Banner Advertiser

Friday, November 18, 2011

[ALOCHONA] Erdogan's Moment



Monday, Nov. 28, 2011


Erdogan's Moment

Red carpets, honor guards and gun salutes are for garden-variety visiting politicians and monarchs: for Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Cairo put on the kind of reception usually reserved for rock stars. Turkey's Prime Minister was greeted at the airport by thousands of cheering fans, many holding aloft posters of their hero. Fusillades of flashbulbs turned night into day. Journalists eager for a quote thrust microphones into Erdogan's face, but he was drowned out by the chanting throngs. "Erdogan! Erdogan! A real Muslim and not a coward," went one incantation. Another: "Turkey and Egypt are a single fist."

Totalitarian regimes routinely orchestrate massive, faux-spontaneous welcomes for visiting dignitaries, but the beleaguered interim administration in Cairo didn't need to rent a crowd for Erdogan: the Turkish leader is genuinely popular across the Arab world. He was ranked the most admired world leader in a 2010 poll of Arabs by the University of Maryland in conjunction with Zogby International. His stock has soared higher still since the Arab Spring. In countries where young people have risen against old tyrannies, many cite Erdogan as the kind of leader they would like to have instead. (Read "Prime Minister Erdogan: Turkey's Man of The People.")

A good politician knows how to milk his moment: the Cairo visit was the first leg of Erdogan's triumphant mid-September sweep through the newly liberated North African states. There were tumultuous welcomes, too, in Tunis and Tripoli. Then it was time for Erdogan to take a bow on the biggest stage. The trip culminated at the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, where President Obama, ignoring Erdogan's recent criticism of U.S. policy in the Middle East and his flaming diplomatic row with Israel, lauded him for showing "great leadership" in the region.

It's not every day that a U.S. President and the Arab street are of one mind. But like the throngs chanting Erdogan's name (not all of them aware it is pronounced Erd-waan; the g is silent) in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, Obama is hoping that the new governments emerging from the ashes of old dictatorships will look a lot like the one the Prime Minister has built over the past eight years. Erdogan has greatly enhanced Turkey's international reputation, has reined in its once omnipotent military, has pursued economic policies that have trebled per capita income and unleashed new entrepreneurship, and has for the most part maintained a pro-West stance.

He has, it is true, also displayed an occasional autocratic streak, running roughshod over political rivals, tossing enemies into jail and intimidating the media. Many political analysts, in Turkey and the West, suspect his desire to rewrite the constitution is designed to amass more executive power. But to his admirers, these failings pale against his successes. Democratic, economically ascendant and internationally admired: as political templates go, Turkey's is pretty irresistible to people shaking off decades of authoritarian, impoverishing rule — and for Westerners worried about what those people might do next. (See pictures of homelessness in Istanbul.)

But perhaps its greatest virtue, in the eyes of many Middle Eastern beholders, is that the Turkish model was forged by an Islamist: Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party — better known by its Turkish acronym, AKP — have traditionally drawn support from the country's religious and conservative classes and are regarded with suspicion by secular absolutists. For Arab Islamists, Turkey's success is proof that they can modernize their countries without breaking away from their religious moorings. Erdogan's Western admirers see it the other way around: proof that political Islam needn't be an enemy of modernity. And if any evidence were needed that Erdogan's way leads to political success, the AKP won its third general election in June, by a landslide.

But can Erdogan's way lead Egypt, Tunisia and Libya to the political stability and economic strength Turkey now enjoys? Erdogan claims to be ambivalent whether Arab states seek to emulate his success. "If they want our help, we'll provide any assistance they need," he told TIME in an interview during his visit to New York. "We do not have a mentality of exporting our system." But he doesn't deny reaching out to the potential leaders of the Arab Spring states: "I intentionally wanted to talk to the presidential candidates, the new political parties there, and I had the opportunity to get together with lots of people in order to grasp the situation."

See photos of the Kurdish rebels.

Should Recep Tayyip Erdogan be TIME's Person of the Year 2011? Cast your vote here.

His message to them: be good Muslims, but make sure your constitution is, like Turkey's, secular. "Do not fear secularism, because it does not mean being an enemy of religion," he said in an interview on Egyptian TV. "I hope the new regime in Egypt will be secular." This came as a shock to some in the Muslim Brotherhood, who retorted that they didn't need lessons from the Turk. Feathers were soon smoothed, but the episode was a reminder that Turkish Islamism, rooted in a secular democratic tradition, is not so easily transplanted to societies where neither secularism nor democracy is well understood. The template, says Michael Werz, a Turkey expert at the Center for American Progress, "can be inspirational for Arab Islamist parties, but it can't be a model."

All the same, many politicians in the Arab Spring countries are plainly modeling themselves after the Turkish leader. "Erdogan wears a business suit, but he prays in the mosque. That is something we can identify with," Essam Erian, a top leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, told me in Cairo in the summer. (There's an obvious echo in the name of the Brotherhood's new political arm: Freedom and Justice Party.) Abdelhamid Jlassi, a leader of Tunisia's Islamist Ennahda party was just as starry-eyed when I met him in Tunis a few days later. "Erdogan speaks our language," he told me. "When he speaks, we listen." (Watch TIME's video "Turkey's Unconventional Muslim Minority.")

Ennahda has since won a large plurality in Tunisia's first free elections, on Oct. 23, to form an assembly that will write a new constitution. The Muslim Brotherhood is expected to do just as well in elections scheduled beginning in late November. Libya is not expected to hold elections until the middle of next year, but there, too, Islamist groups are expected to be significant players. Where — and to whom — they look for inspiration could change the way the world views them.

The Ideal Islamist
for some western observers, the rise of political Islam conjures up visions of extremist, reactionary states, like Afghanistan under the Taliban or Iran. That limited view informed the anxiety that greeted the AKP's 2002 election victory. Even Turkish secularists feared Erdogan would seek to undo the separation of mosque and state that is the foundation of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's Turkey. They pointed to comments Erdogan made in the 1990s, as mayor of Istanbul, like this one: "Democracy is a tram that gets you to your destination, and then you get off." Turkey's decision not to participate in the 2003 Iraq war led to fears that Erdogan would take his country out of NATO and turn away from the West.

But AKP's critics were wrong: Turkey didn't become another Iran. Apart from a quiet repeal of a long-standing ban on the Islamic headscarf in universities last year, Erdogan's policies have hardly been an assault on Ataturk's secular legacy. (Domestic critics complain, however, of an Islamist agenda in the steep hiking of taxes on alcohol and cigarettes.) And far from drifting away from the West, Erdogan pushed harder than his secular predecessors for the ultimate Western endorsement: admission into the European Union, whose repeated cold-shouldering of Ankara says more about European hangups than Turkey's qualifications. Erdogan tells TIME he is "still determined" to pursue E.U. membership but can't help smiling at the irony that his country, once described as "the sick man of Europe," is now economically ascendant, while many members of the club that won't admit him are all but bankrupt.

From Zero Problems ...
For all its Islamist leanings, the AKP government also reached out to Jewish Israel and the secular Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad; previous governments in Ankara had at best cool relations with Damascus. There were overtures, too, to neighbors in the Balkans and around the Black Sea, and even to Armenia, with which Turkey has long-standing historical hostilities. These were all consistent with a doctrine Erdogan and his Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, dubbed Zero Problems: Turkey would mend fences with all neighbors and make friends anew in the wider world. (Read "Why Syria and Turkey Are Suddenly Far Apart on Arab Spring Protests.")

It worked: Erdogan seemed to form a close bond with Assad, even inviting the Syrian dictator to vacation in Turkey. And Turkey quickly became Israel's best friend in the Islamic world — that bar was, admittedly, low.

Zero Problems also served Turkey's economic ambitions. Turkish entrepreneurs, nudged along by the government — but without the overwhelming financial backing of the state enjoyed by, say, Chinese companies — were able to rapidly grow business in the immediate neighborhood and farther afield, notably in Africa. Turkish construction companies in particular fanned out across the Middle East, Africa and Asia, competing with (and often beating) Chinese rivals.

Read "Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan Faces Many Challenges in Third Term."

There was prosperity at home too: since the AKP first came to power, Turkey's GDP has trebled, the budget deficit has fallen by two-thirds. From 2002 to '10, GDP grew by a compounded annual rate of 4.8%, more than Russia, Brazil and South Korea. In 2010, Turkey's GDP grew 8.9%; the E.U.'s grew 1.9%. Already the world's 17th largest economy, behind South Korea, Spain and Canada, Turkey is expected to slow this year, and some analysts warn that its economy is in danger of overheating. But compared with much of Europe, it is a picture of health.

Emboldened by economic and foreign policy successes, Erdogan grew more ambitious abroad. With U.S. support, he sought to turn Turkey into a moderator of other regional rifts, bringing Syria and Israel as close as they have ever come to peace talks. That dream was dashed in December 2008, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ordered the start of Operation Cast Lead, a three-week assault on Gaza that left more than 1,300 Palestinians dead. Israel said it was provoked by rockets fired from Gaza; Syria withdrew from Erdogan-brokered negotiations. (Read "Turkey Crisis: Unconditional U.S. Backing Has Helped Israel to Isolate Itself.")

Associates of the Turkish leader say he was personally affronted. Olmert, he felt, had left him holding the bag. His anger boiled over at a panel discussion in Davos, when he stormed off after telling Israeli President Shimon Peres, "You know very well how to kill."

Relations with Israel limped along for a while before breaking down completely in May 2010, when Israeli commandos halted a Turkish-led aid flotilla bound for Gaza. In international waters, the commandos rappelled down into the Mavi Marmara, a ship belonging to a Turkish charity. In the fighting that broke out, eight Turks and one Turkish American were killed. Israel says its soldiers were attacked on board.

Turkey has since all but broken off relations with Israel. Erdogan says nothing short of a formal apology and the lifting of Israel's blockade of Gaza will repair a once promising friendship. "The Israeli government is not being honest at all," he tells TIME. Israel has responded with angry rhetoric of its own: Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman suggested one way to get back at Erdogan would be to support the Kurdish terrorist group known as the PKK, which has recently stepped up attacks against Turkish military and civilian targets. (Turkey accepted Israel's aid after a devastating Oct. 23 earthquake in Van province killed over 600, but Davutoglu said that would not soften Turkey's position.)

... To Plenty of Problems
The Arab Spring finally made the Zero Problems doctrine untenable. Although Erdogan was ahead of many Western leaders in calling for Egypt's Hosni Mubarak to step down in the face of a popular uprising, he was hesitant to send the same message to Syria's Assad and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi: Turkey had sizable business interests and expat populations in both countries. Erdogan initially resisted pressure to join the NATO campaign against Gaddafi and maintained that his relationship with Assad would allow him to coax the Syrian leader into implementing political reforms. "Erdogan thought of himself as Assad's tutor," says F. Stephen Larrabee, an expert on Turkey at the Rand Corp. "He overestimated his ability to persuade Assad." (Read "How Syria and Libya Got to Be Turkey's Headaches.")

Erdogan belatedly changed his mind and then acted decisively: Turkey backed Libya's transitional council against Gaddafi, and once Assad had reneged on his promise of reforms (another slight Erdogan took personally), it began calling for regime change in Damascus. Whereas once he had invited the Assad family to holiday in Turkey, Erdogan grew openly contemptuous of the Syrian strongman. "It is impossible to preserve my friendship with people who are allegedly leaders when they are attacking their own people," he says. Turkey now provides shelter not only to refugees from Assad's crackdown but also to opposition groups that are actively plotting his downfall.

The break with Israel and Syria may have dashed Erdogan's hopes of being a regional peacemaker. It also greatly complicates matters for the U.S., which had hoped Turkey could gradually draw Syria away from the Iranian sphere of influence. Nor does it help that the U.S.'s two closest allies in the region, Turkey and Israel, are now at loggerheads. Pro-Israel Congressmen have threatened to block military supplies to Turkey, giving the White House yet another brush fire to put out.

Read "Israel and Turkey: How a Close Relationship Disintegrated."

The consequences for Turkey are uncertain. Erdogan's anti-Israel rhetoric plays well with the AKP voter base and Arab audiences. But by turning on Assad, says Rand's Larrabee, Erdogan also risks antagonizing Syria's sponsor, Iran. Relations with Tehran have already cooled since Turkey agreed in September to install new NATO radar systems designed to detect missiles launched from Iran. Erdogan long pushed back against the radars for fear of antagonizing the Iranians. Now Turkish officials are seeking cover behind the fig leaf that data from the systems will not be shared with Israel; NATO says that's just not true. So much for Zero Problems.

The New Ottoman Empire
Inevitably, Erdogan's new foreign policy doctrine, aimed at increasing Turkey's political and economic influence in the Middle East and North Africa, has been dubbed "neo-Ottoman," after the dynasty that ruled much of the Muslim world from Istanbul for 600 years until shortly after World War I. Erdogan doesn't shirk from the comparison. "Of course, the empire had some beautiful parts and some not-so-beautiful parts," he says. "It's a very natural right for us to use what was beautiful about the Ottoman Empire today." Turkish officials envision an arrangement similar to the British Commonwealth, with a constellation of Balkan, East European and Arab states all looking to Istanbul for benign guidance. (See photos of the streets of Istanbul.)

But invoking a long-gone — and not especially lamented — empire is no basis for foreign policy. The competition for influence in the new Middle East emerging from the Arab Spring is bound to be fierce. Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are the region's traditional powers; there are American and European fingers in the pie too. Relative newcomers China and India have a growing economic interest in the region. Turkey's head start in the Arab Spring countries — it is already one of the largest investors in Egypt and Libya — will be difficult to maintain.

If there's growing competition for Turkey abroad, for Erdogan there are also growing problems at home. That autocratic tendency has become more pronounced since June's huge election win. Political rivals complain that he has never quite shaken off the bullying streak he developed in the mean streets of Istanbul's Kasimpasa neighborhood. Despite his lofty position, he rarely misses a chance to rub his opponents' noses in the dirt, often using crude rhetoric unbecoming of a leader who aspires to statesmanship. He is notoriously thin-skinned about criticism and paranoid about coups. (This last is perhaps understandable: the Turkish military overthrew four elected governments in the 40 years before the AKP's 2002 victory.) For all its desire for Turkey to be seen as a modern state equal in freedoms to any in Europe, his government has jailed 68 journalists, accusing them of complicity in coup plots. On a recent trip to Istanbul, two top journalists agreed to talk with me about Erdogan only if I promised not to name them.

Erdogan's treatment of Turkey's Kurdish minority had fluctuated between promises of political compromise and old-fashioned military repression. Violence has flared in recent months after a series of tit-for-tat attacks between the PKK and Turkish forces. Sezgin Tanrikulu, deputy chairman of the main opposition party, the Republican People's Party, scoffs at Erdogan's international popularity: "Before Turkey can be held up as a role model for the Middle East, it needs to sort out its own domestic conflicts." (Read "Why Turkey's Erdogan Is Greeted like a Rock Star in Egypt.")

Conflicts in the neighborhood will have an impact on Turkey's economy: trade with Syria, a major partner, is imperiled by Erdogan's open falling out with Assad. The longer the dictatorship lingers in Damascus, the greater the cost. Antagonistic relations with Israel have not yet had a great economic effect, mainly because trade between the two countries is relatively small.

In the political arena, Erdogan's next challenge is to rewrite the Turkish constitution. Fears that he will dilute Turkey's secularism have been replaced by a growing concern that he will push for executive power to be concentrated in the office of the President, and then seek that office himself. The Turkish presidency is currently a mostly ornamental position, held by Erdogan's longtime ally Abdullah Gul. Istanbul salons are rife with talk of the two men switching roles after the constitution is rewritten, drawing inevitable comparisons to the Medvedev-Putin swap in Moscow. It's a testament to how far the Islamist icon has come that his critics no longer worry that he may turn Turkey into another Iran. They now fear he will turn it into another Russia.

with reporting by Pelin Turgut / Istanbul

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2099674,00.html



__._,_.___


[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] India will build Tipaimukh dam: Bangladesh in dark



India will build Tipaimukh dam: Bangladesh in dark

During his visit to Dhaka in September, Dr. Manmohan repeatedly assured Bangladesh that India wouldn't do anything harmful to Bangladesh.  The project's work is progressing silently without taking Bangladesh on board.


When contacted, a high official of the Ministry of Water Resources preferring anonymity told The New Nation that they are not aware about such deal.He said the joint communiqué signed by Bangladesh and India during the Bangladesh's Prime Minister's visit to Delhi, said that India does not do anything at Tipaimukh without notifying Bangladesh







http://thenewnationbd.com/newsdetails.aspx?newsid=23331
http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-11-19/news/202026


__._,_.___


[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: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?--false propaganda against religion and religious people



As usual, Mr. Q. Rahman is wrong on many aspects.  Jesus was a rebellious Jew.  The trinity in Christianity is represented by Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost.  Father is the Lord, Son is Jesus aka Sun-god, and the holy Ghost is Sophia/Venus/Shekinah etc.  Gabriel has no role here.  Gabriel appeared a bit late in monotheism.  He was absent from the time of Abraham, Isaac, to that of Moses.  All of these messengers talk directly to God(s) named El-Saddai(God with breasts), El-Elyon, Elohim, Yahweh etc. According to Michael Servetus, Son and Slave were synonymous words in the time of Jesus.  He was burnt at stake for such heretic ideas by Christians.  According to Islam Jesus was borne by Mary, the sister of Moses.  I suppose Mary gave birth to him when over a thousand years old.  But most interestingly, Jesus has a pagan Persian source.  Mithra, the Persian Sun-god was borne by Anahita, the Goddess of Wisdom in Avesta.  In later days Anahita became Virgin Mary and Mithra became Jesus.  The story does not end here.  Mithra was said to be wedded to the evening star, apparently polyandrous to the ancient sky watchers.  The Evening Star had become Mary Magdalene in Christianity.

For any follower of Islam, the holy Quran compiled by Osman is the highest source of knowledge.  The holy verses had blinded them.  May Allah help them out of ignorance.

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 3:47 PM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 

There are about four billion Christians, yet modern scholars believe Jesus as a fiction created by St. Paul.

>>>>>>>>> I feel it is an honest misunderstanding YOU have about what western scholars are saying. I also feel most of what we see in "Modern Christianity" is mostly work of Paul. However that does NOT mean Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) did not exist!!

People who feel Jesus did not exist are a TINY faction of the scholars of religion. Majority think Jesus did exist BUT the message of the Bible was distorted by Paul and other followers and some of the pagan customs from Europe were merged as well.

One good example would be the weekly religious holiday. Jesus was born among Jewish people and like a good Jew, he observed Sabath day on Saturdays. HOWEVER when Christianity traveled to Europe, the religious holiday was on Sunday in honor of "Sun god". So authentic custom was thrown away and a pagan custom replaced authentic teaching of Jesus son of Mary (PBUH).

Another visible example was Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) did not ear pork as it was prohibited for Jewish people but most followers of Jesus cannot resists juicy pork chops!!!

So Like a good Jew, Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) kept up the Kosher laws but "Modern Christians" do not care for it. Among scholars of Christianity, the modern version of Christianity is known as Pauline Christianity.

One last one ( I can write this for months!!). The "Foundation" of modern Christianity is a theory of "Trinity". Which sees Jesus, Gabriel and God as one entity. However if you read the Bible, you will not find the word 'Trinity" in it!!

It was invented almost 350 years AFTER Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) left us. [ Source: Wiki]

If you read King James Bible (Most popular version of the Bible), you will see that, Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) spoke against trinity but MOST Christians received wrong message (Originated from pagan Euro culture) about him. I'll quote a few verses from the Bible here.....


I am Perfectly Obedient to God




Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise."
(Jesus quoted by John 5:19)

"For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me."
(Jesus quoted by John 6:38)

So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me."
(Jesus quoted by John 7:16)

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to Him."
(Jesus quoted by John 8:28-29)

"For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me."
(Jesus quoted by John 12:49-50)
 




As a hobby I spend good amount of time learning about history of Christianity, so if you have more questions about it, feel free to ask.


Shalom!!




-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 5:37 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?--false propaganda against religion and religious people

 
There are about four billion Christians, yet modern scholars believe Jesus as a fiction created by St. Paul.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:26 AM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Actually there are plenty of scholars on Islam who devoted their whole lives in the process. Many of them comes from non-Islamic background as well. In fact proving Muhammad never existed would be hardest thing to do. Since out of nowhere there are 1.7 billion followers of Islam who claims to follow Muhammad (PBUH) and his Creator.

it is also a fact that, Muhammad (PBUH) only finished God's revelation to humanity that started thousands of years BEFORE Muhammad (PBUH) was born. So Muhammad (PBUH) only completed the process. Even if you look into the Bible (OT and NT) you will see that the fundamental message was the same. I'll explain my points with some CREDIBLE and VERIFIABLE sources.


As per Islam, it says God sent us only ONE religion.  So what we call Judaism or Christianity or Islam are continuation of the SAME message.

Any Muslim (With little knowledge of scripture) will tell you that, from Adam to Muhammad (PBUH) all messengers of God came with same message. Sumbit and obey one unseen God.

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD!" (Deut. 6:4) [ This is the basics of Judaism]

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. ( << Mark 12:29 >>)

"There is no true god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God," ( First article of faith in Islam)

 

 Most of the prophets/messesngers/navi (Judaic term) were sent to the "Tribe of Israel". Thus Bible rightfully states (Via Jesus son of Mary)

But he answered and said , I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


  

Making Chrsitianity an universal faith was later development NOT what Jesus practiced [ According to the message of Bible]. During his lifetime Jesus NEVER preached to any non-Jews.

Islam confirmed all previous revelations and all previously chosen people [ Most of them were Jewish]. At the same time started as an "Universal solution for the humanity". At the last part of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) life God revelaed

.....This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah(God) is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.


Therefore, Muslims feel that the revelation completed by the last messenger of God Muhammad (PBUH). Who came with the Final revelation from our Creator.

If you are interested, you may read the following books as credible sources to learn about Muhammad (PBUH).



<> An Oxford scholar who became interested in Islam after he went to Egypt to research. Wrote this wonderful book in the last prophet (PBUH).



<> A Swiss born Scholar of Islam of our time. Often invited by top universities of the world.



<> Mr. Mubarakpuri was an Indian who wrote this book in Arabic which won the best book award in the world wide contest. He beat native Arabic speaks and won this prestigious award with this wonderful book. A great read from verified historical sources.


If you need more "Help" to understand the FACTS about prophet Muhammad (PBUH). All of the sources I shared comes from scholars who are known all over the world. If you have any specific concerns, feel free to ask. If required, I'll give you more sources and names of scholars who can be reached as well.


"Show (thy) gratitude to Allah." Any who is (so) grateful does so to the profit of his own soul; but if any is ungrateful, verily Allah is free of all wants, worthy of all praise.

(Quran 31:12)


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Nov 14, 2011 8:11 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?--false propaganda against religion and religious people

 
Sorry, no source is credible.  History is a bunk created on many 'sources'.  There is neo-muslim German Professor, named Sven Kallish, who says, Muhammad might be a total myth.  But the portrayal of the prophet by the people who concocted Islam is less than acceptable by the contemporary moral standard, won't you agree?  Even the angels geocentric planets are in reality.  Judge the statement by yourself.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:31 AM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Read the dialogues between the prophet and his wives.

>>>>>>>> I have read fair amount of books on prophet Muhammad (PBUH). So kindly share the SOURCE of YOUR information. Like the web site you picked this from will help. So Far I find this as myth by those who do not have understanding of Islam. But I am always interested to learn new things. So give me credible sources for this "Myth".

Thanks.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Nov 13, 2011 8:08 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?--false propaganda against religion and religious people

 
Read the dialogues between the prophet and his wives.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:37 PM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 

Mr. Hannan is a registered member of Jamaat, and a member of Majlis.  He is a shameless advocate of Jamaat politics in the forum with very shallow knowledge on almost everything.

>>>>>>>>> Member Das, if you do not agree with Mr. Hannan, attack his ideas. When you get into personal attacks and attack against religion, it makes YOU look very bad. Jammat's position during 1971 was wrong from many sides (Immoral, unethical, against Islam etc). It is one of the easiest task to criticize that, please try that using logic and solid data (If that is what you are aiming for!!).

Not even Ayesha, the young wife of the prophet believed in the existence of Gabriel. 

>>>>>>>>>>> I have never heard this crap before. Please share your sources!!!!


About the comparative  moral standard of the atheist with theist, it suffices to point out that you would never find out an atheist coveting the wife of his own foster son.  An atheist is always guided by his conscience, and does not invoke God as the cause and solution of all his problems.


>>>>>>>>> If you do not understand this, just ask. One of us will explain it to you. Just like I am disgusted by the low lives who are saying bad things about Dr. Zafar Iqbal, I think this is below civilized discussion when you insult our holy prophet without any knowledge of what happened. He is not around us, so he is the easiest target???


Atheists have their fair share of child molesters, perverts, rapists, murderers and every kind of idiots you can think of. Atheists are just like  rest of us ------HUMAN BEINGS!!

There are good people and bad people in every communities. Muslims and atheists are NO different in that aspect.


Hope reason and logic guide you in future discussion (Instead of blind rage against Islam).

Peace!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Nov 12, 2011 8:57 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?--false propaganda against religion and religious people

 
Mr. Hannan is a registered member of Jamaat, and a member of Majlis.  He is a shameless advocate of Jamaat politics in the forum with very shallow knowledge on almost everything.  With a single track mind like his, one should look for other forums than mukto mona.  Even communism is religion, and was fastest growing in the last century.  Any form of regimentation is bound to accompany such ills as religion does.  There is no reason to believe that any of these so called holy men or prophets had any connection with the 'creator' of the Universe.  They believed in the geocentric model, gave more importance to the planets than the stars.  Planets were Gods which later turned into angels.  Note that there are seven planets/archangels living in seven heavens.  Not even Ayesha, the young wife of the prophet believed in the existence of Gabriel. 

About the comparative  moral standard of the atheist with theist, it suffices to point out that you would never find out an atheist coveting the wife of his own foster son.  An atheist is always guided by his conscience, and does not invoke God as the cause and solution of all his problems.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:14 AM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
  • Mr. Hannan is married to Jamaati ideaology and politics with unbreakable commitment. He is in the Mukto-mona forum as an amabassador or publicity secretary of Jamaat-i-Islam. That's why whatever he says, whatever he quotes, or whatever he refers to is a means to nakedly support Jamaati politics, idealogy, and activities---both past and present.
  • Being a retired Secretary of the Bangladesh govt., he must be old enough to have witnessed with his own eyes the barbaric and heinous crimes Pakistani army and rightist antiliberation political parties including Jamaati Islam committed during the ten months in 1971. But to justfy their mischiefs he again and again refers to Sharmila Bose's cooked, motivated, and fictitious data.
  • Everybody knows that Maududi was given death sentence which was subsequently commuted by Saudi pressure. A small group in Bangladesh once tried excommunicate the Ahmadiyas from Islam. 
  •  Mr. Hannan is wrong: MQM is not responsible for killing of Shiites by radical Sunni groups. What is happening in Iraq? Does MQM have hand in their too? Mr. Hannan, should you not term Maududi a religious bigot when he incited attacks on the innocent Ahmadiyas in Pakistan? Can you say who these religious bigots are who are suicide-bombing the innocent musollis when they are saying their prayers in the mosque?
  • I agree the barbaric attacks on innocent people are hated by 99% Muslims. But do the Jamaatis fall into the category comprised of the remaining 1%? People will have the right to ask you this question when they find out that you guys do not see any crimes committed by your people in Bangladesh during 1971.     
  • Killing has not been monopolized by religious fanatics, secularists (example, Stalin) have also large share in it---nobody will disagree to that. But why are you hesitant in accepting the fact that innumerable lives have been taken in the name of religion?  
  • I agree most of the people of religions are good people. But you also have to agree that most of the non-believers, skeptics, and agnostics are also good people. Bad guys are those who "sell" religion or an idealogy for capturin or retaining power. They indoctrinate innocent cadres committed to killing and torturing. Obviously, Jamaat-i-Islam is one of them. You can also pick a cruel communist dictator as an example from the other end of the scale.     

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?--false propaganda against religion and religious people
 
Maulana Maududi was given the death sentence by the Ayub regime for the crime.  But he was later pardonned by external pressure.

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:00 PM, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:
 
 
As regards Subimol Chakrabarty sahib's points, followers of Maududi did not kill any Ahmadi( Pl see Munir Commision report on punjan disturbances)
As regards 1971 events, many groups killed each other ( read Sharmila Bose's dead Reckoning)
Shia Sunni violence is created by secular political elements like MQM and some religious bigot's .They are hated by 99 percent people.
Again read my earlier submission" Respected all,
Atheists and secularists (who believe in naturalism and rationalism only and who deny role of religion in public life) are more menace to humanity, morality, civilization as history shows. Most of the wars including first and second great wars were waged by them.
Most of the people of religions are good people. Many of them are misguided by secular political leaders or some ignorant and aggressive religious bigots.
Religious people of all religions should fight these exploiters and stand for humanity, morality and social welfare."
 
 
Shah Abdul Hannan
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of qar
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 8:48 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?
 
 
Killing of the Ahmediyas by the followers of Mowdoodi in Pakistan, killing and raping of freedom loving Bengalis in 1971, bombing of mosques to kill innocent Shiites in Pakistan and Iraq and somewhere else----are all these the acts by the secularists?
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are right these were acts of half educated idiots who do not understand the core message of Islam.

However atheist people have done more murdering of innocents than any religious people. Stalin, Mao (Of china) etc done their part in killing anyone who had a different point of view.
-----Original Message-----
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 6:37 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?
 
Killing of the Ahmediyas by the followers of Mowdoodi in Pakistan, killing and raping of freedom loving Bengalis in 1971, bombing of mosques to kill innocent Shiites in Pakistan and Iraq and somewhere else----are all these the acts by the secularists?
 
From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 2:16 AM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?

 
Respected all,
Atheists and secularists (who believe in naturalism and rationalism only and who deny role of religion in public life) are more menace to humanity, morality, civilization as history shows. Most of the wars including first and second great wars were waged by them.
Most of the people of religions are good people. Many of them are misguided by secular political leaders or some ignorant and aggressive religious bigots.
Religious people of all religions should fight these exploiters and stand for humanity, morality and social welfare.
 
Shah Abdul Hannan
 
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 6:42 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?
 
 
@Nihar Singh:
 
The true religious people - who are they? Whether they bother anybody or not - is not the issue. The issue is how much is their contribution towards the advancement of the modern society? Are people, who take part in the communal riots or blowup innocent people in the name of religion, any less religious? You may think so - but they don't.
 
@Kamal Das:
The New Testaments does not contain many of the violent verses of the Old Testament means these are not absolute truth. This is the point I am trying to make.
 
Thanks.
 
 
From: nihar singh <nihar_singh786@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2011 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?
 
Truely religious people dont disturb anyone. On the other hand atheists try to make everyone atheists. That is true menace. Look at darwin he made everyone think that they eveolved from apes. Many jokers believe this to be true.



--- On Mon, 11/7/11, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
Subject: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?
To: "Mukto-mona" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, November 7, 2011, 7:12 PM
Are some religious people menaces in the society?
 
I have been asking this question lately to myself. I tried to find the roles and contributions (I mean, real contributions) of religious people in the society that brought us here from the beginning of time. What I envisioned is that - religion played a very insignificant role towards our social, moral, and scientific developments in this world. Most of these developments are made by religiously indifferent people. The religious people mostly deal with and talk about things that are out of this world. As a result, many of these religious people are misfits and menaces in the society.
 
Many argue that religion builds our moral character, and we learn good and bad from religion, etc. etc. I, on the other hand, think – good and bad we learn from our ancestors, and from our own experiences; religion has nothing to do with it. You might ask where our ancestors learned them from, in the first place. They learned good and bad from their ancestors' experiences, so on, and so forth. Most Chinese do not have any religion. When I asked a Chinese man - how most people there learn about good and bad without religion, he told me - they learn them from their elders' wisdoms. That's right; our ancestors transferred their knowledge and wisdom to us. Therefore, I truly believe – this world would have been a much better place without religion. Religions have divided us into many sectarian hateful clans, which are constantly fighting with one another.
 
Many of us believe that religious doctrines and dogmas are heavenly absolute entities. They forget that - many of those doctrines, dogmas, and interpretations have already been modified from the original preaching during emancipation. For example, Old Testament has been replaced by the New Testament, many Quranic interpretations have been changed, and many Vedic/Puranic practices and interpretations have been changed, etc., etc. That means - religious teachings and practices are subject to change with the time, which means they are not so heavenly endowments as we believe them to be. This is a critical point to remember. Those who think otherwise are the menaces in the society.
 
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

__,_._,___