__._,_.___
I agree with Mr Rehman. Islam as a religion refuses to accept the right to the existence of other religions and lines of thought. Such attitude is not acceptable to a pluralistic world.
"The major difference between Angola and Saudi Arabia is there are NO native non-Muslim in Saudi Arabia."
Do you know why there is no non-Muslim native in Saudi-Arabia? It's illegal. It's also illegal to carry out proselytizing activities for other religions in Saudi. But, it's OK with Saudi Arabia to spend billions of dollars to carry out Islamic proselytizing activities in other countries around the world. What a great ethical balance!You said: "Saudi Arabia considers itself as "Vatican"."Mr. QR, Vatican City is a "city" in Italy, like Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. Italy did not ban any religion. Please do not lose your mind to defend something indefensible. More you try, more it reveals your bigotry and ignorance.Jiten Roy
On Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:39 AM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
In fact, my ethical mind tells me that - I cannot give a pass for such discrimination in one country, for whatever reason, and object it in other countries. That's discrimination, in my view. Therefore, I cannot blame or protest religious discrimination in Angola. I have no right to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>> Very interesting way of looking at things.
With due respect, you are probably aware that whatever we say here are mostly symbolic. As far as I know you do not have the power to influence Angola or Saudi Arabia.
The major difference between Angola and Saudi Arabia is there are NO native non-Muslim in Saudi Arabia. However there are NATIVE Angolans who are Muslims. They have no where else to go but to stay in THEIR country.
Saudi Arabia considers itself as "Vatican". So they set up the bar higher than rest of the Islamic countries. Except Saudi Arabia I do not know of any country which prohibits establishing religious temples or churches in them. There are Muslim countries (UAE, Turkey etc) which donated land for building churches. But they do not make news and you do not know about them.
I understand your position but it is not an informed one. It is based on fictional perception. However I respect it as "Your opinion".
Here is a little bit about this topic...
Muslim Community in Madagascar Donate Land for Christian Church
The Living Church Foundation reports that members of the Muslim community in a suburb of Ambilobe, Madagascar, have donated land to the Anglican Diocese of Antsiranana in the Province of the Indian Ocean."I could not believe my ears," the Bishop of Antsiranana, the Rt. Rev. Roger Chung, said in an official release published by the telecommunications department of the Anglican Communion Office. "But God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, says the Book of Isaiah."According to the chairman of the new parish, Diogene Mahavavy, the Muslim community donated the land after becoming aware of the difficulties that the Anglicans were having in obtaining a plot of land on which to build a new suburban church.The people of Ambilobe are from the Antakarana tribe, which is predominantly Muslim, Mr. Mahavavy said, but evangelization in the region has resulted in many families having both Muslim and Christian members; mutual support is common.
Source: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2222
My two cents...
Shalom!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 6:36 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Angola Bans Islam, Destroys Mosques
@ Mr. Chakraborty:
I want to stick to the broader issue – which is - religious discrimination; everything else stems from it.
The world has lost the right to take moral high ground on religious discrimination issue thousands of years back.
I did not say – religious discrimination anywhere is ethical or right; not at all. In fact, my ethical mind tells me that - I cannot give a pass for such discrimination in one country, for whatever reason, and object it in other countries. That's discrimination, in my view. Therefore, I cannot blame or protest religious discrimination in Angola. I have no right to do so. I hope you will understand my position now. And, please do not bring other ancillary issues into this discussion. That's just distraction.
Jiten Roy
On Friday, November 29, 2013 6:27 PM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
As a matter of fact my position should have been clear from my first post in which I talked about possible disastrous effect of the chain reaction of retaliation by competing countries by banning rival religions.Your 'appropriate' judgment seems to be unethical. Angola has taken away the religious rights of some groups within Angola. Would it not be unethical for another country to take away the religious rights of some other groups? Are you not justifying the demolition of temples in Bangladesh as a reaction to demolition of the Babri Mosque in India?Sent from my iPhone
Yes, Mr. Chakraborty, now I can understand your point. You have generalized your view in the last post. Dr. Bain promotes generalized views like, "Barbaric acts should not be retaliated with barbaric acts," and you support it. Both of you identify something as barbaric act, but do not support similar reaction to that. This is exactly Gandhism, whether you realize it or not.
You said, "My point is: Angola has banned Islam, so another country will have to retaliate by banning Christianity---that cannot be a wise step."
Now, I can agree with you - this is an extreme reaction, but not totally inappropriate in the realm of appropriate reactions.Saudi Arabia has practiced religious discrimination for thousands of years, and the world has looked the other way, which has resulted the spreading of religious discrimination (virus) in other Muslim majority countries too. If you think clearly you will have no difficulty to see the host country for this virus. I am puzzled by the fact that you guys have so much difficulty to see this reality. And, in that line of thinking, I judge Angolan action as extreme, but not inappropriate.Jiten Roy
Dear Friends:
I saw a lot of reactions, both positive & negative, for me or against me, in these forums on an article forwarded by me titled, 'How Islamists stole a hearing' etc. I learnt in a hard way not to react with any reactions, but at this time I felt that I should thank you guys for your valuable time and please accept my sincere 'Thanks', I really appreciate.
As far as Hindu or religious minority persecution is concerned, it is a routine in Bangladesh and I guarantee, all parties are involved in that. I always ask two questions to all and want answers:
In 42 years history of Bangladesh thousands of temples/ deities were destroyed but there is no such instances that a single perpetrators were punished! If you destroy/burn a bus; you will be arrested and prosecuted. But if you destroy/burn a temple, you can 'walk free'. During Durga Puja in Oct 1972 (2nd Day) all temples & deities were attacked, some destroyed, that was the beginning, nobody was prosecuted. Still today same thing is going on, nobody is prosecuted or punished. We call it, 'culture of impunity'. Answer me, why?
Minority population is dwindling in Bangladesh. It was about 20% in 1972 and now it is about 10%. About 49 million Hindus are missing, where are they? Remember, the chairman of the foreign relations committee also cited the figure. Can anybody tell me what is going on? Please talk your mind, not politics!
We know, Bangladesh is a Muslim majority, and we also know in Muslim majority, virtually minority just vanishes and the country become a brut country like Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia. Bangladesh is our motherland, we want it to be secular and we want to live there with dignity & honor, not at somebody's mercy!
Just two days before one Mr. Zobair wrote a letter to Ms. Brooks, writer of that article, I also got a copy and wrote him back. I guess I should share some parts of that to you all, unfortunately, that gentleman did not answer me back. Please read:
Mr. Zobair: I read your reply to Ms. Brooks and frankly speaking, I was not surprised, because people like you are never capable of seeing the whole picture. So, its' not your fault, it is the system in which you are grown. -----
I think most of the people give AL the credit to be secular in comparison to BNP-Jamat-Hefazot; which is 100% right. You are talking about minority persecution during AL; you are right, but please tell me, during which government minorities were not persecuted in Bangladesh? More widely, in which Muslim countries non-Muslims are growing? Please find out the reason, and don't blame everybody, think why?
I was born & brought up in Bangladesh and I know your mindset! Unfortunately what we were taught in schools most of which are half-truth and a half-truth is a complete lie. Let me give an example, in 1965 we were taught in school that India was defeated by Pakistan miserably! Now you know what a lie was that! You must know A.R Rahman, who own two Oscars and he is a Muslim. You know why? Reason is simple, he lives in non-Muslim democratic society and you must admit that in a religion based country nothing grows and that is the main reason why we want Bangladesh get out of the clutches of the militant Islamists! -------
You are talking about or against the war crime tribunals, well that is also understandable on your part. Ali Riaz answered that part definitely in a recent hearing in Washington and he said, 'with all those flaws still justice should be served and it is long overdue'.
Mr. Zobair, life is beautiful, explore it and find the most of it, if you can. But if you are boxed, and your mind is full of hatred, you will not see the beauty.
Thank you very much.
Adding one more line, in non-Muslims countries Muslims are better off (it should be the way) than their own Islamic hub; now it is the turn of the Muslims to show the other way; and let that be started from Bangladesh?
Thanks a lot,
Sitangshu Guha
NY.
শিতাংশু গুহ
__._,_.___
In fact, my ethical mind tells me that - I cannot give a pass for such discrimination in one country, for whatever reason, and object it in other countries. That's discrimination, in my view. Therefore, I cannot blame or protest religious discrimination in Angola. I have no right to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>> Very interesting way of looking at things.
With due respect, you are probably aware that whatever we say here are mostly symbolic. As far as I know you do not have the power to influence Angola or Saudi Arabia.
The major difference between Angola and Saudi Arabia is there are NO native non-Muslim in Saudi Arabia. However there are NATIVE Angolans who are Muslims. They have no where else to go but to stay in THEIR country.
Saudi Arabia considers itself as "Vatican". So they set up the bar higher than rest of the Islamic countries. Except Saudi Arabia I do not know of any country which prohibits establishing religious temples or churches in them. There are Muslim countries (UAE, Turkey etc) which donated land for building churches. But they do not make news and you do not know about them.
I understand your position but it is not an informed one. It is based on fictional perception. However I respect it as "Your opinion".
Here is a little bit about this topic...
Muslim Community in Madagascar Donate Land for Christian Church
The Living Church Foundation reports that members of the Muslim community in a suburb of Ambilobe, Madagascar, have donated land to the Anglican Diocese of Antsiranana in the Province of the Indian Ocean."I could not believe my ears," the Bishop of Antsiranana, the Rt. Rev. Roger Chung, said in an official release published by the telecommunications department of the Anglican Communion Office. "But God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, says the Book of Isaiah."According to the chairman of the new parish, Diogene Mahavavy, the Muslim community donated the land after becoming aware of the difficulties that the Anglicans were having in obtaining a plot of land on which to build a new suburban church.The people of Ambilobe are from the Antakarana tribe, which is predominantly Muslim, Mr. Mahavavy said, but evangelization in the region has resulted in many families having both Muslim and Christian members; mutual support is common.
Source: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2222
My two cents...
Shalom!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 6:36 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Angola Bans Islam, Destroys Mosques
@ Mr. Chakraborty:
I want to stick to the broader issue – which is - religious discrimination; everything else stems from it.
The world has lost the right to take moral high ground on religious discrimination issue thousands of years back.
I did not say – religious discrimination anywhere is ethical or right; not at all. In fact, my ethical mind tells me that - I cannot give a pass for such discrimination in one country, for whatever reason, and object it in other countries. That's discrimination, in my view. Therefore, I cannot blame or protest religious discrimination in Angola. I have no right to do so. I hope you will understand my position now. And, please do not bring other ancillary issues into this discussion. That's just distraction.
Jiten Roy
On Friday, November 29, 2013 6:27 PM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
As a matter of fact my position should have been clear from my first post in which I talked about possible disastrous effect of the chain reaction of retaliation by competing countries by banning rival religions.Your 'appropriate' judgment seems to be unethical. Angola has taken away the religious rights of some groups within Angola. Would it not be unethical for another country to take away the religious rights of some other groups? Are you not justifying the demolition of temples in Bangladesh as a reaction to demolition of the Babri Mosque in India?Sent from my iPhone
Yes, Mr. Chakraborty, now I can understand your point. You have generalized your view in the last post. Dr. Bain promotes generalized views like, "Barbaric acts should not be retaliated with barbaric acts," and you support it. Both of you identify something as barbaric act, but do not support similar reaction to that. This is exactly Gandhism, whether you realize it or not.
You said, "My point is: Angola has banned Islam, so another country will have to retaliate by banning Christianity---that cannot be a wise step."
Now, I can agree with you - this is an extreme reaction, but not totally inappropriate in the realm of appropriate reactions.Saudi Arabia has practiced religious discrimination for thousands of years, and the world has looked the other way, which has resulted the spreading of religious discrimination (virus) in other Muslim majority countries too. If you think clearly you will have no difficulty to see the host country for this virus. I am puzzled by the fact that you guys have so much difficulty to see this reality. And, in that line of thinking, I judge Angolan action as extreme, but not inappropriate.Jiten Roy