What he has done for Turkey is unparalleled, The GDP growth rate and other measures are the clear manifestation of his performance.....If he wants to implement Islamic reforms in the light of Shariah, what's wrong in that? His people support him, his party won the election thrice, Turkish people have faith in him and support him and his policies.....Should he give up in front of a liberal minority? My friend he has support of majority still he is going for plebiscite...If few protestors are disrupting peace of the country and capital, should they be let go scot free? Many protestors were encamped in New York during Occupy Wall Street Campaign in US, the US administration scrubbed them by force? They also cannot face criticism according to you?

The economic prosperity of Turkey has certainly soared during the last decade and some pretty impressive measures have also been taken to keep the military from interfering in the politics. I'm all for these things. However, the constitution of Turkey asserts that it would be a secular state and interestingly, no one can even propose a law, as per the constitution, in the parliament that aims at taking this secular status away from Turkey. If they want to bring religious reforms, they can do it remaining within the limits of constitution. How would we feel if someone tries to change the clause "sovereignty belongs to Allah" in the constitution of Pakistan?

It is the educated class/civil society of Turkey that has been protesting over the authoritarian policies of Erdogan. One claims to be the head of a secular state and bans alcohol and public display of affection. This is in direct clash with the constitution of country. It's very easy to bring the common uneducated man on the roads because of poverty and the promises of economic prosperity. But when it comes to safeguarding the constitution and fundamental rights, the greatest responsibility lies on the educated class/civil society which is out in the streets in Turkey.

The recent policies of Ergodan are clearly in clash with not only the constitution of Turkey but also the democratic spirit. Crushing the dissident voices of journalists, academics, and political figures by launching mass prosecutions against them to curb the freedom of expression is one of them. A large number of journalists who criticized the government have been fired and prosecuted against, which quite reminds us of General Zia era in Pakistan.

So the thing is, Ergodan has been constantly moving toward a more rigid and authoritarian regime and if the people are criticizing him, they have sound reasons for it.

That is a very tricky situation. There are different interpretation of the so-called Shariah law and we can't just bring it under a blanket term and refuse to analyze the pros and cons. And besides, who is he to implement these so-called shariah laws? People voted for him because of his economic policies, not because he would introduce the shariah law.

Certainly. If anyone uses force against the peaceful protesters, including US or any other country, it's wrong. Why do you assume that if a person is criticizing Turkey (or Saudi Arabia or any other dictatorship in the Muslim world) he/she is automatically supporting America? Why is that we tend to view things in black and white? I criticize and condemn the US in its wrong actions, but I also do that for Muslim rulers (something which our ulema and media conspicuously refuse to do with shameful stubbornness).

Be succinct and be unequivocal.....Have discussed all your concerns in earlier posts
Stay blessed....

__________________
Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation.
But when love is one sided, holding off is no more an option.

Turkey fished in troubled waters and fanned the flame of US backed rebellion in neighbouring Syria;this was an utter folly by otherwise sagacious Turks.They were unaware of the fact that spill-over affects of Syrian turmoil could engulf Turkey.They should have learned lesson from Pakistan.Turkey ought to re-visit her foreign policy as regards Syrian and prevent from meddling in affairs of her neighbour else the tentacle of forces of turbulence and violence shall ensnare her.

Dear Friends,

Whenever a State attempts to become a theocratic guard of morals and ethics;it slightly and gradually drifts from egalitarianism and freedom to totalitarianism and intellectual slavery.Such a society is then cast down to abyss of decadence and degeneration.Allow me to remark that we humans have not yet learnt the delicate art of establishing a harmony between religion and politics.We attempt to "religionise" politics and "politicise" relgion;but we corrupt both.
Erdogan shall have to extricate himself from the clutches of such myopic aides who are pressing him to use violence against his own countrymen.Violence shall only beget violence and progress of this great nation shall be stifled.

You have placed your thumb on pulse of prevailing issue.

Law of Nature? What on earth is this 'Law of Nature'?[/QUOTE]

Same sex marriage is of course against the law of nature. Recently most of European countries allow those people who are ill for a long period of time and want to get rid of life , to commit suicide. What is this is this a humane behavior. There is no protest on this issue. These Europeans and Americans only want to tarnish the image of Muslims and Islam.

__________________
Main ny sirf ALLAH py yakeen kia , aur baqi sab yakeen us k sath jurty chaly gy

There is no such law of nature. It's just your opinion. Nature does not agree with it.

No, they don't. We are sufficient to do that.

This description is though out of context but as my dear brother is not cognizant with the very term "Law of Nature" I should elaborate it.
Natural Law or Law of Nature are the Laws which cannot be challenged and if someone challenges it the result would be only a catastrophe. Even from the very beginning of Philosophical theories these laws exist in one form or another. My reference was to the institution of marriage, in every religion only opposite genders are considered to be eligible for marriage as the purpose of marriage is reproduction. But my friend objected on this and said that there is no such law which should be abide by the people. I don't know how my friend will justify this reasoning. Anyhow for friends who want to know that "Natural Law" does exist this link would help them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Regards

__________________
Janoon say or Ishq say milti hay AAZADI

I agree, this diversion is not related to the topic at hand and should instead be discussed elsewhere. But just to clarify, what you are talking about is religious law or at most a social construct. It has nothing to do with "law of nature". What you are doing is confusing religious dictation or a social construct with "law of nature".

A Law of Nature remains permanent, regardless of the society or the evolution of human thought. Such as the law of gravity of the law of natural selection. Marriage is a social construct, it has nothing to do with laws of nature. The Wikipedia link that you posted pretty much clarifies it, but may you did not read it.

law of nature is promiscuity is dangerous, and human history proves it (in religions)

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

Dear if you do bother to have a glance on economy rate of Turkey during the period of Tayyeb Urdwan, You will find out why the so-called protester are making protest on the gestures of "Uncle Sam". Being a Muslim Country Turkey played a very important role to unite the Muslim Ummah, (including middle east and Asian Countries) and for this "Act" the western lobby found it a threat for their supermacy on world (coz Urdwan) has time and again announced that If we'll get success to have supermacy in Middle east and other asian Muslim countries, we erase our borders and the door will be opened to every muslim country without any VISA. One thing is worth mentioning here that there is also a war between Sunni & Shia and as usual v r being used by OTHERS.