such havoc on Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere. When BB cries about the Taliban now and her party extol their secular principles, we must never forget who created the Taliban in the first place.
^^ the taliban were created to protect trade convoys between Pakistan and Central Asian states through Afghanistan in 1993
And later, Pakistan decided to end the civil war in afghanistan and promoted one sided over the other and by 1996 the taliban had control of 90% of afghanistan
the taliban were not islamic extremists
its only after 1996 when the arab terrorists osama and egyprtian zawahiri arrived that they radicalized the taliban
so the taliban that pakistan created is not the taliban which was hiding arab terrorists who were using afghanistan as a staging ground for global terrorism
pakistan faces no real threat from al-q or taliban elements from a takeover of government prospective
the danger for pakistan is that an act hostility from external countries can take pakistan with any of the regurlar leaders in charge to take up more extreme stances on issues. isolation of pakistan in the near future would force pakistan into an extreme setup
so the taliban that pakistan created is not the taliban which was hiding arab terrorists who were using afghanistan as a staging ground for global terrorism
Thats not true. Pakistan has been supporting the most radical elements in Afghanistan, and that goes all the way back to when soviets invaded Afghanistan. In fact, Arabs have been in Afghanistan since the soviet invasion, & were known as Afghan Arabs, including OBL and his deputy.
yes. The Taliban were shouting the slogan of “roti, kapra and makan” and carrying the flag of the PPP as they swept through Afghanistan on their march to Kabul.
Thats not true. Pakistan has been supporting the most radical elements in Afghanistan, and that goes all the way back to when soviets invaded Afghanistan. In fact, Arabs have been in Afghanistan since the soviet invasion, & were known as Afghan Arabs, including OBL and his deputy.
True, and this is also one reason why jihadi sympathizers try to divert the issue to MQM by making it look like the biggest threat to Pakistan, when MQM has always been fighting to rid Pakistan of evils like feudals and jihadis.
pakistan faces no real threat from al-q or taliban elements from a takeover of government prospective
the danger for pakistan is that an act hostility from external countries can take pakistan with any of the regurlar leaders in charge to take up more extreme stances on issues. isolation of pakistan in the near future would force pakistan into an extreme setup
But the cause of this would be jihadi terrorism that pushed pakistan to the edge.
Thats not true. Pakistan has been supporting the most radical elements in Afghanistan, and that goes all the way back to when soviets invaded Afghanistan. In fact, Arabs have been in Afghanistan since the soviet invasion, & were known as Afghan Arabs, including OBL and his deputy.
And we tolerated them because they were fighting the Soviets.
The Taliban were created in 1993, the war with the Soviets ended in 1989
But the cause of this would be jihadi terrorism that pushed pakistan to the edge.
terrorism must be defeated and yes if left to fester it could lead to pakistan being aggressed upon. theres also other reasons for pakistan to be forced into an extremist path. keyword to watch out for is sanctions but iran shields pakistan for now.
And we tolerated them because they were fighting the Soviets.
The Taliban were created in 1993, the war with the Soviets ended in 1989
Pakistan also helped finance the Mujahideen factions on the behest of the CIA...
There are also reports that Pakistan skewed the delivery of weapons and financing in favor of Mujahideen groups which it favored during the soviet occupation...
yes. The Taliban were shouting the slogan of “roti, kapra and makan” and carrying the flag of the PPP as they swept through Afghanistan on their march to Kabul. 