Why does Turkey & Pakistan have great friendship?

I thought I had replied to this, oops

Originally posted by Aussiedude I don't see what makes North India paticulalry special for the average Pakistani, who would much rather peace and stability, am I right?

800 years of common history perhaps? I already said above I think there would be a significant number of people who wouldn't mind North India.

Originally posted by Pekau Question about 3), doesn't it make sense that Pakistan won't have any negative view on Turks because they are not close, whether in good or bad? It's like saying that the Koreans generally see Holland as good guys... they aren't really related or close enough to point out any negative comments.... which only justified your 4th point.

In point (3) I was refering to Turkish invasions into the Pakistan & India region. Ghaznavids, Ghurids, Mughals. So there is certainly room for negative view, which is held by many people, and probably most Indians (or at least Rajputs).

"Indians and Chinese cannot do business together because Indians cannot live without a bargain and Chinese will never offer you a bargain."

I love it

Efraz He seemed secular enough to me.

I was referring to the secularism discussion going on in these pages suggesting that this can be a problem between a Turk and a Pakistani.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Originally posted by Efraz Not that I would treat my friends worse if they don't embrace secularism whetever that means. But there is a good possibility we couldn't have gotten drunk together. Your confusing secularism with impiety or atheism. Republic of Turkey is not a secular state without badly distorting the meaning of the word secular. Secular states don't interfere in religion, and indeed, ignore its existence. Turkey very much interferes in religious affairs of multiple religions, and is therefore a long way from being secular.

That was a deliberate irony. In Islam if you are an anti-secularist there is no way we will get drunk together.

Rest assured I know the difference but it's too narrow in Turkey. A person being very religious and at the same time being a proper secular minded person? Rare. Also the vice versa is nearly impossible.

Anyway it has nothing to do with a Turk's and Pakistani's friendship.


Edited by Efraz - 28-Apr-2008 at 12:51

Efraz a person can be very religious and secular at the same time, there are many people like this. Someone who says you can't be religious and secular at the time is either fanatically religious or fanatically atheist (both are 2 sides of the same coin anyway). Secularism only refers to a type of government, it doesn't make any sense when applied to an individual.

And yes, Turkey is not a secular country it's a laicist country. Even when we talk about secularism in Turkish we say "laiklik". Secularism is the separation of church and state where as laicism is the domination of the state over the church.

Personally I believe laicism is the best route for Turkey, I don't want foreign Arab or Iranian money trying to corrupt the way people learn religion there. Pakistan should take up a similar system and not allow anymore private mosques to function without state-trained imams.




Edited by kafkas - 28-Apr-2008 at 16:13

Secular means "worldly".

Well this discussion is nearly over for me. But I think I couldn't make myself clear... Probably my bad.

I have never defended Turkey or delighted on the fact how secular is Turkey. And never defended Darwinism too. Turkey's secularism and Darwinism's problematics were mere examples. Many more can be found. Darwinism is the closest. But Bulldog gave me an answer instead of playing around. Thank you Bulldog. I saw your point.

Never said Darwinism is a religion and never said anti-secular people are ignorant or so.  IF you have known me you'd know that'll be the last thing I would think of.

And yet Darwinism is not a theory it's a scientific school, a philosophy. Not mentioned but referred: Evolution is not only a theory either. It has laws, it has facts. It has abandoned theories and sets of theories that are being worked on too. It is a vast zone of researching. Can not be cast aside like "hey evolution is only a theory no need to mention it!"

Hmm what else is commented? ah, never defended department of religion in Turkey.(Imagine me doing so) I never defended laicist university education in Turkey. I may only criticize it. But not now not here.

And secular still means worldly. :) And anti-secularists have worldly lives too. I didn't say otherwise. And I still believe the two can hardly go together in Islam. I haven't read a comment from you to make me think otherwise. But opinions can be refreshed. Thanks anyway.

And also I never said "never" There was no need to get upset Mourty.  These were my opinions. And they were not severe. Open to debate. And I am not produced by Darwinist teachings of Turkey. And Never said only truth can be seen by atheist people. You are too hasty. I am not even an atheist :)

And to "my secular Turkey".. I would love to see one in the future :)

I believe I made my point.

PS: secular turkeys can not be eaten in Christmas I suppose, therefore not so brilliant

sorry I could not help :)


Edited by Efraz - 28-Apr-2008 at 22:46

Originally posted by Mortaza Secular mean division between religion and state. Nothing more. No need to create funny building over nothing.

Argh. I have nothing more to say. There is a problem that I can not solve.  But I am a fanatic and you are not, right?

Originally posted by Mortaza Important thing is approach to science not becoming religious or secular.

Interesting phrase. Would have been brilliant(or disastrous) only if you have known what secular means. :)

Well at least you are transparent, you don't want secular science. Fair. I have nothing more to add. Good day.

Mortaza

Turkey produces a lot of science, I don't know where you get the thought that it doesn't. Not just on a national level but Turkish university students have come with new post-modern inventions that Western countries haven't taken advantage of yet.



Efraz

I don't think any of us understand your point. What are you trying to say exactly?

1) If religious people couldn't live secular lives the world would be in absolute CHAOS right now. That alone disproves any notion that an individual can't be religious and secular at the same time

2) What do you mean by "secular means worldly"? Hitler was secular, so was Stalin, do you think they were "worldly"???

For the record if it helps you answer my question I'm a Muslim secularist. I like the current system of laicism in Turkey, I don't think it has to be changed. The people who want to live under Arab Law are the minority and if they don't like it they can move to Iran or an Arab country. Same goes for the communists, if they don't like the idea of private property they should move to North Korea or China.


Edited by kafkas - 29-Apr-2008 at 15:18

Hello Kafkas.

I am only replying after I said "good bye" because I don't want to be rudely ignoring your question.

I was not trying to say anything on secularism under this topic. I gave common definitions on secularism on a question and on other questions I have given my personal opinions.

Originally posted by Efraz Secular means "worldly"... Secularism is separating all things worldly and all things spiritual when thinking and deciding for yourself and for others. In a rough way of saying.

Which part is hard to understand?

Originally posted by Efraz Well lets start from the "secular and religious may co-exist" argument. Yes, in theory may co-exist but I think it's a rare state of mind.

Or this? Read the underlines. And I was speaking for "Islam".

Originally posted by Efraz A person being very religious and at the same time being a proper secular minded person? Rare.

And this? Maybe I think you are "rare"?

I repeated the same thing all over very clearly. This last two are my subjective opinions. I see you oppose it. Fair but I believe the answers to your questions were already in the post I have written to reply you. If not, then there is an epistemology problem between us. Any more definition from me will be needless repetition because I feel my comments weren't read carefully by you. Sorry if I am mistaken.

Ah, on Hitler and Stalin. I think it's irrelevant with the definition of the concept.