Re: [vinnomot] Islam and politics in Bangladesh

Dear Bhai Shadhin,

Thank you very much for your comments about my writing. Bhai Shadhin, let me to tell you, I was not nor I am against you, at least until now. My rule is, I do not pick my fight with someone who is not worthy to fight.

 

Thanks.

Shamim Chowdhury

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shadhin Ahmed <ashek1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well said Shamim Bhai. Its not I am always against
you. I liked it as to what you wrote in here. Nicely
done.

--- Shamim Chowdhury wrote:

>
>
> Dear Alochok Ezajur ,
> Greetings. before I go into your current
> discussion let me ask you a question in refer to
> your posting on August 31st of 2007 (#8329 of 8436)
> with Alochona forum.
>
> Brother, I do not remember I ever posed as a
> neutral person, so what you discovered from my
> posting is not clear to me till today! Since I
> started writing in the net, I openly said I am a
> member of Bangladesh Awami League. You can search
> the net with my name and you will find in plentiful
> posting where I claimed my self as Awami worker, and
> I am proud of that.
>
> I am not sure whether you will agree or not but I
> found it is interesting that predominance of Awami
> supporter are not covert but overt. On the other
> hand majority of Jamaat, BNP and present army back
> government are ashamed of their identity therefore
> do not want to disclose their political
> distinctiveness! May I hope you will come forward
> and let the netters know your political affiliation
> or you may choose to act same as those characters I
> mentioned above?
>
> Anyway, let me come to your recent posting and
> present my two cents. I do agree with a hefty area
> of your thoughts. Yes indeed, it is shameless
> unquestionable defeat of morality of mainstream
> politics that triggered the rise of politics of
> religion based on falls perception not only in
> Bangladesh but in almost all countries of the world
> especially in Muslim majority country.
>
> However, that dose not proves by any means that
> the standing of religion-based politics is right. It
> remains as one of the most inhuman unworthy system
> to try that failed miserably many moons ago. With
> all its shortcoming democracy remains most
> compassionate and trustworthy political system yet
> until we find something new and obviously better.
>
> Politics based on theology and theocratic state is
> nothing new but a very old phenomenon, perhaps the
> oldest among all other school of politics. World has
> witnessed the rise and fall of theological political
> estate from east to west and north to south of our
> dear globe. Especially theocratic states based on
> Christianity and Islam become chunk of our medieval
> history.
>
> Whether it is Christian or Islamic state, all of
> theology based statehood collapsed not by outsiders
> but insiders. Who saw it as blockade for human
> development and against the very essence of why God
> created his kingdom with different skin colors,
> difference of opinion, creed, linguistic barrier,
> physical differences and so many other significant
> dissimilarity to test how we coincide and coexist
> with each other and still do justice?
>
> Theological state remains viable as long there was
> good leaders who evidently created state based on
> theology but ruled with justice of universality. But
> as time passed by morality of those leaders
> collapsed and it not only left a chilling effect on
> the society but also bankrupt the very base of
> religion it self. The very mathematics of ruling
> statehood changed. Theology for mankind replaced by
> rule of aristocracy of royals in the name of
> thology. Thus, the end of the morally of bankrupt
> theological state collapsed and usher the rise of
> state with collective leadership now what we call
> democracy.
>
> If you look at the history of our Islamic
> statehood that started in the hand of the most
> noblemen, Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in Medina
> collapsed completely not long after his departure.
> However, there are many arguments whether we should
> call the statehood of Medina or it was a mere
> community hood in agreement.
>
> In absence of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) Islamic
> state or community in agreement failed as able
> leaders of caliphate died or killed by insiders.
> After the disappearance of Caliphate a Rashidun.
>
> Hazrat Abū Bakr (RA) nominated Hazrat Umar (RA)
> as his successor on his deathbed, and there was
> consensus in the Muslim community to his choice. His
> successor, Hazrat Uthman, was elected by a council
> of electors (Majlis), but was soon perceived by some
> to be ruling as a "king" rather than an elected
> leader. Hazrat Uthman was killed by members of a
> disaffected group. Hazrat Alī then took control,
> and although very popular, he was not universally
> accepted as caliph by the governors of Egypt, and
> later by some of his own guard. He had two major
> rebellions and was assassinated after a tumultuous
> rule of only five years. This period is known as the
> Fitna, or the first Islamic civil war.
>
> Muāwiyya, a relative of Uthman, and governor
> (Wali) of Syria became one of Hazrat Alī's (RA)
> challengers. After Hazrat Alī's (RA) death,
> Muāwiyya managed to overcome other claimants to the
> Caliphate. Under Muāwiyya, the caliphate became a
> hereditary office for the first time. He founded the
> Umayyad dynasty. We know the sad story of Karbala
> where Prophet Muhammad’s grandsons were killed in
> the hands of Umayyad who eventually formed the
> Umayyad dynasty.
>
> From the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) the
> Umayyad, Abbasid, and finally Ottoman (sultans of
> Turkey) dynasties held successive caliphates.
> Caliphate ended when Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as
> part of his reforms, constitutionally abolished the
> institution of the Caliphate in 1924.
>
> Scattered attempts to revive the Caliphate
> elsewhere in the Muslim World were made in the years
> immediately following its abandonment by Turkey, but
> none were successful.
>
> Hussein bin Ali, a former Ottoman governor of the
> Hejaz who aided the British during World War I and
> revolted against Istanbul, declared himself Caliph
> two days after Turkey relinquished the title. But
> his claim was largely ignored, and he was soon
> ousted and driven out of Arabia by the Saudis, a
> rival clan that had no interest in the Caliphate.
> The last Ottoman Sultan Mehmed VI made a similar
> attempt to re-establish himself as Caliph in the
> Hejaz after leaving Turkey, but he was also
> unsuccessful. A summit was convened at Cairo in 1926
> to discuss the revival of the Caliphate, but most
> Muslim countries did not participate and no action
> was taken to implement the summit's resolutions.
>
> However, the King of Morocco adopted the title
> Ameer al-Mumineen and Mullah Mohammed Omar, former
> head of the now-defunct Taliban regime of
> Afghanistan, claimed neither any legal standing nor
> authority over Muslims outside the borders of their
> respective countries.
>
> Brother Ezajur, the only reason why I explained
> (Lot of these are not mine but from facts copied
> from history) is only to explain one and one reason.
>
> Degradation of morality not only happened in
> democratic politics today but also long before that
> we witnessed the similar or perhaps more cynical and
> dangerously sleeping down in politics based in
> religion.
>
> Now let me come to my point, with above said it is
> clear that there is no consensus among Muslim since
> the end of Caliphate of Rashidun to reestablish the
> statehood in its true essence. What we see in the
> name of Islamic statehood is nothing but mockery of
> Islam and rather rule of dynasty instead of rule of
> collectiveness. A mad man like Mullah Mohammad Omar
> of Afghanistan can claimed to establish some sort of
> Caliphate. On the other hand, there is country like
> Bangladesh who created a façade of Islamic
> Republic, which is based on nothing but so-called
> utopian Islamic state. It character is such that
> drunk womanizer a dishonest man like Gen. Ershad has
> to give the legitimacy by his military sermon to
> declare Bangladesh a Islamic Republic.
>
> Jamaat-E-Islami and most of Islamic political
> entity in Bangladesh (elsewhere too) wants to
> establish the state based on Islamic theology such
> as Caliphate is nothing but another travesty and a
> slap over our religion. Jamaat or no other Islamic
> leader in Bangladesh or else where has the moral
> authority to form such government.
>
> Just think who are the people who lead this
> so-called Islamic party in Bangladesh, Golam Azam,
> Matiur Rahman Nizami self-proclaimed war criminals,
> master minder of thousands of Bengali during our
> liberation war are in the forefront of
> Jamaat-E-Islami of Bangladesh. Mr. Ezaj, please
> think and then tell me what morality you see on
> these traders of religion, murderers and thugs
>
> It is sad that people with conscious mind are not
> uniting to start a movement not just to wipeout
> these religious traders for the sake of Bangladesh
> but for the sake of Islam as well. Just few days ago
> so called Islamic party in Bangladesh name Hizbut
> Tahrir which even does not believe in Bangladesh
> constitution (read their own statement from their
> website
=== message truncated ===




____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___