Banner Advertiser

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')



  >> I am sure you did. That's why my inference about you was, " your understanding of Islam is very primitive---",


>>>>>>>>>> It will be more useful, if you leave the petty personal attacks and get to YOUR POINT (If you have one).

Make your point and we can share our views (That is the idea of this forum/blog).

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')

 
"I have been fortunate to spend time with many scholars of Islam (Both Muslims and non-Muslims)--"
 >> I am sure you did. That's why my inference about you was, " your understanding of Islam is very primitive---", and I advised you to learn Islam from the earliest Islamic sources to know  their "hypocrisy and biasses".  
Volume VI-IX of 'History Al-Tabari' covers the time of Prophet Muhammad. If you are too lazy for that then try to spend some time to 'blogs' where untold story of Islam  are often discussed and verify their references from the earliest Islamic sources. 
Learn by yourself, don't rely any one! 


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:11 AM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Mr. Rahman,
Let me correct you, "I have no blog and I am not the writer of the article of the link I provided". If you have any questions about those article, please make your "comment"  directly in the comment section of those articles. 

>>>>>>>> will do.

At the same time, the arguments made in those blogs and links provided are without logic but shows a visible discomfort and ignorance of Islam.

I only tried to point those out in my last post.

I have been fortunate to spend time with many scholars of Islam (Both Muslims and non-Muslims). I am aware of differences but I also knows fundamentally Islam is sound.

I agree that, subject is vast but if you study the life of the last prophet (PBUH), you will see Islam was very liberating and compassionate. prophet (PBUH) only punished people who fought against Muslim umma and forgave everyone who wanted to harm him personally. Which says a lot about this man and how Islam was established.

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 1:10 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')

 
Mr. Rahman,
Let me correct you, "I have no blog and I am not the writer of the article of the link I provided". If you have any questions about those article, please make your "comment"  directly in the comment section of those articles.  

Mr. Rahman, I have the chance to read many of your comments about Islam. It appears to me that your understanding of Islam is very primitive for the fact that the comment you make is very often argued by a stereotype sets of "words (that you mentioned)" in every mosques around the globe by al kinds of Clergies. If you really believe that "religion" is an essential part of your life, please try to learn it from the EARLIEST POSSIBLE SOURCES before it become contaminated by thousands of dedicated hands who tried to shape "Islam" according to their own way. Few of those earliest sources are:

A) The Life of Muhammad — A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's (704-768 CE) Sirat Rasul Allah – A. GUILLAUME, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1955
B) The History of Al-Tabari (838-923 CE) – "Tarikh al-rasul wa'l –muluk", Translated and annoted by W. Montogomery Watt and M.V. McDonald (University of Edinburg), State University of New Yok press 1987.
C) Ketab al-Maghazi- by  Al-Waqidi (748-822 CE), Ed Marseden Jones, London 1966.

Obviously the subject is very vast and beyond the scope of discussion in this forum. You will be surprised knowing the "differences" what is said in those text and what we hear from our Clergies. 
 


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:23 AM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
member Abul,

I read your blogs and links and I am not sure which parts of Islam you have problem with?

When a group of people establish a state, they have to bring down laws, punishments and processes. This is true for any country anywhere in the world.

In our beloved Bangladesh, we saw a lot of violence in post liberation Bangladesh. One member of Mukto-mona even said (In last few days) that, post liberation Bangladesh saw more minority property confiscated than Pakistan era. Regardless of your ideology, it is utter idiotic to expect once you have a functioning state, you will not have codified laws to protect innocent civilians and the state itself against attacking enemies.

If a state could functioned without laws and punishment, the US could have run the whole country with candy bars instead of trillions of dollars in defense, police, jails (The largest in the world) etc.

The important thing to understand that, fundamental values of Islam remained the same. That did not change with time. Even when the whole arabia was under the feet of Muslim (After Mecca was under Muslims) they did not take revenge, prophet Muhammad (PBUH) chose to forgive EVERYONE who persecuted the prophet PERSONALLY.

During the whole life of prophet Muhammad (PBUH), he forgave every personal offender. Only punished those who wanted to destroy all Muslims from the face of the earth.

I think it is a very compassionate and noble approach.

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 9:07 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')

 
Mr. Roy,
You are welcome! I believe that the problem with these people is a "LESSER ONE"!  Not only because they are fewer in number but also we identify them easily by their speech and action. They have no hesitancy declaring clearly and truthfully from where do they get the inspiration (Quran/Sira and Hadit).  Is there any ambiguity of Dr. Firoz kamal's article about the message he tries to 'feed us'? Is there any doubt about his intention and root of his inspiration?
The greater problem is with "us", the so-called moderates.  Religious hypocrites always deceive us by their "PICK AND CHOOSE"  verses/hadits/sira (biography of the prophet) according to "THEIR" convenience.  These hypocrites continue keep the moderate Muslims in darkness mainly by two tactics (knowingly or unknowingly):
 1.  By  "NOT MENTIONING" that many of the tolerant/peaceful  "Meccan" verses are abrogated by more violent "Medina Verses".  In Islam, it is called 'nasikh' and 'mansukh. (http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0040P0021.aspx).
2.  Whenever any of this  "jihadi" does any atrocities or killing innocent people, these hypocrites always "STAND UP" and declare:  "IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM".  
This is going on, and on, and on, and on --.  They sang this song again and again and again whenever any Terrorist incidence happens anywhere in this planet; and "we" the moderate dance with their songs. We forget the very fact that "We" can utter this song millions and billions of time and stay in a stage of "DENIAL" and continue blaming "THESE PEOPLE" forever!  It never solves the problem.  If we do not even acknowledge, identify and understand a "PROBLEM" how can we think of solving it?  We are always find reason to "blame others" and in no time label others as "Islam hater" if he/she criticize my "HOLY FAITH".   
When we continue believing that "FAITH IS A VIRTUE", where is the moral ground of prohibiting others to practice "ANY FAITH' one may hold?  If my "faith" is a virtue (according to "my" understanding of my holy scripture/text/ learning etc), why not yours?  Is it because you are not in agreement with that of mine?   Is it not Hypocrisy? 
Professor Richard Dawkins nicely argued in this video how these terrorists get their support from the moderates:

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:

 
Thank you, Mr. Azad.

Amazing documentary portrait of Jihad, a must see documentary.

Jiten Roy 



From: Abul Azad <azad973@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')

 
That was Tareque Masud's "Run way"- (link below).  But, that was "ONLY" a movie! 
The real life events are in Shahriar Kabir's documentary: "Portrait of Jihad." 
PORTRAIT OF JIHAD - A documentary by Shahriar Kabir - 57mins
Tareque Masud's Run way- full movie -90 mins


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
Have you watched the movie by Tarek Masud which some one posted on this forum a couple of weeks ago? 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 21, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

 
It is a good one; quite funny too.

From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:57 PM
Subject: [mukto-mona] FW: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN')
 
  This for that demented sinner, that fierce 'dhalim' from the age of Jahiliya == F. M. Kamal
Subject: :: :: One Page from My-Diary :: :: :)*BLOW UP DADDY !*:) A HILARIOUS Article~Smiles for U all-:) ('DAWN') 
*BLOW UP DADDY!*

Daddy?
Yes, son.
Are we going to have a war with India?
Perhaps.
Oh, goody. We will thrash them, right? Like we did in 1857!
It wasn't in 1857, son.
Oh, okay. But whom did we thrash in 1857?
The British, son…
And the Hindus too, right?
Well…
Did Quaid-i-Azam fight in that war along with Muhammad bin Qasim and Imran Khan?
No, son. The Quaid and Imran were born much later and Muhammad bin Qasim died many years before.
Then who ruled Pakistan in those days?
There was no Pakistan in those days, son.
But there was always a Pakistan! It has been there for 5,000 years!
Who have you been talking to, son?
No one. I've just been watching TV.
It figures.
Daddy, why are all these people against us Arabs?
Arabs? But we aren't Arabs, son.
Of course we are because our ancestors were Arabs!
No, son. Our ancestors were of the subcontinental stock.
Sub-what?
Never mind.You seem to like wars, son.
Yes. I like to watch them on TV.
But real wars are fought outside the TV, son.
Really? How is that possible? What sort of a war is that?
Never mind.
Daddy, you look worried.
Of course, I am, you little warmongering punk!
Daddy! Why are you scolding me?
Because TV is talking rot and so are you!
Daddy, are you supporting Hindus?
No!
Daddy, have you become a kafir?
Keep quiet! No more TV for you! Go watch a movie on DVD or listen to a CD.
Can't do that.
But we have so many DVDs and CDs, son.
Not any more.
What do you mean?
I burned them all.
What?!
I burned them all.
I heard that! But why?
They spread obscenity.
Oh, God. Son, go do your homework. What happened to that science project you were working on?
It's almost complete.
Good boy. What are you making?
A bomb.
What?!
A bomb.
I heard that! But why?
Because I am a true Muslim who hates America.
But only last week you wanted to go to Disney Land.
That's different.
How come?
Mickey Mouse is Muslim.
No, he isn't.
Is so. He converted when he heard azaan on the moon.
On the moon?
Yes. Because the earth is flat and…
What??
The earth is…
I heard that!
Daddy, do you want to see my science project, or not?
Gosh, that bomb? But your science teacher will fail you.
No, she wont.
Really?
Yes. I plan to blow her up as well.
God, what is wrong with you? Go call your mother!
She can't come.
Why not?
I've locked her in the kitchen.
But what for?
A woman's place is in the kitchen. I will not let her out until she covers herself up peoperly!
But she's your mother!
She's also a woman!
So?
So she should be hidden.
Hidden from whom?
The whole world and Tony.
Tony?
Yes, Tony.
But Tony's a cat.
Yes. But he's male.
Son, have you gone mad?
No. By the way, I've made sure Kitto starts covering up as well.
Kitto?
Yes, Kittto.
But Kitto's a cat!
Yes. But a female cat.
But she'll suffocate.
Oh, she's already dead.
What?
She's already dead.
I heard that! But how?
I buried her alive.
You what?
Yes. To avenge Tony's honour.
But now I will behead Tony.
But why?
To save mom's honour!
Oh, God!
Don't say that. Always say Allah.
What's the difference?
Daddy, do you want to be beheaded too?
No!
Do you want to be stoned to death?
No!
Do you want to be flogged?
No!
Do you want to get your arms chopped off?
No!
Then stop asking silly questions. By the way, I won't call you daddy anymore.
What will you call me then?
Whatever that is Arabic for daddy.
I don't know any Arabic, son.
That's because you are a kafir.
Who the heck are you to tell me who I am, you little fascist twit!
What's a fascist?
An irrational, violent, self-righteous mad man!
W... aaaaaaa...
Why are you crying?
You scolded me.
Okay, I'm sorry. You have to be tolerant and rational, son. Now be a good boy and go read a book instead of watching TV.
I have no books.
Of course, you do. I bought you so many books.
I burned them.
What?
I burned them.
But why?
They were all in English.
So?
It's a non-Muslim language!
But we are speaking English, aren't we?
W... aaaaaaa…
What now?
Zionists made me forget my Arabic.
But you never knew any Arabic, son.
W... aaaa… yes, I did until you and mommy gave me the polio drops… aaaaa…
Okay, tell me, can you do me a favour?
Sure, dad.
Can you blow up something for me?
Oh, goody! Of course, dad.
What should I blow? A CD shop, a hotel, a school...?
No, no, something a lot more sinister.
Mom?
No, no…
What then?
The TV set!
What?
Blow the TV set.
I heard that! But why?
Just do it!
I see. Dad?
Yes.
.....'You're so unconstitutional....'!
 
 
{ Source :-( A gut-wrenchingly hilarious article published by Pakistan's leading English Daily- DAWN)


~ My 'Salaams' to You All ~
 
~ Y a s m i n ~
 Say, 'Indeed, my Prayer, my Rites of Sacrifice,
my Living and my Dying are for ALLAH, Lord of the Worlds'.
{'Quran'~Surat Al-'An`am -# 6-162.}
{'In Shaa Allah'~'Aameen'}
Reply via web post








__._,_.___


****************************************************
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: [ .] The Roots of Iraq’s Sectarian Division



But from news reports we see that innocent Shia people are being brutally attacked by Sunni militants. Does this mean that they could not accept the political change?

>>>>>>>> partly. Also during Saddam pretty much all population was tortured unless you were from certain chosen tribes. Specially majority Shia and Kurdish population saw a lot of torture. Now that Iraq has a Shia flavored administration, some people resorting to revenge attacks to certain tribes.

It is a political mess and innocent people are victims of dumb mistakes by George Bush Jr.

Also it is important to remember still majority population do get along well. But they do not make headline news. So our perception of Middle East is always a bit distorted when we hear stories of conflict in particular.

Or there are religious reasons for the Sunni militant groups to annihilate the Shia people?

>>>>>>>>>> Religion does not mandate killing any sect based on politics or religion. In fact the Qurán prohibited it (Source: Al Qurán 5:32)

However it is important to remember that, the whole shia and sunni division started on political reason not religious. Now there are some differences in how they practice their faiths but not enough to choke each other to death.

Today Sunni leader like Saudi Arabia and Shia leader like Iran are engaged in increasing the sphere of influence in the middle east. Unfortunately mainly innocent population fall victims of this ugly race. A lot like how BNP and BAL fanatical supporters are ruining future of our own country. We may have some differences of opinion but I do not see any good reason to destroy each other like we see today around election years. Hope this later example will help you connect the situation with shia and sunni sects.


Shalom!

-----Original Message-----
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ .] The Roots of Iraq's Sectarian Division

 
50% Shia, 25% Sunni, 18% Kurds (Shia or Sunni?), and 7% Christians plus Jews. For historical reasons most likely due to British ignorance or imperialistic design, Sunni elites ruled the country before American invasion. Looks like after the fall of Saddam, Shia people are enjoying proportionate representation in governing Iraq. But from news reports we see that innocent Shia people are being brutally attacked by Sunni militants. Does this mean that they could not accept the political change? Or there are religious reasons for the Sunni militant groups to annihilate the Shia people? The article does not shed light on this? Is the author suggesting that the present Iraq should be split into three independent states? 
Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:43 AM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

 
There are some members who asked questions about different sects in Islam and why they are fighting against each other. The article below may give those members some answer to this question.


Shalom!



 

The Roots of Iraq's Sectarian Division

The land of Iraq is home to some of the most ancient and precious civilizations in history. In the Mesopotamian valley that encompasses the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, Babylonia, the world's first empire was born. Writing was first developed along the banks of the rivers with tablets made of clay. Advanced government bureaucracies were first implemented here. It is truly one of the cradles of human civilization.
And when Islam was revealed in the deserts of Arabia south of Mesopotamia, the people of Iraq were some of the first to accept Islam outside of the Arabian Peninsula during the caliphate of Abu Bakr. As Islamic history went on, Iraq became one of the centers of the Muslim world, with Baghdad being established in the 8th century as the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate. Politics, culture, science, and religion all flourished here in early Islamic history. After the Mongol invasion, however, Iraq's importance declined, it eventually became a part of the Ottoman Empire from the early 1500s until the end of the empire in the First World War. After the war, it was organized into a British-controlled mandate, which sought to create an independent nation-state in this ancient land.
Which brings us to the question: what is Iraq? The British assumed they'd find a homogeneous people in this land that would easily coalesce into one united nation, but the reality has been much more complicated. When the British drew Iraq's borders, the people within those false borders were of different ethnic groups, religious beliefs, and languages, yet they were all expected to adopt a new identity – Iraqi – and function as a modern nationalistic European nation. This article will address the origins of these problems of identity in 20th century Iraq.

British Mandate

After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War, the British and French found themselves in control of entire Fertile Crescent area: the modern nations of Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine. In accordance with the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement they signed with the French, the British agreed to divide the land between themselves and the French, with arbitrarily drawn lines as the borders. In the eastern part of this region, what was to become the nation of Iraq was within the sphere of the British, who sought to implement a mandate, as they did with Palestine and Jordan. The purpose of a mandate was to create a puppet government in local areas for the British to further extend their imperialistic goals.
Ethnic and religious groups in Iraq
Ethnic and religious groups in Iraq
As with the other mandates that the British created, the borders of this new country were arbitrary. In the Ottoman period, the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates was organized into three different provinces, centered around the cities of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra. "Iraq" as a political entity did not exist in the Ottoman period, or in any time prior to that. In fact, historically, the term "Iraq" has only referred to the southern portion of what is now considered Iraq, while the northern portion was known as "al-Jazira".
Since the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic state by nature, there was no demand for all Ottoman citizens to assume one identity. Kurds, Arabs, Turks, Armenians, and others were all expected to keep their own personal identities so long as they were loyal to the Ottoman government. Thus the people of what became Iraq had no concept of Iraqi identity as a unifying factor among themselves. When the British created modern Iraq, the expectations of a unified Iraqi identity would create massive social divisions within the new country based on its different ethnic and religious groups.
In the northern part of the mandate, the population consisted mainly of Kurds, a Sunni Muslim ethnic group with a language and culture separate from the Arabs. The Kurds made up about 15-20% of the total population of Iraq, but demanded a Kurdish nation -Kurdistan – that would bring together the Kurdish minority populations in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran.
In the central part of Iraq resided a Sunni Arab population, based around the city of Baghdad. They made up about 25% of the population. Despite this, they would be given some of the top government roles by their British overseers.
In the southern part of Iraq were the Shi'a Arabs. They made up an absolute majority of Iraq's population – over 50%. Socially, they were very different from the Sunni Arabs to their north. The Shi'a 'ulama (religious scholars) played a major role in the day-to-day lives of Iraq's Shi'a population. Thus, the 'ulama were capable of wielding a united Shi'a front while the rest of Iraq remained divided along ethnic lines.

Unifying Iraq

Although the British were mostly unaware of the differences in Iraqi society, the people they put in charge of Iraqi government were more informed. After massive riots against the proposed mandate, the British declared Iraq a kingdom, and elected Faisal I as its king. He was a Sunni Arab from Hejaz, who had revolted against the Ottoman Empire on the side of the British in World War One. After a failed bid to become king of Syria, he migrated to Iraq where he became king with little to no local input.
Although Faisal was officially the sovereign king of Iraq, the British served as "advisors" to his rule. For all practical purposes, although Iraq was not officially a mandate, it was clearly not fully independent. The British played a major role in the domestic and foreign affairs of the Iraqi kingdom, a fact that was deeply resented by the Iraqi population.
King Faisal I of Iraq
King Faisal I of Iraq
Hoping to bridge the gap between Sunnis and Shi'a, Faisal attempted to unify Iraq along Arab lines. Secular ideologies were fed into the educational system, where it was hoped that the next generation would identify themselves as Iraqi Arabs first, leading to a united nation. Until that next generation could mature in its secular Arab ideology, Faisal had to rely on the military to maintain order. His mainly Sunni Arab officer corps used the armed forces to suppress revolts by Shi'a and Sunni tribal leaders in the 1920s and 1930s.
Needless to say, this secular Arab focus alienated non-Arab populations of Iraq, specifically the Kurds in the North. Their demands for autonomy were largely ignored by the Iraqi government, since Kurdish nationalism did not easily fit in with the pan-Arab nationalistic ideology they were supporting. Other groups that were alienated by this policy were Iraq's Assyrian Christian minority and Iraqi Jews.
The dominance of the Sunni Arab minority continued throughout the monarchy period of Iraq. In 1958, the monarchy was overthrown and Iraq entered a volatile period of instability for 10 years, which only ended with the rise of the Ba'athists in 1968. Despite promoting secularism and Arab nationalism, the Ba'athists, under Saddam Hussein, continued to concentrate power in the hands of the Sunni Arab elites in Baghdad. The alienation of the Kurds and Arab Shi'as continued to drive a wedge in Iraqi society that directly led to the sectarian violence in Iraq in the early 2000s, after the American invasion of 2003.
As Iraq attempts to rebuild and restore itself in the 21st century, the Iraqi identity remains an unsolved issue. The borders artificially drawn by the British in the 1920s have led to a society divided into three separate segments. Like many other Muslim nations whose borders were defined by Europeans in the early 20th century, unity among the populace remains an elusive goal. The British disregard for the ethnic and religious identities of the Iraqi people has led to a situation where Iraq, with its three separate peoples, is unable to find social cohesion in the era of modern nation-states.
Bibliography:
Hourani, Albert Habib. A History Of The Arab Peoples. New York: Mjf Books, 1997. Print.
Ochsenwald, William, and Sydney Fisher. The Middle East: A History. 6th. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:


__._,_.___


****************************************************
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: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth



Calm down Charlie brown!!

It is not crap. Bangladesh was never an Islamic republic. Still many people did migrate to it when "Partition" happened. In fact there was a government run commission to oversee the migratory process. Which helped aspiring migrant to swap properties, sell properties etc. The office was in Kolkata.

Just because some of you are ignorant about history, that does not mean you can force others to forget legitimate history.

Also you have hard time accepting that, you may lack some ideas on history.

First you denied genocide of Buddhist population in India by Hindus. Now that more and more evidences speaks a different narrative than your imaginary one, you try to switch to Bangladesh and Muslims.

Many people also migrate for better opportunities. In the 80's Bangladesh's economy was not good. So many Muslims, Hindus and people of other faiths did leave this country. So trying to present distorted information is silly.

It is not a crime if you are ignorant. However once some of us are trying to offer information, try to learn from it. I'll think no less of you.

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 9:08 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
"Mainly because we (Bangladesh) is not an ideal Islamic country, so no reason to migrate to another country which is not Islamic."

Just another crap! So where is your ideal Muslim country? What would make Bangladesh a more Islamic so that milk and honey will flow on the streets? Get your head checked Mr. Rahman!
-SD

 
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss



From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
He does not notice that Islam does not tolerate the existence of non-Muslims.  Once Islam captured the state power, it declared the non-Muslims dhimmis(second class citizens). 

>>>>>>>>>> This cannot be factual. Since Muslims ruled India for almost 1000 years and non-Muslims were doing pretty good during that time. No one tried to impose such ideas on citizens. In Europe (Spain and southern Europe) Muslims ruled for 800 years but today scholars note than period as "Golden age of Jewish civilization". Muslims have been majority and ruling Egypt for over 1000 years but still have millions of Coptic Christians in the country with huge structures.

Also Dhimmi does NOT mean second class citizen (Such absurd ideas are only spread by people with half a brain). Literally Dhimmi means "protected". During early days of Islam it introduced the concept of protection of non-Muslims in Medina.


In India, the dhimmitude was impossible in spite of the theocracy being in favor of it.

>>>>>>>>>Hindus and Buddhists

By the 10th century, the Turks of Central Asia had brought Islam to the mountains north of the Indic plains.[67] It was not long before they swept south across the Punjab. The Indus basin held a substantial Buddhist population in addition to the ruling Hindu castes, and most converted to Islam over the next two centuries.[citation needed] At the end of the 12th century, the Muslims advanced quickly into the Ganges plain.[68] In one decade, a Muslim army led by Turkic slaves consolidated resistance around Lahore and brought northern India, as far as west Bengal, under Muslim rule.[69] From these Turkic slaves would come sultans, including the founder of the sultanate of Delhi. Muslims and dhimmis alike participated in urbanization and urban prosperity.[70]
By the 15th century, Islamic and Hindu civilization had evolved in a complementary manner, with the Muslims taking the role of a ruling caste in Hindu society. Nevertheless, the Muslims retained their Islamic identities, and were in some ways regarded by Hindus in much the same light as their own lowest castes.[71]
In the 16th century AD, India came under the influence of the Mughals (Mongols). Babar, a ruler of the Mongol Timuri empire, established a foothold in the North which paved the way for further expansion by his successors.[72] Until it was eclipsed by European hegemony in the 18th century, the Timuri Moghul emperors oversaw a period of coexistence and tolerance between Hindus and Muslims. The emperor Akbar has been described as a universalist. He sought to establish tolerance and equality between all communities and religions, and instituted far reaching social and religious reforms.[73] Not all the Mughal emperors endorsed the ideals espoused by Akbar, indeed Aurangzeb was inclined towards a more fundamentalist approach.[74]
The entire subcontinent fell under European colonial rule during the 18th century.[75] Independence from their former European colonial rulers, and the subsequent struggles for political power, have brought ethnic and religious strife to this area of the world in modern times.[76]

[ Source: Wiki ]

More Muslims live in India than elsewhere and they are showing no tendency to migrate

>>>>>>>>> Mainly because we (Bangladesh) is not an ideal Islamic country, so no reason to migrate to another country which is not Islamic. Still since 40's many (hundred of thousands) migrated to escape from persecution in India.

Secondly, those who left India did not do very well in Pakistan, so rest of them decided to stay put.

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 25, 2013 9:01 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
Mr. Q. Rahman has one agenda and that is to promote Islam and derogate Indian culture.  He does not notice that Islam does not tolerate the existence of non-Muslims.  Once Islam captured the state power, it declared the non-Muslims dhimmis(second class citizens).  In India, the dhimmitude was impossible in spite of the theocracy being in favor of it.  Buddhism was not a religion in the lifetime of Buddha, and the majority in India never accepted Buddhism.  Emperor Ashoke sponsored Buddhism, but his grandson stopped state funding on being annoyed at the interference by the Buddhist clergy.  Indian society is more tolerant than the Arabian, where Islam was born and flourished.  More Muslims live in India than elsewhere and they are showing no tendency to migrate to Mr. Rahman's heavens named Bangladesh, Pakistan or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
There was a time when Indian Hindus let Buddhism to flourish in India. But the philosophical debate continued to show that these two religions are not qualitatively that different from each other. And that is why a Hindu would not have any problem accepting a Buddhist in his/her family and a Buddhist family would not mind to do the same. I am afraid, this can't be said about Muslims.

So, Buddhists being vanished is rather a myth that has been created by a vested group to cover up their own atrocities on many indigenous Indian people. Reference of Sikh massacre is readily available if Mr. Rahman wants to review that. Just ask me, I can add more. There was no doubt that there was a Hindu revival to fight back the foreign invaders when Buddhists were totally reluctant to fight due to their non violence principle. With more people becoming Buddhists and their total non-violence attitude towards invaders and plunderers would have made India virtually an inviting country to invade and enslave. Not that it did not happen later. Buddhists just did not want to fight the invaders from the west and they sought safe haven in the east. Who can blame them? But eventually, they figured out that they could not just chant, they had to fight back to survive. Thank God, they saw the fighting light of Buddha!


The two bottom paragraphs by Jain tell it all. However, the Buddhist passivity is not discussed at all. A critical factor why Buddhists got reabsorbed in Hinduism again.
-SD

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pankaj-jain-phd/buddhism-origin-spread-decline_b_939679.html

Buddhism: Origin, Spread and Decline

Pankaj Jain, Ph.D.
  • "Inclusivist nature of Hinduism
    In the course of 1700 years of co-existence the Hindus had taken over a great deal from the Buddhists and vice versa, e.g., Buddhists started building temples of the Buddha and Bodhisattva. They started worshipping the Buddha as the ultimate creator and preserver of the universe. Carl Jung mentions in "The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation" that in Buddhism, the different gods are symbolic representations. This may be an influence of Hinduism on Buddhism. In consequence, the division between Buddhism and Hinduism had increasingly diminished and it was no surprise for a Buddhist to be absorbed into the largely Buddhified Hindu fold. The philosophy of Nagarjuna had been absorbed into the Vedanta by Gaudapada, Sankara's teacher; just as the Vaishnavas of later times were greatly indebted to the Buddhists (Bhagavat Purana incorporated the Buddha as the ninth Avatar of Vishnu). The Buddhists Tantras had provoked their Hindu counterparts, which abound with references to Mahayana deities. Eventually, separate existence of Buddhism did not serve any useful purpose. Its disappearance thus was no loss to anyone.
  • Islamic invasions
    By the time of the Muslim conquest, the separate identity of Buddhism resided primarily in its great monasteries and universities. The distinctively dressed monks, all concentrated at these places were an easily identifiable target for Muslim zealotry. Hinduism, by contrast, had no identifiable heart at which to strike. It had succeeded in pervading Indian society while Buddhism had become increasingly isolated in monasteries and universities. Buddhist monks offered no resistance to the invasions, partly in obedience to their vows, and partly because they believed that astrological calculations have shown that Muslims would in any case conquer Hindustan. The destruction of Nalanda in 1197 AD and of Vikramashila in 1203 AD by Muhammad Ghori marks the end of Buddhism in India."

 
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss



Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 7:39 AM

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
you had no idea how data was compiled.

>>>>>>>>> I have shared the sources of that survey with the whole forum. Even that data was audited and problems were fixed BEFORE it was published by people who are experts in preparing such data. I do not know why do you keep asking the SAME question over and over?

You brought it for the forum, it is your burden to prove your position. I only question the validity of your point.

>>>>>>>>> No you got mad at me for sharing a survey about India. guess you are very protective of India!!

Anyway, I'll share some information about Hindu persecution of Buddhist population in India. All of us know that, Buddhism was introduced in India but it vanished from India later on. However we can see even today Buddhism bloomed very well outside of India. Here are some info...


.....Historian S. R. Goyal has attributed the decline and disappearance of Buddhism from India to the hostility of the Brahmanas. An incident oft cited is the destruction of the Bo Tree and Buddhist images by Saivite King, Shashanka, persecution by Pusyamitra Sunga (185 BC to 151 BC) who detested the Law of the Buddha had set fire to the Sutras, destroyed Stupas, razed Samgharamas and massacred Bhikkus and even killed the deity of the Bodhi tree. There is also mention of the Huna onslaught on Taxila (in Pakistan), the persecution of Buddhist monks by Mihirkula.
Incidentally, though Moghuls are accused of destroying Hindu temples, most of these temples were actually built on Buddhist shrine sites. Results of Moghul invasions were many too - Somapura Mahavihara (now in Bangladesh) was set ablaze. Odantapuri Mahavihara close to Nalanda was razed to the ground in 1199 CE after killing all the monks and Bodhgaya was attacked as well. Though there is evidence that even a century beyond the Muslim conquest Buddhism remained in places like Gaya till the end of the 14th century which disproves the notion that Muslim conquest was not singularly responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India.

[ Source:  Why Buddhism prospered in Asia but died in India ]


How the Buddhists and Jains were Persecuted in Ancient India.



CONTRIBUTING FACTORS FOR THE DISAPPEARANCE OF BUDDHISM FROM INDIA




If you need more information about this topic, just ask. I'll add tons more on it.



Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 1:09 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
The way you discuss and present facts, anybody can guess the quality of such discussions that you had have in the past. You bring the same issue again from no where and yet, you can't produce a single historical reference. You brought it for the forum, it is your burden to prove your position. I only question the validity of your point. Last time, you talked about the most racist people in the world and you had no idea how data was compiled. You have no clue about their methodology and yet you take that as truth. Do you understand what I mean??  If you feel inadequate about these issues, do not get involved! Chant few verses and be happy!
-SD

 
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss



From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
Member SD,

As I said, we have discussed this subject in detail, just search and find it within Mukto-mona forum.

However if you are firm in denying that, Buddhists were not persecuted by Hindu? Let me know.

I am saying they were severely persecuted by Hindus (Sanatana Dharma). 


Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 20, 2013 7:42 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
It was an error that I corrected almost immediately with an additional post. You have finally proven yourself as a certified idiot!
So, where is reference? Produce it for the forum or confess that you do not have it!
-SD
 
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss



From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
I do not think I need to answer this one

>>>>>>>> of course. That is the reason you wrote they were west bound!

Makes perfect sense.

They were persecuted by Hindus of India and were force to leave the country they used to rule. That is history. No argument needed.

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Jun 19, 2013 12:02 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
I do not think I need to answer this one. It was obvious which direction they moved. And, that does not ring any bell to you?
It is you who started the Budhist persecution with the full knowledge that real culprits are well documented in my reference. Why can't you use frontal part of your brain? Bring your reference to make yourself credible! Can you? would you?
-SD
 
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss



From: QR <qrahman@aim.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 

Why not produce some intelligent references how Budhists were persecuted in India and how come they did migrate towards the West for sanctuary?

>>>>>>>>> BTW, the Buddhists went east. Not west. They went all over the orient.

This topic has been discussed with a load of references. Please move your rear end and find out from previous mukto-mona discussions. You will find a lot of interesting discussions as well.


Shalom!



-----Original Message-----
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 8:40 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
Why not produce some intelligent references how Budhists were persecuted in India and how come they did migrate towards the West for sanctuary? My fundamental problem is with your not providing references and facts that we need for an objective discussion. Do you understand?
-SD

 
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss



From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
Pot calling kettle black? The more BS from from QR with no historical reference or logic. It is rather the Muslim conquest of Indian subcontinent that put a death nail to the existence of  indigenous Hindus and Budhists. The choice was either to convert or die from the dagger.  No wonder why Dalailama feels safer in India than in Mecca. No wonder why these indigenous Indian people people did not  migrate towards the Mecca.

>>>>>>>> Why Mecca?

Maybe you were not here. We have discussed this episode in great detail here.

Dalailama is from Tibet and he took shelter in India because of his problem with Chinese communists. India still have many issues with China and gave refuge to the Dalai Lama. Not sure why the Lama will need to go to Mecca?  :-)

The problem with these organized religions is that they would love to invade other countries, concur them and establish their religious hegemony with virtually no respect to  the culture and religions of indigenous people

>>>>>>>> The fundamental problem is you do not what you are talking about. India was NEVER a single country UNTIL the Muslims reached India. The greater India concept was introduced by Muslim rulers and even the name "Hindustan" was given by Muslims!!

Hindus and Budhists were lucky that English came at the right time and put a stop of that organized religious crime.

>>>>>>>> You are propagating myth that is popular among ignorant Muslims and Hindus.

Fact is even 100 years after the Palashi war, leaders of all religious communities came to Bahadur Shah Zafar to lead them to freedom against the colonial masters. Unfortunately Bahadur Shah was a moghul but did not have leadership skills necessary (he was a good poet but not a great leader) to do that. He unsuccessfully tried and defeated by the Brits.

With no English intervention, India would have become a totally different country.

>>>>>> Agree.

Muslim majority countries and minorities living in them peacefully have become the butt of the jokes. Just ask any random person!  Even Muslims fleeing from those countries, let alone non-Muslim minorities

>>>>>>>> Again I agree with you. Most Muslim majority countries have an issue with good governance. So both Muslims and non-Muslims suffer for lack of it.

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 16, 2013 4:36 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
Pot calling kettle black? The more BS from from QR with no historical reference or logic. It is rather the Muslim conquest of Indian subcontinent that put a death nail to the existence of  indigenous Hindus and Budhists. The choice was either to convert or die from the dagger.  No wonder why Dalailama feels safer in India than in Mecca. No wonder why these indigenous Indian people people did not  migrate towards the Mecca.
The problem with these organized religions is that they would love to invade other countries, concur them and establish their religious hegemony with virtually no respect to  the culture and religions of indigenous people. Hindus and Budhists were lucky that English came at the right time and put a stop of that organized religious crime. With no English intervention, India would have become a totally different country.

Muslim majority countries and minorities living in them peacefully have become the butt of the jokes. Just ask any random person!  Even Muslims fleeing from those countries, let alone non-Muslim minorities

I bet this man lives in a hole without any light and air. 

Here is the helpful impartial link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India

-SD
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss



From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
As I said, ancient India's hatred for non-Hindus is also goes back to ancient times. It has gotten a bit better from the time Buddhists were driven away from the very birthplace of Buddhism (India) but still anti-Muslim (Recently anti-Christian) feeling is pretty strong among middle and upper class Indians.

The Sangh has been steadily doing it since as far back as 1947, when the ICS officer Madhav Godbole seized a trunk full of RSS maps and plans for ethnic cleansing of Muslims.

>>>>>>>>>> because of that environment Bangabandhu chose to work for Muslim League and worked hard to create Pakistan. He was progressive and mostly took positions to reflect aspiration of people. Which lead him to take a different position during 71 and rightfully so.

We hope India will lead the region as a beacon of democracy and motivate other countries to empower democracy in their system and focus on protecting common people from religious Bigots.

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Totonji Al Hajj <ahmadtotonji@yahoo.com>
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
Sent: Sun, Jun 16, 2013 11:07 am
Subject: [mukto-mona] Fwd: IOS Current Affairs: Moment of Truth

 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
 
News Analysis
Moment of Truth
Dr. Mohammad Manzoor Alam asks countrymen and women to give a moment's thought to where the country is headed for as corporate media tomtoms Modi as next Prime Minister.

Narendra Modi of Gujarat 2002 infamy is on a roll. India's corporate media is acting as if the silent majority spread over villages, talukas, mofassils, district towns, state capitals and NCR does not exist, as if it is not the "Little Citizen" who will decide the future of India with his precious vote, but the corporate boss sitting in his air-conditioned cabin and the moneybag manipulating things from behind the screen. People are still important, and urban middle class Modi fans are not the only people India has: Modiwadis are just a small fraction of the sea of humanity called Bharat.

What is bothersome is the inspiration behind Moditva, and the methodologies and modalities it employs. The inspiration, as the RSS stalwart Guru Golwalker clearly explained in his We, or Our Nationhood Defined decades back, is Hitler and his Nazi party. Golwalker approvingly talks about Hitler's genocide of Jews to be replicated in India by a similar mass murder of Muslims. Since then the Sangh and its fronts like BJP, VHP, Bajrang Dal and others have been busy creating new opportunities for mass murder of Muslims through smaller "riots" (like 37 episodes under Akhilesh rule in UP) or bigger pogroms like Ayodhya 92 and Gujarat 2002.

The Sangh has been steadily doing it since as far back as 1947, when the ICS officer Madhav Godbole seized a trunk full of RSS maps and plans for ethnic cleansing of Muslims
. They have not always succeeded in polarising and dividing people because of the primarily secular and plural nature of India. For reaching 102 seats in Parliament from a mere two they staged the mass killing of Muslims in 1992-93. Mr Modi took up the Sangh torch of hatred from LK Advani, who had emerged as a "hero" in their voters' eyes just because of the anti-Muslim hysteria he had created.

Modi was protected from being sacked in 2002 by then Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Advani. His sacking would have been justified because of his dereliction of duty (to some, collusion with rioters) in the anti-Muslim pogrom. The Sangh has consistently been undermining the Constitution's secular values. During NDA rule it even tried to change it.

What is happening today is ominously similar to what happened in the Germany of 1933 and the rise of Hitler with the help of German industry. Today, some of India's major industrialists and their corporate media are openly backing Mr Modi as the future prime minster who will increase their profits by demolishing all the democratic and secular institutions of the state of India and by ensuring maximum profit on investments. What happens to people who are not industrialists, the preponderant majority of this country?

Mahabharata, the account of the greatest fratricidal war ever, fascinates both Mr Modi and Mr Advani. A Mahabharata against Muslims of India is the dream of the Sangh stalwarts. The choice between Mr Modi and Mr Advani is that between a rock and a hard place.

By and large, the choice today is between constitutional rule and fascist thuggery; between the common good of the masses, the farmers, the working classes in villages, towns and cities, the peace-loving people of goodwill everywhere on one side and corporate money and Hitler's chelas on the other.

The choice is very clear, very unambiguous. It is a choice between the idea of India and chaos.
 
 

















__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___