Banner Advertiser

Friday, January 25, 2013

[mukto-mona] যুদ্ধাপরাধের বিচার : বাচ্চু রাজাকারের বিরুদ্ধে রায় কার্যকর চায় শহীদ পরিবার:



যুদ্ধাপরাধের বিচার : 
বাচ্চু রাজাকারের বিরুদ্ধে রায় কার্যকর চায় শহীদ পরিবার

সমকাল ডেস্ক
একাত্তরে মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধের দায়ে ফাঁসির দণ্ডপ্রাপ্ত পলাতক জামায়াতের সাবেক রুকন আবুল কালাম আযাদ ওরফে বাচ্চু রাজাকারের বিরুদ্ধে রায়ে খুশি তার এলাকা ফরিদপুর জেলার মানুষ। এ নরঘাতক পশুকে গ্রেফতার করে দ্রুত ফাঁসি কার্যকরের দাবি শহীদ পরিবারের সদস্যদের। নিজস্ব প্রতিবেদক, ফরিদপুর এবং বোয়ালমারী ও নগরকান্দা প্রতিনিধির পাঠানো খবর :
যে কয়টি অপরাধে বাচ্চু রাজাকারের ফাঁসির আদেশ হয়েছে, তার মধ্যে একটি হলো সালথা উপজেলার ফুলবাড়িয়া গ্রামের চিত্তরঞ্জন দাসকে হত্যা। রায়ের খবর শুনে চিত্তরঞ্জন দাসের স্ত্রী জ্যোৎস্না রানী দাস বলেন, 'আমার স্বামীর হত্যাকারীর ফাঁসি দেখে যেতে পারলে আমি মরেও শান্তি পাব।'
চিত্তরঞ্জন দাসের ছেলে গোপাল চন্দ্র দাস বলেন, 'আবুল কালাম আযাদ নিজ হাতে গুলি করে আমার বাবাকে হত্যা করেছে। আমি এতিম হয়ে জন্ম নিয়েছি।' ৪১ বছর পর বাবার হত্যার বিচার পেয়ে আনন্দের সঙ্গে অশ্রুও ঝরছিল গোপালের চোখ থেকে। তিনি বলেন, 'সরকারের কাছে দাবি, পলাতক আবুল কালাম আযাদকে ধরে এনে তার রায় কার্যকর করা হোক। এতে আমার বাবার আত্মা শান্তি পাবে।'
১৯৭১ সালের ৩ জুন আযাদের নেতৃত্বে ১০-১২ রাজাকার সদস্য সংখ্যালঘু এলাকায় লুটপাট চালিয়ে চিত্তরঞ্জন দাসকে গুলি চালিয়ে হত্যা করে।
একাত্তরে আযাদের হাতে নিহত সালথা উপজেলার পুরুরা গ্রামের মাধবচন্দ্র বিশ্বাসের ছেলে ভক্তরঞ্জন বিশ্বাস বলেন, 'প্রত্যাশা অনুযায়ী রায় পেয়েছি। এখন সরকারের কাছে অবিলম্বে রায় বাস্তবায়নের দাবি জানাচ্ছি।'
১৯৭১ সালের ১৬ মে আযাদ ১০-১২ রাজাকার সদস্যকে নিয়ে পুরুরা নামপাড়া গ্রামে যান এবং মাধবচন্দ্র বিশ্বাসকে গুলি চালিয়ে হত্যা করেন।
ফরিদপুরের একজন সাংবাদিক হিসেবে দৈনিক জনকণ্ঠে স্বাধীনতার ৩০ বছর পর ২০০১ সালে বাচ্চু রাজাকারকে জনসমক্ষে নিয়ে আসেন প্রবীর সিকদার। শহীদ মুক্তিযোদ্ধা পরিবারের ছেলে প্রবীর '৭১-এ ছিলেন মাত্র ৯ বছরের শিশু। বাচ্চু রাজাকার ও তার নেতৃত্বাধীন বাহিনীর হাতেই তিনি হারিয়েছেন দাদু, বাবা ও কাকাদের। রায় ঘোষণার পর সাহসী সাংবাদিক প্রবীর সিকদার বলেন, এই রাজাকারের যে অপরাধ, তাতে একবার নয়, তিনশ'বার ফাঁসি হওয়া উচিত।
২০০১ সালের মার্চে রাজাকারের স্বরূপ উন্মোচন করে যখন ধারাবাহিক প্রতিবেদন করছিলেন, তখনই প্রবীর সিকদারের ওপর নেমে আসে বাচ্চু রাজাকারের খৰ। দিনটির কথা স্মরণ করে প্রবীর 
সিকদার বলেন, 'সেদিন হাইওয়েতে একটি ডাকাতির খবর কভার করে মোটরবাইকে করে ফরিদপুর শহরে ফিরছিলাম। তখন হঠাৎই পথের মাঝে আমার ওপর প্রথম বোমা হামলা, এরপর এলোপাতাড়ি কোপানো চলতে থাকে। সবশেষে গুলি করে রেখে যায়। ওরা আমার মৃত্যু নিশ্চিত ভেবে আমাকে ফেলে যায়।'
মারা যাননি প্রবীর সিকদার। তবে একটি পা হারিয়ে এখন ক্র্যাচে ভর করে হাঁটেন। স্বাভাবিক কাজ করতে পারেন না একটি হাত দিয়ে। আর সারা শরীরে এখনও বয়ে বেড়াচ্ছেন স্পিল্গন্টারের যন্ত্রণা।
বাচ্চু রাজাকার ফরিদপুরের বোয়ালমারী উপজেলার কলারন গ্রামের সুধাংশ কুমার রায়কে গুলি করে হত্যা করেন। গুলিতে সুধাংশু রায়ের ছেলে মনিমোহন রায়ের একটি পা নষ্ট হয়ে যায়। তিনি বর্তমানে ভারতে বসবাস করছেন। ট্রাইব্যুনালের আইনজীবীরা ভারতে গিয়ে তার সাক্ষ্যগ্রহণ করেন।
রায়ের পর সুধাংশ কুমারের দৌহিত্র গৌতম কুমার বলেন, 'এ রকম একটি রায়ের জন্য আমরা ৪০ বছর অপেক্ষা করেছি। ৪০ বছর পর সুষ্ঠু বিচার পেয়ে আমরা খুশি।' সরকারকে এ জন্য ধন্যবাদ জানিয়ে দ্রুত রায় কার্যকরের দাবি জানান তিনি। হাসামদিয়া গ্রামের ডা. সুশীল পোদ্দার বলেন, 'আমরা অপেক্ষায় ছিলাম, একদিন না একদিন রাজাকারদের বিচার এ দেশের মাটিতে হবে। ৪০ বছর পর হলেও আমাদের সে আশা পূরণ হয়েছে। আশা করি, সব রাজাকারের বিচার হবে।' ডা. সুশীল পোদ্দারের বাবা সুরেশ পোদ্দারসহ পাঁচজন বাচ্চু রাজাকারের হাতে নিহত হন। শ্রীনগর গ্রামের শ্যাম সাহা বাচ্চু রাজাকার ও তার দোসরদের হাতে নিহত হন। শ্যাম সাহার ছেলে সত্য রঞ্জন সাহা বলেন, বাচ্চু রাজাকার ও তার দোসররা এলাকার সাধারণ মানুষের ওপর অমানবিক জুলুম-নির্যাতন ও হত্যাযজ্ঞ চালিয়েছে। তাকেসহ তার দোসরদেরও শাস্তি হতে হবে।
বাচ্চু রাজাকারের নিজ গ্রাম নগরকান্দা উপজেলার খারদিয়ার নির্যাতিত সুভাষ দত্ত বলেন, 'রায় বাস্তবায়ন হলে আমরা খুশি হবো।'
মুক্তিযোদ্ধা সংসদের সালথা উপজেলার ডেপুটি কমান্ডার ও বাচ্চু রাজাকারের সহপাঠী শাহাদাত হোসেন বলেন, ৪১ বছর ধরে যে বেদনা-কলঙ্ক বয়ে বেড়াচ্ছিলাম, অবশেষে তার ফাঁসির রায় হওয়ায় এবার কিছুটা শান্তি পাচ্ছি। এ নরপশুকে ফাঁসির দড়িতে ঝুলতে দেখে যেতে পারলে মারা গেলেও আমার আর কোনো দুঃখ নেই।'
Also Read:


শীর্ষ যুদ্ধাপরাধী: আরও যাদের বিচারের অপেক্ষা
সমকাল প্রতিবেদক




শুক্রবার, ২৫ জানুয়ারী ২০১৩, ১২ মাঘ ১৪১৯
যুদ্ধাপরাধীর দ্রুত বিচার চাই ॥ মানবপ্রাচীরে লাখো কণ্ঠে আওয়াজ

শুক্রবার, ২৫ জানুয়ারী ২০১৩, ১২ মাঘ ১৪১











__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] A visa or a life/ Rafia Zakaria



Did Rizana really kill Saudi baby? Or, it was a Saudi liar's lie killed poor Srilankan Muslim teenager girl? You judge!
-SD


http://dawn.com/2013/01/25/a-visa-or-a-life/

Executions in Riyadh are usually carried out at 9:00 a.m. in the morning with a shining steel sword hovering over the white shrouded figure about to receive it. Rizana Nafeek's execution is reported to have taken place a little later than usual, at 11:40 a.m. Saudi time. Perhaps there were other punishments to be carried out first, perhaps the executioner who always takes his position to the left of the condemned, right leg forward and left leg back, was delayed in some way. Perhaps there was not enough of a crowd, or too much of one. The dusty details of the mid-morning of January 9, 2013 when Rizana Nafeek's thin, dark neck met the executioner's sword are never likely to be known.
Rizana Nafeek was a poor Muslim girl from a small village in Eastern Sri Lanka. Like hundreds of thousands of sweaty, hungry others eager for a visa and a job with a rich family in Saudi Arabia, she came to work in the country so she could change with dirhams the cycle of poverty that enslaved her family. The visa-clutching, future-fearing Pakistani men at Riyadh or Jeddah Airport could tell you the same story; of middle men paid and houses put up for collateral, of sisters dowries and parents operations Rizana Nafeek, like so many of the men and women who come to Saudi Arabia to do the jobs Saudis will not do, came ready to do anything to get and then keep her visa. To fit the age requirements she lied on her passport, growing in the minutes it took to fill the form, six years older than she was. Blessed with a Saudi work visa, Rizana Nafeek, the village girl became Rizana Nafeek, the Saudi maid in the household of Naif Jiziyan Khalaf Al Qutaibi, spending her days, cooking, cleaning and caring for the family's children
Based on the murky facts only those who have lied to live would understand, Rizana Nafeek was just 17 on that fated afternoon of May 22, 2005 when catastrophe struck. It was 12:30 p.m. and she was bottle feeding the baby boy in her care while the mother of the child was away. Suddenly she noticed milk oozing from the mouth and nose of the infant. A terrified Rizana tried to soothe the baby stroking its back and throat and neck but within minutes the infant's eyes closed. Later doctor's reports would say that the infant had probably already passed away from a possible internal blockage in the stomach when Rizana noticed the streaming milk.
The infant's life would not be the only one lost. At around 1:30 p.m. when Rizana's employer, returned she began beating Rizana with shoes and slippers accusing the teenage maid of having killed the baby and bloodying her during the beating. For three days, Rizana endured the harangues of her distraught employers and on May 25, 2005 she was arrested for having murdered the baby. At the police station in Dawadmi, she was beaten with a belt so that she would confess to having killed the baby. After several hours of being struck, she confessed to the killing. She was not allowed to see any attorneys or anyone from the Sri Lankan Consulate until she confessed. The confession was in Tamil and the man who recorded it barely knew the language and so wrote it down in Arabic. No postmortem was carried out on the deceased child to determine the cause of death.
In the years of captivity following her arrest, and the near immediate death sentence that was imposed on her, Rizana Nafeek would state again and again that her confession had been obtained under the impact of a severe beating, but the cries of a hapless maid and a motley of human rights groups were not enough to change the mind of the Saudi officials and, as is the case with all condemned to execution, the maid was enshrouded, led outside into the sun and killed with a single swipe of the executioner's sword.
On January 16 2013, just a week after Rizana's neck met the sword, Pakistani Arshad Mohammad was also beheaded by Saudi authorities in the Eastern province of Khubar. He had been convicted for smuggling drugs but as with Rizana Nafik's case few details are available regarding the evidence or the conviction. Like Sri Lanka, Pakistan exports labor to Saudi Arabia and in our job hungry, utilitarian calculus that prioritises visas over justice, Pakistan almost never raises the thorny issue of the injustices poured on its hordes of iqama clutching migrant workers. The logic is simple, a worker with a visa is worth more than one with a gripe, and a few murdered maids or menservants are a small price to pay for solid Saudi jobs. Everyone else seems to agree and because of this, not much can be expected for the three Pakistanis currently awaiting execution in Saudi Arabia or the hundreds of others frightened and forgotten inside Saudi prisons. In the hardscrabble calculations of labor export, the worth of a Saudi visa is more than that of a migrant worker life.
 

rafia_zakaria_80Rafia Zakaria is a columnist for DAWN. She is a writer and PhD candidate in Political Philosophy whose work and views have been featured in the New York Times,  Dissent the Progressive, Guernica, and on Al Jazeera English, the BBC, and National Public Radio. She is the author of Silence in Karachi, forthcoming from Beacon Press.
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS


__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] Fwd: Harvard University places at its entrance verse from Quran as best example of justice



QR: "They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper. 4:90"

From the quote above, which you have provided, I see much more harsh punishment for a disbeliever than  what the verse in the Harvard Campus says. Harvard Campus verse is much more benign. Did Allah change His mind in the above verse? This was the point in my previous comments.

But, I think you are right - Harvard comment is only directed to Muslims, and it's harmless; so, just leave it alone people or spend a fortune to put up another display of your own religious verse in the campus also. I am sure - Harvard will be delighted to have them all. 

Thanks you.

Jiten Roy

 


--- On Fri, 1/25/13, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: Harvard University places at its entrance verse from Quran as best example of justice
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 25, 2013, 10:41 AM

 

Below, a few verses from the Qur'an, which clearly call for the murder of the deserters of Islam.



Strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers; smite the unbelievers at their necks and cut off their fingers...8:12
 
Seize and slay the renegades (i.e., apostates) wherever you find them (death for the apostates as per Baydawi; ref. Leaving Islam, p. 17, as per the translator of Noble Qur'an kill those who reject Islam after accepting it)...4:89
 
If the enemies violate their oaths (i.e., if they apostatize or do not accept Islam) and taunt the faith then fight them (i.e., death for the apostates as per Maudoodi; ref. Leaving Islam, p. 18)...9:12



>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here few verses were taken out of context (Via cut and paste) and tried to "IMPOSE" an unintended meaning on it by an article (Which was compiled by Mukto-mona members (A Complete guide to Allah) and not being again copied and posted (With the same distortion). 


Let me explain here.



Let us take the very first example given (As if it was about someone who left Islam).


Below, a few verses from the Qur'an, which clearly call for the murder of the deserters of Islam.

HOWEVER this verse was actually revealed when Muslims of Medina were attacked by Meccans (around 313 Muslims against 1000 well armed Meccans). Some were afraid and several verses were revealed to reassure Muslims about Allah (SWT)'s mercy on His followers. Because such an odd situation would make anyone nerves.


CLICK here to READ the whole Chapter and background if you wish.


Most importantly, verses 8:12 has NOTHING to do with someone who lslam. We see that in the following verse (Addressed to scared Muslims about their fate against large number of Enemy)



O you who have believed, when you meet those who disbelieve advancing [for battle], do not turn to them your backs [in flight].

[ Source: Al Qur'an 8:15]



Similar "LESS THAN HONEST" methods were used (More life abused and followed by cut and paste army) in following verses member Roy posted here. I don't think he even read it carefully and ever tried to verify this information.


I welcome questions that concerns YOU. At least spend some time verifying what has been served infront of you. I have given two sources anyone can verify.

In this context, I like to share an answer to pretty popular questions from seekers of knowledge (about violence and Islam). Feel free to read the article to get an better understanding.


Does Quran Encourage Violence?



Seize and slay the renegades (i.e., apostates) wherever you find them (death for the apostates as per Baydawi; ref. Leaving Islam, p. 17, as per the translator of Noble Qur'an kill those who reject Islam after accepting it)...4:89

>>>>>>>>>>> This one was about hypocrites and AGAIN another meaning was "INSERTED" i.e., apostates)


I'll simply share verses around it
and it will help you understand the level of distortion.....




 
4:88
Sahih International
What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back [into error and disbelief] for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray - never will you find for him a way [of guidance].
4:89
Sahih International
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
4:90
Sahih International
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.


=====================================================================

Just read verses around quotes shared by member Roy and it will be EASY to see how meaning was distorted by some "Angry atheists".


Shalom!




-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 6:47 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: Harvard University places at its entrance verse from Quran as best example of justice

 
JR:
- how to deal with people who disagree with your religious views; some of those prescriptions are very harsh to those who do not conform to the principles of Quran. 


QR:
>>>>>>>>> I am always open to learn new things. Kindly give me some specific examples and I'll explore it with you. :-)

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

Mr. Rahman,

Please verify some of these verses below: 


Below, a few verses from the Qur'an, which clearly call for the murder of the deserters of Islam.
 
Strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers; smite the unbelievers at their necks and cut off their fingers...8:12
 
Seize and slay the renegades (i.e., apostates) wherever you find them (death for the apostates as per Baydawi; ref. Leaving Islam, p. 17, as per the translator of Noble Qur'an kill those who reject Islam after accepting it)...4:89
 
If the enemies violate their oaths (i.e., if they apostatize or do not accept Islam) and taunt the faith then fight them (i.e., death for the apostates as per Maudoodi; ref. Leaving Islam, p. 18)...9:12
 
Covenant with Allah must be honoured; deserters (apostates) cannot escape death or being killed (death for the apostates)...33:15-16
 
Allah curses the hypocrites, diseased hearts; they are not able to stay as Muhammad's neighbour; wherever they are found they will be seized and slain mercilessly (i.e., kill the apostates and the hypocrites) ...33:60-61
 
There is a terrible penalty for those who dispute about Allah after accepting Islam (apostates)...42:16
 
And here are a few ahadith on how apostasy against Islam was treated during Muhammad's time.
 
Muhammad ordered to kill the apostates; if somebody (Muslim) discards his religion, kill him')...(Sahih Bukhari, 4.52.260 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
 
Narrated Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
______________________________

My goal is not to target Quran particularly; my understanding is that - all religious scriptures (Quran, Bible, Torah, Gita, etc.) are full of such violent instructions to punish anyone who does not conform to edicts of those scriptures. If you differ, let me know why. 

Jiten Roy



--- On
Wed, 1/23/13, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:






-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 23, 2013 6:22 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: Harvard University places at its entrance verse from Quran as best example of justice

 
"Those who have irrational hate about Islam, they would "Invent" issues if necessary. The beautiful verse from the Qur'an is an example of "Universality" of the message Qur'an delivered to us."

Why do I hear the same accusation from you whenever someone criticizes anything about Islam? You know that - everybody do not follow Islam or care about Islam. That does not mean they necessarily hate Islam. 

Anyway, let's come to the point about the display of this verse. 

We have to remember - first, there is nothing wrong with the quote, per se. Second, it did not just appear there by the grace of God; somebody had to pay heftily to put up this quote on the Harvard Campus.
  
Why is there controversy over such an innocuous quote? Now, what are 'justice' and 'injustice,' and who determines them – government/Quran/Gita/Bible/Torah? So you see, one person's justice could be other person's injustice. Since we cannot decide on them, we are bound to have disagreement, even among family members.  Now what we do with the disagreement? Actually, this verse says what to do when you have disagreement - you stick to whatever you believe in, and leave others alone; Allah will deal with them. I like everything up to here. But, things get complicated after that.
 
I wish there were no other verses on this subject in the Quran, but – it is not so, unfortunately. Quran has many other verses (prescriptions) also as to - how to deal with people who disagree with your religious views; some of those prescriptions are very harsh to those who do not conform to the principles of Quran. If someone choose to follow one of those harsher prescriptions to deal with non-conformers, for whatever reason,  could you blame him/her?
 
Therefore, if you just run with this one verse, you will have misguided notion about the reality. Also, we still have blasphemy law to shun dissenting voices, and many other discriminatory practices to deal with non-believers.
 
Therefore, even though this verse says leave those non-believers alone, it may not be effective among believers, who know other verses also.  In other words, it will just convey misinformation to non-believers. It's like one of those Middle Eastern broadcasts - sending one message to English-speaking audiences and a different message to non-English-speaking audiences.
 
I believe - complain is not about this particular verse at all, complain is about the impression it creates. They are afraid – it will convey misinformation. Can you blame them as Islam-haters?
 
There is always one more thing in all religious scriptures to confuse people. This is because - scriptures are products of the most innocent/vulnerable generations, with no scientific/technological organizational background. We need to read them with proper perspectives.

Thanks.

Jiten Roy




--- On Tue, 1/22/13, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: [mukto-mona] Fwd: Harvard University places at its entrance verse from Quran as best example of justice
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2013, 8:50 AM

 
Those who have irrational hate about Islam, they would "Invent" issues if necessary. The beautiful verse from the Qur'an is an example of "Universality" of the message Qur'an delivered to us.

Pam Geller came "Unglued" with such a beautiful passage, I wanted to ask her if English was her first or second language!!

Folks, read the passage for yourself and ask yourself where it says anything against Jews, Christians or Hindus? Rather it has been a command to Muslims to establish "Justice" even if requires speaking up against our own families.

Which ended with a warning (For Muslims) NOT to distort justice and staying firm to just actions.



Pamela Geller says, "But the dhimmi lemmings at the Harvard Law School don't know that, or don't care. And so they perpetrate this misleading whitewash of Islamic "justice".

>>>>>>>> Could not believe my own eyes that, such a beautiful verse can arouse such an ugly response from hate-mongers.

When we discuss "Islamic justice", we have to go by what the books says about it. Any attempt to distortion by Muslims would be punished by our Maker.

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Sent: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 5:38 pm
Subject: Harvard University places at its entrance verse from Quran as best example of justice

Harvard University places at its entrance verse from Quran as best example of justice




At the main entrance to Harvard Law School, a text from a verse in the Koran Chapter "The Women" was placed, presenting it as one of the greatest examples of justice in history. This step of the most authoritative US University is met by strong dissatisfaction of Islamophobes.

A Harvard student, a native of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah Jumma, photographed the text at the entrance and posted it on his Twitter page. This was reported by a Saudi paper Ajel in Arabic.

The text of the verse reads:

"O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort justice or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do."

(The Holy Quran, Chapter 4. "The Women", verse 135).


Upon learning that the verse from the Koran was posted at Harvard as an example of a higher justice, American Islamophobes expressed their outrage and attacked the Koran and Sharia.

On Atlas Shrugs, a website of the initiator of numerous anti-Muslim campaigns in America, Pamela Geller, "evidence" was posted against Islam, consisting of Koranic texts taken out of context and their interpretation by Islamic scholars. The Islamophobe announced that the Sharia is contrary to "human values".

"The Constitution is the great shining moment of Western civilization, based on individual rights, the premise of which is the opposite of Islamic law", claims Geller.She calls the Sharia "a comprehensive legal system governing every aspect of human life, and asserts authority over non-Muslims".

Claiming that "discrimination against non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians, is part and parcel of the Koran's concept of justice", Pamela Geller says, "But the dhimmi lemmings at the Harvard Law School don't know that, or don't care. And so they perpetrate this misleading whitewash of Islamic "justice".
Pamela Geller is a self-proclaimed human rights activist and director of the center "Stop Islamization of America".

The Harvard University was founded in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1636, and is the oldest and most prestigious university in the United States.

http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2013/01/16/17265.shtml


__._,_.___


****************************************************
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] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim



From an Islamic point of view, the information is distorted indeed.  Try to view from an unbiased point, Mr. Rahman.  I hope that it is still possible on your part.  You may turn a blind eye towards it, but others may look for revenge till you repent.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:47 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 

From the annihilation of Jewish tribes of Medina and Fadak, to decimation of the Persians after the Sassanian dynasty collapsed from inside following the war of succession after the death of Amir Khosroe, primitive Islam is full of blood baths

>>>>>>>>>>>> One more example of circulating DISTORTED information. We had this discussion before and I have given a lot of data to show that, two Jewish tribes in Medina were given a light punishment ( deportation instead of death penalty) after they committed TREASON against city of Media and violated an oath they took along with rest of the city.

The third tribe (Bani Quraiza) were given punishment when they (The Jewish tribe) was given opportunity to pick their own judge (Just imagine if Jamaat-e-Islami was given "The CHOICE" to pick their own judge in current trial regarding activities during 1971) and the tribe picked a "Friendly judge" but the punishment for treason was death back then and it is still in the USA (In 21st century).

It is also noteworthy that, the penalty was given according to JEWISH LAW NOT Sharia law. Therefore, minorities in Medina had the opportunity to be tried under their own laws (OT, Biblical Jewish law) and without understanding this part, readers will be mislead (As intended by member DAS!).



Just putting out blame without context is akin to promoting "FALSE" information.


 Since we had this discussion before, I copied that post and weblink to it for readers who did not have the chance to read it before.

Shalom!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/58629



 

=================================================================================================

This is a good example when a promoter of "Secular" country is happy when "Sharia" can be used (Abused!) to promote his "Political ideology". Jammat-e-islami has been accused to similar thing with their politics. 

I think every unbiased person knows role of Jammat during 71. There is no question about it!! 

How we tackle the situation will define our values. 


ALSO, do understand the tribe of Banu Qurayza was NOT punished for simply helping the enemy BUT they also had a peace treaty which was drafted by various tribes of Medina (Also known as Yathrib). The treaty did gave freedom to all non-Muslim tribes to practice their faith. However they were not permitted to aid an attacking enemy (Like most civilized country of 21st century). 

After the war was over, prophet Muhammad (PBUH) gave the chance to explain their action in an "Open court".On top of that, he allowed them to pick their own judge and the tribe of bani Qurayza picked a judge (
Saa’d bin Muadh) from a "Friendly tribe". However the evidence against them was so strong, the judge gave them punishment for treason. What is MORE important is that, these Jews were punished as per their religious book (Old testament).  Let me share a little more from an article with more background information....


They had committed breach of the treaty right at the most critical moment of the war joined hands with the invaders and endangered the entire population of Medina. They could not stand the severity of the siege for more than two or three weeks. At last they surrendered themselves to the Holy Prophet on the condition that they would accept whatever decision Saa’d bin Muadh the chief of the medinite Aus tribe would give. They had accepted Saa’d as their judge because in the pre-Islamic days the Aus and the Quraizah had friendly alliance and they hoped that in view of the past ties he would help them quit Medina as had happened in the case of the Bani Qainuqa and the Bani an-adir before.
 
The people of the Aus themselves wished that Saa’d treated their previous allies leniently. But Saa’d had just experienced and seen how the two Jewish tribes who had been allowed to leave Medina previously had instigated the other tribes living around Medina and summoned the united front of ten to twelve thousand men against the Muslims. He was also aware how treacherously this last Jewish tribe had behaved right on the occasion when the city was under attack from outside and threatened the safety of the whole of its population.
 
Saa’d applied to them the Jewish Law of the Old Testament, not as strictly as the case warranted. According to the Jewish Standard, then, the Banu Qurayzah deserved total extermination…of men, women and children (see Deut. Ch.xx:10-18 ). They were living in the territory of medina, treacherously broke the treaty, collaborated with the enemy to exterminate the Muslims from the face of the earth.
.....
I see some people get too happy when they can "Use" or "Abuse" Islam to fulfill their own wishes BUT Islam has example of being fair to enemy as well. They have been warned and other tribes were given much milder punishment for treason and in light of safety for population of Medina, this punishment was given. 

My observation tells me most people of Bangladesh are not against fair judgement against any criminals. If someone committed crime and took part in murders, rape, loot etc, they should be punished. That goes for any criminal during 71 and years after 71. Murderers are simply murderers. 

Therefore, member Aslam kindly understand that, the tribe of Bani Quraiza was brought into trial for violation of the "Peace treaty" they signed AND the punishment given to them was according to their religious book. Since Islam allows victims more right than what "Jewish law" or most secular laws offer. 

So I have nothing to add to what our honorable PM said. Only she knows if she was serious about importing Sharia law in Bangladesh or it was a joke. But the "Monkey dance" by secular enthusiasts (In TV talk shows, cyber forums and regular lives) was a little confusing to me (I thought they did not want any implementation of Sharia in Bangladesh!). 

But the example (Of the Jewish tribe in Medina) has NO ties with our current situation. Kindly leave "Islamic history" to people who spent some time learning about it. It would be better that way for the whole nation. 

I support justice against all criminals. It does not matter if we are discussing crime during 71 or after. 

Shalom!









-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 5:40 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim

 
Assorted credible historians have written about the violent imposition of Islam on other cultures.  From the annihilation of Jewish tribes of Medina and Fadak, to decimation of the Persians after the Sassanian dynasty collapsed from inside following the war of succession after the death of Amir Khosroe, primitive Islam is full of blood baths.  This was followed by the brutal conquest of India, taking advantage on the dispute between Raj-put princes.  Seven centuries of slaughter, slave trade and other forms of misrule reduced India from rich to rags.  Now that Islam has lost its sting, it keeps biting its own tail.  Different groups slaughter each other.  The King of Saudi Arabia considers Iran a foe, and Israel a friend, for example.

The figure 270 million may be a little exaggerated.  Will Durant took this figure to be 80 million in the Sultan period alone.  If one adds another 80 million for the Mughal period which lasted about as long, the figure hovers around 200 million.  The dead cued to be burned in hell ostensibly to supply power in heaven.


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

The author seems to have disagreement over 270 million figure, killed in the Jihad. Is it the biggest issue? There was a time in the history of mankind, when one Empire would attack another and kill thousands of innocent people. I thought we are out of that era. 

Author also said the following:

"First, more Muslims died fighting each other than died in battles against non-Muslim dynasties."

That is a plausible argument. We see similar infightings in Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria everyday. My problem is - even this explanation could feed on to the Islamophobia. It's not a positive image of Muslims.

This article is not written to break Islamophobia. Only way to break it is through examples.  

Jiten 


--- On Mon, 1/21/13, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, January 21, 2013, 7:33 PM


 
This article is written by an idiot and propagated by another.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:48 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Dear members,

This is a good article to read. We spend so much time about history and Islam, it will be helpful to get a different perspective.


Shalom!


----

 
 
Haroon Moghul
Haroon Moghul is a Fellow at New America Foundation and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is an author and a graduate student at Columbia University.

Haroon Moghul

The myth of the murderous Muslim


Islamophobia promotes a "racialised view of Islam" - the actions of the few represent the "intentions" of the whole.
 
The West has invented weapons of mass destruction and "used them in ways no other parts of the world have" [AP]
Muslims are subversive jihadists. The Middle East is perpetually unstable. "Islam has bloody borders." If you've already made up your mind, you'll find a way to twist the facts to support your conclusion. And if the facts don't do the job, you can always hire new ones.

In the last year, American anti-Muslim hate groups have increased threefold. As playwright Wajahat Ali and others have found, the farther we move away from the September 11 terrorist attacks, the worse discrimination, prejudice and violence against Muslims become.

There's a simple enough reason for this: Islamophobia has become an industry. In the absence of alternative narratives, which can make sense of Muslim extremism, place it into context and guide American domestic and foreign policy, we are stuck with the voices we have - too often, these have been unqualified and uninformed.

It will take us a long time to get past the damage done by years of well-funded Islamophobes, who have dominated the media landscape (finally answering, incidentally, why it is that "Muslims don't do more to condemn terrorism" - nobody was listening). But the resistance to bigotry has already begun and has already scored a number of successes.

There is only so long, after all, you can lie to people.

The boy who cried Islamist
Islamophobia promotes a racialised view of Islam, viewing Arabs and Middle Easterners and Muslims generally as one interchangeable, subversive, homogenous mass; the actions of the few represent the intentions and aspirations of the whole. Thus we were led to believe there could be a plausible connection between bin Laden and Saddam. The resulting cost in American lives, treasure and credibility, is hard to quantify. This is Islamophobia's fruit: poisonous policies.

For reasons of strategic shortsightedness alone, Islamophobia would be discredited soon enough. But there's another reason: Islamophobia doesn't correspond to reality. The more likely an American is to know a Muslim, the more likely she is to have a positive view of Islam. Exposure undermines prejudice. That is, meeting real Muslims pushes aside the media narrative that is so pernicious and harmful. Why? Because much of what Islamophobia peddles is hyperbolic, fanciful, or meaningless.

Let's see how Islamophobia does its damage. The value extends beyond anti-Muslim bigotry, by the way. The same type of "reasoning" is employed by all bigotries - radical Muslim voices, who require a conflict between a homogenous West and an ideally homogenous Islam, make the same types of arguments, often down to the disturbing details. But then it shouldn't be any surprise that extremisms are broadly similar, or that they need to see opposites in the world, for their own identities to take root and thrive.

A lie told often enough feels true
Consider this interview from The New York Times, in which a prominent anti-Muslim voice makes the following remark:
Why isn't it a shrine dedicated to the victims of 9/11 or the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations and enslavements?
The woman behind these words, who I have no interest in naming (I don't want to give her any more attention than she already has), used to be a regular on Fox News, but has lost even that perch. Her extremism was too extreme. (Indeed, one of the best ways to fight Islamophobia is to give the bigots a microphone and let them keep talking. Their disturbing rhetoric will soon unsettle the overwhelming majority of people, who recoil from such extremism.)
But let's spend a moment to reflect on this allegation; namely, that "270 million" are victims of a homogenous jihadi juggernaut. It is certainly an amazingly precise claim. It is often frequently repeated - Islamophobia resembles nothing if not an echo chamber of incorrectness. In the months since, I've encountered many anti-Muslim voices repeat or inflate this number. Most recently, I've been challenged to explain the "300 million" killed by "jihad".
Even if we stick with the lower number, I can tell you that this number was probably pulled out of thin air. (Even if it wasn't, as I will show, it doesn't matter.) But for the sake of argument, let's take this claim seriously. Namely, that "Muslims" killed somewhere between two or three hundred million. Can that be possible? Where does this number come from? Does it reveal a uniquely and dangerously recurrent Islamic aptitude for mass violence? In short, no, out of nowhere, and no.
1,000 years of jihad
First, I think, it'd make sense to choose a time period. We're told there were 1,000 years of jihad, although to be fair, elsewhere the same person described millions of years of jihad, but this is a thought exercise. I imagine she means the period from roughly 600 to 1600 AD, which covers the time when Muslim states were generally not (as was subsequently true) on the receiving end of colonial conquest.
When Islam emerged in western Arabia, around 610 AD, the total population of the world was likely between 300 and 400 million. Fast forward to right past our period. The United Nations Census Report suggests that the world's total population in the year 1800 was 1 billion; since then, of course, it has shot up to some seven billion.
At that point, the world's largest Muslim population, which would be located in South Asia, was almost entirely under British rule. (In 1947, the population of the Indian subcontinent was under 350 million.) We are being asked to believe that jihadis killed, by the year 1600, more people than lived in South Asia in the year 1600. Keep in mind that India is one of the most densely populated parts of the planet and has long been a centre of world culture and civilisation.
How did Muslims kill so many people?
India, or properly most of northern India, was under Muslim rule from 1200 to 1800. By the Islamophobe's logic, millions of these Indians should have been slaughtered. But by whom? Muslims were never more than a minority and Islam was never imposed by force. The proof for this is in the geography - the capitals of Muslim India rotated between cities like Delhi and Agra, but conversion proceeded most widely on the fringes of these empires, in what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is like saying the Roman Empire imposed Christianity and Christian populations were found farthest from the centre of imperial power.
Further, under Muslim rule, India became increasingly wealthy. (The same happened, by the way, in Muslim Spain, as Arab rule brought with it an agricultural revolution and an urbanising boom.) How was India becoming increasingly wealthy while its Muslim rulers were slaughtering Indians left, right and centre? How were they able to cause so much damage, for so long, without being overthrown? Muslims never enjoyed the kind of decisive advantage in military technology the West enjoyed after 1800. And the organisation of Muslim India gives the lie to the entire edifice of eternal jihadism.
 
Dutch photographer was held by "Jihadis"
on Turkey-Syria border
The capital of the world
We often look to the Ottomans as the world's most powerful pre-modern Muslim dynasty. But the Mughals, rulers of much of South Asia, ruled over far more people and were far wealthier - compare Istanbul's monuments to the Taj Mahal and you'll see what I mean. There is however one thing both empires had in common: both ruled over majority non-Muslim populations.
Under the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Mahal, some 30 percent of this Muslim dynasty's nobility were not Muslim, a proportion that had risen to 50 percent in the reign of his son Aurangzeb (1658-1707). By nobility, I mean those individuals given land and status based on their ability to muster troops to defend and expand the realm. If Islam was perpetual jihadism, why would so many non-Muslims join in - and be allowed to join in?

If Muslims were savages bent on perpetual terror, by what moronic logic would they arm their enemies, teach them to fight and incorporate them into their armies? What would we make of the fact that the greatest threat to late 17th century Mughal rule was the remarkable rebellion of a Hindu king named Shivaji, who was finally captured and defeated by the Mughals' senior most general, whose name was Jai Singh - he, too, was not a Muslim.
Somewhere jihadis are killing everyone they come across, more or less, but still Muslim dynasties remain in power, their wealth increases, the urbanisation of their population increases and they leave behind magnificent public and private structures, which suggests they had quite a bit of free time. When the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed at the end of World War I, its capital, then called Constantinople, was over 50 percent non-Muslim. This is not to suggest the Ottomans were liberal democrats. But it also suggests they were remarkably tolerant for their time. Probably no other city in Europe was so diverse.
And we're not even talking about most of the planet.
Muslims aren't everywhere
Many of the territories conquered, ruled or dominated by Muslims, such as Central Asia, North Africa and Arabia were comparatively empty. Muslim dynasties never touched the Americas, Australia or East Asia; the last of these undoubtedly held a significant percentage of the world's population throughout the last 1,000 years plus.
So Muslims, who ruled over vast desert spaces and many sparsely populated areas of the world, still killed something of the equivalent of one-quarter of the world's population in 1800. When the first Mughal emperor Babur conquered north India - from another Muslim dynasty, I might add - his army is estimated to number around 10,000; his opponent's army is estimated at several times than that.
Is it conceivable that Muslim empires, such as the Umayyads, Ottomans and Mughals, who ruled over majority non-Muslim populations, could have contributed to the killing of huge percentages of the world's population while staying in power for centuries? How would they, as minorities, have been capable of sustained carnage for decades at a time? When did they get the time to build huge public works projects, establish towns, rebuild cities, fund wells, hospitals, mosques, pools and fountains?
What technological advantage did they have that made them so superior to their enemies that they could sustain such a bloody and vicious record - for 1,000 years? The Mongols exploded out into the world and caused horrific damage, but they managed that for only a few centuries and left nothing of the kind of legacy the great Muslim empires did. Indeed, the Mongols ended up adopting the religion of the peoples they conquered, whereas the reverse happened early in the Muslim period.
A most post-modern warfare
And thus we are left with an implausible and absurd suggestion that jihad killed 270 million people. But even with all this, still three more points need to be stressed, because in recognising their significance, we recognise the ultimate absurdity of the Islamophobic worldview.
First, more Muslims died fighting each other than died in battles against non-Muslim dynasties. Armies were often mixed too, which drives bigots off the wall; when the Ottomans were defeated at Vienna in 1683, they were finished off by a charge of Polish Muslim cavalry, allied with their enemies. Where do these casualties fit in? Should we arbitrarily decide that "intra-Muslim jihad" killed 50 percent of the total number? Why not, considering most of Islamophobia's made up? How were Muslims who so often fought each other also able to fight everyone else?

Unless of course it's not about Islam versus non-Islam.
"Islamophobes link events that take place across the planet and hundreds of centuries apart and want us to take it seriously."
Second, this isn't real history. It's dumping "facts" on the unawares, hoping that the sheer flood of information covers up the lack of an explanatory framework. Not only does the Islamophobe play loose and fast with very different eras, places and peoples, but she ties events together without attempting to explain why. If jihad is really the most murderous ideology ever and it is equal to Islam, then why would so many people become Muslim? What motivated their violence? What sustained it? And how come most Muslims live peaceable lives?

Bigots make up history because actual history undermines them.
Third, let's say for the sake of argument Muslims killed 300 million people over a 1,000 year span. That doesn't mean anything. One could just as easily construct a counter-narrative that works like Islamophobia does: arbitrarily, ignorantly and entirely unself-consciously. I mean, we'd link disparate events based on the religious (or cultural) identity of the culprit.
We could construct a narrative of Western perfidy in response.
According to Charles Mann's 1491, which explores the pre-Columbian Americas, nearly 100 million perished during the European "Age of Discovery", making that the most violent contact between peoples in human history. Nothing in Islamic history remotely compares. With the typical sloppiness of the Islamophobe, we could note how Western ideologies like Communism and Nazism led conservatively to the deaths of another 120 million people; we could note the brutal colonial exploitation of Africa and Asia, in which millions more perished and then breathlessly announce, "Five Hundred Years of Western Civilisation Kills Hundreds of Millions!"
We could toss in the fact that the West has invented weapons of mass destruction and used them in ways no other parts of the world have. (Chemical weapons in World War I; aerial bombing was invented by the Italians against Libyan civilians; and, of course, only America has used nuclear weapons, and twice, both times against civilian targets.) But this would be stupid, because it assumes that people in different times and places are the same, responsible for each other's actions and should only be judged by the dark chapters of their history.
Osama bin Laden portrayed the history of Islam and the West as one long narrative of confrontation, as do many intemperate and extremist voices. He chose to ignore all the countervailing evidence and ignored the differences between times and places, peoples and their leaders. He downplayed and dismissed the achievements of Western culture and civilisation, of which there are so many I'm hard-pressed to know where even to begin. Penicillin? Goethe? The modern museum?

Islamophobes play a similar game, linking events that take place across the planet and hundreds of centuries apart, and they want us to take this seriously. And so you get numbers like "270 million" or "300 million". And these are brought up talismanically, as if they constitute overwhelming proof. The Islamophobe is completely and congenitally incapable of reflexivity. They cannot, in other words, look in the mirror; their mind has been made up, and what history is marshalled is not to engage in discussion but to preclude it.
The jihad on accuracy

There is this last little problem.

The Muslim proportion of the world's population has accelerated dramatically in the past centuries and continues to do so today; during our 600-1600 AD window, there were far fewer Muslims in the world, proportionally speaking. Which means we have to figure out what everyone else was up to.

What about the people killed by other peoples - or, the biggest killer of all back then - disease and its most vulnerable victims, infants and the young? Where do we put the Crusades, the Aztecs and the Incans, the Eastern Roman Empire, the Mongols (good heavens), Slavs and Byzantines, the Chinese, Korean and Japanese?
Add them all together, and more people were probably killed than ever lived, which is about as accurate as you can expect this kind of nonsense to be.
Haroon Moghul is a Fellow at New America Foundation and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is an author and a graduate student at Columbia University.
Follow him on Twitter: @hsmoghul
2858
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.





__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___