Banner Advertiser

Monday, December 15, 2008

[ALOCHONA] Muhith, Saifur fight battle

Muhith, Saifur fight battle royale in Sylhet
Courtesy New Age 16/12/08 Zaman Monir . Sylhet

Ten heavyweight candidates of rival Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party are in the race for 11 out of 19 electoral constituencies in Sylhet division in the forthcoming parliamentary polls set for December 29.
   Among them, 7 candidates are contesting the polls on Awami League’s tickets and 3 have been nominated by Bangladesh Nationalist Party.
   The prominent politicians contesting the polls on AL’s tickets are – the party’s presidium member Suranjit Sengupta, former finance minister and AL advisory committee member Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, advisory committee member Dewan Farid Gazi, former chief whip Abdus Shahid, AL’s education and human resource affairs secretary Nurul Islam Nahid, former cabinet secretary MA Mannan and former lawmaker Hafiz Ahmed Mazumdar.
   The heavyweight candidates nominated by BNP in the division are – former finance minister M Saifur Rahman, former whip Fazlul Haq Aspia and former state minister Ebadur Rahman Chowdhury.
   The main focus of attention in the division is Sylhet 1 constituency where two former finance ministers, Saifur Rahman of BNP and AMA Muhith of AL will fight it out. The Sylhet 1 constituency, the most important in the division, covers the city and sadar upazila.
   Saifur Rahman is contesting the polls simultaneously for Sylhet 1 and Moulvibazar 3 seats this time while AMA Muhith is in the race only for Sylhet 1 constituency.
   Prominent parliamentarian and AL leader Suranjit Sengupta is contesting the polls for Sunamganj 2 seat. He had sought nomination for two seats, but the AL high command nominated him for one constituency, sources in the party said.
   Veteran AL leader Dewan Farid Gazi is contesting the polls for Habiganj 1 constituency. He was elected a lawmaker for the seat in 1996 and 2001.
   Ebadur Rahman, former state minister in the BNP-led alliance government, is in the race for Moulvibazar 1 seat which he had won in the 2001 polls.
   Former chief whip and AL leader Principal Abdus Shahid is vying for the Moulvibazar 4 constituency – the seat he had won three times in the past.
   AL’s central leader Nurul Islam Nahid is contesting the polls on the grand alliance ticket for Sylhet 6 constituency. Fazlul Haq Aspia, president of Sunamganj district BNP and former chief whip, is contesting the polls on the BNP-led alliance ticket for Sunamganj 4 seat.
   AL’s nominee Hafiz Ahmed Mazumdar is in the fray for Sylhet 5 seat and former bureaucrat MA Mannan is contesting the polls for Sunamganj 3 seat as a grand alliance candidate.
   Two local heavyweight politicians of AL have not been nominated by the party this time. Sultan Mohammed Mansur, former vice-president of the Dhaka University Central Students Union and central organising secretary of AL, and Azizur Rahman, former whip and central joint secretary of the party, had sought AL tickets for Moulvibazar 1 and 2 constituencies respectively, but the party denied them nomination.
   Economist Dr Reza Kibria, son of slain former finance minister SAMS Kibria, and Azizus Samad Don, son of late Abdus Samad Azad, were also denied AL tickets. They had sought AL’s nomination for contesting the polls for Habiganj 1 and Sunamganj 3 seats respectively.
   Former chairman of the privatisation commission, Enam Ahmed Chowdhury, and former secretary and high commissioner, Mofazzal Karim, tried to contest the polls on the BNP-led alliance tickets for Sylhet 6 and Moulvibazar 2 seats respectively.
   But they are out of the race due to some restrictions in the reformed electoral law, sources in the BNP said.

 


__._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




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

__,_._,___

Re: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

Well-said Ms. Majid. I couldn't have said it better.
 
C


From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: Alochona Alochona <alochona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:06:00 PM
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism


         The mean-spirited snarls of maqsud omar have crosed all bounds of civility.  Such is the demeanor of typical Jamaati. 
          Jamaat is founded upon a totalitarian concept of social organization that requires complete control over people's mind and hence their lives.  The fake Moulana (he had no grounding in Madrassa education, nor any credited religious school training) Mowdudi was a great admirer of Mussolini and European-style totalitarianism.
 
         If maqsud omar thinks such an organization or "political" party as Jamaat should be allowed to partake in democracy then he is what he has described himself:
              ".... very ordinary, half-educated, shallow, chaotic, disorganized, hollow people".
        
          This Charlatan Abid Bahar can also be comfortably fitted in that description. He should also be condemned for spreading ridiculous lies and ignoramus ideas about "fundamentalism. " Religious fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon whose birth is located in American Christian Protestantism in the 1920's.  There has been a monumental study conducted under professors Martin Marty and Scott Appleby on Fundamentalism whose volumes are published by the University of Chicago 1992-96.
 
            This information is perhaps a bit too much for the Half-educated Abid Bahar who parades his own pedantry like a crow stuck with a few scraggly peacock feathers.
 
             Jamaat of Bangladesh has blood dripping from their hands, and everyday there are fresh droplets added to that drip. Someday very soon Allah will find us deliverance from the scourge of Jamaat.
 
             That day cannot come any sooner.
 
              Farida Majid



To: alochona@yahoogroup s.com
From: maqsudo@hotmail. com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:32:46 +0000
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism



re: isha khan
------------ --

1 thing has always confused me....we say/ demand  that....we beleive in democracy... but we do not want to accept elected MP...if he/she belongs to
Jamaat??!! And we criticize them non-stop, often without any valid reason.What kind of hippocracy is that!

Someone may not have supported AL leadership and the method of our liberation process, with the help of Indians.
what is the problem with that?
That was his/her personal philosophy. attitude. Why we cant accept it...if we beleive in democratic process??

Isn't it true..without any supporting documents... .that people with a big mouth,in 2008, ...talking about " anti- liberation forces "
etc.....are basically just CHAPA BAJ, striving for cheap attention and upgrading their social status? Do they actually contribute anything.... to the poor... hungry...
sick...helpless people?
My experience has been that ...people shouting against Jamaat , usually are very ordinary, half-educated, shallow, chaotic,
disorganized, hollow people.

What has been your experience?

Best wishes.
Khoda hafez.

dr. maqsud omar








To: shahin72@gmail. com; mbimunshi@gmail. com; zoglul@hotmail. co.uk; rehman.mohammad@ gmail.com; mahmudurart@ yahoo.com; farhadmazhar@ hotmail.com; premlaliguras@ hotmail.com; dhakamails@yahoogro ups.com; khabor@yahoogroups. com; alochona@yahoogroup s.com; bdresearchers@ yahoogroups. com; bangla-vision@ yahoogroups. com; mouchakaydheel@ yahoo.com; odhora@yahoogroups. com; dahuk@yahoogroups. com; history_islam@ yahoogroups. com
From: bd_mailer@yahoo. com
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:14:27 -0800
Subject: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

Abid Bahar

Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? The answer is both yes and no. First, what is fundamentalism? It is the official practice of the basic principles of a religion and very importantly, as the dominant religion, imposing them to control the politics of a country. When that happens in a multi religious country, the rights of minorities are violated. Fundamenta lists do it with their claim of ownership of the country and by implication, see the other religious groups as foreigners. So primarily,  it is a question of intolerance associated with fundamentalism.

Is fundamentalism a problem only in Islam? Let me start by saying that contrary to Western propaganda, fundamentalist movement is there in every religion. It is even present in its most dangerous manifestations in Buddhist countries such as in Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka and in Cambodia, the latter even carried out a genocide against minorities. These are Theravada fundamentalist Buddhist countries. Here the innocent looking monks are very much active in politics even in the destruction of religious sites of other religions, namely, Muslim and Christian. In India and Pakistan minority rights were being denied by the fundamentalists claiming as in India as the Rama Raja, or Pakistan as a Muslim country.

Given the right mood, we see that the manifestation of fundamentalist outbeak can take place anywhere. We see this even in India, a country officially calls itself secular. In India, before  1992, the most unpopular party, BJP could only win two seats in the parliament. But in 1992 it took up the issue of Babri Mosque and claimed that it was the birth place of Rama, a Hindu God. But surprisingly  Rama was not a historic figure. However,  the claim by the BJP satisfied the Hindu majority and on the open day light Hindu fundamentalists marched to the Mosque site and destroyed the Mosque. About 10,000 people were killed in the carnage. Instead of putting the criminal leader Advani in jail, in Indian democracy this fundamentalist leader formed the government and became the Home minister; shaming a country claims itself as the world's biggest democracy. This is an issue of using religion in politics. 

The worst part of fundamentalism is to display anger toward its enemy and its attack of civilian sites. In 2001 some alledgly fundamentalist followers of Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centre buildings in New York city killing approximately 3000 innocent people which led to the release of huge anger among American people and leadership led by Protestant fundamentalist leader George W. Bush. Bush identified himself as the Christian zionist found an excuse to attack Iraq and even before attacked Afganistan causing the death of approximately a million people. Are the terrorists of the trade centre true Muslims? Most Muslims believe no. Is George who led an illegal war in Iraq a true Christian, the answer would be no.

Therefore, the problem with fundamentalism is its show of anger and retalliation against its perceived enemy and its use of violence in the name of God. In India the attack on Babri Mosque followed counter attacks in bombay and more counter attacks are going on in almost all the Indian cities. Here Hindus are killing Muslims and Christians and Muslim killing innocent Hindus. Only lately, some Pakistani fundamentalists entered India and attacked Bombay, killing close to two hundred innocent people and injuring many others.

 In addition to the above, the biggest problem with most fundamentalist movements is, it does not allow diversification; it resists change. It demands a society to remain stagnant. It resists the growth in art, music, business, women's rights and in the other areas. It forces human spirit to die down. Fundamentalist movements in certain religions discurages women to not work outside their homes, thus allowing half of the population and the country to remain backward. It has been a lingering problem in Muslim countries thus helping the countries to stagnate allowing more powerful countries to attack them. This is very much a problem in Muslim countries.
The deadly fundamentalist movements in Muslim countries, however, seem contrary to what the Prophet of Islam advised to his followers and said: "For knowledge even go to China." Education is essential for every Muslim man and woman." Contrary to the Talibans, in the days of the Prophet, Muslim man and women could pray together. Khadija, the wife of the Prophet was a business woman. Ibn Rusd, who was opposed by the fundamentalists of Cordova to be the chief advisor to the Caliph, but his ideas were known to have helped in the European Renaissance.  Thus, he was recognized as  one of the masters of European Renaissance. Strangely though, the Taliban's primitive practices in the rapidly changing economies of our time made Islam laughable to the humanity that is responding to the demands of global change.  

Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? Yes, it is against change. It is against development, against human rights. It is against development because the fundamentalist leaders interpretation finds change to be  wrong. As opposed to this, human history shows that change is the most unchanging thing in the world.

Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? Yes, because it brings religion into politics. It kills innocent people.

Finally, is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? We can also say no, but only if religion remaines the personal belief of its followers as the sufis in Islam do. Sufis are very religious people but stay away from politics. There is nothing wrong in being religious, to observe the basic tenents of one's religion such as doing salat, fasting, going for hajj etc. Fundamentalism in that sense is not wrong.  Then, is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? The answer is both yes and no.

Bangladesh to develop has to resist both the forces of Fascism and fundamentalism; because both preches violence. These two are as if like the same body of a poisonous two headed snake. They take every opportunity to kill their prey only to get to power.

What is at stake is to help save innocent lives from these angry primitives justifying their killings in the name of God and with the holy book in their hands reciting the lines of their choice and the Fascist leaders violating the rule of law, resort to control the country by controlling the streets.

 





Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. Get your Hotmail® account now.

__._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




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

__,_._,___

RE: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

Mr. Raisuddin:
 
There is no law that does not bind ur unbridled freedom. U have to campaign for a naturlist's nudity rights if u think law is restricting u from being naked. We r born free but we r in chains everyhere and that's for the greater goodness of the society. Religion teches morality - now which religion talks against it. Think. Allah in Quran gives logic but almost every Sura He utters 'THINK' if that is not right whhat He is commanding. Islam is the only religion that encourages dialogues. If u think a religion restricts frededom in the sense of human rights - Question what is the code of a civil society and morality. Natural Justice? It varies even door to door. Ur neighbour may think it is perfectly alright to steal from ur home as he has many more mouths to feed and u may find that to be her/his failure in judgement. No human law  can perfect the soul - Look our corrupt leaders are out and soon to engage in more vindictive political saga. Why? None of them in fact truly believes that one day he/she has to die and there will be accoujnts for every sigh a poor Bangladeshi had passed owing to their criminally insane rule. A rule that made our Parliament - a Chat Box.
 
Mufassil Islam
Human Rights Advocate




To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
From: Kraisuddin@hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:04:01 +0000
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism


Politics is for public administration and public welfare. Since the primitive era, various forms for public administrative tools have been invented and utilized for public administration, and out of those tools, some resulted public welfare and some did not. Some of the well known public administrative tools so far human societies have seen are religions, feudalism, monarchy, communism, socialism, democracy, Marshal-Law; etc. Each one has its own school of thought. Each one claims that the public benefit is achieved. However, it is controversial. Democracy is the only system where the political leaders are chosen by the public's vote. All other systems choose the political leaders by selection. The prominent feature of democracy is that everybody's personal choice of life style are accommodated as long as those life styles do not bother the others and do not incur losses in the state budget and functions. Secularism is the prime characteristics of all democracies.

When you talk about religion, the first thing the religion restricts, is the personal freedom and choice of life style. Under religion, strict codes of religion must be followed and met, otherwise s/he will be condemned. This is quite against the principle of democracy. This is the main obstacle why the democracy did not flourish in the muslim countries of the world. Muslims will be able to enjoy democracy when they can improve; leaving their view of imposing the religious codes to the general public and condemning them while not followed.

Every muslim individual under the perfect democracy and secularism will be able to observe and perform all religious activities as they would like personally but not interfering with or imposing to the others. They have to use their own premises and own congregation to perform the religious activities. In the democratic system, no religion can use the political platforms. The main reson is that the religions extremely interferes with the public freedom and wants to control them by their own codes which are totally undemocratic, because they do not allow freedom; rather all political and personal freedoms are snatched away brutally, and the society is controlled very tightly as the extreme police state. Recently we saw it in Taliban Afghanistan.

 When the islamists will grow the tolerances, be moderate, accept the principle of non-interference to other public's freedom and choice of life; they will be welcome to join the democratic fleet. They can not be accepted in democretic institutions as long as they want to come to the democracy to remain secular; and not to spread their principles, codes, and thoughts of intolerance; and cause the failures in the democratic institutions. Thanks, KR.



To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
From: maqsudo@hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:32:46 +0000
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism


re: isha khan
--------------

1 thing has always confused me....we say/ demand  that....we beleive in democracy...but we do not want to accept elected MP...if he/she belongs to
Jamaat??!! And we criticize them non-stop, often without any valid reason.What kind of hippocracy is that!

Someone may not have supported AL leadership and the method of our liberation process, with the help of Indians.
what is the problem with that?
That was his/her personal philosophy. attitude. Why we cant accept it...if we beleive in democratic process??

Isn't it true..without any supporting documents....that people with a big mouth,in 2008, ...talking about " anti- liberation forces "
etc.....are basically just CHAPA BAJ, striving for cheap attention and upgrading their social status? Do they actually contribute anything....to the poor... hungry...
sick...helpless people?
My experience has been that ...people shouting against Jamaat , usually are very ordinary, half-educated, shallow, chaotic,
disorganized, hollow people.

What has been your experience?

Best wishes.
Khoda hafez.

dr. maqsud omar









To: shahin72@gmail.com; mbimunshi@gmail.com; zoglul@hotmail.co.uk; rehman.mohammad@gmail.com; mahmudurart@yahoo.com; farhadmazhar@hotmail.com; premlaliguras@hotmail.com; dhakamails@yahoogroups.com; khabor@yahoogroups.com; alochona@yahoogroups.com; bdresearchers@yahoogroups.com; bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com; mouchakaydheel@yahoo.com; odhora@yahoogroups.com; dahuk@yahoogroups.com; history_islam@yahoogroups.com
From: bd_mailer@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:14:27 -0800
Subject: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

Abid Bahar

Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? The answer is both yes and no. First, what is fundamentalism? It is the official practice of the basic principles of a religion and very importantly, as the dominant religion, imposing them to control the politics of a country. When that happens in a multi religious country, the rights of minorities are violated. Fundamenta lists do it with their claim of ownership of the country and by implication, see the other religious groups as foreigners. So primarily,  it is a question of intolerance associated with fundamentalism.

Is fundamentalism a problem only in Islam? Let me start by saying that contrary to Western propaganda, fundamentalist movement is there in every religion. It is even present in its most dangerous manifestations in Buddhist countries such as in Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka and in Cambodia, the latter even carried out a genocide against minorities. These are Theravada fundamentalist Buddhist countries. Here the innocent looking monks are very much active in politics even in the destruction of religious sites of other religions, namely, Muslim and Christian. In India and Pakistan minority rights were being denied by the fundamentalists claiming as in India as the Rama Raja, or Pakistan as a Muslim country.

Given the right mood, we see that the manifestation of fundamentalist outbeak can take place anywhere. We see this even in India, a country officially calls itself secular. In India, before  1992, the most unpopular party, BJP could only win two seats in the parliament. But in 1992 it took up the issue of Babri Mosque and claimed that it was the birth place of Rama, a Hindu God. But surprisingly  Rama was not a historic figure. However,  the claim by the BJP satisfied the Hindu majority and on the open day light Hindu fundamentalists marched to the Mosque site and destroyed the Mosque. About 10,000 people were killed in the carnage. Instead of putting the criminal leader Advani in jail, in Indian democracy this fundamentalist leader formed the government and became the Home minister; shaming a country claims itself as the world's biggest democracy. This is an issue of using religion in politics. 

The worst part of fundamentalism is to display anger toward its enemy and its attack of civilian sites. In 2001 some alledgly fundamentalist followers of Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centre buildings in New York city killing approximately 3000 innocent people which led to the release of huge anger among American people and leadership led by Protestant fundamentalist leader George W. Bush. Bush identified himself as the Christian zionist found an excuse to attack Iraq and even before attacked Afganistan causing the death of approximately a million people. Are the terrorists of the trade centre true Muslims? Most Muslims believe no. Is George who led an illegal war in Iraq a true Christian, the answer would be no.

Therefore, the problem with fundamentalism is its show of anger and retalliation against its perceived enemy and its use of violence in the name of God. In India the attack on Babri Mosque followed counter attacks in bombay and more counter attacks are going on in almost all the Indian cities. Here Hindus are killing Muslims and Christians and Muslim killing innocent Hindus. Only lately, some Pakistani fundamentalists entered India and attacked Bombay, killing close to two hundred innocent people and injuring many others.

 In addition to the above, the biggest problem with most fundamentalist movements is, it does not allow diversification; it resists change. It demands a society to remain stagnant. It resists the growth in art, music, business, women's rights and in the other areas. It forces human spirit to die down. Fundamentalist movements in certain religions discurages women to not work outside their homes, thus allowing half of the population and the country to remain backward. It has been a lingering problem in Muslim countries thus helping the countries to stagnate allowing more powerful countries to attack them. This is very much a problem in Muslim countries.
The deadly fundamentalist movements in Muslim countries, however, seem contrary to what the Prophet of Islam advised to his followers and said: "For knowledge even go to China." Education is essential for every Muslim man and woman." Contrary to the Talibans, in the days of the Prophet, Muslim man and women could pray together. Khadija, the wife of the Prophet was a business woman. Ibn Rusd, who was opposed by the fundamentalists of Cordova to be the chief advisor to the Caliph, but his ideas were known to have helped in the European Renaissance.  Thus, he was recognized as  one of the masters of European Renaissance. Strangely though, the Taliban's primitive practices in the rapidly changing economies of our time made Islam laughable to the humanity that is responding to the demands of global change.  

Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? Yes, it is against change. It is against development, against human rights. It is against development because the fundamentalist leaders interpretation finds change to be  wrong. As opposed to this, human history shows that change is the most unchanging thing in the world.

Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? Yes, because it brings religion into politics. It kills innocent people.

Finally, is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? We can also say no, but only if religion remaines the personal belief of its followers as the sufis in Islam do. Sufis are very religious people but stay away from politics. There is nothing wrong in being religious, to observe the basic tenents of one's religion such as doing salat, fasting, going for hajj etc. Fundamentalism in that sense is not wrong.  Then, is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? The answer is both yes and no.

Bangladesh to develop has to resist both the forces of Fascism and fundamentalism; because both preches violence. These two are as if like the same body of a poisonous two headed snake. They take every opportunity to kill their prey only to get to power.

What is at stake is to help save innocent lives from these angry primitives justifying their killings in the name of God and with the holy book in their hands reciting the lines of their choice and the Fascist leaders violating the rule of law, resort to control the country by controlling the streets.

 





Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! Try it!



Great search results, great prizes. BigSnapSearch.com Search now __._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




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

__,_._,___

RE: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

Dear Farida Majid and Readers:
 
It is true that Mr. Moududi did support the fascist stand like the then Iamam of Jerusalem did. But at the same time the Catholics around the world did support Hitler as well. The Catholic Church in Ireland did shelter the run away Hitler Lovers (ref: BBC TV report) but why? There was a political agenda. The promise land by the West for the Jews were taking momentum with several incentives for the Jewish community in Germany and Hitler did follow the teachings of the father of Protestant Christianity Mr. Martin Luther for killing the Jews. The Jewish community were killed for the sake of Christianity and for the sake of saving Germany against western allies - The Jews. The plan to divide Germany and the plans to ensure that the Ottoman empire collapsed - Laurence of Arabia was set amongst the Arabs -to divide the Muslim community with pivotal nationalism ferver. kemal Ataturk was in the offing with Pork feeding sentiment as a Western right man (apart from Greek issue). These scenarions were obvious to the Islamic and Catholic ldeaders (who did not want Evangelicans and Protestanst to rule). Hence, supporting the Fascists or the Germans were the only alternatives to ensure defence against future Anglo-US imperialism. Japan was cornered with its naval forces and Russia was against Japa's extension into its islands in the Japan Sea. Hence, Russia took the side of the Allied Forces. Even our Netaji Shuvash Chandra could feel that and took the support of Italy and Germany in forming the first Armed Forces to fight the British. Why? Bangladesh was supported by India during our liberation war. Why? Does these supports have anything to do with morality issues or religion as per se? NO! Ofcourse not! Hence, Mr. Moududi's stand in this respect was correct and look how Mr. Bush laughs even when he gets the Boot. A typical tyrant and imperialist - a breed of the Allied Forces who has now blinded us with so called unworking Democracy for the Third World. Islam believes in a Punch of Democracy - where democracy works only whilst choosing the top througfh a vote of the wise. Democracy is uselsss in a third world country as my vote, your vote and that of a Goonda who is uneducated and hooligan can have save weight in ballot boxes. Throw away this democracy. Islam is rather closer to Socialism. Even Communism's idea of taking over lands with ideological imperialisation without atroccity is directed in Islam - but do not make mistake Islam does not support Communism's Stalinic idea of choking the neighbouring communities. Hence, Islam has a unique political message which none of the countries have yet achieved - but that does not mean it is not achievable. By banning any political party - u create more interest for it. Islam believes in One Nation as per Quran's instruction - One Ummah for all humans of the world by maintaing separate entities of the social groups - quite like the European Union - which is in fact a Christian Union - why do u think Pope opposed Turkey's inclusion? Iqbal's idea is the best in this explanation. We have a habit for throwing out everything of a man if we find one major fault in him as we belong to a community who made Avtars and Vogobans of ordinary humans. Even for argument, I accept Moududi's political stand was wrong - by no means I am ready to accept that his Tarfim Ul Quran was not one of the most celebrated Islamic research on Quran. If in Russia, Communists can do politics - why not Jamaat in Bangladesh? Let them speak - criticise them for their works on 71 and also criticise Mr. Kabir Choudhury (The so called national politics and a self declared atheist) for his touching of Aiyub's feet in public ete etc. Sue Jamaat's leaders and Rajakars for crimes against humanity. If they yet be successful if getting public vites - that's democracy. Don't like it? Accept that we need another dogma which is not democracy. Well, I personally do not believe in a democracy where the PM can go to power counting Tajbih and later create BAKSHAL. Wait - time for change is coming! Which way? The flow of sentiment will soon reveal!
 
Mufassil Islam
Human Rights Advocate




To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
From: farida_majid@hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:06:00 -0500
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism



         The mean-spirited snarls of maqsud omar have crosed all bounds of civility.  Such is the demeanor of typical Jamaati. 
          Jamaat is founded upon a totalitarian concept of social organization that requires complete control over people's mind and hence their lives.  The fake Moulana (he had no grounding in Madrassa education, nor any credited religious school training) Mowdudi was a great admirer of Mussolini and European-style totalitarianism.
 
         If maqsud omar thinks such an organization or "political" party as Jamaat should be allowed to partake in democracy then he is what he has described himself:
              ".... very ordinary, half-educated, shallow, chaotic, disorganized, hollow people".
        
          This Charlatan Abid Bahar can also be comfortably fitted in that description. He should also be condemned for spreading ridiculous lies and ignoramus ideas about "fundamentalism." Religious fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon whose birth is located in American Christian Protestantism in the 1920's.  There has been a monumental study conducted under professors Martin Marty and Scott Appleby on Fundamentalism whose volumes are published by the University of Chicago 1992-96.
 
            This information is perhaps a bit too much for the Half-educated Abid Bahar who parades his own pedantry like a crow stuck with a few scraggly peacock feathers.
 
             Jamaat of Bangladesh has blood dripping from their hands, and everyday there are fresh droplets added to that drip. Someday very soon Allah will find us deliverance from the scourge of Jamaat.
 
             That day cannot come any sooner.
 
              Farida Majid



To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
From: maqsudo@hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:32:46 +0000
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism



re: isha khan
--------------

1 thing has always confused me....we say/ demand  that....we beleive in democracy...but we do not want to accept elected MP...if he/she belongs to
Jamaat??!! And we criticize them non-stop, often without any valid reason.What kind of hippocracy is that!

Someone may not have supported AL leadership and the method of our liberation process, with the help of Indians.
what is the problem with that?
That was his/her personal philosophy. attitude. Why we cant accept it...if we beleive in democratic process??

Isn't it true..without any supporting documents....that people with a big mouth,in 2008, ...talking about " anti- liberation forces "
etc.....are basically just CHAPA BAJ, striving for cheap attention and upgrading their social status? Do they actually contribute anything....to the poor... hungry...
sick...helpless people?
My experience has been that ...people shouting against Jamaat , usually are very ordinary, half-educated, shallow, chaotic,
disorganized, hollow people.

What has been your experience?

Best wishes.
Khoda hafez.

dr. maqsud omar








To: shahin72@gmail.com; mbimunshi@gmail.com; zoglul@hotmail.co.uk; rehman.mohammad@gmail.com; mahmudurart@yahoo.com; farhadmazhar@hotmail.com; premlaliguras@hotmail.com; dhakamails@yahoogroups.com; khabor@yahoogroups.com; alochona@yahoogroups.com; bdresearchers@yahoogroups.com; bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com; mouchakaydheel@yahoo.com; odhora@yahoogroups.com; dahuk@yahoogroups.com; history_islam@yahoogroups.com
From: bd_mailer@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:14:27 -0800
Subject: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

Abid Bahar

Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? The answer is both yes and no. First, what is fundamentalism? It is the official practice of the basic principles of a religion and very importantly, as the dominant religion, imposing them to control the politics of a country. When that happens in a multi religious country, the rights of minorities are violated. Fundamenta lists do it with their claim of ownership of the country and by implication, see the other religious groups as foreigners. So primarily,  it is a question of intolerance associated with fundamentalism.

Is fundamentalism a problem only in Islam? Let me start by saying that contrary to Western propaganda, fundamentalist movement is there in every religion. It is even present in its most dangerous manifestations in Buddhist countries such as in Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka and in Cambodia, the latter even carried out a genocide against minorities. These are Theravada fundamentalist Buddhist countries. Here the innocent looking monks are very much active in politics even in the destruction of religious sites of other religions, namely, Muslim and Christian. In India and Pakistan minority rights were being denied by the fundamentalists claiming as in India as the Rama Raja, or Pakistan as a Muslim country.

Given the right mood, we see that the manifestation of fundamentalist outbeak can take place anywhere. We see this even in India, a country officially calls itself secular. In India, before  1992, the most unpopular party, BJP could only win two seats in the parliament. But in 1992 it took up the issue of Babri Mosque and claimed that it was the birth place of Rama, a Hindu God. But surprisingly  Rama was not a historic figure. However,  the claim by the BJP satisfied the Hindu majority and on the open day light Hindu fundamentalists marched to the Mosque site and destroyed the Mosque. About 10,000 people were killed in the carnage. Instead of putting the criminal leader Advani in jail, in Indian democracy this fundamentalist leader formed the government and became the Home minister; shaming a country claims itself as the world's biggest democracy. This is an issue of using religion in politics. 

The worst part of fundamentalism is to display anger toward its enemy and its attack of civilian sites. In 2001 some alledgly fundamentalist followers of Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centre buildings in New York city killing approximately 3000 innocent people which led to the release of huge anger among American people and leadership led by Protestant fundamentalist leader George W. Bush. Bush identified himself as the Christian zionist found an excuse to attack Iraq and even before attacked Afganistan causing the death of approximately a million people. Are the terrorists of the trade centre true Muslims? Most Muslims believe no. Is George who led an illegal war in Iraq a true Christian, the answer would be no.

Therefore, the problem with fundamentalism is its show of anger and retalliation against its perceived enemy and its use of violence in the name of God. In India the attack on Babri Mosque followed counter attacks in bombay and more counter attacks are going on in almost all the Indian cities. Here Hindus are killing Muslims and Christians and Muslim killing innocent Hindus. Only lately, some Pakistani fundamentalists entered India and attacked Bombay, killing close to two hundred innocent people and injuring many others.

 In addition to the above, the biggest problem with most fundamentalist movements is, it does not allow diversification; it resists change. It demands a society to remain stagnant. It resists the growth in art, music, business, women's rights and in the other areas. It forces human spirit to die down. Fundamentalist movements in certain religions discurages women to not work outside their homes, thus allowing half of the population and the country to remain backward. It has been a lingering problem in Muslim countries thus helping the countries to stagnate allowing more powerful countries to attack them. This is very much a problem in Muslim countries.
The deadly fundamentalist movements in Muslim countries, however, seem contrary to what the Prophet of Islam advised to his followers and said: "For knowledge even go to China." Education is essential for every Muslim man and woman." Contrary to the Talibans, in the days of the Prophet, Muslim man and women could pray together. Khadija, the wife of the Prophet was a business woman. Ibn Rusd, who was opposed by the fundamentalists of Cordova to be the chief advisor to the Caliph, but his ideas were known to have helped in the European Renaissance.  Thus, he was recognized as  one of the masters of European Renaissance. Strangely though, the Taliban's primitive practices in the rapidly changing economies of our time made Islam laughable to the humanity that is responding to the demands of global change.  

Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? Yes, it is against change. It is against development, against human rights. It is against development because the fundamentalist leaders interpretation finds change to be  wrong. As opposed to this, human history shows that change is the most unchanging thing in the world.

Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? Yes, because it brings religion into politics. It kills innocent people.

Finally, is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? We can also say no, but only if religion remaines the personal belief of its followers as the sufis in Islam do. Sufis are very religious people but stay away from politics. There is nothing wrong in being religious, to observe the basic tenents of one's religion such as doing salat, fasting, going for hajj etc. Fundamentalism in that sense is not wrong.  Then, is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? The answer is both yes and no.

Bangladesh to develop has to resist both the forces of Fascism and fundamentalism; because both preches violence. These two are as if like the same body of a poisonous two headed snake. They take every opportunity to kill their prey only to get to power.

What is at stake is to help save innocent lives from these angry primitives justifying their killings in the name of God and with the holy book in their hands reciting the lines of their choice and the Fascist leaders violating the rule of law, resort to control the country by controlling the streets.

 





Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. Get your Hotmail® account now.



Read amazing stories to your kids on Messenger. Try it Now! __._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




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

__,_._,___

Re: [ALOCHONA] BREAKING NEWS: Azam Chow withdraws Hasina case


 
WHAT A JATRA SHOW AND ANOTHER AWAMI TRICKS TO COERCE TO GET JUSTICE THEIR WAY ???????????????
 
THE UNDERHAND DEAL OR WHATEVER IT IS HAS PAVED THE WAY PRINCESS REHANA TO COME TO DHAKA.
 
SHOULD ANOTHER THUG TARIQ TRY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO SURFACE AS A CLEAN MAN ? ? ? ?
 
WHO KNOWS IT MAY ALSO IN THE OFFING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

 
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 6:17 AM, hasan md <hasan_eu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Businessman Azam J Chowdhury today said he will withdraw the Tk 3 crore extortion case filed against Awami League (AL) chief Sheikh Hasina
pls click
rtnn.net

regards
hasan



__._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




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

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Siemens pleads guilty to bribing Bangladesh Officials of $5.3M 5/01 thru 8/06

Siemens Bangladesh made bribery payments of about $5.3 million to officials in that country between May 2001 and August 2006, the agencies said. The payments were connected to a mobile telephone project.

This story appeared on Network World at
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/121508-siemens-pleads-guilty-to-bribery-related.html

Siemens pleads guilty to bribery-related charges

By Grant Gross , IDG News Service , 12/15/2008
Sponsored by:

German electronics firm Siemens AG and three of its subsidiaries have pleaded guilty to charges related to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), for a range of activity, including attempted bribery of government officials worldwide, according to two U.S. agencies.

Due to the charges resulting from the US$805.5 million bribery scheme, Siemens and the subsidiaries have agree to pay criminal fines totaling $450 million, with the parent company paying $448.5 million, according to the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At a hearing in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Siemens AG pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal violations of the FCPA's internal controls and books and records provisions. Siemens Argentina pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the books and records provisions of the FCPA. Siemens Bangladesh and Siemens Venezuela each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the antibribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA.

Siemens' bribery effort was "unprecedented in scale and geographic reach," Linda Chatman Thomsen, director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said in a statement.

Siemens representatives were not immediately available for comment.

Beginning in the mid-1990s, Siemens AG engaged in systematic efforts to falsify its corporate books and records and knowingly failed to implement internal controls, the DOJ and SEC said.

Siemens took advantage of lax internal controls to make bribery and other unaccounted payments totaling nearly $1.4 billion from March 2001 through 2007, the DOJ and SEC said. Of that money, nearly $805.5 million went to bribery payments to foreign government officials, the DOJ and SEC press release said.

From 2000 to 2002, four Siemens subsidiaries were awarded 42 contracts with a combined value of more than $80 million with the Ministries of Electricity and Oil in Iraq under the United Nations Oil for Food Program. Those four subsidiaries paid more than $1.7 million in kickbacks to the Iraqi government, the DOJ and SEC said.

In addition, from September 1998 to 2007, Siemens Argentina made and caused to be made significant payments to various Argentine officials, both directly and indirectly, in exchange for favorable business treatment in connection with a $1 billion national identity card project, the press release said.

Tariq Ali

London Review of Books

December 18, 2008

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n24/print/ali_01_.html

 

 

If cheating in bed was always settled by the bullet, many of us would be dead. Gerald Martin's new biography of Gabriel García Márquez reveals that Chronicle of a Death Foretold was based on the murder of the novelist's friend Cayetano Gentile in Sucre in 1951. He had seduced, deflowered and abandoned Margarita Chica Salas. On her wedding day Margarita's husband was told that she was no longer a virgin. The bride was sent back to her family home. Her brothers then found Gentile and chopped his body into pieces. Márquez blamed the socio-moral dictatorship of the Catholic Church.

 

But of course it is usually women who are killed for breaking codes of sexual conduct. There have been several recent cases in Britain. Banaz Mahmod, a 20-year-old of Kurdish origin, was murdered in Surrey at the behest of her father because she'd left an arranged marriage and her father didn't approve of her new boyfriend. Iraq has lately seen a spate of such murders. Last month acid was thrown at three women in Basra who were talking to a male friend. Yet Iraq once had the highest proportion of women integrated into every level of society of any Arab country.

 

And then there is Pakistan. In 2005 Pervez Musharraf pushed through legislation making honour killing a capital offence yet official statistics admit to 1261 honour killings in 2006 and half that number again the following year. The actual figures are probably much higher, since many deaths go unreported. 'Women are considered the property of the males in their family irrespective of their class, ethnic or religious group, and the owner of the property has the right to decide its fate,' Tahira Shahid Khan of Shirkat Gah, a group that campaigns for equal rights for women, reported in 1999. Domestic violence too, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, is 'considered normal . . . A sample survey showed 82 per cent of women in rural Punjab feared violence resulting from their husbands' displeasure over minor matters; in the most developed urban areas 52 per cent admitted being beaten by their husbands.'

 

Consider the following. A man dreams his wife has betrayed him. He wakes up and sees her lying next to him. In a fury he kills her. This really happened in Pakistan and the killer escaped punishment. If dreams are to be treated as justification for an honour killing, what woman is safe? Since the police and the judicial system regard murder in the family as a private affair, most cases don't get to court even if they're reported. Society, it's said, needs to protect its foundations. So mostly we rely on the information collected by the Human Rights Commission and on courageous lawyers like Hina Jilani and Asma Jehangir, two sisters both of whom have received numerous death threats.

 

In 1999, Hina Jilani was in her office with Samia Sarwar, a mother of two from Peshawar seeking a divorce from her husband, when Sarwar's mother burst into the room with two armed men in tow and had her daughter shot dead. In 1989 Samia Sarwar had married a first cousin. For six years he beat her and kicked her. But after he threw her downstairs when she was pregnant with their second child, she went back to her parents' house. The minute she told them she wanted a divorce they threatened to kill her. Yet they were educated and wealthy people.

 

One widely reported murder this year was that of Tasleem Solangi, the 17-year-old daughter of a livestock trader in the Khairpur District of Sindh. She wanted to go to university and become a doctor like her uncle, but instead agreed to marry a cousin in order to settle a protracted family dispute over property. Her mother, Zakara Bibi, tried to stop her, but Tasleem was determined. Her father-in-law, Zamir Solangi, came to collect her and swore on the Koran that no harm would befall her. A month after the marriage, Zakara had a message from her daughter: 'Please forgive me, mother. I was wrong and you were right. I fear they will kill me.' On 7 March, they did. She was eight months pregnant. The Koran-swearer accused her of infidelity and said the baby was not his son's. She went into labour, her child was born and instantly thrown to the dogs. She pleaded for mercy, but the dogs were set on her as well and the terrified girl was then shot dead. On this occasion at least there was an inquiry. Her husband was charged with Tasleem's murder and is currently awaiting trial.

 

Another case much discussed this year is that of five women in Baluchistan who were buried alive in Baba Kot village, about 250 miles east of Quetta, the Baluch capital. Three of the women were young and wanted to marry men they'd chosen for themselves; two older women were helping them. Three male relatives have been arrested. According to the local police chief, the brother of two of the girls has admitted that he shot three of the women and helped bury them, though they weren't even dead. The trial date is awaited.

 

Traditionalists have always considered love to be something that brings shame on families: patriarchs should be the ones to decide who is to be married to whom, often for reasons to do with property. If you fall in love, the 18th-century Urdu poet Mir Hassan explained (more than once), you will be burned by its fire and perish. That is what happened in the Punjabi city of Wah in late October. Now Wah has half a million inhabitants and Pakistan's largest ordnance factories, but it was once an idyllic village almost floating on water. The streams and lakes that surrounded it attracted the Mughal emperor Jehangir, who stopped there on his way home from Kashmir, and is said to have exclaimed 'Wah!' or 'Wow!', thus giving the village its name. Before that it had been called Jalalsar after one of my forebears, Sardar Jalal Khan, a leader of the Khattar tribe around 800 years ago. His successors wanted to please the emperor and agreed to the name change. I can't imagine that the decision was taken without a fierce struggle (one faction is said to have been deeply hostile to the arriviste Mughals), but those speaking sweetnesses to power won the day.

 

Jehangir built a beautiful, domed rest-house in Wah, surrounded on all sides by flowing water. In 1639, his son Shah Jehan supervised the landscaping of beautiful water gardens and pavilions. More than half a century ago, I used to play hide and seek here with my cousins. The pavilions were ruins by then, which made them even more magical on a moonlit night. A cousin swore that the ghosts of the Mughals could be seen in the mist on a winter night, but nobody believed her. The caretaker was extremely sharp-tongued, although when talking to my uncles and aunts, he masked his intelligence in language of exaggerated humility. We were never deceived and threatened to expose him if he gave us a hard time.

 

Other ghosts lurk there now. A mile and a half from the old village, my youngest maternal uncle, Sardar Ghairat Hyat Khan, built himself a house and moved out of the decaying manor house we'd all shared. My Kashmiri great-grandmother, Ayesha, moved with him. Before she became completely blind she was the best cook in the world and my visits were always rewarding. Shortly before I left Pakistan for Britain I went to say goodbye to her. She said: 'I feel a moustache. Is it really you?' 'No,' I replied trying to make my voice deeper, 'I am a stranger here, but I was told your bakarkhanis tasted like heaven.' Bakarkhanis are a crumbly, Kashmiri version of the croissant. I've not been to his house for a long time but I'm told it's in a state of disrepair and crumbling like the bakarkhanis.

 

In the last week of October, my uncle's granddaughter, Zainab, barely 18 years old, was shot dead by her brothers, Inam and Hamza Ahmed. Zainab apparently had a lover and despite repeated warnings refused to stop seeing him. She was on the phone to him in her grandfather's house when her brothers pumped seven bullets into her body. I don't know whether her mother, Ghairat's oldest daughter Roohi, whom I last saw when she was about ten, was part of the plot. Whether or not she was involved, I find it deeply shocking that my uncle allowed the young woman's body to be buried that same day without at least insisting that a First Information Report be lodged at the local police station, let alone demanding an autopsy. Zainab deserved at least that. I am told that Ghairat is old and frail, that he was angry and wanted to ring the police, but was talked out of it by his daughter and other members of his immediate family, who collectively recoiled at having to accept the consequences of what they had witnessed. Perhaps his faith in a just and merciful Allah was not as strong as he used to claim. Whatever the reason, it's unacceptable. The body should be exhumed, the murderers arrested and put on trial, as the law requires.

 

Tariq Ali's latest book is The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power.

__._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




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

__,_._,___

RE: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

re: cyrus
-----------
I never support violence, Baktreeta-baji, corruption, in-efficiency, greed and political-morons.
I am not a chamcha of jamaat.
I get dizzy, when people talk about " liberation war, anti-libaration-force, Freedom-fighting"....234 times a year.
Citizens of which country....talk about liberation, independence...so often?
And then...nourish corruption and in-efficiency to the extreme.!
Havn't Bangladeshi citizens elected Jamaat -members( war criminals??) as MP? If you can't respect any MP, ask few wise-men...
what kind of confused person you are.....as far as democracy is concerned!
You want to tell other people whom to vote and whom to elect.....it is time for you to wake up.
By condemning people, who had different opinion about " liberation-war", you will not achieve much.
I do know quite a bit about all the atrocities, committed by some Bangldeshis ( and Pakistanis) in 1971. They should be punished,
according to law, not according to revengeful-emotion.
We should talk less about democracy/liberation and contribute more to the community.
You may have read few pages from psychology books, but unfortunately, your comments about my profile is not accurate.
For how long YOU want to shed tears for atrocities of 1971?!
When you will leave such sad experience behind you and move forward?
Jews don't talk ONLY about atrocities done to them, they ALSO work hard and nourish/ practise  progress, sincerity,
dedication, community-building.

And reasonable Bdeshi will talk about liberation war ONCE a year and utilize his energy/ time  for positive, contructive projects for
himself and for the country.
Our house was burnt by biharis, my brother is a FF.....one of the first to undertake mission in Dhaka.....
but I seldom talk about that...I prefer to know about new projects in Bdesh, new economic possibilities invloving ordinary
people, new development in Bdesh.
Shouldn't YOU do take 1 more step....forward, not backward.

Best wishes.

Khoda hafez.




To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
From: thoughtocrat@yahoo.com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:05:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

Dr. Omar:
 
I get your convulated argument about democracy and Jamaat's validity. If people elect those war criminals to power, then the people of Bangladesh do not deserve democracy. It's like electing the nazi party into modern German parliament. But that's aside...what I find appalling is the following statement:
 
"...without any supporting documents... .that people with a big mouth,in 2008, ...talking about " anti- liberation forces " etc.....are basically just CHAPA BAJ, striving for cheap attention and upgrading their social status? Do they actually contribute anything.... to the poor... hungry...sick...helpless people? My experience has been that ...people shouting against Jamaat , usually are very ordinary, half-educated, shallow, chaotic, disorganized, hollow people.

It is obvious to me that you have neither seen nor believe in the mountain of pictures, video footage, eye witnesses who have witnessed the "anti-liberation forces" and their atrocities. People who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, sir, and denying the Bengali holocaust is ignorant and vile.
 
Your hyper-inflated self-worth makes you think that those people who oppose the anti-liberation forces do not contribute to the poor, hungry, sick and helpless, and it is you who do. In this forum, I can name at least 20 people who do their work silently for the betterment of people, and don't talk about their benevolent work every week in their postings. You must be the only self-appointed benevolent in your tiny Australian community!
 
You found the anti-Jamaat people "ordinary, half educated, shallow, chaotic, disorganized, and hollow"!To borrow a psychological term, I think you are projecting your own personal deficiencies on others. What can I say to a self-delusional megalomaniac who believes in his self-worth to the point of sociopathic narcissism?!@  
 
Good luck with your delusional narcissism.
 
C

 

From: maqsud omaba <maqsudo@hotmail.com>
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 2:32:46 AM
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism


re: isha khan
------------ --

1 thing has always confused me....we say/ demand  that....we beleive in democracy... but we do not want to accept elected MP...if he/she belongs to
Jamaat??!! And we criticize them non-stop, often without any valid reason.What kind of hippocracy is that!

Someone may not have supported AL leadership and the method of our liberation process, with the help of Indians.
what is the problem with that?
That was his/her personal philosophy. attitude. Why we cant accept it...if we beleive in democratic process??

Isn't it true..without any supporting documents... .that people with a big mouth,in 2008, ...talking about " anti- liberation forces "
etc.....are basically just CHAPA BAJ, striving for cheap attention and upgrading their social status? Do they actually contribute anything.... to the poor... hungry...
sick...helpless people?
My experience has been that ...people shouting against Jamaat , usually are very ordinary, half-educated, shallow, chaotic,
disorganized, hollow people.

What has been your experience?

Best wishes.
Khoda hafez.

dr. maqsud omar









To: shahin72@gmail. com; mbimunshi@gmail. com; zoglul@hotmail. co.uk; rehman.mohammad@ gmail.com; mahmudurart@ yahoo.com; farhadmazhar@ hotmail.com; premlaliguras@ hotmail.com; dhakamails@yahoogro ups.com; khabor@yahoogroups. com; alochona@yahoogroup s.com; bdresearchers@ yahoogroups. com; bangla-vision@ yahoogroups. com; mouchakaydheel@ yahoo.com; odhora@yahoogroups. com; dahuk@yahoogroups. com; history_islam@ yahoogroups. com
From: bd_mailer@yahoo. com
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:14:27 -0800
Subject: [ALOCHONA] What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

What is Wrong with Fundamentalism

Abid Bahar

Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? The answer is both yes and no. First, what is fundamentalism? It is the official practice of the basic principles of a religion and very importantly, as the dominant religion, imposing them to control the politics of a country. When that happens in a multi religious country, the rights of minorities are violated. Fundamenta lists do it with their claim of ownership of the country and by implication, see the other religious groups as foreigners. So primarily,  it is a question of intolerance associated with fundamentalism.

Is fundamentalism a problem only in Islam? Let me start by saying that contrary to Western propaganda, fundamentalist movement is there in every religion. It is even present in its most dangerous manifestations in Buddhist countries such as in Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka and in Cambodia, the latter even carried out a genocide against minorities. These are Theravada fundamentalist Buddhist countries. Here the innocent looking monks are very much active in politics even in the destruction of religious sites of other religions, namely, Muslim and Christian. In India and Pakistan minority rights were being denied by the fundamentalists claiming as in India as the Rama Raja, or Pakistan as a Muslim country.

Given the right mood, we see that the manifestation of fundamentalist outbeak can take place anywhere. We see this even in India, a country officially calls itself secular. In India, before  1992, the most unpopular party, BJP could only win two seats in the parliament. But in 1992 it took up the issue of Babri Mosque and claimed that it was the birth place of Rama, a Hindu God. But surprisingly  Rama was not a historic figure. However,  the claim by the BJP satisfied the Hindu majority and on the open day light Hindu fundamentalists marched to the Mosque site and destroyed the Mosque. About 10,000 people were killed in the carnage. Instead of putting the criminal leader Advani in jail, in Indian democracy this fundamentalist leader formed the government and became the Home minister; shaming a country claims itself as the world's biggest democracy. This is an issue of using religion in politics. 

The worst part of fundamentalism is to display anger toward its enemy and its attack of civilian sites. In 2001 some alledgly fundamentalist followers of Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centre buildings in New York city killing approximately 3000 innocent people which led to the release of huge anger among American people and leadership led by Protestant fundamentalist leader George W. Bush. Bush identified himself as the Christian zionist found an excuse to attack Iraq and even before attacked Afganistan causing the death of approximately a million people. Are the terrorists of the trade centre true Muslims? Most Muslims believe no. Is George who led an illegal war in Iraq a true Christian, the answer would be no.

Therefore, the problem with fundamentalism is its show of anger and retalliation against its perceived enemy and its use of violence in the name of God. In India the attack on Babri Mosque followed counter attacks in bombay and more counter attacks are going on in almost all the Indian cities. Here Hindus are killing Muslims and Christians and Muslim killing innocent Hindus. Only lately, some Pakistani fundamentalists entered India and attacked Bombay, killing close to two hundred innocent people and injuring many others.

 In addition to the above, the biggest problem with most fundamentalist movements is, it does not allow diversification; it resists change. It demands a society to remain stagnant. It resists the growth in art, music, business, women's rights and in the other areas. It forces human spirit to die down. Fundamentalist movements in certain religions discurages women to not work outside their homes, thus allowing half of the population and the country to remain backward. It has been a lingering problem in Muslim countries thus helping the countries to stagnate allowing more powerful countries to attack them. This is very much a problem in Muslim countries.
The deadly fundamentalist movements in Muslim countries, however, seem contrary to what the Prophet of Islam advised to his followers and said: "For knowledge even go to China." Education is essential for every Muslim man and woman." Contrary to the Talibans, in the days of the Prophet, Muslim man and women could pray together. Khadija, the wife of the Prophet was a business woman. Ibn Rusd, who was opposed by the fundamentalists of Cordova to be the chief advisor to the Caliph, but his ideas were known to have helped in the European Renaissance.  Thus, he was recognized as  one of the masters of European Renaissance. Strangely though, the Taliban's primitive practices in the rapidly changing economies of our time made Islam laughable to the humanity that is responding to the demands of global change.  

Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? Yes, it is against change. It is against development, against human rights. It is against development because the fundamentalist leaders interpretation finds change to be  wrong. As opposed to this, human history shows that change is the most unchanging thing in the world.

Is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? Yes, because it brings religion into politics. It kills innocent people.

Finally, is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? We can also say no, but only if religion remaines the personal belief of its followers as the sufis in Islam do. Sufis are very religious people but stay away from politics. There is nothing wrong in being religious, to observe the basic tenents of one's religion such as doing salat, fasting, going for hajj etc. Fundamentalism in that sense is not wrong.  Then, is there anything wrong with fundamentalism? The answer is both yes and no.

Bangladesh to develop has to resist both the forces of Fascism and fundamentalism; because both preches violence. These two are as if like the same body of a poisonous two headed snake. They take every opportunity to kill their prey only to get to power.

What is at stake is to help save innocent lives from these angry primitives justifying their killings in the name of God and with the holy book in their hands reciting the lines of their choice and the Fascist leaders violating the rule of law, resort to control the country by controlling the streets.

 



__._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




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

__,_._,___