Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Re: [mukto-mona] Re: [Essay] Why We Critique Only Islam !



Abraham was a follower of Moloch for the first ninety nine years of life.  His name was Ab-hamra then, hamra was the altar where the first born was sacrificed as the burnt offering.  Having fathered no child for over seven decades of his procreative life, Abraham was naturally suspicious of having been cuckolded by others as two sons were born to his wives.  So he exiled Ismael to Mecca, and took Isaac to slaughter.  Then he changed his mind, and brought him back home.  Such practice prevailed for about two thousand years more on the belief that children are born as a result of the sin of procreation.  The practice died out after God himself was atoned by sacrificing his first born child Jesus.

>>>>>>>>> This is another "Copy and paste" job from anti-Christian web sites or persons. 

Albeit Abraham (PBUH) is shared among three religions, Islam does NOT follow this narrative. Where did you get this information? Please share!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 29, 2011 1:05 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: [Essay] Why We Critique Only Islam !

 
Abraham was a follower of Moloch for the first ninety nine years of life.  His name was Ab-hamra then, hamra was the altar where the first born was sacrificed as the burnt offering.  Having fathered no child for over seven decades of his procreative life, Abraham was naturally suspicious of having been cuckolded by others as two sons were born to his wives.  So he exiled Ismael to Mecca, and took Isaac to slaughter.  Then he changed his mind, and brought him back home.  Such practice prevailed for about two thousand years more on the belief that children are born as a result of the sin of procreation.  The practice died out after God himself was atoned by sacrificing his first born child Jesus.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:42 AM, kajalahmed62 <kajalahmed62@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
 

I am in-line with Lopa Tasneem's conclusion, i.e
All religious intolerances are bad. Coming up essays after essays against one religion is doing nothing but serving the purpose of the fundamentalists of other religions. I also find SKM's approach tedious as he keeps his "search" limited to a specific religion (probably on purpose). I hope he will be brave enough use his intelligence on finding flaws religions as a "whole" (atleast all "Abrahamic" religions).

K.A

--- In mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com, "Lopa Tasneem" wrote:
>
> In response to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/7683
>
>
> America has a super plural society having many religions (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jews, Buddha's etc). Every day, every hour or every minute—we are sick and tired of hearing in the radio, TV, or newspapers some very common (colorful) adjectives, such as: Muslim militants, Muslim terrorists, Islamic terrorists, Islamic radicals, and Islamic militants, Islamic fanatics, Al-Qeada, and Taliban. My question is that, why do not we hear about terrorists or radicals of any other religions? Why do not we hear these kind of ear-soothing colorful adjectives about those millions of atheists, agnostics or even Homosexual guys? Why it is always attached with the peaceful (?) ISLAM?
>
>
>
> One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that the American media is after Islam, more for political reason than anything else. Western world, as a whole, is after Islam because if the Arab countries get united, they would pose a direct threat to the West. Besides, American media is mainly controlled by the Jews. All the main TV, radio, newspaper, magazines are owned by Jewish people. That's why we hardly hear what the Christians did to the Jews and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.
>
>
>
> In the North America and throughout the western world—there are hundreds of societies bearing the name of only one religion and that is ISLAM. Examples: AMC, AMA, NABIC, ICNA, ISNA, CAIR etc. etc. There are hundreds of Ummatic organizations/societies throughout the North America and elsewhere in the whole world. Ummatic organizations mostly preach segregation/isolation of Muslims from other peoples in general in the host countries. They teach Muslims that they are superior and their religion is superior and ask to guard their children from mixing with the western "rotten" society. As a result, future generations of Muslims can not blend with the society of host country resulting isolationists and problematic youngsters in an alien society. Ultimate result is the scenario of item# 13 below. In this, I have many questions: How many Ummatic organizations for Hindu, Christian or Jews can we find? Why no such organization is needed by any other religions? Why only the people of Muslim origin need such Ummatic organization? What is the purpose of such organization?
>
>
>
> There are many Christian organizations in America. There are churches every 10 yards possibly at the place where I live in America. My door gets regularly knocked by some type Bible associations for fund-raising. What do you think the Christian missionaries have been doing all over the world for ages? Don't they preach Christianity as the best of all religions? In countries like Bangladesh, still they are very active in convincing the poor people to convert to Christianity and I have seen these in my own eyes.
>
> By searching through the internet, I found over a thousand groups related to Hinduism. Some of them do preach hatred against other religions. What do you think Shivsena, RSS, Bajrangi dal are doing in India? India is ruled by a Fundamentalist Hindu party. Haven't we heard what happened in Gujarat recently? How those Hindu fundamentalists are any less evil than the Muslim terrorists. In this age of internet one doesn't need to rely on American media only to know what's happening in the whole world.
>
>
>
> Can we find Jihadi organization in any other religions such: Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbullah, Horkut-ul- Jihad, Horkut-ul-mujahedin, Jaise Muhamad, Jihad-e-Muhammad, Tahrik-e-Nifaj-shariaat-e-Muhammad, Al-Hikhma, Al-badr-Mujaheddin, Jamah-e-Islamia, Hijb-e-Islamia, etc. etc.??? We can find several dozens of Jihadi Islamic terrorist organizations exists in every Muslim country throughout the world. Can we find such organization in other religions? If not, then why?
>
>
>
> Yes, we can. RSS, Shivsena, Bishwa Hindu Parishad, bajrangi dal, etc. Just visit any of their websites or websites of Mayer Dak or Hindu-unity like organization. You will see what kind of hatred they preach against other religions. And please don't forget what happened in Gujarat in the recent past. Dozens of posts about Gujarat were posted in Mukto-mona. Please read them.
>
>
>
> 6. Honor killing is the most inhuman and most disgraceful act by any human standard. This act is condemned by any sane human being today. But surprisingly—this horrendous episode is only present in the Muslim countries and Muslim societies. Islamists will argue that there is nothing in the Quran which suggests honor killing! Well, question here is, if Islam has nothing to do with it, then why it is only practiced by Muslims? NO OTHER SOCIETIES EXCEPT ISLAM PRACTICE IT, PERIOD. Even in the same country—example Nigeria, Northern Nigerian (Muslims) do practice this heinous act, but Southern Nigeria (Christians) do not practice this at all. It may present in any country in the whole world—but 100% sure that it will happened only in a Muslim family. My questions here are—please tell me why Muslims only perform this heinous act? Why this act is totally absent in any other religions?
>
>
>
> Satidaho is a form of honor killing too. And please search through the internet to find the recent incidents of Satidaho in India.
>
>
>
> 14. Dress code and food restriction: Do you know Islam has a special dress code for both men and women? Islam is nothing but Arab nationalism in the disguise of religion. Anybody from any foreign land convert to Islam also needs to adopt/change his dress and cultural habits, which is nothing but Arab national dress and Arab culture. A devout Bangladeshi, Chinese or a Burmese convert to Islam will pretend to be a good Muslim by wearing Arab garb or hijab for women, even though his/her own national dress is not at all similar to Arab national dress. Muslims also follow very strict food codes. Unlike other religious groups, Muslims can not eat western most hygienically produced meat products. Muslims need to eat so called un-hygienically produced halal meat. Convert Muslims even need to learn Arabic for daily rituals of Islam. They are not allowed to pray in their own mother tongue. Result is they do not know what they are praying. But unlike Muslim convert, Hindu, Christian or Jewish converts do not need to forsake their own national dress code or languages. My questions here are why the converts of no other religions need to change their own national dress code or food habits? Why Islam is so different?
>
>
>
> Not all Muslims living in various regions follow such dress code and they are not hanged for not following it. It is up to the individual. Sikhs wear turban, Jews wear small caps, Buddhist monks wear orange colored outfit, Hindu married women wear Shaka, Shidur. Hindu widows don't eat meat or fish. Orthodox Christian women wear dresses so that the whole body is covered. Jews don't eat pork, Hindus don't eat beef. Hindus of some part of India are strictly vegetarian because of the religion.
>
>
>
> September 11, Episode: America and other nations of the entire world will remember Sept.11 as the most terrible day of the human history and everybody will pass the day with much sorrow and somber mood. But do you know there are some Islamic folks (special human species) in Finsbury Park Mosque in north London who will celebrate this horrible day as the "towering day" of Islam??? These Islamic fanatics will hail/applaud the Sept.11 devilish deeds of those al-Qaeda heroes as the best deeds any Muslim can do. They will form the supreme Islamic council of London and will vow to fight for making England an Islamic Paradise. Their future plan will be to convert entire world including infidel America into a perfect Islamic Paradise. My questions are: do we get to see this kind of madness amongst any other religions? If not then why?
>
>
>
> Yes we do. Fanatics exist in every religion, they just change their color. Fanaticism of any religion is bad. If you lived in the South East Asia, for example, you'd have heard more about the recent Gujarat episode than anything else. (I hope Mukto-mona will remember the Gujarat episode too on its anniversary. )
>
> I can cite dozens of recent incidents of Hindu fanaticism/ communalism. They are no less evil than the fanaticism of any other religion. Most people, religious or not, would identify the fanaticism of their own religion as bad. I haven't met any Muslim in person who would glorify the incident of September 11. Similarly, none of my Hindu friends feel proud of the Gujarat incident.
>
>
>
> Most of Syed Kamran Mirza's other questions are repetitive and pose a very simplistic view of a religion. All religions have some uniqueness of their own such as dress code or food restriction. Each religion has its own rituals. As long as they do not have any harmful effect to the society, one does not need to be worried about them. If a Bangali girl is forced to wear sari when she's grown up does that mean Bangali culture is bad? NO.
>
>
>
> Similarly, 'brotherhood' may not necessarily be bad as long as it is not used to abuse. Brotherhood exists among the people of various regions in Bangladesh. We see associations like 'Jalalabad shangha', 'Shandip association', many ethinic, cultural associations all over North America.
>
>
>
> All religious intolerances are bad. Coming up essays after essays against one religion is doing nothing but serving the purpose of the fundamentalists of other religions. I find SKM's approach to show that Islam only is the 'evil' religion is wrong and could very well put an obstacle to the journey of the progressive minded people.
>
>
>
> Lopa Tasneem
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
>




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?



Dear member, 


You made some valid comments about Bangla term "Jati" until you started your rant against religion and Ziaur Rahman. I look forward to learn from you and (Hopefully) you can drop the rants against dead people and religion (And truly become "Mukto-Mona"). 

As I stated earlier if this forum becomes a platform to pat each other on the back for showing hatred against religion or religious people, we have to re-name this to "Somo-mona" forum (That would be more HONEST title!). 

Become a free thinker and enjoy discussions from ALL points of views!! 


Peace. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Jaffor <jhankar@bellsouth.net>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 29, 2011 1:06 am
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?

 
Mr. S.A. Hannan,

Please allow me to make some comments on your short post, which contains some serious errors. It seems as if you are becoming confused concerning the word "Jati." Let us look into the etymology of the word Jati or Jaati.It is a Bangla word derived from the root word "Jaat" or "Jat". The word Jati has many meanings such as: Prakar, Sreni (for example Manabjaati, Streejaati, Hindujaati, Aryajaati. Musolmanjati). These were excerpted from Bangla Avidhan or dictionary. You, sir, is using the term Jati in the most narrowest sense of the term. Before getting into a debate please update your knowledge base. Give me a linguistic reference to support your narrow definition. Bangalijati is a valid term linguistically speaking. This term was in vogue even before Bankimchandra Chottopadhaya lived in Bengal. The word Bangladeshijati, on the other hand, is only 36 years old and is the invention of a murderer by the name Maj. Gen. Ziaur Rahman. We shall h ave to wait to see how long this Bangladeshijati" word lasts. Please consult Sangshad Bangla Avidhan to update your knowledge base. It does not hurt to consult a dictionary before joining a debate or else there is always that chance to make a fool out of yourself.

In another post you've mentioned about religion as the basis of forming nation. Pakistan, the Islamic Utopia or Shangri-La in South Asia, only lasted from 1947 to 1971 - hardly 24 years. Jinnah's Two-nation Theory, which is based on religion only lasted less than a quarter century! Jinnah's Pakistan is in a real mess right now. If religion was such a strong glue, then, how come Europe being a Christian continent is not under one political banner or union? The Euro bloc country is however a monetary union and not to be confused with a political union. How come all the Arab nations on earth are yet to form a political union? So, what does it prove, Mr. Hannan? Religion is no longer that crazy-glue (a tough glue sold all over America for bonding materials)any more. People allover the globe are becoming less religion. This is the trend whether you like it or not. Science, which is at the catbird seat of power, is not rooted into religion. Cellphones, PC, the Internet, TV, r adio, etc., which is driving or pushing the humanity to go forward is not linked in any way to religion. Therefore in the next 100-200 years, the influence of religion on humankind will wane, unquestionably. However, I have seen in many of your posts - you tend to glorify religion to stratospheric height. Please join Mukto-mona and become a freethinker.

--- In mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com, "S A Hannan" <sahannan@...> wrote:
>
> There is no Bangalee Jati as there is no Gujrati jati or Bihari jati or
> punjabi Jati Bond of unity of bangla speaking Muslims of Bangladesh and
> Banglaspeaking Hindus of West bengal is very thin.They belong to Bangladeshi
> jati or Indian jati respectively. For becoming jati you require much
> stronger bond.
>
>
>
> Shah Abdul hannan
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Jiten Roy
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 8:44 AM
> To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I do not know if there is a perfect English translation for the Bengali word
> "Jati." As a Jati - we are Bangalee, irrespective of our religious
> affiliations, castes, and creeds. Bangalee-Jati is our secular cultural
> identity. The Bangalee-Jatiotabad consists of certain secular
> characteristics, such as, we celebrate Pahela-Boishakh, Bashata-Baran,
> Ekushe-February (February 21st), etc. etc. with cultural, and ritualistic
> activities. There are other festivities and practices, which used to be
> celebrated widely, irrespective of religious affiliations, but now mainly
> scattered fashion. They are Poush-Sangcranti, celebrated with varieties of
> Cakes (Pithas), Chaitra-Sangcranti, celebrated with cultural activities and
> fairs, Maghi-Purnima, etc. etc. Bangalee-Jatiotabad, being above and beyond
> our religious characteristics, is the glue that can unite the majority under
> a true secular platform.
>
>
>
> Closest English word for 'Jatiotabad' is Nationalism; I know it does not
> completely express the full meaning of the term Jatiotabad, as we mean.
> That's where the confusion comes from. Bangalee-Jatiotabad or
> Bengali-Nationalism is not a state entity. But, state has to allow free
> exercise of those secular rights and characteristics, and state has to
> nourish it to flourish. Non-Bangalees have their own secular Jatiotabad, and
> they should be allowed to exercise them freely also.
>
>
>
> If I have misconception, please let me know.
>
>
>
> I appreciate all your comments. Thanks.
>
>
>
> Jiten Roy
>
>
> --- On Sat, 9/24/11, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@...>
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, September 24, 2011, 7:01 PM
>
>
>
> "-------------and nationalism is a cultural identity, which reflects
> majority cultural."----Dr. Jiten Roy
>
>
>
> Let us take an example to examine Dr. Roy's comment. Nationality of Indians
> is Indian which indicates that their nationality is Indian. No problem with
> that. But which group of people constitutes the majority and what is this
> majority group's culture? Are these the people in the Hindi belt? Obviously
> not. Even being an Indian by nationality, a Bengali or an Assamese is a
> Bengali or an Assamese. Even within the subset of Bengal (West Bengal), we
> cannot force a Gorkha to identify himself as a Bengali. If the Gorkhas are
> culturally, linguistically, and historically distinct from Bengalis, why
> should we force them to call themselves Bengalis?
>
>
>
> "There is no issue of fairness in nationalism."---Dr. Jiten Roy
>
>
>
> It will be quite unfair to force a Chakma to call himself a Bengali as this
> very word reflects language, culture, and history. Politically he is a
> "citizen of Bangladesh" but culturally a Chakma. The majority has no right
> to force a Chakma to accept a Bengali's cultural identity. This is not only
> unfair, this is coercive also.
>
>
>
> "There has been an orchestrated attempt to alter our cultural identity
> (Bangalee) in this region during Pakistani era, and it is still going on in
> Bangladesh."----Dr. Jien Roy
>
>
>
> I agree. Pakistani regimes tried to redefine Bengalis in East Pakistan as
> Pakistanis. That was a political game with India. But what is going on now?
> I would expect some elaboration. Regards.
>
> From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@...>
> To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 4:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
>
>
>
>
> Everybody is missing my point. I am simply asking - what is our cultural
> identity, not our religious identity or nationality?
>
>
>
> Nationality and nationalism are two different things. Nationality is
> citizenship, and nationalism is a cultural identity, which reflects majority
> cultural. There is no issue of fairness in nationalism. There has been an
> orchestrated attempt to alter our cultural identity (Bangalee) in this
> region during Pakistani era, and it is still going on in Bangladesh.
>
>
>
> Jiten Roy --- On Thu, 9/22/11, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@...>
> Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2011, 10:29 PM
>
>
>
> Bangladesh is a political entity, as opposed to a cultural one. May be,
> Najrul Islam's Bangla Desh and Ravindranath's Sonar Bangla were cultural,
> and those included more than the political entity of Bangladesh ; they also
> excluded at least the Chittagong Hill Tracts, which is a part of today's
> political Bangladesh .
>
>
>
> Citizenship (nationality) is not cultural. I wish the secular politicians
> and intellectuals of Bangladesh did not start this non-sense of Bangalee
> nationalism in 1971-72. It was wrong to ask the CHT people to call
> themselves Bangalees. Again, Bangalee nationalism was not really the spirit
> of all movements during 1947-71, and should not have been unless if we
> wanted to merge with West Bengal and allowed CHT to secede from us.
> Fairness, respect and dignity for Bangla and the Bangalees should not be
> considered the same as Bangalee nationalism. Bangalee nationalism would have
> demanded a separate nation for the Bangalees, even if the western Pakistanis
> treated the Bangalees with due respect. Our real spirit was no nationalism;
> it was fairness, respect and dignity for us.
>
>
>
> Citizenship for anyone who seeks it? It is not done anywhere in the world.
> All countries have their laws to govern how a non-citizen would be given
> citizenship.
>
>
>
> I would not ask Awami League to revive the so-called Bangalee nationalism
> (citizenship), rather I would ask them to respect all peoples of the land
> with respect; much like I would not ask them to call all Bangladeshis
> Muslims, much like I would not ask all Indians to be known as Hindus, much
> like I would not desire all cultural, linguistic and ethnic groups of the
> United States to be called Christians or English.
>
>
>
> Well, so long for now,
>
>
>
> Sukhamaya Bain
>
>
>
> From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@...>
> To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] HAVOC CREATED BY JAMATI'S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Bain's comments tells me that, in my last sarcastic comments, I did not
> clarify my points enough; hence confusions.
>
> I was looking for a cultural identity for the people of Bangladesh. I
> explored 3 conventional identities (Bangalee, Bangladeshi, and Moderate
> Muslim), which have been used in the past to represent the people of
> Bangladesh. But, none of them seemed to encompass all people. As a result,
> the identity crisis still remains, and we do not know who we are.
>
> After Bangladesh was born, our cultural identity (Jatiota) was Bangalee, and
> our nationality was also Banglalee. Ershad changed our nationality to
> Bangladeshi. The motive was to include all the people of Bangladesh, so he
> told us at that time. Was it really the motive? If that was true - all
> non-Bangalee Biharis should have been citizen by now, and Father Tim, the
> former Principal of Notre Dame College, would have been citizen already. If
> you say that our nationality is Bangladeshi - then we should grant
> citizenship to any permanent resident of Bangladesh, if they seek one.
>
> In my view, it was done purposefully to defuse pre-independence secular
> mindset, and neutralize the Bangalee-Jatiotabadi spirit, the spirit of
> independence movement. As you know, Quranic verses and state religion
> (Islam) were also introduced in the secular constitution right around that
> time.
>
> Dr. Bain, Bangalee-Jatiotabadi spirit has been the driving force behind all
> movements in the East Pakistan since the language movement in 1952. Even
> though Sheikh Mujib was not seeking independence at the beginning, but his
> movement was fueled by the Bangali-Jatiotabadi spirit. This is the spirit
> that still can unite the mjority in Bangladesh. That's why - I have been
> asking Awami League to revive that spirit for their sake.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your comments. Love to hear from you. Don't be a stranger.
>
>
>
> Jiten Roy ---
>



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?



It is written, Islam is exclusively for the people who speak Arabic

>>>>>>>> I am afraid, I am hearing this for the first time. If this was the case why did prophet Muhammad (PBUH) sent people to preach Islam to all corners of the world? In fact religions BEFORE Islam came to specific communities BUT Islam came for ALL of humanities. This is what I understand about Islam. 

Having said that, I am always up for learning new things. Therefore, kindly share the SOURCE of your statement. Where in Islam says it came for Arabs only? Appreciate your earliest attention!!

Religion is nothing more than a conspiracy of the priesthood

>>>>>>>>>> That was the complaint about religions BEFORE Islam ( Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc). Islam does not give much power to priesthood. 

The almighty God has not even revealed the correct structure of the universe to the proponents of religion


>>>>>>>> This is a popular argument about the Bible (OT AND NT). Not about Islam. I would encourage you to be a little more original. Anyone can cut and paste, can you back up your statements (With sources from religious scriptures)? 

Take care!! ;-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 29, 2011 1:05 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?

 
I would like to add that those people who want others to believe that religion is the strongest bond of nationhood has not studied religious literature properly.  It is written, Islam is exclusively for the people who speak ArabicReligion is nothing more than a conspiracy of the priesthood.  They survive and thrive on the tithes extracted from their followers.  The almighty God has not even revealed the correct structure of the universe to the proponents of religion.  One twenty inch telescope revealed more to Galileo than all the angels did to the prophets.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
Nationalism is the last refuge of scoundrels, wrote a savant named Samuel Johnson.


On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:48 AM, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:
 
 
Mr Shubimol Chakrabarty, yes, religion is the strongest bond of nationhood  compared to other bonds .Mr Jinnah said that Muslim majority areas should form independent state and Hindu majority areas of subcontinent should form another state and in both states  minorities would remain there with all human rights.
Shah Abdul Hannan

From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of subimal chakrabarty
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:17 AM

To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
 
 
Pretty funny! What kind of statement is this? 
What about the bondage between Muslims and Hindus of Bangladesh? Is it "thin"? Do they belong to "Bangladeshi jati"? 
Do Hindus of West Bengal and Muslims of West Bengal belong to "Indian jati"? Is it "thin" or "thick"? 
I think the purpose of Mr. Hannan's statement is to fish in the troubled waters. He is thinking more in terms of religious divide. This reminds me of Jinnah's Two-Nation Theory. Mr. Hannan seems to be talking in the same line. According to Jinnah all the Indian Hindus constituted one nation and all the Indian Muslims constituted another nation. He forgot about other religious groups.
Pretty funny!  
Mr. Hannan should recognize that religion is only one element (it may even be absent) in the structure of a nation. Hindu majority India and Hindu majority Nepal did not form one nation. All the Christian dominated countries in Europe did not form one nation. 
 
From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?

 
There is no Bangalee Jati as there is no Gujrati jati or Bihari jati or punjabi Jati  Bond of unity of bangla speaking Muslims of Bangladesh and Banglaspeaking Hindus of West bengal is very thin.They belong to Bangladeshi jati or Indian jati respectively. For becoming jati you require much stronger bond.
 
Shah Abdul hannan
 
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 8:44 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
 
 
 
I do not know if there is a perfect English translation for the Bengali word "Jati." As a Jati - we are Bangalee, irrespective of our religious affiliations, castes, and creeds. Bangalee-Jati is our secular cultural identity. The Bangalee-Jatiotabad consists of certain secular characteristics, such as, we celebrate Pahela-Boishakh, Bashata-Baran, Ekushe-February (February 21st), etc. etc. with cultural, and ritualistic activities. There are other festivities and practices, which used to be celebrated widely, irrespective of religious affiliations, but now mainly scattered fashion. They are Poush-Sangcranti, celebrated with varieties of Cakes (Pithas), Chaitra-Sangcranti, celebrated with cultural activities and fairs, Maghi-Purnima, etc. etc.  Bangalee-Jatiotabad, being above and beyond our religious characteristics, is the glue that can unite the majority under a true secular platform.
 
Closest English word for 'Jatiotabad' is Nationalism; I know it does not completely express the full meaning of the term Jatiotabad, as we mean. That's where the confusion comes from. Bangalee-Jatiotabad or Bengali-Nationalism is not a state entity. But, state has to allow free exercise of those secular rights and characteristics, and state has to nourish it to flourish. Non-Bangalees have their own secular Jatiotabad, and they should be allowed to exercise them freely also.
 
If I have misconception, please let me know.
 
I appreciate all your comments. Thanks.
 
Jiten Roy
 
--- On Sat, 9/24/11, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
To: " mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com " < mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com >
Date: Saturday, September 24, 2011, 7:01 PM
 
"-------------and nationalism is a cultural identity, which reflects majority cultural."----Dr. Jiten Roy
 
Let us take an example to examine Dr. Roy's comment. Nationality of Indians is Indian which indicates that their nationality is Indian. No problem with that. But which group of people constitutes the majority and what is this majority group's culture? Are these the people in the Hindi belt? Obviously not. Even being an Indian by nationality, a Bengali or an Assamese is a Bengali or an Assamese. Even within the subset of Bengal ( West Bengal ), we cannot force a Gorkha to identify himself as a Bengali. If the Gorkhas are culturally, linguistically, and historically distinct from Bengalis, why should we force them to call themselves Bengalis?  
 
"There is no issue of fairness in nationalism."---Dr. Jiten Roy
 
It will be quite unfair to force a Chakma to call himself a Bengali as this very word reflects language, culture, and history. Politically he is a "citizen of Bangladesh " but culturally a Chakma. The majority has no right to force a Chakma to accept a Bengali's cultural identity. This is not only unfair, this is coercive also.
 
"There has been an orchestrated attempt to alter our cultural identity (Bangalee) in this region during Pakistani era, and it is still going on in Bangladesh ."----Dr. Jien Roy
 
I agree. Pakistani regimes tried to redefine Bengalis in East Pakistan as Pakistanis. That was a political game with India . But what is going on now? I would expect some elaboration. Regards.
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
 
Everybody is missing my point. I am simply asking - what is our cultural identity, not our religious identity or nationality? 
 
Nationality and nationalism are two different things. Nationality is citizenship, and nationalism is a cultural identity, which reflects majority cultural. There is no issue of fairness in nationalism. There has been an orchestrated attempt to alter our cultural identity (Bangalee) in this region during Pakistani era, and it is still going on in Bangladesh .
 
Jiten Roy --- On Thu, 9/22/11, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
To: " mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com " < mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com >
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2011, 10:29 PM
 
Bangladesh is a political entity, as opposed to a cultural one. May be, Najrul Islam's Bangla Desh and Ravindranath's Sonar Bangla were cultural, and those included more than the political entity of Bangladesh ; they also excluded at least the Chittagong Hill Tracts, which is a part of today's political Bangladesh .
 
Citizenship (nationality) is not cultural. I wish the secular politicians and intellectuals of  Bangladesh did not start this non-sense of Bangalee nationalism in 1971-72. It was wrong to ask the CHT people to call themselves Bangalees. Again, Bangalee nationalism was not really the spirit of all movements during 1947-71, and should not have been unless if we wanted to merge with West Bengal and allowed CHT to secede from us. Fairness, respect and dignity for Bangla and the Bangalees should not be considered the same as Bangalee nationalism. Bangalee nationalism would have demanded a separate nation for the Bangalees, even if the western Pakistanis treated the Bangalees with due respect. Our real spirit was no nationalism; it was fairness, respect and dignity for us.
 
Citizenship for anyone who seeks it? It is not done anywhere in the world. All countries have their laws to govern how a non-citizen would be given citizenship.
 
I would not ask Awami League to revive the so-called Bangalee nationalism (citizenship), rather I would ask them to respect all peoples of the land with respect; much like I would not ask them to call all Bangladeshis Muslims, much like I would not ask all Indians to be known as Hindus, much like I would not desire all cultural, linguistic and ethnic groups of the United States to be called Christians or English.
 
Well, so long for now,
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] HAVOC CREATED BY JAMATI'S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Dr. Bain's comments tells me that, in my last sarcastic comments, I did not clarify my points enough; hence confusions.
I was looking for a cultural identity for the people of Bangladesh . I explored 3 conventional identities (Bangalee, Bangladeshi, and Moderate Muslim), which have been used in the past to represent the people of Bangladesh . But, none of them seemed to encompass all people. As a result, the identity crisis still remains, and we do not know who we are.
After Bangladesh was born, our cultural identity (Jatiota) was Bangalee, and our nationality was also Banglalee. Ershad changed our nationality to Bangladeshi. The motive was to include all the people of Bangladesh , so he told us at that time. Was it really the motive? If that was true – all non-Bangalee Biharis should have been citizen by now, and Father Tim, the former Principal of Notre Dame College, would have been citizen already. If you say that our nationality is Bangladeshi - then we should grant citizenship to any permanent resident of Bangladesh , if they seek one.
In my view, it was done purposefully to defuse pre-independence secular mindset, and neutralize the Bangalee-Jatiotabadi spirit, the spirit of independence movement. As you know, Quranic verses and state religion (Islam) were also introduced in the secular constitution right around that time.
Dr. Bain, Bangalee-Jatiotabadi spirit has been the driving force behind all movements in the East Pakistan since the language movement in 1952. Even though Sheikh Mujib was not seeking independence at the beginning, but his movement was fueled by the Bangali-Jatiotabadi spirit. This is the spirit that still can unite the mjority in Bangladesh . That's why - I have been asking Awami League to revive that spirit for their sake.
 
Thanks for your comments. Love to hear from you. Don't be a stranger.
 
Jiten Roy --- 




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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

__,_._,___