Banner Advertiser

Sunday, December 4, 2011

[ALOCHONA] Tipaimukh plan to go ahead: Manmohan



Tipaimukh plan to go ahead: Manmohan



Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh has announced that India will go ahead with the plan of installing Tipaimukh hydroelectric project on the Barak River along the Manipur-Mizoram border.

"The environmental clearance for the project has been obtained and procuring clearance from forest department is underway," Manmohan was quoted as saying by The Assam Tribune. Manmohan made the statement at a public rally in Manipur state on Saturday. His announcement came amid protests from Bangladesh.

A section of environmentalists, both in Bangladesh and India, are opposed to the Tipaimukh project.
They say the dam over the Barak River would significantly bring down flow of water in its tributaries Surma and Kurshiara in Bangladesh. The dam will have a negative impact on the Meghna basin.

For the implementation of the Tipaimukh project, the newly formed NHPC, Manipur state government and SJVN will work together, said the Indian prime minister.

India's northeastern state Manipur recently signed an agreement with state-owned NHPC Ltd and Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd (SJVN) on Oct 22 to construct a 1,500MW Tipaimukh hydroelectric power project in Manipur.

According to a BBC report, the anti-Tipaimukh movement leaders have said that though the project got environmental clearance, the protests of the locals were not taken into account during the 'Environment Impact Analysis'.

Voicing his protest for over two decades, R K Ranjan, a scientist from Manipur said that the Indian government should have discussed the issue with the locals and obtained their permission.
However, "the security forces did not allow the general people to take part in the public hearings for the issue," he said.

The BBC had reported on Nov 19 that the Indian state of Manipur had signed contracts with several Indian government agencies to build the controversial Tipaimukh dam on the Barak River, which flows into Bangladesh as Surma.

Sheikh Hasina said last week in the parliament that the government is fully aware of Bangladesh's interests regarding the Tipaimukh dam.

On Friday, the Indian government has reiterated to Hasina's advisors Gowher Rizvi and Mashiur Rahman that India would not take steps on the proposed project, which would adversely affect Bangladesh and added that New Delhi was ready to hold discussion with Dhaka on the issue.

http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=212841&cid=2



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Re: Simla Agreement and trial of war crimes accused



TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA, BANGLADESH AND PAKISTAN FOR NORMALISATION OF RELATIONS IN THE SUB-CONTINENT

New Delhi, April 9, 1974

1. On July 2, 1972, the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India signed an historic agreement at Simla under which they resolved that the two countries put to an end the conflict and confrontation that has hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of a durable peace in the sub-continent. The Agreement also provided for the settlement of "their difference by peaceful means by bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon.

2. Bangladesh welcomed the Simla Agreement. The Prime Minister of Bangladesh strongly supported its objective of reconciliation, good neighborliness' and establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent.

3. The humanitarian problem arising in the wake of the tragic events of 1971 constituted a major obstacle in the way of reconciliation and normalization among the countries of the sub-continent. In the absence of reconciliation, it was not possible to have tripartite talks to settle the humanitarian problems, as Bangladesh could not participate in such meeting on the basis of sovereign equality.

4. On April 17, 1973, India and Bangladesh took a major step forward to break the deadlock on the humanitarian issues by setting aside the political problems of recognition. In a Declaration issued on the date they said that they "are resolved to continue their efforts to reduce tension, promote friendly and harmonious relationship in the sub-continent and work together towards the establishment of a durable peace ". Inspired by the vision and "in the larger interest of reconciliation, peace and stability in the sub-continent" they jointly proposed that the problem of the detained and stranded persons should be resolved on humanitarian considerations through simultaneous repatriation of all such persons except those Pakistani prisoners of war who might be required by the Government of Bangladesh for trial on certain charges.

5. Following the Declaration there were a series of talks between India and Bangladesh and India and Pakistan. These talks resulted in an agreement at Delhi on August 28, 1973 between India and Pakistan with the concurrence of Bangladesh, which provided for a solution of the outstanding humanitarian problems.

6. In pursuance of the Agreement, the process of three-way repatriation commenced on September 19, 1973. So far nearly 300,000 persons have been repatriated which has generated an atmosphere of reconciliation and paved the way for normalization of relations in the sub-continent.

7. In February 1974, recognition took place thus facilitating the participation of Bangladesh in the tripartite meeting envisaged in the Delhi Agreement, on the basis of sovereign equality. Accordingly His Excellency Dr.Kamal Hossain, Foreign Minster of the Government of Bangladesh, His Excellency Sardar Swaran Singh, Minister of External Affairs, Government of India and His Excellency Mr.Aziz Ahmed, the Minister of State for Defense and Foreign Affairs of the Government of Pakistan met in New Delhi from April 5 to April 9, 1974 and discussed the various issues mentioned in the Delhi Agreement in particular the question of the 195 prisoners of war and the completion of the three-way process of repatriation involving Bangalees in Pakistan, Pakistanis in Bangladesh and Pakistani prisoners of war in India.

8. The Ministries reviewed the progress of the three-way repatriation under the Delhi Agreement of August 28, 1973. They were gratified that such a large number of persons detained or stranded in the three countries had since reached their destinations.

9. The Ministers also considered steps that needed to be taken in order expeditiously to bring the process of the three-way repatriation to a satisfactory conclusion.

10. The Indian side stated that the remaining Pakistani prisoners of war and civilians internees in India to be repatriated under the Delhi Agreement, numbering approximately 6,500, would be repatriated at the usual pace of rain on alternate days and the likely short-fall [text illegible] ..to April 10, 1974 on account of Kumb Mela, would be made up by running additional trains after April 19. It was thus hoped that the repatriation of prisoners of war would be completed by the end of April 1974.

11. The Pakistani side stated that the repatriation of Bangladesh nationals from Pakistan was approaching completion. The remaining Bangladesh nationals in Pakistan would also repatriated without let or hindrance.

12. In respect of non-Bangalees in Bangladesh, the Pakistan side stated that the Government of Pakistan had already issued clearances for movement to Pakistan in favor of those non-Bangalees who were either domiciled in former West Pakistan, were employees of the Central Government and their families or were members of the divided families, irrespective of their original domicile. The issuance of the clearance to 25,000 persons who constitute hardship cases was also in progress. The Pakistan side reiterated that all those who fall under the first three categorize would be received by Pakistan without any limits to numbers. In respect of persons whose applications had been rejected, the Government of Pakistan would upon request, provide reasons why any particular case was rejected. Any aggrieved applicant could, at any time, seek a review of his application provided he was able to supply new facts or further information to the Government of Pakistan in support of his contention that he qualified in one or other of the three categories. The claims of such persons would not be time-barred. In the event of the decision of the review of a case being adverse, the Government of Pakistan and Bangladesh might seek to resolve it by mutual consultation.

13. The question of 195 Pakistani prisoners of war was discussed by the three Ministers, in the context of the earnest desire of the Governments for reconciliation, peace and friendship in the sub-continent. The Foreign Minister of Bangladesh stated that the excesses and manifold crimes committed by these prisoners of war constituted according to the relevant provisions of the U.N General Assembly Resolutions and International Law, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and that there was universal consensus that persons charged with such crimes as the 195 Pakistani prisoners of war should be held to account and subjected to the dues process of Law. The Minister of State for Defense and Foreign Affairs of the Government of Pakistan said that his Government condemned and deeply regretted any crimes that may have been committed.

14. In this connection the three Ministers noted that the matter should be viewed in the context of the determination of the three countries to continue resolutely to work for reconciliation. The Minister further noted that following recognition, the Prime Minister of Pakistan declared that he would visit Bangladesh in response to the invitation of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh and appeal to the people of Bangladesh, to forgive and forget the mistakes of the past. Similarly, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh had declared with regard to the atrocities and destruction committed in Bangladesh in 1971 that he wanted the people to forget the past and to make a fresh start, stating that the people of Bangladesh knew how to forgive.

15. In the light of the foregoing and, in particular, having regard to the appeal of the Prime Minister of Pakistan to the people of Bangladesh to forgive and forget the mistakes of the past, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh stated that the Government of Bangladesh has decided not to proceed with the trials as an act of clemency. It was agreed that the 195 prisoners of war may be repatriated to Pakistan along with the other prisoners of war now in process of repatriation under the Delhi Agreement.

16. The Minister expressed their convictions that the above agreements provide a firm basis for the resolution of the humanitarian problems arising out of the conflict of 1971. They reaffirmed the vital stake of seven hundred million people of the three countries have in peace and progress and reiterated the resolve of their Governments to work for the promotion of normalization of relations and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent.

Signed in New Delhi on April 9, 1974 in three original, each of which is equally authentic.

Sd/-
Dr.Kamal Hossain, Foreign Minster of the Government of Bangladesh,

Sd/-
Sardar Swaran Singh, Minister of External Affairs, Government of IndiaS

Sd/-
Mr.Aziz Ahmed, the Minister of State for Defense and Foreign Affairs of the Government of Pakistan

[RECORDED VERBATIM AS PER CIRCULATION BY THE OFFICE OF THE FOREIGN MINISTER, GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH]

http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/history/tri.html


On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
Simla Agreement and trial of war crimes accused

Ibne Golam Samad

 


http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/details/14641
http://sonarbangladesh.com/blog/abbirr/78984

Simla Agreement, 2 July 1972

This agreement on Bilateral Relations between India and Pakistan was signed after the 1971 India-Pakistan War, in which Pakistan was defeated conclusively and which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. India refrained from attacking or finishing off Pakistan and signed this agreement with the hope that henceforth the countries in the region would be able to live in peace with each other. The then Pakistani Prime Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, also promised the then Indian Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi, that his country would accept the Line of Control (LOC) in the state of J&K as the de facto border and would not try ot de-stabilise it. This was not formally entered in the agreement because Bhutto said it would cause domestic problems for him at this juncture. Mrs Gandhi magnanimously accepted his promise and did not formalise that part of the agreement. But Pakistan, as later events were to prove, never kept its part of the deal.

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflct and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their peoples.

In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Govern- ment of Pakistan have agreed as follows:

(i) That the principles and purposes off the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries;

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations.

(iii) That the pre-requisite for reconciliation, good-neighbourliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both countries to peaceful co-existence, respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty and non-interference in each other's internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit;

(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedevilled the relations between the two countries of the last twenty-five years shall be resolved by peaceful means;

(v) That they shall always respect each other's national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality;

(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other;

(II) Both Governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda direcdted against each other.

Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them;

(III) In order progressively to restore and normalize relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that;

(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land including border posts, and air links including overflights;

(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country;

(iii) Trade and co-operation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible;

(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.
In this connextion delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.

(IV) In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both Governments agree that:

(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border;

(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat of the use of force in violation of this line;

(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this Agreement and shall be completed within a period of thirty days thereof.

(V) This Agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the Instruments of Ratification are exchanged.

(VI)
Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that, in the meanwhile, the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of a durable peace and normalization of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of displomatic relations.

 Sd/-					Sd/-  Indira Gandhi				Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto  Prime Minister				President  Republic of India			Islamic Republic of Pakistan  


http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/simla.html




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] The Deception called Islamic Banking!





There are people always against Islam be they bear the Islamic names.
.
Once some one asked me 'do you think it is Islamic I just answered - look I am looking for Islamic products, very reason of which is my belief and knowingly I can not go to HSBC or Sonali Bank's products.
If the Islamic bank's products are not strictly sharia compatible that is between them and Allah Subahanawataala'.

To say the least, Sharia compatible banking and its products are under development, if not perfect under the given situation of regulations and conventional banking practice, we should not loose hope. The fiqah academy and 'fakheehs' are striving hard to produce sharia compatible products with reasonable success. A huge 'sukuk' bond market (80 billion $), murabaha (short term trade and leasing/installment sales) operations already popular and sustained its operations.  
Today the conventional banking remain in the hands of bandits, their criminally infested value less derivatives nothing but theft of millions. Federal Reserve or JP Morgan the elite bankers, made today millions of Americans as well as world economies and population  bankrupt. What about it ?
.
On the contrary taking a small lesson from our prophet (PUH) that 'money is not an asset itself but a measuring instrument' Islamic banking and economies sailed through with powerful streangth during great American and European manipulation and successive collapse, because there is no fictitious asset in Sharia (imagine the housing foreclosure, all fraud and complete deceipt and happened infront of all so called powerful regulatory bodies). Cruel enough, all the elite banks and their managers were awarded with hefty bonuses and rescue packages but not the millions. Greed has no values, absent of morality.
 


--- On Thu, 17/11/11, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:

From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] The Deception called Islamic Banking!
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 17 November, 2011, 6:08 PM

 
As I have written earlier that, Tarek Fatah is an opportunist and giving false alarm against Islamic banking. All banking in Canada or USA are highly regulated and monitored. So I do not see any reason to worry about that. He is just a low life who is trying to make some quick money by saying stuffs against Islam and Islamic banking.

No one need to pay attention to this clown. He also propagate that, Islam accept gays!!

Fact is Tarek makes up stuff like that against Islam and makes money out of it. If anyone looks up scriptures and any scholar with minimum education, it will be easy to see that, this guy is a fake Muslim and a hypocrite.


-----Original Message-----
From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
To: alochona <alochona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 7:41 pm
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] The Deception called Islamic Banking!

 
Tarek Fatah is a propagandist against Islam.He sees nothing good in Islam .Please read some good books on Islamic banking. Islamic banking is much superior to interest based Banking. You can also Google search for Islamic banking.
Shah Abdul Hannan
 

From: alochona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:alochona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Farida Majid
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:23 PM
Subject: [ALOCHONA] The Deception called Islamic Banking!
 
 
Two years ago, in my book Chasing a Mirage, I had explained the unethical and unislamic nature of Sharia Banking. I am sharing this part of the book for all to read and understand the siubject without reading it filtered through the rose-coloured prism of the liberal media that seems fascinated by the exotic nature of the claims.
 
Read and reflect.
 
Tarek
--------
Sharia Banking: An expose
 
Tarek Fatah
Excerpt from "Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State
 
Family law is not the only place where the introduction of sharia law is being sought in Canada. While Islamists may have suffered a setback in their attempt to introduce sharia law in this country, they have not accepted defeat. In fact, their plan is to introduce "sharia" in any form, wherever it would gain acceptance as a legitimate part of the Western lexicon.
 
The recent attempt to obtain government validation and funding of sharia-based private Islamic schools in the
province of Ontario almost sneaked in, but for a public outcry. Sharia-compliant music, sharia-sanctioned soccer, sharia-based health practice (in which physicians refuse to treat patients of the opposite gender)—you name it and the Islamists are trying to push some aspect of sharia into our lives. However, the one area where their efforts are making the most ground is in sharia banking, where they have the help of some extremely powerful allies.
 
On one hand Islamists have made common cause with such figures of the left as London Mayor Ken Livingstone and maverick British MP George Galloway, denouncing capitalism as the source of all ill. However, a closer examination suggests Islamists are also lining up with such icons of global capitalism as Citibank NA, HSBC Holdings PLC, and Barclays PLC, which have all endorsed sharia banking and started offering Islamic financing products to a vulnerable Muslim population.
 
While sharia-style family law was essentially promoted by imams and the mosque establishment, sharia-based banking is being promoted by well-heeled Muslim bankers and investment lawyers, who are driven not by teachings of the Prophet but the lure of profits.
 
The Globe and Mail reported in May 2007: "Several Canadian financial institutions are preparing sharia-compliant mortgages, insurance, taxi licensing and investment funds to help serve the country's fastest-growing part of the population." Promoting it of course is a prominent Muslim corporate lawyer with close ties to Canada's Conservative Party, Walied Soliman. A lawyer at Ogilvy Renault LLP, Soliman told The Globe, "I expect it [sharia banking] to grow exponentially in Canada in the next couple of years."
 
He confessed that the promotion of sharia banking has become a priority practice area for his firm.
 
This push from Muslim banking executives working inside the corporate world has had some success. Most big Canadian institutions are treading carefully, and not all are jumping on board. The Globe reported that while the Royal Bank of Canada quietly tested a sharia finance product a few years ago and didn't find enough market interest, other Canadian banks, smelling easy pickings, are lining up to wear the Islamic mantle. Scotiabank and Toronto- Dominion Bank have been quietly considering whether to start offering sharia-compliant products as part of the big banks' strategy to reach out to a growing "immigrant population." I doubt very much if Hindu, Sikh, and Chinese "immigrant" Canadians are excited at the prospect of halal banks.
 
The promoters of sharia banking are Islamists, and their target is to control the Muslim population and segregate them from the rest of the world, one bank account at a time. With every mortgage signed, the
family has to take ownership of sharia and disown the rest of society as the impure moneylenders.
 
While Scotiabank and TD officials were rubbing shoulders with two hundred delegates at a Toronto Islamic Finance World conference in Toronto in summer 2007, Canada's Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), which regulates financial institutions, said their staff was being pushed to brush up on the fine points of sharia law to cope with the anticipated expansion of Islamic financial services in Canada.
 
Normand Bergevin, managing director at OSFI's approvals and precedents division, told The Globe that several people on his staff were learning about business plans, legal structures, accounting methods, types of governance and other issues related to Islamic finance. He told the newspaper: "It's fairly new to us.
 
There's not a whole lot of experience here in terms of supervising or even understanding the different types of products. They all have little twists on them that make them very unlike anything we've ever seen before."
Guess who is going to fill the knowledge gap and find jobs in high places of Canada's financial watchdog?
 
While Canada's banks salivate at this supposed untapped niche market, one Muslim-owned financial institution with strong marketing and social links to most Islamist events in Canada has been doing a brisk business.
 
Omar Kalair, the chief executive officer of UM Financial, has said demand for his group's sharia-compliant products has been so great that UM has stopped all marketing and has a five-thousand-person waiting list of people who want to switch over from conventional mortgages to ones that are sharia-compliant. Kalair however admitted that from among the 200,000 Muslim households in Canada, his target is the capture of 2.5 percent of this market, and that too with the help of one of the big five banks.
 
Origins of Sharia Banking
 
Islamic banking traces its roots to the 1920s, but did not start until the late 1970s, and owes much of its foundation to the Islamist doctrine of two people: Abul Ala Maudoodi of the Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan and Hassan al-Banna of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. While these two pillars of the Pan-Islamist movement propagated jihad and war against the West, they also recognized the role international financial institutions could play in carrying out their political objectives.
 
Since 1928, when it was created, the Muslim Brotherhood has placed a high emphasis on the creation of a so-called Islamic economic system. Banna and his successor Syed Qutb even laid down principles of Islamic finance. Millard Burr and Robert Collins in their bookAlms for Jihad claim that the Muslim Brotherhood watched, waited, and learned the management of money that was essential to finance a worldwide organization devoted to spreading their Islamist ideology.
 
But the theory was only put into practice once the US-backed Pakistani military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq overthrew the government of Z.A. Bhutto and established sharia law in Pakistan, forcing the country's public-sector banks to run their operations based on Islamic principles and without the role of interest.
 
The proponents of Sharia banking rest their case on many verses of the Holy Quran, which in their interpretation outlaw any business or personal financial transaction involving interest. There is no
unanimity among the Muslims who, in voting with their feet and chequebooks, have overwhelmingly rejected banks that operate in a supposedly interest-free environment. Most Muslims can see through the fog of deception, but we are a billion strong worldwide, and even if a small minority falls prey to the Islamist
propaganda, there is lots of money to be made.
 
Quranic verses that address the question of the role and the question
of loans and debts include:
 
• Al Baqarah (2:275): "God hath permitted trade and forbidden usury.
Those who after receiving direction from their Lord, desist, shall be
pardoned for the past; their case is for God [to judge]; but those who
repeat [the offence] are companions of the Fire: They will abide
therein [forever]."
 
• Al Baqarah (2:276): "Allah does not bless usury, and He causes
charitable deeds to prosper, and Allah does not love any ungrateful
sinner."
 
• Al Baqarah (2:278): "O you who believe! Be careful of (your duty to)
Allah and relinquish what remains [due] from usury, if you are
believers."
 
• Al Baqarah (2:280): "If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him
time Till it is easy for him to repay. But if ye remit it by way of
charity, that is best for you if ye only knew."
 
• Al Nisa (4:161): "And their taking usury though indeed they were
forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and
We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful
chastisement."
 
• Ar Rum (30–39): "And whatever you lay out as usury, so that it may
increase in the property of men, it shall not increase with Allah; and
whatever you give in charity, desiring Allahs pleasure—it is these
[persons] that shall get manifold."
 
From these Quranic verses it is abundantly clear that the Quran is addressing the rich money lenders to show compassion towards the borrower and give him or her more time to pay back the loan. In fact the Quran suggests to the lender that it would be far better if the money lender forgave the loan altogether.
 
To suggest that the onus of complying with sharia rests on the weaker borrower is obscene and against the spirit of equity in Islam. I say this because what the imams and self-styled scholars of sharia banking are proposing makes it easy for the wealthy to be pious simply by not having to do anything, while the poor who need to borrow are told to stay away from banks that lend.
 
Once more we see an example of Islam attempting to bring justice to the poor while Islamists make it difficult for the poor to access funds they don't have. Today, owners of Islamic banks are billionaires—the practitioners of sharia banking are among the richest men in the world,* while the vast majority of Muslims still struggle to eke out a living beyond one dollar a day. Sharia banking fattens the bottom lines of the imams, the bank owners, and the lawyers who pull out their best to Islamicize anything that sustains their handsome hourly rate.
 
Every translation of the Quran into the English language has rendered the Arabic word riba as "usury," not "interest," yet Islamists have deliberately portrayed bank interest, the cost of borrowing money, as usury. For Islamists, there should be a cost to renting a car and renting a DVD, but when renting money for a period of time, there should be no cost of this capital. Instead, Islamists have created exotic products with names that are foreign to much of the world's Muslim population
 
This is where interest can be masked under the niqaab of Mudraba, Musharaka, Murabaha, and Ijara.†
 
Whereas interest is the charge for the privilege of borrowing money, typically expressed as an annual percentage rate, usury is the practice of lending money and charging the borrower interest, especially at an exorbitant or illegally high rate.
 
Two senior Muslim banking experts-turned-authors have written scathing critiques of sharia banking: Muhammad Saleem has labelled the practice as nothing more than deception, while Timur Kuran has suggested that the entire exercise was "a convenient pretext for advancing broad Islamic objectives and for lining the pockets of religious officials."
 
Why Canadian banks would contribute to this masquerade is a question for ordinary Canadians to ask.
 
Muhammad Saleem is former president and CEO of Park Avenue Bank in New York. Before that he was a senior banker with Bankers Trust, where among other responsibilities he headed the Middle East division and
served as adviser to a prominent Islamic bank based in Bahrain.
 
In his book Islamic Banking: A $300 Billion Deception, Saleem not only dismisses the founding premise of Sharia and Islamic Banking, but says: "Islamic banks do not practise what they preach: they all charge interest, but disguised in Islamic garb. Thus they engage in deceptive and dishonest banking practices."
 
He writes:
 
"Proponents of Islamic banking say that Islam bans all interest. But an understanding of pre-Islamic and Islamic history and keeping in mind the context would lead one to conclude that what the Quran bans is usury, not interest. Usury can be defined as interest above the legal or socially acceptable rate. Phrased differently, usury is the exploitative, exorbitant interest rate."
 
Islam's essence is its quest for equality and social justice. Muhammad Saleem says that any banking or economic system that purports to be "Islamic"—including the current crop of Islamic banks—should answer
two questions: By supposedly staying away from interest and sharing risks with their clients, were they able to help make the economic system more just, fair and equitable, and honest?
 
While Saleem goes to great lengths in exposing the intellectual  dishonesty surrounding the marketing of sharia-compliant banking, Professor Timur Kuran, who taught Islamic Thought at the University of Southern California, mocks the very idea.
 
 In his brilliant book Islam and Mammon: The Economic Predicaments of Islamism, Kuran writes:"There is no distinctly Islamic way to build a ship, or defend a territory, or cure an epidemic, or forecast the weather." He says the effort to introduce sharia banking "has promoted the spread of anti-modern currents of thought all across the Islamic world. It has also fostered an environment conducive to Islamist militancy."
 
Secondly, were these banks able to promote economic development in the Muslim world? In the words of Saleem: "Sadly, the answer is a resounding no. There is absolutely no evidence that the Islamic banks have made any contribution in either of these two areas."
 
The fact is that China and India, two countries that have had some measure of success in alleviating poverty and enhancing development, have outpaced all the Muslim countries put together despite their enormous natural resources and strategic locations. Sharia banking may not have alleviated poverty or generated economic development, but it has been a boon to the mullah class on one hand and, on the other, to the yuppie Muslim bankers and investment lawyers who have created a niche for themselves at the expense of the larger Muslim masses.
 
Saleem, who saw the functioning of Islamic banking from the inside, writes:
 
"In promoting the establishment of Islamic banking, the Sharia scholars have played a critical role. Lacking any knowledge of banking, economics and for many even Islamic history, in interpreting riba, they have confused interest with usury. . . . Secondly, as Sharia advisers to Islamic banks, they have blessed many transactions as Islamic—meaning non-interest bearing—when in fact they are clearly charging interest, but interest payments are masked."
 
Dozens of Islamic scholars and imams now serve on sharia boards of the banking industry. If Canada's TD Bank, BMO, and RBC join the league, it will be interesting to see how the ultra-left Trotskyite allies of the Islamists view their partners hobnobbing with the bankers atop Toronto's TD Tower.
 
Moreover, a new industry of Islamic banking conferences and forums has emerged, permitting hundreds of sharia scholars to mix and mingle with bankers and economists at financial centres around the globe. In the
words of Saleem, who attended many such meetings, they gather "to hear each other praise each other for all the innovations they are making." 
 
The Toronto conference promoting sharia banking and Islamic investments was part of this worldwide touring circuit that allows banks to keep the sharia scholars pampered and well looked after. There are at least five international conferences every year and these have been going on annually for the past twenty-five years. Saleem estimates that the cost of each conference exceeds $2 million and so far more than $200 million has been spent just keeping the sharia banking circuit alive.
 
He cites one example of how sharia scholars only care for the money they get from banks, and are willing to rubber-stamp any deal where interest is masked. Saleem describes one such incident as "comical":
 
"I have first hand seen comical cases where the sharia scholar of an Islamic bank only spoke Arabic, but a lending officer only spoke English and Urdu. A particular financing transaction was structured in English with such terms as x% over LIBOR.** So we had an interpreter who would translate from English to Arabic, explaining this convoluted transaction to the Sharia advisor. It was at times painful and other times comical to watch the proposal being presented to this religious scholar for his blessings to ensure that it was consistent with the principles of sharia. The "sharia scholar," elderly and partly deaf, had little experience in modern banking and finance. However, mindful of the fact that the bank was paying him a generous retainer, he gave his blessing to the deal, after being fully made aware that the bank wanted to do this deal, even though from the look on his face it was obvious that he could not tell the difference between a trade deal and a leveraged buyout transaction.
 
In the name of Islam, what amounts to deception and dishonesty are being practised while ordinary Muslims are being made to feel that their interaction with mainstream banks is un-Islamic and sinful. As the Muslim banker asked: "Through various devices—mostly cosmetic—[Islamic] banks end up with virtually no risk. If Islamic banks label their hamburger, a Mecca Burger, as long as it still has the same ingredients as a McDonald's burger, is it really any different in substance?"
 
Muhammad Saleem laments the fact that few people are exposing the deception of this exercise in the name of Islam. "We should be able to point out the failures and shortcomings of Islamic banking and economics without being accused of being anti-Islamic," he says. Perhaps Scotiabank, the RBC, BMO, and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions will pay heed to this former banker's words of caution.
 
The sharia-banking charade is a sad indictment of the Muslim community. Islamic banking is not some resurrection from a golden period—it is a 20th- century creation that flies in the face of reason, logic, and the spirit of Islam, yet is being thrust on us for no fault of ours.
 
-------
* "The reason [why they are so wealthy] was a two-page report on the
wealth of 15 ruling dynasties, seven of which are Arab," Refaat
Jaafar, managing editor of Dubai- based Forbes Arabia, told Reuters.
In October 2007, Forbes Magazine reported on the wealth of 15 ruling
dynasties, seven of which are Muslim. Saudi Arabia banned the issue
after it ranked Saudi King Abdullah third, behind the rulers of Brunei
and the United Arab Emirates.
 
† Arabic names given to various banking products.
 
** LIBOR is the London Interbank Offered Rate, much like the US Federal
Bank rate or the Bank of Canada rate.
 
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Simla Agreement and trial of war crimes accused



Simla Agreement and trial of war crimes accused

Ibne Golam Samad

 


http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/details/14641
http://sonarbangladesh.com/blog/abbirr/78984

Simla Agreement, 2 July 1972

This agreement on Bilateral Relations between India and Pakistan was signed after the 1971 India-Pakistan War, in which Pakistan was defeated conclusively and which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. India refrained from attacking or finishing off Pakistan and signed this agreement with the hope that henceforth the countries in the region would be able to live in peace with each other. The then Pakistani Prime Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, also promised the then Indian Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi, that his country would accept the Line of Control (LOC) in the state of J&K as the de facto border and would not try ot de-stabilise it. This was not formally entered in the agreement because Bhutto said it would cause domestic problems for him at this juncture. Mrs Gandhi magnanimously accepted his promise and did not formalise that part of the agreement. But Pakistan, as later events were to prove, never kept its part of the deal.

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflct and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their peoples.

In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Govern- ment of Pakistan have agreed as follows:

(i) That the principles and purposes off the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries;

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations.

(iii) That the pre-requisite for reconciliation, good-neighbourliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both countries to peaceful co-existence, respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty and non-interference in each other's internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit;

(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedevilled the relations between the two countries of the last twenty-five years shall be resolved by peaceful means;

(v) That they shall always respect each other's national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality;

(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other;

(II) Both Governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda direcdted against each other.

Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them;

(III) In order progressively to restore and normalize relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that;

(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land including border posts, and air links including overflights;

(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country;

(iii) Trade and co-operation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible;

(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.
In this connextion delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.

(IV) In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both Governments agree that:

(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border;

(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat of the use of force in violation of this line;

(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this Agreement and shall be completed within a period of thirty days thereof.

(V) This Agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the Instruments of Ratification are exchanged.

(VI)
Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that, in the meanwhile, the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of a durable peace and normalization of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of displomatic relations.

 Sd/-					Sd/-  Indira Gandhi				Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto  Prime Minister				President  Republic of India			Islamic Republic of Pakistan  


http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/simla.html



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___