Banner Advertiser

Friday, January 13, 2012

[ALOCHONA] FaceBook users under watch



FaceBook users under watch



http://jugantor.us/enews/issue/2012/01/14/news0618.htm



__._,_.___


[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] A harrowing new book about the 1971 war



A harrowing new book about the 1971 war



Women, War and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971 by Dr Yasmin Saikia was launched in Pakistan on Tuesday, January 3 by Oxford University Press at the Forman Christian College in Lahore. The launch was attended by historians, bureaucrats, media stalwarts, and the students and faculty members of the Forman Christian College.



Professor Imtiaz Bukhari, who heads the Department of Political Science at FC College, and Professor Tariq Rehman, Dean of the School of Education at Beaconhouse National University, were the speakers at the launch, while Dr Yaqoob Khan Bangash of FC College and Oxford University Press and Dr James Tebbe, Executive Vice Rector at FC, effectively presented the welcome address. The book tells the story of violence against women in the 1971 war that culminated in the independence of Bangladesh. It depicts the trauma of Bengali and Bihari women, some of whom were tortured and raped during the war.

All the speakers at the launch paid tribute to the book's author. Dr Bangash emphasized the uniqueness of the book, which according to him does not "participate in a 'blame game' but focuses on the trauma and suffering still present in the memory of the survivors." He also said, "This book was exemplary since it spoke to all of us through its emphasis on the loss of 'insaniyat' during the conflict."

Professor Imtiaz Bukhari said, "People must learn from history. We hear different stories about 1971 but it is indeed a new theme [the author] has set." He appreciated the book's objectivity and further added, "it is undoubtedly the emergence of a new genre".

Professor Tariq Rahman commended the initiative taken by Yasmin Saikia in bringing to light this other perspective on the war of 1971. He said he supported the terminology "Pakistani Punjabi Army soldiers" used in the book.

The book depicts the trauma of Bengali and Bihari women, some of whom were tortured and raped during the war. Mahfuz ur Rehman, Deputy High Commissioner of Bangladesh, was also invited to the event, but due to another commitment was unable to attend it. He sent a statement via email, which was read out by Dr Yaqoob Bangash. It expressed Ambassador Rehman's gratitude to Dr Yasmin Saikia for taking the trouble of traveling to different parts of Bangladesh, meet many people, mainly women from different walks of life and listen to their recollections of their very personal experiences; he thanked her also for traveling to India and Pakistan several times to collect personal memories of the concerned men and women, for going through archives and documents, and for weaving them into a narrative.

"The reading of Dr Saikia's book was not an easy task.," the statement said. "The personal memories of many women from Bangladesh, as cited in the book, were not only hurting, depressing and painful, but the vivid expressions of those were horrifying, shocking, alarming and also disturbing to some extent. If you are soft-hearted, the stories - the real stories - may shatter your belief that we the human beings could sometimes be so cruel. These are disturbing in the sense that the stories - the real stories - may disturb your peace of mind when you will think that people around us committed them."

Ambassador Rehman added that in his opinion the most important element of the book was that it found heroes in ordinary people. He also compared Dr Yasmin Saikia with the first Nobel laureate of South Asia, the Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore, who criticized nationalism after seeing its side-effects and instead urged Indian peoples to uphold their humanism. Dr Saikia's book, in Ambassador Rehman's opinion, sought to transform the 'forgotten memory' of individuals into the 'active memory' of nations.

However, he also rejected some opinions of the author.It could not have been a civil war as most West Pakistanis did not even know what was going on in the Eastern "wing"

These opinions included terming the war of 1971 'a civil war between East and West Pakistan', as in the Ambassador's opinion expressions like 'war of independence', 'war of liberation' or even 'state terrorism' were much closer to the reality. Also, it could not have been a civil war as most West Pakistanis did not even know what was going on in the Eastern "wing". Whatever happened happened between the Bangali nation (East Pakistan) and the then-Pakistani (not West Pakistani) military administration.

Ambassador Rehman's second objection had to do with Dr Saikia's presentation of the Biharis' and Bangalis' traumas with equal emphasis in her book. It has, he felt, a risk of diversion from the total picture. To this objection Dr Saikia responded, "My book tells the story of all victims."

Thirdly, Ambassador Rehman took issue with the notion that the Awami League got a majority of seats in East Pakistan while the PPP got a majority of seats in West Pakistan. This, he felt, was misleading. Pakistanis had been told that the Awami League received 160 seats and the PPP received 81 seats out of a total of 300 contested seats in the National Assembly, but this perception had been created by the Pakistani military administration and the PPP to dishonour the verdict of the people and to disregard the result of the general elections.

After stating all these differences, Ambassador Rehman said: "Undoubtedly, the heroes of the war are not the perpetrators. It is satisfactory to see that the author has taken the right initiative to address this issue and put her effort to bring those unheard voices in front."

Professor Dr Yasmin Saikia, who is a professor at Arizona State University, said: "War destroys the vulnerable, and unfortunately the sufferings of non-combatants are rarely highlighted." She said from the day she had taken the initiative of writing this book, she had deliberately tried to avoid a stereotyping history. "I tried to persuade these women to speak up about their personal experiences, including the war babies." She added that some of the women had lost their citizenship - as well as their credibility in the eyes of historians, writers and the masses. Professor Saikia said she wanted to show the women's experience as one of war, and not as a War of Liberation, as is widely believed in Bangladesh.

Dr Saikia also spoke about the problems she had faced while taking into account over 250 interviews in the span of more than 10 years, and how the victims talked to her about the cruelty of the West Pakistani Armed Forces. This included the people who were directly affected by the war, most of them perpetrators of sexual violence. She said that during the interviews and conversations, more than 100 women avoided using the word 'rape' and instead used 'marriage' or 'harassment'. "This was because over 40 years, nobody had addressed their plight with dignity," she said.

A senior Pakistani Army official had admitted to Dr Saikia that the history of the 1971 war was a 'legacy of lies'.

Hassan Naqvi is a journalist based in Lahore

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20120113&page=24



__._,_.___


[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] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন



You are no psychoanalyst, and no sensible man should cross the limits.. I deal with devout Muslims regarding such matter most of my time.  I am no less qualified to make my observations.  I am not an unknown person to you.  What made you think that you are more 'rational' and 'scholastic' than I am?

2012/1/14 subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
 

I am sorry to say that you are so much obsessed with a "specific" thing that you see and read every thing selectively. Because of selective reading on your part, you have accused me of apologetic. I have given a half dozen motives, but you are sticking to a single motive: desire to go to paradize. This thought process is so irrational. None of your analyses and explanations goes beyond this narrow focus. This is so wrong when you really want to understand some thing very critical. I hope you will be able to come out of this well and help us see things from broad perspectives. Please be more scholastic.       

Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:40 PM

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 
My Dear Mr. Chakravarty

Pouring of bowl of beef on my plate occurred over a dozen times.  Friends were not always the offenders.  Last time it occurred when I was the chief guest in an occasion, and the host who did it came to know me only hours earlier and he did not seek my consent.  These men are of special breed, to get a hundred houries and gellman, they could kill their own parents if they were asked by their religious leaders.

Stop being apologetic on their behalf.  Even Mr. Q. A. Rahman, a devout believer in the Islamic scripture is not so.

- Kamal Das

2012/1/12 subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
 
"None of the examples given above involves any kind of hatred (rather their aims were enlightenement), although the victims (there was a typo and hence edited) may want go to court."---that is what I have already said. You are not saying any thing new. You gave one-sided examples. I brought diverse examples. I am not sure if that prompted you to say, "If you turn the table, you do the math about what could happen to you." In a forum like mukto-mona, we need to examine a case from all directions without being prejudiced. That way we can get an in-depth and big picture. That helps us in understanding human nature and societies with more authenticity. The examples you gave are risky. The risk is that a particular community may be identified as the only trouble makers. And you know that is not true. To make sure that our readers do not misunderstand you, I brought varieties of examples.
Let me analyze the case in which Kamal Das's muslim friend poured a bowl of beef curry on his plate. If it was a joke (looking at it innocently and simple-mindedly), it was obviously an uncultured and cruel joke. [New grooms sometimes face this kind of jokes from young women from bride's side.] In-depth analysis may show that it was not a joke at all. It could be a revenge shaped over several generations. The other reason may be that perpetrator might have got sadistic pleasure out of it. This joke definitely got strength from majority identity of Kamal Das's friend. I have mentioned all these motives in my first e-mail. I don't think it has anything to do about the prospect of going to heaven. I agree with Kamal Das that the chance that the reverse thing (pouring a bowl of tortoise curry by a hindu on the plate of a muslim friend) will happen is almost nil as consequences can be very fatal. Muslims in Bangladesh have been historically always respectful of the feelings of hindus. You will however always find exceptions.           

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:10 PM

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 
SC: "I am not sure to whom you are addressing your e-mail."
 
That was a general response, not directed to anyone.
 
SC: "A muslim husband makes his newly married wife eat pork. Are you sure it was a crime? A hindu professor makes his student eat beef. Is he committing a crime? 
 
I am not sure why you are asking me these questions. Since you want answers, I have to give you.
 
Two cases, you have cited above, are well-defined violation of liberty and religious rights. Therefore, they are "crimes." The key point is highlighted above for your attention. The victims, in both cases can seek justice, if they want to.
 
Even husband and wife ended up in court for forced sexual encounter. The law is clear on the forced imposition of one's will onto others.
 
Jiten


From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 
I am not sure to whom you are addressing your e-mail. If it is to me, I must say that you ahve not read my entire e-mail. I mentioned some possible reasons or motives why some one can some one else eat some "forbidden" food. You gave all the one-sided examples. I have added variety to it. A muslim husband makes his newly married wife eat pork. Are you sure it was a crime? A hindu professor makes his student eat beef. Is he committing a crime? 
Finally I have said that the incidence reported in Ittefaq involved a serious crime and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. Please read it again.   

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 

The question is not that some Hindus eat beef or some Muslims eat pork, it is about whether you should trick or force someone to eat something to he/she does not want to eat. If you eat forbidden fruit willingly, good for you. It's your buisiness. But, if Hindus are fed beef without their knowledge, it's a criminal act. Dr. K. Das has raised an interesting point. If you turn the table, you do the math about what could happen to you.
 
Jiten Roy

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 
I am used to taking both beef and pork.  The basic point is that if I poured a bowl of pork soup on the plate of any of my Muslim friend, I would probably need the security afforded to Salman Rushdie earlier.  By the way, during my stay in U. S. A., the only Hindu I met who did not eat beef came from a remote village.  I, for one, don't see any ban in Hindu scripture against eating beef; yet I demand better manners from my Muslim friends than force feeding people something they detest.

2012/1/8 subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
 
Taking revenge, making fun, feat of communalism, sense of majority, sense of superiority, etc. can be explaining factors. Many of them may not be communal acts at all. A professor (a hindu from West Bengal) invited his Ph.D student (a hindu from Bangladesh) for dinner and served him and his family beef. He even did not disclose that it was beef. Bangladeshi hindus are probably less open to "forbidden" foods than the WB hindus. The professor did not care. My atheist muslim friend made his newly married wife eat pork without letting her know that she was eating pork. For the last ten years or so, they are still happily married. In a social gathering when one hindu friend opined (probably jokingly) that onion and beef are equivalent and hence are forbidden, one doctor (orginally from Bangladesh) practcing in America said with strong conviction, "There is no difference between beef and mutton, although ethically it may be wrong to eat either meat." Beef eating hindus sometimes are found to encourage their religious or prejudiced hindu friends to eat beef by saying jokingly, "Come on, you will not lose your hinduism just by eating a burger!"
None of the examples given above involves any kind of hatred (rather their aims were enlightenement), although the the perpetrators may want go to court.  
But the news item published in the Ittefaq is exceptional. It was a grave crime and the criminals must be brought to justice. Motives were probably hatred, communalism, and sense of majority.       

Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 8:14 PM

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 
I have faced similar situations many times.  Devout Muslim friends poured a bowl of beef curry on my plate, their eyes glared like incandescent torches.  Muslims of such manners are indeed to be pitied.  I would blame their religious leaders for such manners.

2012/1/6 Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
 
I am trying to understand the psychology behind such acts. I have seen people who eat meat, but not fish. I have seen people who eat fish, but no meat. Why would someone trick you to eat something that you don't want to eat? What do they gain from these ats?  
 
I have so many personal experiences of such actions. My first encounter was right after my marriage. My wife just came to Dhaka. One of my very close friends invited us during the Eid. We arrived on time. Food was served. Right before eating, my wife inquired about the meat-curry. They told us that - it was beef. Unfortunately, they had nothing else, except 'Dal (lentil soup).' So, we had to contend ourselves with the Dal-Bhat.  Now, the question is - how could they be so sure that we will eat beef? What if we started eating and then inquired about the meat. I have no answers till today.
 
Next, I went to another Muslim friend's house in the USA during another Eid. My entire family was with me. There was a beef-curry on the table. This time, the difference was that - they told us what it was. The problem was - now, we had to decide if we would take it or not; it's an undue pressure, knowing that they were watching us as we were picking items from the table. I understand they like beef, but shouldn't you cook something that your guests might enjoy? I keep wondering.
 
Another incident occurred in a function at a Hindu temple here in the USA. Host ordered goat meat from a restaurant, owned by a Muslim. Instead of goat-curry, they served mixed beef and goat curry. Later on, they revealed that beef was served in that Hindu temple on such and such occasion. They were so proud of their deed that they could not contain the secrecy.
 
I have too many experiences like these. Therefore, I cannot brush these incidents off as some rare incidents. I think they are much too common.
 
If I invite a Muslim family at my house, I will never dream of keeping a pork or tortoise dish in the menu. Such act is a sin in my book. Is that so in Islam? If it is – how could so many people still do it?
 
 I tend to believe that – Dr. Kamal Das may be right. This is driven by the religious belief that certain acts bring regious credits. It may be a corollary belief to that of getting credits for converting a non-Muslim. As you know -  it is believed in that part of the world that - a Hindu can get converted to Islam simply by eating beef. Therefore, if you can feed beef to a Hindu somehow, you have cracked his Hindu faith. You should get some credit for that. Is this the logic behind the incentive for these acts?
 
People who think food is something that could change one's religious belief are the stupidest people on the face of the earth. It is quite sad how religion has destroyed normal thinking process of billions of highly educated/uneducated people. Religion has seized their normal thought processes; it's insanity. If they had the power to think normally, they could easily find out how stupid their reasoning is. I feel pity for these people.
 
Jiten Roy


From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 
Many Muslims feel a thousand steps nearer to paradise when they can feed beef to their Hindu friends, though the ancient Hindu seers regularly ate it.

2012/1/5 Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
 
 

সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

লেখক: ইত্তেফাক রিপোর্ট  |  বৃহস্পতি, ৫ জানুয়ারী ২০১২, ২২ পৌষ ১৪১৮
সিলেটের ডিসি ও এসপিকে হাইকোর্ট
সিলেটের একটি শিক্ষা প্রতিষ্ঠানের পুনর্মিলনী অনুষ্ঠানে খাদ্য হিসেবে সনাতন ধর্মাবলম্বীদের গরুর মাংস সরবরাহকারীদের বিরুদ্ধে ব্যবস্থা নিতে সেখানকার জেলা প্রশাসক, মেট্রোপলিটন পুলিশ কমিশনার, সদর থানার ভারপ্রাপ্ত কর্মকর্তাকে নির্দেশ দিয়েছে হাইকোর্ট। বিচারপতি এএইচএম শামসুদ্দিন চৌধুরী ও বিচারপতি জাহাঙ্গীর হোসেন সেলিমকে নিয়ে গঠিত হাইকোর্টের ডিভিশন বেঞ্চ গতকাল বুধবার এ নির্দেশ দেন। একই সঙ্গে ওই ঘটনায় নিজেদের ভূমিকা ব্যাখ্যা করতে অনুষ্ঠান উদযাপন কমিটির আহ্বায়ক ড. সায়েলা খাতুন, সদস্য সচিব নাজমা বেগম এবং সংশ্লিষ্ট শিক্ষা প্রতিষ্ঠানের প্রধানকে আগামী ১৬ জানুয়ারি আদালতে হাজির হওয়ার নির্দেশ দেয়া হয়েছে। সিলেট সিটি কর্পোরেশনের মেয়র, মেট্রোপলিটন পুলিশ কমিশনার, জেলা প্রশাসক ও সদর থানার ভারপ্রাপ্ত কর্মকর্তাকে একইদিন এ বিষয়ে একটি প্রতিবেদন দাখিল করতে বলা হয়েছে। হাইকোর্টের আদেশে বলা হয়, বাংলাদেশ একটি ধর্মনিরপেক্ষ দেশ। এ দেশের সংবিধানে সকল ধর্মাবলম্বীর সমান অধিকার নিশ্চিত করা হয়েছে। এখানে পুনর্মিলনীর মতো সার্বজনীন অনুষ্ঠানে গরুর মাংস খাওয়ানো হয়েছে। হিন্দু ধর্মাবলম্বীরা গরুর মাংস খান না। সেখানে এ ধরনের অনুষ্ঠানে মানুষকে বিভ্রান্ত করে গরুর মাংস খাওয়ানো মারাত্মক ধরনের অপরাধ। অনুষ্ঠানের আয়োজক ও খাবার পরিবেশনে দায়িত্ব পালনকারীরা এর দায় এড়াতে পারেন না।
দৈনিক মানবজমিন পত্রিকায় প্রকাশিত এক প্রতিবেদনে বলা হয়, গত ২৫ ডিসেম্বর সিলেটের অগ্রগামী বালিকা উচ্চ বিদ্যালয় ও কলেজের ১০৮ বছর পূর্তি অনুষ্ঠানে খাসি ও মুরগির কথা বলে সনাতন ধর্মাবলম্বীদের গরুর মাংস খাওয়ানোর ঘটনা ঘটে। এই প্রতিবেদনের ভিত্তিতে অমিত দাস গুপ্ত নামে এক আইনজীবী হাইকোর্টে রিট দায়ের করেন।
 

























__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] FW: Pope Says Liberal family values threaten humanity: Corrective Steps Are Needed



Mr. Hannan, with his superficial knowledge, has mixed up everything.  Engels was an entrepreneur of the capitalistic variety, he was a friend and mentor of Marx.  As for social values, I wrote earlier, no secular person covets every woman he sees, nor does he commit plunder of the people who gave him shelter.  Plenty of research has been carried out on comparing social values of believers and atheists(vide,e.g., Times on line dated September 27, 2005), and the finding is the societies are worse off 'when they have God  on their side'.  One does not have to go far.  Islam has its own example.  Among the 'four rightly guided Caliphs', the first one was poisoned and others were bled to death.  Being aware of the nature of lowly intrigues, the dying Omar bin Khattab requested the Majlis-i-Sura to spare his son from Caliphate.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:32 AM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

  • I have a copy of Engels' The Origin of the Family (1891 edition). I don't see where he has said what Mr. Hannan is saying! Did Engels say all this in later editions, or it is simply Mr. Hannan's intellectual dishonesty? It is a great book. The one I have has been published from Chicago. Engels' analysis is based on Morgan's (an American anthropologist!) Ancient Society a copy of which also I have. Morgan, Marx, and Engels were contemporary. Historical analysis of evolution of societies by Marx and Engels have been influenced by Morgan's research. So, I hope I have the right to doubt what our ex-Secretary of the Govt. of Bangladesh is saying.
  • In the light of Morgan's research findings Engels has simply analyzed the family structure in different societies (one of them being an American Indian tribe.) Religions, vested interest groups, rulers, etc. discriminated women against men. Both Morgan and he have seen a trend in a family structure in which husband and wife are bonded together by "love" (a word used by Engels). Power, earnings, etc. are absent in that state of bondage. Once this stage is attained, as Morgan and Engels said, we cannot predict what further developments the family structure will have. That's it. So it is really hard to believe Hannan's "made up" story.  
  • I asked an anti-communist lady (about 60 years old and a recent immigrant to America) from an East European country whether the communist govt. made the children common property of the state. She laughed and gave me a short answer, "No. I grew freely. My dad was a minister of a church." I don't think USSR even did that. Stalin's daughter was in America. Looks like we have heard another made up story from Hannan. Hannan's lies/quarter truths reminds me of a "tabij" vendor. It was in a small mufassil town during Ayub regime. He could make humor (that's what you need to attract public in a busy bazaar to sell fake stuff.) I as a kid enjoyed them forgetting that my mother had sent me to bazaar to buy an important item. That vendor was probably a member of Jamaat-e-Islam. He talked against family planning that Ayub Khan wanted to make popular. He used to say in the style of "waaj", "Population of India is growing rapidly. To beat India, produce more children. Don't adopt family planning." Some of us may have listened to similar taped "waaj" by Saayidi (a top Jamaat leader): example, "when there is a rain in Moscow, our communist brothers take shelter under the umbrellas."
  • There were periods when women had to stay home, cook, raise kids, and do all the household chores only. Economic necessity forced women to take employment outside. But irony is that they still had to do the household jobs including cooking and raising children. Even working almost round-the-clock it was impossible to take care of every thing. The poor families were the greatest victims of the new economic situation. Common schooling, common lodging, common baby sitting, common eating place, common house cleaning, etc. run by the govt. to help these needy families can be a good idea. This does not mean taking away of children by the govt. Only thing that needs to be remembered is that the state does not mold the kids with a certain ideology. The kids need to grow independently with the opportunity to achieve the highest potential.
  • Mr. Hannan has talked about Arab spring with the promise of Islamist revivalism in the respective countries. It was a historical inevitability. Excesses done by the dictators have opened the door to this revivalism. We have to welcome it as they are coming to power with people's mandate. Like intellectuals like Farhad Mazhar I will not say that people love to play in dirty places like swine. But I will say that it is a setback in the course of progress of history. It happens. India had BJP in power because of bad governance by the so called secular forces. One day Jamaat may get state power if the secular and democratic forces fail to live up to the aspirations of people. Anyway, Hannan is happy with the Arab spring and happy at seeing women taking part in the movement. Will those veiled women be really liberated under the new regimes? Will Hannan not hesitate to give too much liberty to them? Would he still advocate for shariah Law that discriminates against women? Have we ever heard him criticizing Taliban version of freedom of women? Would he criticize late Osama-bin-Laden for having four (or more?) wives?                   


From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:55 PM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] FW: Pope Says Liberal family values threaten humanity: Corrective Steps Are Needed

 
As far as I remember, Engels  a major founder of communism, advocated communism of both property and family.There will not be seperate families but all members of a commune will be members of the commune, they can have relations with any and all and children will be common property.Soviet Union tried it in the beginning but later abandoned it as impractical. Others may enlighten us.
 
You can read the book Tauhid ,Its Implications for Life and Society , chapter on family, by Dr Late Dr Ismail Razi Al Faruqi.
Secularism has taken people away from religion and thereby has taken them to so-called liberal family concept as mentioned by Pope even before.
 
Muslim women are strongly returning to Islam as seen in Arab Spring.
Shah Abdul Hannan
 

From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of subimal chakrabarty

Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:08 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: Pope Says Liberal family values threaten humanity: Corrective Steps Are Needed
 
 
I don't understand why Mr. Hannan is blaming atheism and Marxism for homosexual marriage and adoptions by couples! Are all the atheists and Marxists supporting and sponsoring these? Did (does) any communist country have any plan to make children common property of the state? Can Mr. hannan elaborate a little bit more on how secularism "has strengthened this destructive tendency?" I think without delving into the matter Mr. Hannan is for nothing putting all the blames on secularism for new family values. Any way, Mr. Hannan has forgot to mention that religions discriminate against women. Women are being liberated gradually because of the modern thoughts and enlightenment.   
 
From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
To: 'dahuk' <dahuk@yahoogroups.com>; khabor@yahoogroups.com ; mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com ; mahdiunite@yahoogroups.com; 'sahannan' <sahannan@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 7:04 PM
Subject: [mukto-mona] FW: Pope Says Liberal family values threaten humanity: Corrective Steps Are Needed
 
 
 

 

Pope Says Liberal family values threaten humanity: Corrective Steps Are Needed

 
 
Afp has reported from , Vatican City that Pope Benedict XVI yesterday warned that liberal family values were threatening the future of humanity, in a veiled reference to homosexual marriage and adoptions by gay couples."Policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself," the pontiff said in a speech at the Vatican ."The family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman ... is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society," added the 84-year-old pope.
 
We believe Pope has voiced the concern of all religions, not only Christianity. The humanity is suffering from direct or indirect destruction of family. Atheism and Marxism have laid the foundations of destruction of family. Marxism wanted to create communes where men and women will live together without marriage and children will be state or commonm property.Secularism which is a product of atheism and enlightenment value of naturalism ( that everything has happened naturally, there is no need of a Creator) has strengthened this desrtructive tendency. In these ideologies man is just like another animal. As other animals do not have family, so there is no need for family. They can have all types of relations.We know the result in the West and also East .This has to be reversed. The family has to be strengthened .Moral values have to be strengthened.Only religions can save humanity from all these evils.
 
 





__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] (unknown)



This is to inform you that, this morning, some losers hacked into my e-mail account to solicit money. These are the lowest of the low in our world. I hope no one has responded to the solicitor's e-mails. Yahoo has blocked access to my account immediately; even, I could not get into my account to send this mail to warn everyone. I know that it has caused concern among many close friends of mine; many of them have contacted me to inquire about my wellbeing. Anyway, this type of situation will probably come to everyone's life at some point, since we are forever embedded in the cyber-world. So, let's be prepared for it, and, reset password frequently.
 
I am deeply sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused to you all.
 
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] FW: Pope Says Liberal family values threaten humanity: Corrective Steps Are Needed



Mr. Hannan's prophet might have been a homosexual himself, why else his concept of heaven should have 28 young men along with 72 houries(whores)?

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:32 AM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

  • I have a copy of Engels' The Origin of the Family (1891 edition). I don't see where he has said what Mr. Hannan is saying! Did Engels say all this in later editions, or it is simply Mr. Hannan's intellectual dishonesty? It is a great book. The one I have has been published from Chicago. Engels' analysis is based on Morgan's (an American anthropologist!) Ancient Society a copy of which also I have. Morgan, Marx, and Engels were contemporary. Historical analysis of evolution of societies by Marx and Engels have been influenced by Morgan's research. So, I hope I have the right to doubt what our ex-Secretary of the Govt. of Bangladesh is saying.
  • In the light of Morgan's research findings Engels has simply analyzed the family structure in different societies (one of them being an American Indian tribe.) Religions, vested interest groups, rulers, etc. discriminated women against men. Both Morgan and he have seen a trend in a family structure in which husband and wife are bonded together by "love" (a word used by Engels). Power, earnings, etc. are absent in that state of bondage. Once this stage is attained, as Morgan and Engels said, we cannot predict what further developments the family structure will have. That's it. So it is really hard to believe Hannan's "made up" story.  
  • I asked an anti-communist lady (about 60 years old and a recent immigrant to America) from an East European country whether the communist govt. made the children common property of the state. She laughed and gave me a short answer, "No. I grew freely. My dad was a minister of a church." I don't think USSR even did that. Stalin's daughter was in America. Looks like we have heard another made up story from Hannan. Hannan's lies/quarter truths reminds me of a "tabij" vendor. It was in a small mufassil town during Ayub regime. He could make humor (that's what you need to attract public in a busy bazaar to sell fake stuff.) I as a kid enjoyed them forgetting that my mother had sent me to bazaar to buy an important item. That vendor was probably a member of Jamaat-e-Islam. He talked against family planning that Ayub Khan wanted to make popular. He used to say in the style of "waaj", "Population of India is growing rapidly. To beat India, produce more children. Don't adopt family planning." Some of us may have listened to similar taped "waaj" by Saayidi (a top Jamaat leader): example, "when there is a rain in Moscow, our communist brothers take shelter under the umbrellas."
  • There were periods when women had to stay home, cook, raise kids, and do all the household chores only. Economic necessity forced women to take employment outside. But irony is that they still had to do the household jobs including cooking and raising children. Even working almost round-the-clock it was impossible to take care of every thing. The poor families were the greatest victims of the new economic situation. Common schooling, common lodging, common baby sitting, common eating place, common house cleaning, etc. run by the govt. to help these needy families can be a good idea. This does not mean taking away of children by the govt. Only thing that needs to be remembered is that the state does not mold the kids with a certain ideology. The kids need to grow independently with the opportunity to achieve the highest potential.
  • Mr. Hannan has talked about Arab spring with the promise of Islamist revivalism in the respective countries. It was a historical inevitability. Excesses done by the dictators have opened the door to this revivalism. We have to welcome it as they are coming to power with people's mandate. Like intellectuals like Farhad Mazhar I will not say that people love to play in dirty places like swine. But I will say that it is a setback in the course of progress of history. It happens. India had BJP in power because of bad governance by the so called secular forces. One day Jamaat may get state power if the secular and democratic forces fail to live up to the aspirations of people. Anyway, Hannan is happy with the Arab spring and happy at seeing women taking part in the movement. Will those veiled women be really liberated under the new regimes? Will Hannan not hesitate to give too much liberty to them? Would he still advocate for shariah Law that discriminates against women? Have we ever heard him criticizing Taliban version of freedom of women? Would he criticize late Osama-bin-Laden for having four (or more?) wives?                   


From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:55 PM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] FW: Pope Says Liberal family values threaten humanity: Corrective Steps Are Needed

 
As far as I remember, Engels  a major founder of communism, advocated communism of both property and family.There will not be seperate families but all members of a commune will be members of the commune, they can have relations with any and all and children will be common property.Soviet Union tried it in the beginning but later abandoned it as impractical. Others may enlighten us.
 
You can read the book Tauhid ,Its Implications for Life and Society , chapter on family, by Dr Late Dr Ismail Razi Al Faruqi.
Secularism has taken people away from religion and thereby has taken them to so-called liberal family concept as mentioned by Pope even before.
 
Muslim women are strongly returning to Islam as seen in Arab Spring.
Shah Abdul Hannan
 

From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of subimal chakrabarty

Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:08 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: Pope Says Liberal family values threaten humanity: Corrective Steps Are Needed
 
 
I don't understand why Mr. Hannan is blaming atheism and Marxism for homosexual marriage and adoptions by couples! Are all the atheists and Marxists supporting and sponsoring these? Did (does) any communist country have any plan to make children common property of the state? Can Mr. hannan elaborate a little bit more on how secularism "has strengthened this destructive tendency?" I think without delving into the matter Mr. Hannan is for nothing putting all the blames on secularism for new family values. Any way, Mr. Hannan has forgot to mention that religions discriminate against women. Women are being liberated gradually because of the modern thoughts and enlightenment.   
 
From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
To: 'dahuk' <dahuk@yahoogroups.com>; khabor@yahoogroups.com ; mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com ; mahdiunite@yahoogroups.com; 'sahannan' <sahannan@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 7:04 PM
Subject: [mukto-mona] FW: Pope Says Liberal family values threaten humanity: Corrective Steps Are Needed
 
 
 

 

Pope Says Liberal family values threaten humanity: Corrective Steps Are Needed

 
 
Afp has reported from , Vatican City that Pope Benedict XVI yesterday warned that liberal family values were threatening the future of humanity, in a veiled reference to homosexual marriage and adoptions by gay couples."Policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself," the pontiff said in a speech at the Vatican ."The family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman ... is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society," added the 84-year-old pope.
 
We believe Pope has voiced the concern of all religions, not only Christianity. The humanity is suffering from direct or indirect destruction of family. Atheism and Marxism have laid the foundations of destruction of family. Marxism wanted to create communes where men and women will live together without marriage and children will be state or commonm property.Secularism which is a product of atheism and enlightenment value of naturalism ( that everything has happened naturally, there is no need of a Creator) has strengthened this desrtructive tendency. In these ideologies man is just like another animal. As other animals do not have family, so there is no need for family. They can have all types of relations.We know the result in the West and also East .This has to be reversed. The family has to be strengthened .Moral values have to be strengthened.Only religions can save humanity from all these evils.
 
 





__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন



I am sorry to say that you are so much obsessed with a "specific" thing that you see and read every thing selectively. Because of selective reading on your part, you have accused me of apologetic. I have given a half dozen motives, but you are sticking to a single motive: desire to go to paradize. This thought process is so irrational. None of your analyses and explanations goes beyond this narrow focus. This is so wrong when you really want to understand some thing very critical. I hope you will be able to come out of this well and help us see things from broad perspectives. Please be more scholastic.       

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 
My Dear Mr. Chakravarty

Pouring of bowl of beef on my plate occurred over a dozen times.  Friends were not always the offenders.  Last time it occurred when I was the chief guest in an occasion, and the host who did it came to know me only hours earlier and he did not seek my consent.  These men are of special breed, to get a hundred houries and gellman, they could kill their own parents if they were asked by their religious leaders.

Stop being apologetic on their behalf.  Even Mr. Q. A. Rahman, a devout believer in the Islamic scripture is not so.

- Kamal Das

2012/1/12 subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
 
"None of the examples given above involves any kind of hatred (rather their aims were enlightenement), although the victims (there was a typo and hence edited) may want go to court."---that is what I have already said. You are not saying any thing new. You gave one-sided examples. I brought diverse examples. I am not sure if that prompted you to say, "If you turn the table, you do the math about what could happen to you." In a forum like mukto-mona, we need to examine a case from all directions without being prejudiced. That way we can get an in-depth and big picture. That helps us in understanding human nature and societies with more authenticity. The examples you gave are risky. The risk is that a particular community may be identified as the only trouble makers. And you know that is not true. To make sure that our readers do not misunderstand you, I brought varieties of examples.
Let me analyze the case in which Kamal Das's muslim friend poured a bowl of beef curry on his plate. If it was a joke (looking at it innocently and simple-mindedly), it was obviously an uncultured and cruel joke. [New grooms sometimes face this kind of jokes from young women from bride's side.] In-depth analysis may show that it was not a joke at all. It could be a revenge shaped over several generations. The other reason may be that perpetrator might have got sadistic pleasure out of it. This joke definitely got strength from majority identity of Kamal Das's friend. I have mentioned all these motives in my first e-mail. I don't think it has anything to do about the prospect of going to heaven. I agree with Kamal Das that the chance that the reverse thing (pouring a bowl of tortoise curry by a hindu on the plate of a muslim friend) will happen is almost nil as consequences can be very fatal. Muslims in Bangladesh have been historically always respectful of the feelings of hindus. You will however always find exceptions.           

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:10 PM

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 
SC: "I am not sure to whom you are addressing your e-mail."
 
That was a general response, not directed to anyone.
 
SC: "A muslim husband makes his newly married wife eat pork. Are you sure it was a crime? A hindu professor makes his student eat beef. Is he committing a crime? 
 
I am not sure why you are asking me these questions. Since you want answers, I have to give you.
 
Two cases, you have cited above, are well-defined violation of liberty and religious rights. Therefore, they are "crimes." The key point is highlighted above for your attention. The victims, in both cases can seek justice, if they want to.
 
Even husband and wife ended up in court for forced sexual encounter. The law is clear on the forced imposition of one's will onto others.
 
Jiten


From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 
I am not sure to whom you are addressing your e-mail. If it is to me, I must say that you ahve not read my entire e-mail. I mentioned some possible reasons or motives why some one can some one else eat some "forbidden" food. You gave all the one-sided examples. I have added variety to it. A muslim husband makes his newly married wife eat pork. Are you sure it was a crime? A hindu professor makes his student eat beef. Is he committing a crime? 
Finally I have said that the incidence reported in Ittefaq involved a serious crime and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. Please read it again.   

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 

The question is not that some Hindus eat beef or some Muslims eat pork, it is about whether you should trick or force someone to eat something to he/she does not want to eat. If you eat forbidden fruit willingly, good for you. It's your buisiness. But, if Hindus are fed beef without their knowledge, it's a criminal act. Dr. K. Das has raised an interesting point. If you turn the table, you do the math about what could happen to you.
 
Jiten Roy

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 
I am used to taking both beef and pork.  The basic point is that if I poured a bowl of pork soup on the plate of any of my Muslim friend, I would probably need the security afforded to Salman Rushdie earlier.  By the way, during my stay in U. S. A., the only Hindu I met who did not eat beef came from a remote village.  I, for one, don't see any ban in Hindu scripture against eating beef; yet I demand better manners from my Muslim friends than force feeding people something they detest.

2012/1/8 subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
 
Taking revenge, making fun, feat of communalism, sense of majority, sense of superiority, etc. can be explaining factors. Many of them may not be communal acts at all. A professor (a hindu from West Bengal) invited his Ph.D student (a hindu from Bangladesh) for dinner and served him and his family beef. He even did not disclose that it was beef. Bangladeshi hindus are probably less open to "forbidden" foods than the WB hindus. The professor did not care. My atheist muslim friend made his newly married wife eat pork without letting her know that she was eating pork. For the last ten years or so, they are still happily married. In a social gathering when one hindu friend opined (probably jokingly) that onion and beef are equivalent and hence are forbidden, one doctor (orginally from Bangladesh) practcing in America said with strong conviction, "There is no difference between beef and mutton, although ethically it may be wrong to eat either meat." Beef eating hindus sometimes are found to encourage their religious or prejudiced hindu friends to eat beef by saying jokingly, "Come on, you will not lose your hinduism just by eating a burger!"
None of the examples given above involves any kind of hatred (rather their aims were enlightenement), although the the perpetrators may want go to court.  
But the news item published in the Ittefaq is exceptional. It was a grave crime and the criminals must be brought to justice. Motives were probably hatred, communalism, and sense of majority.       

Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 8:14 PM

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 
I have faced similar situations many times.  Devout Muslim friends poured a bowl of beef curry on my plate, their eyes glared like incandescent torches.  Muslims of such manners are indeed to be pitied.  I would blame their religious leaders for such manners.

2012/1/6 Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
 
I am trying to understand the psychology behind such acts. I have seen people who eat meat, but not fish. I have seen people who eat fish, but no meat. Why would someone trick you to eat something that you don't want to eat? What do they gain from these ats?  
 
I have so many personal experiences of such actions. My first encounter was right after my marriage. My wife just came to Dhaka. One of my very close friends invited us during the Eid. We arrived on time. Food was served. Right before eating, my wife inquired about the meat-curry. They told us that - it was beef. Unfortunately, they had nothing else, except 'Dal (lentil soup).' So, we had to contend ourselves with the Dal-Bhat.  Now, the question is - how could they be so sure that we will eat beef? What if we started eating and then inquired about the meat. I have no answers till today.
 
Next, I went to another Muslim friend's house in the USA during another Eid. My entire family was with me. There was a beef-curry on the table. This time, the difference was that - they told us what it was. The problem was - now, we had to decide if we would take it or not; it's an undue pressure, knowing that they were watching us as we were picking items from the table. I understand they like beef, but shouldn't you cook something that your guests might enjoy? I keep wondering.
 
Another incident occurred in a function at a Hindu temple here in the USA. Host ordered goat meat from a restaurant, owned by a Muslim. Instead of goat-curry, they served mixed beef and goat curry. Later on, they revealed that beef was served in that Hindu temple on such and such occasion. They were so proud of their deed that they could not contain the secrecy.
 
I have too many experiences like these. Therefore, I cannot brush these incidents off as some rare incidents. I think they are much too common.
 
If I invite a Muslim family at my house, I will never dream of keeping a pork or tortoise dish in the menu. Such act is a sin in my book. Is that so in Islam? If it is – how could so many people still do it?
 
 I tend to believe that – Dr. Kamal Das may be right. This is driven by the religious belief that certain acts bring regious credits. It may be a corollary belief to that of getting credits for converting a non-Muslim. As you know -  it is believed in that part of the world that - a Hindu can get converted to Islam simply by eating beef. Therefore, if you can feed beef to a Hindu somehow, you have cracked his Hindu faith. You should get some credit for that. Is this the logic behind the incentive for these acts?
 
People who think food is something that could change one's religious belief are the stupidest people on the face of the earth. It is quite sad how religion has destroyed normal thinking process of billions of highly educated/uneducated people. Religion has seized their normal thought processes; it's insanity. If they had the power to think normally, they could easily find out how stupid their reasoning is. I feel pity for these people.
 
Jiten Roy


From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

 
Many Muslims feel a thousand steps nearer to paradise when they can feed beef to their Hindu friends, though the ancient Hindu seers regularly ate it.

2012/1/5 Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
 
 

সনাতনধর্মাবলম্বীদেরগো-মাংস সরবরাহকারীদেরবিরুদ্ধেব্যবস্থা নিন

লেখক: ইত্তেফাক রিপোর্ট  |  বৃহস্পতি, ৫ জানুয়ারী ২০১২, ২২ পৌষ ১৪১৮
সিলেটের ডিসি ও এসপিকে হাইকোর্ট
সিলেটের একটি শিক্ষা প্রতিষ্ঠানের পুনর্মিলনী অনুষ্ঠানে খাদ্য হিসেবে সনাতন ধর্মাবলম্বীদের গরুর মাংস সরবরাহকারীদের বিরুদ্ধে ব্যবস্থা নিতে সেখানকার জেলা প্রশাসক, মেট্রোপলিটন পুলিশ কমিশনার, সদর থানার ভারপ্রাপ্ত কর্মকর্তাকে নির্দেশ দিয়েছে হাইকোর্ট। বিচারপতি এএইচএম শামসুদ্দিন চৌধুরী ও বিচারপতি জাহাঙ্গীর হোসেন সেলিমকে নিয়ে গঠিত হাইকোর্টের ডিভিশন বেঞ্চ গতকাল বুধবার এ নির্দেশ দেন। একই সঙ্গে ওই ঘটনায় নিজেদের ভূমিকা ব্যাখ্যা করতে অনুষ্ঠান উদযাপন কমিটির আহ্বায়ক ড. সায়েলা খাতুন, সদস্য সচিব নাজমা বেগম এবং সংশ্লিষ্ট শিক্ষা প্রতিষ্ঠানের প্রধানকে আগামী ১৬ জানুয়ারি আদালতে হাজির হওয়ার নির্দেশ দেয়া হয়েছে। সিলেট সিটি কর্পোরেশনের মেয়র, মেট্রোপলিটন পুলিশ কমিশনার, জেলা প্রশাসক ও সদর থানার ভারপ্রাপ্ত কর্মকর্তাকে একইদিন এ বিষয়ে একটি প্রতিবেদন দাখিল করতে বলা হয়েছে। হাইকোর্টের আদেশে বলা হয়, বাংলাদেশ একটি ধর্মনিরপেক্ষ দেশ। এ দেশের সংবিধানে সকল ধর্মাবলম্বীর সমান অধিকার নিশ্চিত করা হয়েছে। এখানে পুনর্মিলনীর মতো সার্বজনীন অনুষ্ঠানে গরুর মাংস খাওয়ানো হয়েছে। হিন্দু ধর্মাবলম্বীরা গরুর মাংস খান না। সেখানে এ ধরনের অনুষ্ঠানে মানুষকে বিভ্রান্ত করে গরুর মাংস খাওয়ানো মারাত্মক ধরনের অপরাধ। অনুষ্ঠানের আয়োজক ও খাবার পরিবেশনে দায়িত্ব পালনকারীরা এর দায় এড়াতে পারেন না।
দৈনিক মানবজমিন পত্রিকায় প্রকাশিত এক প্রতিবেদনে বলা হয়, গত ২৫ ডিসেম্বর সিলেটের অগ্রগামী বালিকা উচ্চ বিদ্যালয় ও কলেজের ১০৮ বছর পূর্তি অনুষ্ঠানে খাসি ও মুরগির কথা বলে সনাতন ধর্মাবলম্বীদের গরুর মাংস খাওয়ানোর ঘটনা ঘটে। এই প্রতিবেদনের ভিত্তিতে অমিত দাস গুপ্ত নামে এক আইনজীবী হাইকোর্টে রিট দায়ের করেন।
 
























__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___