Banner Advertiser

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim



There are two extreme attitudes---demonizing and glorifying--- that unfortunately dominate the discussions of religion and it's historical development. These emotional stances make us lose sight of the social and historical objectivity and our analysis becomes horribly biased. These attitudes make us choose and pick from the religious texts to justify our positions. Fear of God, trust in divine authoroty, ego, hatred, fobia, political beliefs, lack of scientific outlook, communalism, appeasement are some of the many factors that misguide a healthy debate on religion. Debate does not make any sense if we ignore the fact that religion is man made and it's preachers are humans who are products of their own time and space. This means that the preachers have human limitations and they are not infallible despite their wisdom to see the past, present, and future with reasonable clarity. We also have to admit that a religion is not equally fair to all segments of the population. Invariably every religion is biased against females. Caste ism in Hinduism is still a curse. I am not aware of any religion which has called for abolition of slavery. Religion mixed with power and politics can be very devastating. Religious wars in medieval Europe have claimed innumerable lives. We still see this in the Islamic world in the form of clashes between the Sunnis and the Shiaaites. It does not matter whether Abu Bakar died a natural death or was assassinated. The fact remains that he was a great caliph. In the initial period of Islamic history, the prophet and the caliphs played duel role-- as the chief administrator and also as the supreme religious authority. As Islam was expanding very fast, the position of the caliph that entailed both power and reverence was very lucrative and it was very natural that conspiracies were hatched around this position. 

From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim
 
I don't go with vague statements. I have given verifiable references. First of all, I did say SOME people were punished. First couple of tribes were given light punishment but that did not stop them from aiding attacking enemies. So when treason took place again, justice were delivered.

NO one denied anything but simply offered "CONTEXT" to the pointless "Cut and paste" text.

If you are a supporter of punishing "Razakars" for aiding an enemy, how the heck the same standard could not be administered 1400 years ago??

In fact, the criminals were given punishment using their standard (Jewish law), judge was picked by the tribe itself (We don't do anything close to that liberal even TODAY!!). What more you can expect from Muslims who suffered ended persecution for thirteen long years in Mecca and left their homeland seeking peace?

Are you trying to tell me, these persecuted people should not protect their families and the city they lived?

I have been looking at this issue from many angles but people of Medina were more liberal than any 21st century country you know think of (Unless they have laws agiainst death penalty). These people SINGED a treaty not to aid the attacking enemy but they did that.


Maybe imaginary cartoon characters are capable of doing more than that but for real people with real families, they were VERY fair to their treasonous tribes.

My two cents....

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 9:35 am
Subject: 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

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] বাচ্চু রাজাকার মামলার রায় ॥ ইতিহাসের অধিকার ফিরে পাওয়া - তিন , চার



বাচ্চু রাজাকার মামলার রায় ॥ ইতিহাসের অধিকার ফিরে পাওয়া
মুনতাসীর মামুন
॥ তিন ॥
এ রকম একটি দেশে, যে দেশে বাস্তব-অবাস্তবের সীমারেখা বলে কিছু নেই, সে দেশে মানবতা [যুদ্ধাপরাধ] বিরোধী অপরাধের বিচার হবে সে কথা কেউ ভাবেনি। অবশ্য, বলতে পারেন, যেখানে সত্য-মিথ্যার ধার ধারে না কেউ, সে রকম দেশেই হয়ত এটি সম্ভব। কিন্তু কেন যেন মনে হয়, যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের দল জামায়াতে ইসলামী ও খুনীদের সমর্থনকারী বিএনপি স্বপ্নেও ভাবেনি যে, এরকমটি হতে পারে বা হবে। একটি ঘটনার কথা উল্লেখ করি। 
আলবদর নিজামী একবার এক টিভি সাংবাদিককে আলোচনার জন্য বাসায় আসতে বলেছিলেন। তিনি গিয়েছিলেন। আলোচনার পর নিজামী তাকে খেয়ে যেতে বললেন। সাংবাদিক রাজি হলেন না। ঠা-া পানীয় অফার করলেন। তাও তিনি গ্রহণ করলেন না। নিজামী বললেন, আপনি কি আমাকে ঘৃণা করেন? দেখেন, আগামী ১৫ বছর পর আমরাইÑএই জামায়াতে ইসলামীই সব নিয়ন্ত্রণ করবে, বিএনপিও থাকবে না। সাংবাদিক যে কথা বলতে চেয়েছিলেন, কিন্তু বলতে পারেননি ভয়ে, তা' হলো, আলবদর আবার মানুষ হলো কবে? আর জামায়াত যখন সব নিয়ন্ত্রণ করবে তখন দেশত্যাগ করব।
নিজামীর কথা কিছুটা হলেও ফলেছে। জামায়াত ক্ষমতায় এসেছিল। বিএনপি আছে; এখন তারা জামায়াতের কমান্ড কাউন্সিলের অধীন। এদের বাইরে যাওয়ার ক্ষমতা বিএনপির কারও, এমনকী খালেদা জিয়ারও নেই। কিন্তু, সবকিছু নিয়ন্ত্রণের বদলে জামায়াত নেতারা জেলে থাকবেন সেটি বোধহয় তাদের কল্পনায়ও ছিল না। জামায়াত-বিএনপি কি ভেবেছিল, যুদ্ধাপরাধ বিচার করার কথা? দেশটাকে তো তারা হাফ পাকিস্তান বানিয়ে ফেলেছে। সেখানে আবার কে এই বিচার করবে? ট্রাইব্যুনাল গঠিত হওয়ার পর বিষয়টি তারা সিরিয়াসলি নেয়নি। বিচার শুরু হওয়ার পরও ভেবেছে, আওয়ামী লীগ পাঁচ বছর ধরে এ বিচার চালাবে [ট্রাইব্যুনাল সরকারের কথামতো চলে না এ ধারণা কারও নেই] নির্বাচনে সুবিধা পাওয়ার জন্য। কিন্তু, নির্বাচনে তো তারা আসবে না। সুতরাং এসব ট্রাইব্যুনাল তখন থাকবে না। বেগম জিয়া তো নাকি ঘোষণা করেছেন ক্ষমতায় গেলে এসব বিচার-টিচার হবে না। কিন্তু, বিচার প্রক্রিয়া শেষ হওয়ার এক মাসের মধ্যে রায় হয়ে যাবে এটি তারা স্বপ্নেও ভাবেনি। যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের দু'টি দলের নেতাদের বক্তৃতায় বিষয়টি স্পষ্ট। নতুন কোন বক্তব্য তারা দেননি। আশঙ্কা করা হয়েছিল, গাড়ি ভাংচুর, অগ্নিসংযোগ, বোমা বিস্ফোরণ অনেক কিছু হতে পারে। কিছুই হয়নি।
অন্যদিকে এই রায় মুক্তিযুদ্ধের পক্ষের মানুষদের উজ্জীবিত করেছে। মিছিল হয়েছে, কোলাকুলি, মিষ্টি খাওয়া হয়েছে। ৪০ বছরের সংগ্রামে হঠাৎ রায় এক ধরনের অবসাদও এনে দিয়েছে অনেকের মনে। আনন্দাশ্রু অনেকের চোখে। মৃত্যুর আগে খুনীদের বিচার দেখে যাওয়া যাবে এটি অনেকেই ভাবেননি। সবাই আশা করছেন, দ্রুত আরও কিছু রায় হবে; তারপর দ্বিতীয় পর্যায় অর্থাৎ আপীলে যাবে এবং তারপর তৃতীয় পর্যায় অর্থাৎ রায় কার্যকর হবে।
এ রকম ভাবনাÑ চিন্তার কারণ কী? কারণ আর কিছুই না, দায়মুক্তি। বাংলাদেশে দায়বদ্ধতার বদলে দায়হীনতা বা দায়মুক্তির বিষয়টি শুরু হয়েছে জেনারেল জিয়ার আমলে। শুধু শুরু হয় তিনি সেটা ভালভাবে প্রতিষ্ঠা করলেন। জামায়াতীদের মুক্তি দিয়ে, রাজনীতি করতে দিয়ে, ক্ষমতায় বসিয়ে। একই কাজ করেছেন তার শিষ্য এরশাদ ও তার পতœী খালেদা জিয়া। শুধু তাই নয়, সপরিবারে বঙ্গবন্ধু ও চার নেতাকে যারা খুন করেছিল তাদের সবাইকে রাষ্ট্রীয় পদ দিয়ে বিদেশে পাঠিয়ে দেয়া হয়। পৃথিবীর কোন দেশে এরকম অভাবনীয় ও জঘন্য কা- কেউ ঘটায়নি। সভ্য দেশে কেউ ভাবতে পারে না যে, হত্যাকারীর বিচার হবে না। শুধু তাই নয়, মারাত্মক যে কা-টি করা হয়েছিল তা'হলো, সংসদে আইন করে খুনীদের দায়মুক্তি দেয়া হয়েছিল।
এর অর্থ সামরিক শাসকরা এ বার্তা দিতে চেয়েছেন জামায়াত ও বঙ্গবন্ধুর খুনীদের পুনর্বাসন করে যে, খুন করা ধর্ষণ করা লুট করা অগ্নিসংযোগ করা, এথনিক ক্লিনজিংÑ কোন কিছুই অপরাধ নয়। জিয়া তো এ পথে এসেছিলেন, এরশাদও। আর স্বামীর দল বিএনপির কা-ারী খালেদা জিয়া তো এর বাইরে যেতে পারেন না। সমাজে এভাবে ভায়োলেন্স ছড়িয়ে দিয়েছিল এই দায়হীনতা। রাজনৈতিক দলগুলো প্রতিপক্ষকে ঘায়েল করে রাজনীতিতে যাওয়ার জন্য ওই খুনীদের ব্যবহার শুরু করে, রাজনৈতিক আশ্রয় দেয়। এর উদাহরণ জিয়াউর রহমানের আমল থেকে কিছুদিন পূর্ব পর্যন্ত ক্ষমতা দখলের জন্য সেনাবাহিনীতে বিভিন্ন ক্যু, জামায়াত-বিএনপি আমলে শেখ হাসিনাকে হত্যার জন্য প্রকাশ্যে গ্রেনেড হামলা, জঙ্গীদের প্রশ্রয় দান। বাংলাদেশকে খুনীদের অভয়ারণ্যে পরিণত করেছিলেন জেনারেল জিয়া। 
বিচারহীনতা থেকে বিচারমুখিতার দিকে প্রথম পদক্ষেপ নেন শেখ হাসিনা ১৯৯৬ সালে। ইনডেমনিটি বাতিল করা হয়, বঙ্গবন্ধুর খুনীদের বিচার হয় এবং তাদের বিরুদ্ধে দেয়া রায় কার্যকর হয়। এবারও, আগেই বলেছি, এই রকমটি হবে কেউ ভাবেনি। কিন্তু হয়েছে। বিচারপতি ওবায়দুল হাসান, মুজিবুর রহমান মিঞা ও শাহীনুর ইসলাম প্রদত্ত রায়ে বিচারমুখিনতা ও দায়হীনতা বন্ধের প্রয়াস পেয়েছেন। তাঁরা জানিয়েছেন, এ সংস্কৃতি চলতে পারে না; কারণ, বিচার না হওয়া দেশের রাজনৈতিক এবং পুরো জাতির মনস্তত্ত্বে গভীর ক্ষতের সৃষ্টি করেছিল। এই দায়হীনতা সৃষ্টি করেছিল রাজনৈতিক অস্থিতিশীলতার এবং ধ্বংস করেছিল শাসনতন্ত্র।
"[ঞযব ঢ়বৎঢ়বঃৎধঃড়ৎং ড়ভ ঃযব পৎরসবং পড়ঁষফ হড়ঃ নব নৎড়ঁমযঃ ঃড় নড়ড়শ ধহফ ঃযরং ষবভঃ ধ ফববঢ় ড়িঁহফ ড়হ ঃযব পড়ঁহঃৎুদং ঢ়ড়ষরঃরপধষ চংুপযব ধহফ ঃযব যিড়ষব হধঃরড়হ. ঞযব রসঢ়ঁহরঃু ঃযবু বহলড়ুবফ যবষফ নধপশ ঢ়ড়ষরঃরপধষ ংঃধনরষরঃু ংধি ঃযব ধংপবহফ ড়ভ সরষরঃধহপু ধহফ ফবংঃৎড়ুবফ ঃযব হধঃরড়হং পড়হংঃরঃঁঃরড়হ.]"
আমরা অনেকবার বলেছি, জামায়াতী সংস্কৃতির কারণেই দেশে মৌলবাদ জঙ্গীবাদের সৃষ্টি এবং বিকাশ। কারণ, জঙ্গীদের অধিকাংশ জামায়াতের সঙ্গে সংশ্লিষ্ট ও জামায়াতী দর্শনে বিশ্বাসী এবং তারা দেখেছিল গণহত্যা, গণধর্ষণ, গণঅগ্নিসংযোগ, গণলুটপাটে কোন শাস্তিই হয় না, বরং ক্ষমতায় যাওয়া যায়। এই প্রত্যয় গত প্রায় চার দশক বাংলাদেশের মানুষের মনোজগতে গেঁথে দেয়া হয়েছে। কী ভয়ঙ্কর ব্যাপার! একটি জাতিকে ধ্বংস করার জন্য এটি যথেষ্ট। বিএনপি-জামায়াত তো বাঙালীদের প্রতিনিধিত্ব করতে চায়নি। তারা চেয়েছে এবং চাইছে পাকিস্তানবাদের প্রতিনিধিত্ব করতে। বাঙালী জাতীয়তাবাদের রেশ খানিকটা থাকলেও এটি সম্ভব হবে না। সেজন্য তারা বাঙালী প্রত্যয় ধ্বংসের জন্য এ প্রত্যয় চেয়েছে। সংবিধানও বিনষ্ট করতে চেয়েছে; কারণ, ১৯৭২ সালের সংবিধান বাঙালী জাতি ও রাষ্ট্রের মৌলিকত্ব ধারণ করে। যে কারণে জিয়াউর রহমান প্রথমে এসেই ১৯৭২ সালের সংবিধানের মৌলিকত্ব বিনষ্ট করলেন। মুক্তিযুদ্ধ বদলে করলেন স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ।
এ পরিপ্রেক্ষিতেই বিচারকরা বিশেষভাবে দায়হীনতার উল্লেখ করেছেন। এই রায়/বিচার সমাজে বিচারহীনতা থেকে বিচারমুখিনতা সৃষ্টি করবে। এই রায় বাঙালীর মৌলিকত্ব ঘোষণা করে ইতিহাসে আমাদের অধিকার ফিরিয়ে দিয়েছে। বাংলাদেশী শব্দ সংবিধানে প্রোথিত করে জিয়াউর রহমান ইতিহাসে আমাদের অধিকার কেড়ে নিয়েছিলেন। 
এই বিচারহীনতার কী ভাবে প্রভাবিত করে মনস্তত্ত্ব? ২০০১-০৬ সালে বিএনপি-জামায়াত যখন ক্ষমতায় তখন ১৯৭১ সালের মতো বিরোধী দলের ওপর নিপীড়ন নেমে এসেছিল; জেল, হত্যা, ধর্ষণ হাতিয়ার হিসেবে ব্যবহৃত হয়েছিল এবং এথনিক ক্লিনজিং শুরু হয়েছিল। আমি জানি না কেন আমরা ইতিহাসের সূত্রগুলো ভুলে যাই। মাহফুজ আনাম খুব সুন্দরভাবে একটি বাক্যে লিখেছেনÑ বঙ্গবন্ধু-উত্তরকালে আমাদের সংগ্রামের সাংস্কৃতিক দিকটি কখনও আমাদের মনস্তত্ত্বে¡ আসেনি।
["ঞযব পঁষঃঁৎধষ ধংঢ়বপঃ ড়ভ ড়ঁৎ ংঃৎঁমমষব হবাবৎ ড়পপঁঢ়রবফ ধহু ঃযরহশরহম ড়ভ ঃযব ঢ়ড়ংঃ-ইধহমধনধহফযঁ ৎবমরসবং."]

॥ চার ॥

এই রায়ের একটি পরোক্ষ দিক বিবেচনায় আনা বাঞ্ছনীয়। ১৯৭১ সালের বিভিন্ন দিক যারা অস্বীকার করেছে তারা ইতিহাসকে অস্বীকার করছে। সবচেয়ে বড় কথা, যারা অপরাধী তাদের যারা কারাগার থেকে মুক্ত করে ক্ষমতায় বসায় তারাও তো অপরাধী। অর্থাৎ জিয়া যখন জামায়াতকে অবমুক্ত করেন, আলবদর রাজাকারদের ক্ষমতায় বসান তখন তো তিনি এক ধরনের অপরাধই করেন। এরশাদও একই কাজ করে অপরাধ করেন। খালেদা জিয়া অপরাধী ব্যক্তিকে নয়, অপরাধী দলটিকেই ক্ষমতায় আনেন সেটি তো আরও অপরাধ। বিচারহীনতা বা দায়হীনতার বিষয়টিকে আরও এগিয়ে নেয়া যায়। বঙ্গবন্ধুকে যারা খুন করল সেই আত্মস্বীকৃত খুনীদের জিয়া-এরশাদ-খালেদা রাষ্ট্রীয় পদে আসীন করে বিদেশ পাঠালেন, সংসদ সদস্য করলেন। যেই তাজউদ্দিন আহমদের নেতৃত্বে মুক্তিযুদ্ধ হলো তার হত্যাকারীদেরও জিয়া এরশাদ খালেদা সমর্থন করলেন। বেগম জিয়া ১৫ আগস্ট তাঁর জন্মদিন ঘোষণা করলেন। মনে হলো, তিনি বঙ্গবন্ধুর রক্তে স্নান করে তৃপ্ত হলেন। দেখুন, দায়হীনতা মানুষকে কোথায় নিয়ে যায় 
স্বাধীনতার চার বছরের মাথায় এই যে কা-গুলো হলো তাতে জাতি লজ্জিত হলো না। এদেখে একবার লিখেছিলাম, এক অনিচ্ছুক জাতিকে বঙ্গবন্ধু স্বাধীনতা দিয়েছিলেন। বঙ্গবন্ধুর অনুসারীরা জিয়ার অনুসারী হলেন, বামপন্থীরা অনুগামী হলেন। খন্দকার মাহবুব হোসেন ১৯৭২ সালে জামায়াতের দালালদের বিরুদ্ধে বঙ্গবন্ধুর নির্দেশে আদালতে মামলা লড়েছেন। এখন খালেদা জিয়ার নির্দেশে তিনি মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধীদের পক্ষে লড়ছেন। দায়হীনতা এভাবে নির্লজ্জতার সৃষ্টি করে। আমরা যে দীর্ঘদিন বিচারহীনতা ও দায়হীনতাকে সমর্থন করেছি সেজন্য আমাদের লজ্জা হওয়া উচিত।
মাহফুজ আনাম আরও বিস্তারিতভাবে লিখেছেন, এই নির্লজ্জতা হচ্ছে সমষ্টিগত লজ্জা বা 'কালেকটিভ' শেম। তিনি লিখেছেন, এভাবে পরিকল্পিতভাবে মানুষের মন থেকে বঙ্গবন্ধু ও ঐ আমলের নেতৃত্বকে তারা মুছে ফেলতে চেয়েছে। এমন একটা সময় ছিল যখন আমরা পাকিস্তানী সেনাবাহিনী না বলে হানাদার বাহিনী বলেছি। যে বিষয়টি আগে উল্লেখ করেছি, রায়েও বলা হয়েছে, সেটি মাহফুজও বলছেন, আমাদের সংগ্রামের গুরুত্ব ও বিস্তৃতি সচেতনভাবে গুরুত্বহীন করা হয়েছে। এর কারণটি তারা উল্লেখ করেননি; কিন্তু বুঝতে অসুবিধা হয় না যে, সংগ্রামের গুরুত্ব দিলে বঙ্গবন্ধু ইতিহাসের নায়ক হয়ে ওঠেন। একজন মেজরের সেখানে স্থান কোথায়?
এই রায় পরোক্ষভাবে ঘোষণা করেছেÑ অপরাধীকে অবমুক্ত করে, প্রশ্রয় দিয়ে ঐ তিনজন অপরাধ করেছেন। আর কিছু না হোক, নৈতিক মানদ-ে তো তারা দায়ী বা অপরাধী। এই রায়ের এটিই গুরুত্বপূর্ণ দিক।
(চলবে)
Also Read:
রবিবার, ২৭ জানুয়ারী ২০১৩, ১৪ মাঘ ১৪১৯
বাচ্চু রাজাকার মামলার রায় ॥ ইতিহাসের অধিকার ফিরে পাওয়া - ক, দুই. - মুনতাসীর মামুন


রবিবার, ২৭ জানুয়ারী ২০১৩, ১৪ মাঘ ১৪১



25 Jan 2013   02:46:05 PM   Friday BdST


চট্টগ্রামে শাহরিয়ার কবির

`বাচ্চু রাজাকারের রায় ইতিহাসে দৃষ্টান্ত হয়ে থাকবে`


স্টাফ করেসপন্ডেন্ট
বাংলানিউজটোয়েন্টিফোর.কম

ছবি: সোহেল সরওয়ার/বাংলানিউজটোয়েন্টিফোর.কম

http://www.banglanews24.com/detailsnews.php?nssl=1a961e4e8b4b5d9f678f0a7ac102fdb3&nttl=25012013168694



যুদ্ধাপরাধের বিচার:  ট্রাইব্যুনাল গঠনের ইতিকথা 












যুদ্ধাপরাধের বিচার : 
বাচ্চু রাজাকারের বিরুদ্ধে রায় কার্যকর চায় শহীদ পরিবার

সমকাল ডেস্ক



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

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim



It is not Abul I learned Islam from.  It is Tabari that I checked the reference with.  I learned Islam from the Sirat-Un-Nabi by Ibn Ishaque, Gillaume, Montgomery Watt, Karen Armstrong; also from Norman Daniel, the Cambridge History of Islam to name a few references among countless.  On the contrary, you have learned it from a few kathmullahs  who have learned nothing about anything.  It is pointless to argue about your faith.  You should stick to it.  May be in the afterlife, you would be granted a heaven complete with houries and gellmans.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:33 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 

After witnessing what two Abuls did to our country, why did you decide to learn about Islam from a foreign Abul (Who left Islam)?

At least you should know, the guy who left Islam will not be unbiased for sure. Make sense? ;-)


Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 9:35 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim

 
"the FIRST CALIPH had a natural death"- so I believed too till Mr. Abul Kashem, an apostate columnist from BD living in Australia, asked me to read Tabari.

Learn the stuff properly before you display the depth of your wisdom.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:26 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Those who try to make others believe that Islam had been a creed of peace, does not care to know its history at all.  With three of its four rightly guided Caliphs being murdered by swords and spears, the first being poisoned;

>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't know something, it is no problem BUT you posted the same DISTORTED information on Islamic history and I have taken a lot of time (With credible/verifiable sources) tried to correct those "Mistakes" and here we go again.


To "Your kind" Islam will be the first to blame no matter what happens or what is the context of that event. Without going to details again, just note the FIRST CALIPH had a natural death (
Not poisoned!).


Our own Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did not have a natural death and he is still popular to millions of people in this country and many parts of the world. Therefore, simple "Unnatural death" by itself maybe more of the symbol of an open society than any type of narrative on Islam. For that matter, Mahatma Gadhi, John F Kennedy, India Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi ALSO had unnatural death and they are followed and loved by billions of people.


Thank You, Shah Deeldar!  Any physician is essentially a quack, no matter how many degrees he/she might have.  In ancient Rome, they were ill treated.  Patients were kept in a quarantine by the street side and people depended more on the passers by than on the physicians.  Even today, the advice they dispense is not worth much towards the cure of the disease they treat.  But that is another matter altogether

 >>>>>>>> Yeah, you got it. The whole world is plain "Mad" and ONLY you have it together
;-)
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

 
Thank You, Shah Deeldar!  Any physician is essentially a quack, no matter how many degrees he/she might have.  In ancient Rome, they were ill treated.  Patients were kept in a quarantine by the street side and people depended more on the passers by than on the physicians.  Even today, the advice they dispense is not worth much towards the cure of the disease they treat.  But that is another matter altogetherThose who try to make others believe that Islam had been a creed of peace, does not care to know its history at all.  With three of its four rightly guided Caliphs being murdered by swords and spears, the first being poisoned; even the corpse of the Prophet not found; it is indeed a violent creed from the beginning till today.  If some one writes, Muslims as killed more Muslims than non-Muslims that contradicts Prophet Muhammad's advice, doesn't it?  Any deeply religious person like myself deserves to analyze all religions, their contents and histories.  An Islamist, however, is not expected to follow the line of free thinking, even if he participates in 'muktomona'.
 
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
I must say, in a forum like this, degrees and gold medals are not much worth. It is basically making a point against another point. It would be far better for us to keep our degrees home for our friends, families and work places. If you are not making good points, your degrees would be rather your burden. Nobody really cares how hard you worked for those degrees. We have grown beyond that point.  

From member Das's postings, I know that he could be pretty rough and tough and that is alright with me. We had some arguments in the past and it was OK. If you do not like his comments, please make a counter point to show that he is wrong. He can take few punches, I suppose?
With respect and regards,
-SD  

 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

From: MOHAMMAD KHAN <mak_285@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:11 PM

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim

 
Mr. Kamal Das, you should have some decency when you write in a group. Could you tell us why you think this person who is going to Columbia University is an idiot? What is your qualification also?
M. Khan. M.D., F.R.C.S.
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013, 18:33
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim
 
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

__,_._,___