Sent from my iPhone
What you are saying is that there is no secularism in those societies, because secular political party manifestos do not go on a head on collision with the Islamic religious edicts. That's not the criterion of secularism. You can be secular without violating tenants of Islam. A secular manifesto should comply with all religions.
If Jamat manifesto cannot do that, and becomes oxymoronic, it will cease to exist as a political party. Do not go overboard with your generalization.
Jiten Roy
--- On Sun, 11/11/12, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Civil Society if favour of banning Jamaat-Shibir's terroristic politics !!--The left and secular elements always wanted banning Jamaat
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, November 11, 2012, 4:01 PM
Jamaati politics without religious agenda is an oxymoron. The manifestos of our so called secular parties even are not free from religious agenda. For example, no law will contradict the Koran and Sunnah. This simply reflects the social reality and the existing power politics.Democracy is obviously not perfect. But in the absence of any other better alternatives, we will have to rely on the people's verdict.
Sent from my iPhone
Very inconsistent thought!
You want to leave the decision about politics with religion onto the people of Bangladesh, knowing that even the most educated Western countries do not leave this decision to the people. You know USA do not leave this decision to the people also. You cannot advocate such approach to a country like Bangladesh.
I know nothing will happen to Jamat, because Bangladeshi constitution is handicapped by the Awami-party amendments, and cannot force Jamat to reform their party manifesto. Ideally, Jamat should be allowed to stay as a political party without religious agenda in their political manifesto.
Jiten Roy
--- On Sun, 11/11/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Civil Society if favour of banning Jamaat-Shibir's terroristic politics !!--The left and secular elements always wanted banning Jamaat
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 11, 2012, 1:49 PM
Your views should influence social and political conditions in the country; that's where we need them mostly, but - I still disagree with you on the point that a country should be run by a religious group.>>>>>>>>>>>> In a "Free" and democratic country, this sort of decisions should be left unto people of those countries. As long religious or non-religious groups are not preaching violence or hate-mongering, they should be allowed to stay within politics.
In a free, moderate, democratic country people do "Evolve" in their thinking and religious (And secular) parties have "Opportunity" to evolve as well. As long they stay away from violence, we should embrace all people. If any of them can gain trust of mainstream population, they should be offered a chance to rule.
The beauty of democracy is people have reasonably fair chances to judge politicians based on their performances and judge them accordingly. This "Safe guard" will guard the safety of any community.
Shalom!
Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Nov 10, 2012 11:01 pm
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Civil Society if favour of banning Jamaat-Shibir's terroristic politics !!--The left and secular elements always wanted banning Jamaat
Hannan Shaheb,I like most of what you have said in your attached article. I like the moderation in the approach to deal with the non-Muslim in an Islamic country, which is a progressive step in the right direction. This is in keeping with the situation in the modern world, but - my worry is - these are views and interpretations of the moderate Islamic scholars, like you, and these interpretations can change suddenly under the more fundamental (strict) interpretations of the Islamic-laws. The recent example is Taliban-rules in Afghanistan. I know you disagree with the implementation of the Islamic laws by the Taliban, and I commend you for that. I strongly agree with you that Taliban rules were dead on arrival; they were 100% incompatible with the modern world. I can't help but admire your efforts to bring moderate Islamic views into the main-stream. Your views should influence social and political conditions in the country; that's where we need them mostly, but - I still disagree with you on the point that a country should be run by a religious group.With best regards,Jiten Roy
From: SAHANNAN <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Civil Society if favour of banning Jamaat-Shibir's terroristic politics !!--The left and secular elements always wanted banning Jamaat [1 Attachment]
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, November 10, 2012, 1:18 AM
Respected brother Jiten sb,Best regards. I do not want to pursue the matter. Let us agreem to differ.I explain only one point.Dhimmi is a term used to denote protected minorities in conquered territory of Muslims .All modern Muslim states have been achieved by joint efforts of Muslims and non- Muslims against colonial masters. So there will be no Zimmi now ) Please read Rasail wa Masail by Syed Abul Ala Maududi) .There was no Zimmi in Madinan state established by Prophet as it was not conquered territory)Please see the attached article where there is discussion on Zimmi.Shah Abdul Hannan
From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:14 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Civil Society if favour of banning Jamaat-Shibir ' s terroristic politics !!--The left and secular elements always wanted banning Jamaat
Hannan Shaheb,