"Wearing Hijab Is Indiscipline": Karnataka Minister On Students' Protest

[Technics 1210]

Ha ha. Ho ho. He he.

A Hindu extremist asking why Islam is not secular.

It's like asking McDonalds why their Big Mac is not vegitarian.

Love it.

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

So you agree India is not secular. There you go. So easy to destroy your fickle and fake education.

How easy it is to flummox a long time lurker from 2019! L to the O to the L.

Still waiting for your nuggets of knowledge. How can I agree or disagree until I know what you consider secular

 

[Technics 1210]

Still waiting for your nuggets of knowledge. How can I agree or disagree until I know what you consider secular

My Mc.Nuggets are of no use, 1000 years of subservient rule and your lot cannot think for themselves. Lost cause. Hence fleeing 'incredible' India.

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

My Mc.Nuggets are of no use, 1000 years of subservient rule and your lot cannot think for themselves. Lost cause. Hence fleeing 'incredible' India.

Still doesn't define anything. I'm still here in India.. Tell na.

 

[Technics 1210]

800M+ have no idea what Secularism means.

One word - Dictionary.

It has always been said that education is the Silver Bullet, but no, castes of Hindutva rather squander time on a piece of cloth defending a system they do not understand when the majority are considered untouchables, inc Modi.

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

800M+ have no idea what Secularism means.

One word - Dictionary.

It has always been said that education is the Silver Bullet, but no, castes of Hindutva rather squander time on a piece of cloth defending a system they do not understand when the majority are considered untouchables, inc Modi.

Still no answer yet, I want your thoughts on Secularism

 

[Technics 1210]

Still no answer yet, I want your thoughts on Secularism

Grow up.

Go look at the definition of secularism in a dictionary if you want to know my thoughts.

Else, go ask for a refund from your educational system.

 

[JaDed]

Perhaps creating the legislation for something as complex as a UCC is not something that can be done quickly?

They have been in power since 2014 lol what do you mean quickly..

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

Grow up.

Go look at the definition of secularism in a dictionary if you want to know my thoughts.

Else, go ask for a refund from your educational system.

According to the textbook definition and dictionary def and our Constitution we are secular. Thanks for reinforcing that

 

[cricketjoshila]

They have been in power since 2014 lol what do you mean quickly..

Do they have a two third majority in RS? Why are parties like congress SP Dmk etc opposing UCC?

Why are muslims opposing it?

 

[Technics 1210]

According to the textbook definition and dictionary def and our Constitution we are secular. Thanks for reinforcing that

Well folks pay heed

The 4th Reich in India, BJP, is an example of secularism, in that, the government (state) is seperated from religion.

Make that 800 Million + 1 uneducated.

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

They have been in power since 2014 lol what do you mean quickly..

So? You think it is easy to do something as complex as this?

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

Well folks pay heed

The 4th Reich in India, BJP, is an example of secularism, in that, the government (state) is seperated from religion.

Make that 800 Million + 1 uneducated.

Umm.. I keep saying India and you suddenly say BJP. Where did I mention that?

You're a hoot man!

 

[Technics 1210]

Do not let Hindutva apologists deter you from the real discrimination faced in 'incredible' India - Caste system.

A system where one is born into a caste, through no fault of their own, no choice, yet judged for the rest of their lives. This is Hinduism folks - born into judgement.

 

[LongtimeLurk3r]

Do not let Hindutva apologists deter you from the real discrimination faced in 'incredible' India - Caste system.

A system where one is born into a caste, through no fault of their own, no choice, yet judged for the rest of their lives. This is Hinduism folks - born into judgement.

I think you forgot that you were supposed to define secularism incorrectly. Not hinduism incorrectly.

Never fear I am here to remind you

 

[Technics 1210]

PS: Sati. Being born into the wrong caste is bad enough, being born a women in Hinduism is next level risk.

Secularism is a word bandied to appease the West, yet the essence of Hindutva must be exposed.

Attacks on Indian Muslims are a smokescreen to the realities of Hindutva.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If you allow special privileges for islamic laws, you are secular, else not.

Your "secular" courts were the ones who allowed special priveleges for Sikh head coverings, this was never a legal matter until your "secular" courts made it so.

 

[Justcrazy]

If Muslim scholars stated that hijab is not essential, then it's not surprising that the judiciary will take that into account.

I think it should be Muslim scholars who need to come together and give one explanation for verses on different aspects. Otherwise, this kind of issues will persist.

Covering of head for women is mentioned in all major religions.

 

[Justcrazy]

Because I am not on this forum 24/7 ? I reply when I am online.

So, do you want India to be a hindu rashtra or not ? A couple of others on here have said yes to this question.

what is your definition of Hindu Rashtra ?

 

[Justcrazy]

Today the Bhagvad Gita was made complusory by Gujarat government for their shools in grade 6-12.

https://www.timesnownews.com/educat...-schools-for-classes-6-to-12-article-90294525

When will Bible and Quran be made mandatory in the syllabus?

I am surprised , because I still do not know which Bhagwad Gita did they make compulsory , I am sure Krishna preached one of them but today we have several versions of that , and Hindu literature does not have a concept of narrators either, we do not know which one can be traced back to Krishna , who are the people in between.

 

[James]

Pork? Music?

This thread is in danger of going wildly off topic once again.

I will be reviewing the above and likely deleting a number of further posts.

 

[Itachi]

Covering of head for women is mentioned in all major religions.

The Muslim scholars are divided among themselves whether it is essential or not. Purely mentioning doesn't make a difference.

 

[Itachi]

Music is not allowed in Islam.
There is negative hadeeth regarding Music.

But then people will question the authenticity of the hadeeth. The Muslim population is divided among the guidelines. How a secular law should deal when there is division among the religion itself?

 

[cricketjoshila]

I am surprised , because I still do not know which Bhagwad Gita did they make compulsory , I am sure Krishna preached one of them but today we have several versions of that , and Hindu literature does not have a concept of narrators either, we do not know which one can be traced back to Krishna , who are the people in between.

There is one and only one bhagwad gita, the one Lord Krishna preached to Arjuna at Kurukshetra.

Entire Hindu literature is based on Shruti and Smruti. That is listen and remember.

 

[anikrc1]

It really is as simple as that.

You can't be France if you are still a deeply religious country.

Which country allows all religious attires in public school ?

 

[gani999]

But then people will question the authenticity of the hadeeth. The Muslim population is divided among the guidelines. How a secular law should deal when there is division among the religion itself?

I think the court's verdict is very clear.

There is no blanket ban on the hijab in India, like there is in some western countries.

Muslim women can wear the hijab, but educational and other institutions are allowed to have their own rules. If an institution decides that it won't allow religious dress, it is allowed to enforce that and its rules should be respected.

There are other institutions which don't have that rule. Women can wear hijabs in those.

The fact that hijab is not mandatory in Islam is exactly what allows the court and the wider society to enact such a law.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Which country allows all religious attires in public school ?

How is that related to my statement?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think the court's verdict is very clear.

There is no blanket ban on the hijab in India, like there is in some western countries.

Muslim women can wear the hijab, but educational and other institutions are allowed to have their own rules. If an institution decides that it won't allow religious dress, it is allowed to enforce that and its rules should be respected.

There are other institutions which don't have that rule. Women can wear hijabs in those.

The fact that hijab is not mandatory in Islam is exactly what allows the court and the wider society to enact such a law.

Two words which you have mysteriously left out:

Sikh
Turban

Unfortunately those two words make a mockery of everything you have written above.

 

[LaLoco]

Let me tell you, in India Indian laws are followed and Indian courts judge. Thats not going to change whether pakistanis like it or not.

If you are so interested in secularism, why not ask your government to make pakistan secular.

What? hurt again? because every time you type up such a nonsense comment one has to assume your feelings are hurt.

Of course Indian laws are followed in India because it is India not America, no France, not Afghanistan. - is that comment of yours suppose to be educational and informative for the rest of us readers?

Pakistan is a democracy, Pakistan constitution does not claim to be a secular constitution, it has been amended to be not a secular constitution.

Indian and the promoter of Hindu Rashtra, such as yourself, claim India to be secular.

Have you not gone through this thread? lol

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What? hurt again? because every time you type up such a nonsense comment one has to assume your feelings are hurt.

Of course Indian laws are followed in India because it is India not America, no France, not Afghanistan. - is that comment of yours suppose to be educational and informative for the rest of us readers?

Pakistan is a democracy, Pakistan constitution does not claim to be a secular constitution, it has been amended to be not a secular constitution.

Indian and the promoter of Hindu Rashtra, such as yourself, claim India to be secular.

Have you not gone through this thread? lol

This thread is priceless. You have Hindu atheists quoting Islamic scriptures to justify Hindu laws banning religious garb while from the other side of their mouth they are saying it's fine for Sikhs to wear turbans. Ha ha ha.

 

[Justcrazy]

The Muslim scholars are divided among themselves whether it is essential or not. Purely mentioning doesn't make a difference.

Then what makes the difference? If me and you have a dispute regarding the spelling of a word we look in a dictionary, my or your opinion does not matter.

The difference of the scholars is regarding veil , not hijab.

 

[Justcrazy]

But then people will question the authenticity of the hadeeth. The Muslim population is divided among the guidelines. How a secular law should deal when there is division among the religion itself?

yes, you can talk about the authenticity of hadeeth, but for that, you need to give reasons why you think those are not authentic. It cannot a mere statement.

Also , the question in this thread is regarding Hijab , so I would rather keep myself to topic and not hijack and make it another kind of thread.

 

[Justcrazy]

There is one and only one bhagwad gita, the one Lord Krishna preached to Arjuna at Kurukshetra.

Entire Hindu literature is based on Shruti and Smruti. That is listen and remember.

Are you sure there is one Bhagwad Gita ? Do a little more research, you will find more than one. If you want I can name a few

Also , From Krishna to Arjun , then what ? How did it reach today .

And is Bhagwad Gita shuruti or smiriti ?

 

[Justcrazy]

I think the court's verdict is very clear.

There is no blanket ban on the hijab in India, like there is in some western countries.

Muslim women can wear the hijab, but educational and other institutions are allowed to have their own rules. If an institution decides that it won't allow religious dress, it is allowed to enforce that and its rules should be respected.

There are other institutions which don't have that rule. Women can wear hijabs in those.

The fact that hijab is not mandatory in Islam is exactly what allows the court and the wider society to enact such a law.

How can Hindu judges conclude that Hijab is NOT mandatory?

 

[gani999]

Two words which you have mysteriously left out:

Sikh
Turban

Unfortunately those two words make a mockery of everything you have written above.

Sikhism makes it mandatory for sikh males to wear a turban, so their religious requirement is allowed to take precedence over any institutional rule.

Islam does not make it mandatory for a muslim woman to wear a hijab. It is purely a personal matter, so an institutional rule may take precedence over it.

The mystery is in your lack of understanding of this simple fact, or maybe that's not really mysterious anymore?

 

[gani999]

How can Hindu judges conclude that Hijab is NOT mandatory?

The judge in question was a certain Justice Jaibunissa Mohiuddin Khazi.

The lawyers who represented muslim women were Ravivarma Kumar, Sanjay Hegde and Devadutt Kamat.

If the muslim lady judge thinks hijab is not mandatory, then there's nothing the Government of India can do.

 

[Justcrazy]

Sikhism makes it mandatory for sikh males to wear a turban, so their religious requirement is allowed to take precedence over any institutional rule.

Islam does not make it mandatory for a muslim woman to wear a hijab. It is purely a personal matter, so an institutional rule may take precedence over it.

The mystery is in your lack of understanding of this simple fact, or maybe that's not really mysterious anymore?

Where does Sikhism make it compulsory for a person to wear a turban?

Sikhism says to let grow your hair, it does not mention turban.

 

[Justcrazy]

The judge in question was a certain Justice Jaibunissa Mohiuddin Khazi.

The lawyers who represented muslim women were Ravivarma Kumar, Sanjay Hegde and Devadutt Kamat.

If the muslim lady judge thinks the hijab is not mandatory, then there's nothing the Government of India can do.

Look our purpose of debate here does not matter in real life, we are not an authority, we are here to have discussions so that people who read and can make their own conclusions.

The veil is a thing of debate in Islam, not the hijab.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The judge in question was a certain Justice Jaibunissa Mohiuddin Khazi.

The lawyers who represented muslim women were Ravivarma Kumar, Sanjay Hegde and Devadutt Kamat.

If the muslim lady judge thinks hijab is not mandatory, then there's nothing the Government of India can do.

The judge was hand picked to give the verdict the authorities wanted. What else would you expect?

 

[Local.Dada]

Where does Sikhism make it compulsory for a person to wear a turban?

Sikhism says to let grow your hair, it does not mention turban.

Look it’s futile to go back and forth on this. Religious scholars were consulted and the ones asking for Hijab got the best available representation because this has become a political issue and no longer a religious debate.

Yet the judge sees all sides and makes her decision according to law and constitution.

That’s all there is to it. Once again for the millionth time, Hijab is not banned in India. You cannot wear Hijab or whatever that is restricted in a institution that says you can’t wear it. As simple as it sounds.

No amount of arguing, whining or monkey balancing will change it.

 

[Local.Dada]

The judge was hand picked to give the verdict the authorities wanted. What else would you expect?

I would take the verdict of a well educated and qualified judge regardless of her religion over someone coming up with potential conspiracy theories sitting in UK having no understanding of law especially Indian law, Indian constitution or exposure to a multi ethnic society where there is a lot more inter-mingling than say a place like UK.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I would take the verdict of a well educated and qualified judge regardless of her religion over someone coming up with potential conspiracy theories sitting in UK having no understanding of law especially Indian law, Indian constitution or exposure to a multi ethnic society where there is a lot more inter-mingling than say a place like UK.

I would expect a hardcore hindutva to support any action or person who will suppress Muslims in India. Every post you write tells it's own story.

 

[Justcrazy]

Look it’s futile to go back and forth on this. Religious scholars were consulted and the ones asking for Hijab got the best available representation because this has become a political issue and no longer a religious debate.

Yet the judge sees all sides and makes her decision according to law and constitution.

That’s all there is to it. Once again for the millionth time, Hijab is not banned in India. You cannot wear Hijab or whatever that is restricted in a institution that says you can’t wear it. As simple as it sounds.

No amount of arguing, whining or monkey balancing will change it.

I have answered your post on 1238 , kindly see that.

Also , you did not answer the point I raised. In Sikhism cutting of hair on any body part is prohibited, no mention of the turban.

 

[Justcrazy]

I would take the verdict of a well educated and qualified judge regardless of her religion over someone coming up with potential conspiracy theories sitting in UK having no understanding of law especially Indian law, Indian constitution or exposure to a multi ethnic society where there is a lot more inter-mingling than say a place like UK.

Its your choice , but you cannot stop people from debating and exposing the fake secularism and democracy that prevails in india.

 

[Local.Dada]

Its your choice , but you cannot stop people from debating and exposing the fake secularism and democracy that prevails in india.

India was not secular and never secular. The word secularism was inserted later in our constitution.

The reason is India is a Hindu country and by that itself the definition is India is secular. Hinduism is a culture and an amalgamation of various thoughts and belief systems over the years.

Parsis and Jews were living in India way before the word secularism was invented .

It’s simple, there is a rule you abide by it. You don’t change a rule because a a few people have issues with. That is true secularism. Not that we abandon the others, they have choice of other institutes if they wish to have a different dress code. That has also been provided by India.

This kind of inclusiveness is true meaning of secularism.

Anyway tough to explain because people either live in an Islamic country or the west with their own definition of secularism. Hasn’t stopped people from complaining about that either.

India or Indian subcontinent was secular in the correct definition way before English language was invented leave alone the word secular.

 

[KingKhanWC]

First of all understand the judgement, it says that a institution can prescribe a uniform they want as its a reasonable restriction under article 25A.

It further states that wearing of hijab isn't a compulsory practice as Quran prescibes for wearing modest clothes. They relied on the translation of Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. They gave detailed reasons for that.

This judgement leaves it to the schools to decide whether to allow or not allow hijab.

Hindu judges are not qualified to determine what the Quran says. Were any Muslim theology experts called?

Also which scripture says Sikhs must wear Turbans?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Are you sure there is one Bhagwad Gita ? Do a little more research, you will find more than one. If you want I can name a few

Also , From Krishna to Arjun , then what ? How did it reach today .

And is Bhagwad Gita shuruti or smiriti ?

There is only one bhagwad gita. Sage Ved Vyasa wrote it down after listening to it.

The ancient way of transfer of knowledge was to listen and memorise it, so that even if the writings are lost knowledge isnt.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I have answered your post on 1238 , kindly see that.

Also , you did not answer the point I raised. In Sikhism cutting of hair on any body part is prohibited, no mention of the turban.

Sikhs have to cover their head hair. Its called a dastaar.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Its your choice , but you cannot stop people from debating and exposing the fake secularism and democracy that prevails in india.

People? You mean mostly pakistanis, who have little to no connection with secularism and democracy.

Its is laughable to expect people of an islamic republic to support any other view except that of muslims.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Sikhs have to cover their head hair. Its called a dastaar.

Can you post the texts?

You said earlier the Quran was used for this verdict. So please show us the Sikhs holy authentic texts to support wearing the Turban.

 

[Bilal_103]

The mental gymnastics by some posters is astonishing. The lengths people will go instead of admitting there is a issue… it’s a damn shame.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The mental gymnastics by some posters is astonishing. The lengths people will go instead of admitting there is a issue… it’s a damn shame.

For supporters of Hindutva there is no shame, they love anything which is anti-Islamic or Anti-Muslim.

The judge was a Hindu.

IT gives them some sort of relief and albe to be breath believing they are hurting Muslims because they ruled them, embarrased them for hundreds of years. Strange nation.

 

[gani999]

For supporters of Hindutva there is no shame, they love anything which is anti-Islamic or Anti-Muslim.

The judge was a Hindu.

IT gives them some sort of relief and albe to be breath believing they are hurting Muslims because they ruled them, embarrased them for hundreds of years. Strange nation,.

The judge was Justice Jaibunissa Mohiuddin Khazi, a muslim.
The three lawyers who represented the muslim schoolgirls were all hindu.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The judge was Justice Jaibunissa Mohiuddin Khazi, a muslim.
The three lawyers who represented the muslim schoolgirls were all hindu.

I read it was also Rajendra Badamikar ?

Are any of these judges scholars in Islamic rulings?

Maybe you can answer as joshilabhai is struggling. He said they used the Quran to come to this judgement. Which scpritures were used to allow Sikhs to wear turbans?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

India was not secular and never secular. The word secularism was inserted later in our constitution.

The reason is India is a Hindu country and by that itself the definition is India is secular. Hinduism is a culture and an amalgamation of various thoughts and belief systems over the years.

Parsis and Jews were living in India way before the word secularism was invented .

It’s simple, there is a rule you abide by it. You don’t change a rule because a a few people have issues with. That is true secularism. Not that we abandon the others, they have choice of other institutes if they wish to have a different dress code. That has also been provided by India.

This kind of inclusiveness is true meaning of secularism.

Anyway tough to explain because people either live in an Islamic country or the west with their own definition of secularism. Hasn’t stopped people from complaining about that either.

India or Indian subcontinent was secular in the correct definition way before English language was invented leave alone the word secular.

I am not really sure what you are trying to argue here. On the one hand you are claiming the term secular was not an Indian/hindu term, but on the other you are saying it was inserted in your constitution. Inserted by whom? You are a democracy right? If India already defined secularism why has it changed definitions according to western definitions so many times? Don't you yourself use western terms like terrosism?

 

[Justcrazy]

There is only one bhagwad gita. Sage Ved Vyasa wrote it down after listening to it.

The ancient way of transfer of knowledge was to listen and memorize it, so that even if the writings are lost knowledge isnt.

I will come to versions of mahabharat later.

Was Ved vayas present in the Battle of Mahabharat ?

 

[Justcrazy]

India was not secular and never secular. The word secularism was inserted later in our constitution.

The reason is India is a Hindu country and by that itself the definition is India is secular. Hinduism is a culture and an amalgamation of various thoughts and belief systems over the years.

Parsis and Jews were living in India way before the word secularism was invented .

It’s simple, there is a rule you abide by it. You don’t change a rule because a a few people have issues with. That is true secularism. Not that we abandon the others, they have choice of other institutes if they wish to have a different dress code. That has also been provided by India.

This kind of inclusiveness is true meaning of secularism.

Anyway tough to explain because people either live in an Islamic country or the west with their own definition of secularism. Hasn’t stopped people from complaining about that either.

India or Indian subcontinent was secular in the correct definition way before English language was invented leave alone the word secular.

Suddenly after BIP comes into power you realize India was Never a secular Country ? Where were these statements before ?

When Muslims or sikhs fought for Independence , why were they not told India was never and never be a secular country ?

A rule or law has to be the same for everyone , that is the issue.

 

[Justcrazy]

Sikhs have to cover their head hair. Its called a dastaar.

Having hair is a must for sikhs , but not all sikhs keep hair . Its not the head but the entire body.

 

[Justcrazy]

People? You mean mostly pakistanis, who have little to no connection with secularism and democracy.

Its is laughable to expect people of an islamic republic to support any other view except that of muslims.

If the thread was on Pakistan I would have said the same thing. If Hindus in pakistan were prevented from having tiilak on their heads or brahmins from having thread , I would be against that too.

My parameters are same for everyone , otherwise it would be hypocrisy from my side.

 

[Justcrazy]

Can you post the texts?

You said earlier the Quran was used for this verdict. So please show us the Sikhs holy authentic texts to support wearing the Turban.

The sikhs are commanded by Guru Gobind singh ( final guru , before Guru Grant which is the book and considered as last guru ) to carry 5 K - Kesh ( hair ) , Kanga ( comb ) , Kada ( bangle kind of ) , kacha ( a kind of Underwear ) and Kirpan ( dagger ).

If I am not mistaken only amritdhari sikhs follow this strictly. I do not think you will find all these in Granth , basically, Guru Gobind made khalsa which was not what were teachings of early gurus.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Can you post the texts?

You said earlier the Quran was used for this verdict. So please show us the Sikhs holy authentic texts to support wearing the Turban.

Not turban, but a dastaar or head covering.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I will come to versions of mahabharat later.

Was Ved vayas present in the Battle of Mahabharat ?

Yes he was. He was a contemporary of those times. He wrote the Mahabharata as well.

 

[cricketjoshila]

If the thread was on Pakistan I would have said the same thing. If Hindus in pakistan were prevented from having tiilak on their heads or brahmins from having thread , I would be against that too.

My parameters are same for everyone , otherwise it would be hypocrisy from my side.

Hindus are kidnapped and forcibly converted in pakistan, i don't see how pakistanis have changed that?

 

[cricketjoshila]

The sikhs are commanded by Guru Gobind singh ( final guru , before Guru Grant which is the book and considered as last guru ) to carry 5 K - Kesh ( hair ) , Kanga ( comb ) , Kada ( bangle kind of ) , kacha ( a kind of Underwear ) and Kirpan ( dagger ).

If I am not mistaken only amritdhari sikhs follow this strictly. I do not think you will find all these in Granth , basically, Guru Gobind made khalsa which was not what were teachings of early gurus.

All khalsa have to follow this.

 

[Local.Dada]

I am not really sure what you are trying to argue here. On the one hand you are claiming the term secular was not an Indian/hindu term, but on the other you are saying it was inserted in your constitution. Inserted by whom? You are a democracy right? If India already defined secularism why has it changed definitions according to western definitions so many times? Don't you yourself use western terms like terrosism?

Good question. Let me simplify

Secularism in the western definition is more about exclusiveness.

Indian secularism is more about inclusiveness

That’s the difference.

Case in point, the unfiorm code that says everyone is the same regardless of religion, caste creed. Inclusiveness.

Vs

Giving exclusive dress code for a few. Exclusiveness.

Clear now?

 

[jaisan]

I will come to versions of mahabharat later.

Was Ved vayas present in the Battle of Mahabharat ?

All the panndavas and gauravas are ved vyas s grandsons only.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Like I said, your ilk have no idea what Secularism means. Since you follow the foot steps of your past masters, the British, go look up the meaning in an Oxford dictionary.

Says the Pakistani that fled to the UK, talks about Indian's following the British... Oh the irony here LOL .

 

[KingKhanWC]

The sikhs are commanded by Guru Gobind singh ( final guru , before Guru Grant which is the book and considered as last guru ) to carry 5 K - Kesh ( hair ) , Kanga ( comb ) , Kada ( bangle kind of ) , kacha ( a kind of Underwear ) and Kirpan ( dagger ).

If I am not mistaken only amritdhari sikhs follow this strictly. I do not think you will find all these in Granth , basically, Guru Gobind made khalsa which was not what were teachings of early gurus.

Not turban, but a dastaar or head covering.

Call it what you like.

But all im asking is for the command from their sacred texts?

Also Isnt Sikhism still considered a branch of Hinduism in India?

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Neither was Hijab any form of "indiscipline" not did it come in her way to pursue academic excellence.

A nice big and wet slap on the face of Karnataka high court all stinky Sanghies.

 

[IMMY69]

16 pages and not one of the right wing Indian posters is brave enough to admit that the banning was petty.
They're used every excuse in the book to back this ban so much so that they actually fail to see it for what it is. PETTY

Then you ask yourself why and the only conclusion I can come up euth is fear.

 

[Justcrazy]

Yes he was. He was a contemporary of those times. He wrote the Mahabharata as well.

He was not present in the battle. He was a contemporary. I hope you agree with this?

 

[Justcrazy]

Hindus are kidnapped and forcibly converted in pakistan, i don't see how pakistanis have changed that?

In Pakistan Muslims are killing Muslims, you see I think a week ago a bomb blast in a Shia Mosque. If it was truly an Islamic country this would not have happened. This is a Muslim majority country.

I will not deny that what you said is wrong and untrue. It is happening, maybe the maximum someone can say is the numbers are not high as claimed by Indian posters, but that does not make difference, wrong remains wrong.

Its high time that all Pakistani Posters do accept that such things do happen in Pakistan.

Quran is very clear on this issue , you cannot convert someone by force. And I do not think you even need a Quran verse for that, any sensible person would understand that you cannot force someone to believe something that person does not want to.

Yes , the most you should be doing is preaching your message and presenting that to others, but before that you need to have your own character according to your preaching.

If I myself living an immoral life , cheating, looting, backbiting, and doing everything against Islam and trying to convert people to this hypocritical Islam, it serves no purpose, and these kinds of Muslims would be in hell themselves for presenting the bad image of Islam to others.

I totally condemn what has happened to minorities in Pakistan, even what happened in Bangladesh's attack on ISKCON. Citizens have no right to take laws in their hands and create chaos.

 

[Justcrazy]

All khalsa have to follow this.

Yes I know that , but there is NO mention of any turban , and Khalsa did not exist at the time before Guru Gobind singh. So it cannot be integral part .

 

[KingKhanWC]

So no mention in the holy scriptures of of Sikhs?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Good question. Let me simplify

Secularism in the western definition is more about exclusiveness.

Indian secularism is more about inclusiveness

That’s the difference.

Case in point, the unfiorm code that says everyone is the same regardless of religion, caste creed. Inclusiveness.

Vs

Giving exclusive dress code for a few. Exclusiveness.

Clear now?

Isn't that what you did for the Sikhs?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Isn't that what you did for the Sikhs?

They also state they used the Quran to confirm hijab is not required. But are stuck when asking what text was used to allow Sikhs a different dress code?

Or is it because Sikhism is still considered a part of Hinduism?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

They also state they used the Quran to confirm hijab is not required. But are stuck when asking what text was used to allow Sikhs a different dress code?

Or is it because Sikhism is still considered a part of Hinduism?

It is by hindus, not sure if Sikhs see it that way.

 

[RexRex]

Someone should challenge this in a court.

So you agree the BJP is a hypocritical party by supporting a hijab ban in Bangalore public schools while imposing Bhagvad Gita on all Gujrat school students ?

 

[cricketjoshila]

He was not present in the battle. He was a contemporary. I hope you agree with this?

He was watching the battle. Thats written the Mahabharata as well. Vyasa was a maharishi or great sage. He need not be present at the spot to learn, he had divine vision.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So you agree the BJP is a hypocritical party by supporting a hijab ban in Bangalore public schools while imposing Bhagvad Gita on all Gujrat school students ?

Bjp no BJP, i dont support the teaching of the bhagwat gita in schools.

Yes they can teach the philosophy alright, but not the scriptures.