Re: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate

As I said Muslims ruled most of India for a very long time. They did not take part in conversions in most parts. Neither they were known for torturing non-Muslims."

>>>>>>>>>>> My statement still stands. I did say "Most parts". Which indicates they were not perfect but comparing with other parts of the world, they were very good (As a group) for India. There were other leaders beside Aurangzeb. Even he repaired some of the temples from state.

If you READ my post, you will see it will not be hard for any fair person to agree with what I said. Even modern India commits a lot of violence against it's own citizens. That does not mean they did not make any progress for that nation.

A little fairness in expectation will be helpful.

Shalom!

-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 7:03 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate

Q. Rahman Said: "As I said Muslims ruled most of India for a very long time. They did not take part in conversions in most parts. Neither they were known for torturing non-Muslims." "This man CONSISTENTLY spread bols face LIES about Islam and Muslims." "I was expecting someone other than Muslim would respond to such hate filled posts against Muslims and Islam." ___________________ These are some of Mr. Rahman's statements. His last sentence drew my attention. So, I started to look for some information about Mughal Emperors in India, especially Aurangzeb, who Farida Majid calls the greatest Emperor of India.  Spending a few seconds in the web, I landed on tons of information about Aurangzeb and other emperors of India. Here are some of the excerpts about Aurangzeb, copied from the web as stated in there. These are compilations of concensus opinions of many historians, not just one or two. ________________________ Another instance of Aurangzeb's notoriety was his policy of temple destruction, for which figures vary wildly from 80 to 60,000.[25] Among the Hindu temples he demolished were the three most sacred: the Kashi Vishwanath temple, Kesava Deo temple and Somnath temple. He built large mosques in their place.[24] In 1679, he ordered destruction of several prominent temples that had become associated with his enemies: these included the temples of Khandela, Udaipur, Chittor and Jodhpur.[26] Historian Richard Eaton believes the overall understanding of temples to be flawed. As early as the sixth century, temples became vital political landmarks as well as religious ones. He writes that not only was temple desecration widely practised and accepted, it was a necessary part of political struggle.[26] Tegh Bahadur, a Sikh guru, was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced conversions.[27]     Aurangzeb also sent his general Raja Jai Singh of Amber, a Hindu Rajput, to attack the Marathas. Jai Singh won the fort of Purandar after fierce battle in which the Maratha commander Murarbaji fell. Foreseeing defeat, Shivaji agreed for a truce and a meeting with Aurangjeb at Delhi. Jai Singh also promised Shivaji his safety, placing him under the care of his own son, the future Raja Ram Singh I. However, circumstances at the Mughal court were beyond the control of the Raja, and when Shivaji and his son Sambhaji went to Agra to meet Aurangzeb, they were placed under house arrest, from which they managed to effect a daring escape.[53]   Early in Aurangzeb's reign, various insurgent groups of Sikhs engaged Mughal troops in increasingly bloody battles. The ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur, like his predecessors was opposed to conversion of the local population as he considered it wrong. Approached by Kashmiri Pandits to help them retain their faith and avoid forced religious conversions, Bahadur took on Aurangzeb. The emperor perceived the rising popularity of the guru as a threat to his sovereignty and in 1670 had him executed,[60][page needed] which infuriated the Sikhs. In response, Bahadur's son and successor, Guru Gobind Singh, further militarized his followers, starting with the establishment of Khalsa in 1699, eight years before Aurangzeb's death.[citation   Even Aurangzeb, had ceased to understand the purpose of it all by the time he was nearing 90 ... "I came alone and I go as a stranger. I do not know who I am, nor what I have been doing," the dying old man confessed to his son in February 1707.[65]    ____________________________   Now, let's summarize some of the main points to draw conclusions. Aurangzeb - killed his brothers and put his sick old father, Sahjahan, into captivity to come to power - implemented Sharia Laws (Zizia Tax, etc.) in India - was notorious for destroying temples (80 – 60,000), including Viswanath, Somnath,   etc. temples to build mosques on them - forced Indians to convert to Islam – beheaded most famous Shikh Guru, Teg Bahadur for   declining to convert -was always engaged in wars for expansion of his empire, which ultimately brought his   destruction after he confronted Shibaji - in the end, he admitted to his son - "I came alone and I go as a stranger. I do not know who I am, nor what I have been doing," the dying old man confessed to his son in February 1707.[65]   These are just a drop of water in the ocean, what Aurangzeb, the great, achieved during his lifetime. ____________ Now, I want to make sure that, having said all these, I am not trying to blame Islam or Muslims for what Aurangzeb did in his lifetime. The fact that he was a Muslim has nothing to do with other Muslims. I am not sure why some of us here labeling criticism of what some Muslim emperors did during their tenure in India as "anti-Muslim" propaganda. I know many regular Muslim-folks also suffered under some of those emperors. It has been told that – Aurangzeb had a dream to concur Decan territory, and he used to launch several attempts a year, in which at least 100,000 soldiers, mostly Muslims, died per year. But, Aurangzeb never succeeded to fulfill his dream in his lifetime. In fact, it brought his demise. But – those innocent soldiers had to die for his dream year after year for 27 years. Is this a story of a great Mughal emperor or what?  If I have furnished any misinformation, please feel free to correct it.  Thank you very much. Jiten Roy   --- On Fri, 12/14/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote: From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, December 14, 2012, 9:06 AM As I said Muslims ruled most of India for a very long time. They did not take part in conversions in most parts. Neither they were known for torturing non-Muslims. Had it been so bad, all Indians would not have selected Bahadur Shah Zafar to lead them to fight the British. Not only Mughals contributed a lot to what is known as "India", they were liked by most common people. Unlike the Europeans in Americas or current zionist Regime in Israel, they improved overall condition of India and created "United states of India". Before Muslims arrived it was mostly small nation states constantly fighting with each others. From literature, Music to architecture, they have established "Indian civilization" in the world map. It is absolutely OK if you are not a fan of Muslims. However such massive distortions in narrative is disturbing (To say the least). Shalom! -----Original Message----- From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 8:09 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate   Nothing could be more nonsense than comparing 2.5% zakat with 60% zizya.  Only a fool could think those to be equal. On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:47 AM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote: Without the Rajput Generals not even Aurangzeb could come to power. >>>>>>>>> There were people of many ethnic backgrounds working for Mughals. As I said earlier, (for most parts) mughals were ruling India as rulers not "Islamic preachers". The sufis and scholars spread the message of Islam to people of India. Many became Muslims and many stayed with their faiths. Therefore, they had a pluralistic community which was open to all. Muslims did not encourage conversion to Islam from other faiths for fear of losing the Zizya tax, >>>>>>> Muslims also pay "Zakat tax", so this is not a valid argument. Muslim rulers largely stayed out of conversion issue. People came to Islam willingly. Shalom! -----Original Message----- From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 12, 2012 8:19 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate   Please read the a as the/a. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote: "India was ruled by Muslims over a thousand years but most population remained non-Muslims. Think about it!!" This guy is shamefully ignorant.  Muslims effectively ruled India for no more than five hundred years, always with the help of on or another fraction of Hindus.  Without the Rajput Generals not even Aurangzeb could come to power.  The Mughals did not even circumcise.  In it's primitive history, Muslims did not encourage conversion to Islam from other faiths for fear of losing the Zizya tax, but during the Abbasid regime the massive conversion could not be prevented.  However most Muslims today have Hindu ancestry.  Their forefathers were so disrespectfully treated by the Brahmins and other members of the higher caste that they tried to find a refuge in Islam in vain.  In Islam, the non-Arabs are called Azam which literally means blind people.  Thus Quaid-e-Azam  is the a leader of the blind.  Before Gandhi conferred the title on the pork sandwich devouring Jinnah, the title belonged to Maulana Azad. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:06 AM, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote: Unfortunately, I can't solve the puzzle. Do you think other religions were not for all mankind? What qualifies Islam as a religion for all mankind? I thought Islam is for Muslims only. >>>>>>>>>>> This was NOT my personal opinion. This observation was formed based on religious scriptures. Read the Bible and you will see. It addressed ONLY "Children of Israel" or Jews!! Words like trinity or Christianity are not parts of the Bible. Islam is the ONLY religion which addressed all of humanity. Again based on scriptures ONLY. Obviously, Islam is followed by Muslims. However the religion itself addressed ALL OF HUMANITY. The language is all inclusive and invites (Dawah) everyone to join. People of all colors, nations, races joined Islam over the years. Today only 20% of global population are Arabs. The question is - can you follow Islam and not identify you as a Muslim? >>>>>>>>>> There are many non-Muslims who LIKE Islam as a religion but did not convert to Islam. However if you want to "Follow" Islam, you want to convert. I know some people who do fast (Like Ramadan) like Muslims, mimics Islamic style worship etc. But I don't they qualify as "Follower". Maybe "Admirer". If you can't, Islam will be a religion only for Muslims, not all mankind.    >>>>>>>>>> I think you got it all mixed up here. Islam is the ONLY religion that ADDRESSED the humanity. Other faiths is not even open to all. You cannot convert to Hinduism or Judaism. Scriptures of Christianity and Judaism addressed ONLY a tribe of people. NOT the global population. Therefore, Islam is the only religion which speaks to the global audience AND open to everyone (Not matter what race/caste you belong to). You may be dreaming about the time when most people in the world will be Muslim. >>>>>>  I don't have those dreams. My first wish is directed to Muslims not non-Muslims. I wished they learnt more about their own faith and learn to practice and appreciate so many positive teachings of Islam. Islam remains open to all but the "World population" themselves have to decide if they want to join or not. they did not hesitate to resort to forced imposition of Islam (by sword, as they say) in many parts of the world >>>>>>>>> Some Muslims did went to parts of the world with swords. BUT they did not go their to preach Islam but to claim new lands for themselves. It was common for people of all religions. HOWEVER forced imposition is NOT permitted by Islam. It was a common practice among Christians. Maybe you are mixing it up here. If there are some incidents, they had to be the exception rather than common norm. India was ruled by Muslims over a thousand years but most population remained non-Muslims. Think about it!! Hope my explanation will help you "Understand" Islam a little better. Shalom! -----Original Message----- From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sat, Dec 8, 2012 7:12 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate You have been emphasizing that Islam was introduced for all mankind. Unfortunately, I can't solve the puzzle. Do you think other religions were not for all mankind? What qualifies Islam as a religion for all mankind? I thought Islam is for Muslims only. Don't you think everybody has to become Muslim in order to make Islam the religion for all mankind? Also, don't you think - mankind will be called Muslim-Ummah at that point? The question is - can you follow Islam and not identify you as a Muslim? If you can't, Islam will be a religion only for Muslims, not all mankind.       Logically it does not make sense why Islam, being the latest religion, with intent to include all mankind will introduce a new identity, called Muslim, for its believers. You may be dreaming about the time when most people in the world will be Muslim. Some Christians may have similar dream too.  History tells us  that early Islam-propagators had that dream, and they were so driven by the dream of Muslim-ummah that - they did not hesitate to resort to forced imposition of Islam (by sword, as they say) in many parts of the world, even though such technique may not be sanctioned in Islam.      If a religion is introduced with intent to include all mankind, it should not divide the mankind by assigning a religious label on its followers. I can think of the early Vedic religions that had the potential to include all mankind, since there were no other major religions at the time.  But, politics of other contemporary religions in the later period did not allow such potential to come to fruition.    Thanks.   Jiten Roy   --- On Thu, 12/6/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote: From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012, 11:43 AM Not really! I wish I could agree with you. Islam is prevalent in most of the troubled spots on the globe. Islamic political parties are destabilizing secular democratic norms of the society even in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. You need to show us some results before we accept your premise. >>>>>>>>> I remember one Iraqi university teacher said (On TV) that, he wished they did not have any oil. The other person asking him question was dumbfounded and asked why do you say thing like that? He said since we discovered oil, we have been ruled by people outside Iraq!! Therefore, he preferred to be poor instead of being a rich slave. There are some religious parties supplying many headlines. That happens when there are "Actions" happening in many places where we have Muslim majority. For example, Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan and "Islamic parties" had no effects to these places. They came much later. As far as Bangladesh is concern, I don't even know why a huge party like BAL focuses so much on Jammat. I never thought Jammat had that much power to "Destabilize democratic norms". In facts, if anything our big parties (All major parties) have done a poor job in promoting democracy in Bangladesh and even inside their own parties. So the common man/woman don't sense authenticity when they speak of "Democracy". Generally speaking, my observation is when our regular parties FAILS us, people focus on alternative parties. It ranges from communist (Shorbohara) to fanatic religious ideologies. These are more like reaction to sorry sad of state then someone directing the nation. Fortunately as far as Bangladesh is concern, we still have some time to walk into a bright future if we do our jobs properly. Which means leading parties have to focus more on solid work over "Hot speeches" about opposition parties. It is also important to remember there are religious parties in many places like Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia etc and they are doing fine. Most countries in ME are also making solid progress. As far as my initial comment is concern, it is true that, unlike most other religions, Islam is the ONLY global faith that speaks about HUMANITY over any specific tribes. It speaks to human beings, therefore those who do not come from Islamic background some wrong perceptions about Islam. For example, if you examine scriptures you will see Judaism and Christianity came from JEWS only. No solution was given and some creative interpretations were done to stretch "Christianity" into a global faith. You will NOT find the word "Christianity" in the Bible. Islam is an unique religion in that manner. Again my emphasis is always on basic religious concepts. Also based on history, I feel religious Islamic party itself is not a bad concept but when you abuse good concept they can make you look bad. No disagreemt there.. Shalom! -----Original Message----- From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 5, 2012 6:34 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate ".... Islam was NOT meant for any specific nations or tribes, it was sent as a solution for the humanity. When you look at the topic from this perspective, it will make more sense to you."   Not really! I wish I could agree with you. Islam is prevalent in most of the troubled spots on the globe. Islamic political parties are destabilizing secular democratic norms of the society even in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. You need to show us some results before we accept your premise. Sorry, religion is not the solution, it's the problem. I don't see any bright future for religion. Jiten Roy     --- On Tue, 12/4/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote: From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2012, 9:13 AM why some people take religious-feeling so seriously than others. Reacting  to a religious feeling violently is a needless reaction, in my view, if you believe in the consequences on the Day of Judgment. Just leave to the Almighty; will you? >>>>>>>>>>>>> different people reacts differently to any given situations. When we were colonies of the British Raj, some people liked it, some people disliked it but did not do anything about it and a groups of people (From all religious background) started to violently fighting the colonial rulers. Guess it is normal human nature. Also we have enough laws in the books to punish chaos makers in our country. Regardless of your faith background (Or no faith background), I am pretty sure most people will not like trouble makers. There when you become leaders of any country, we have to pick laws that serves best interest of our communities. Not only intentional insults against the holy Qur'an should be addressed, I would say same for idiotic insults against any faiths. It is plain common sense. (To me) the beauty of Islam is that, our Creator put these "Common sense" laws in written form, so all of us can live in harmony. Remember unlike any faiths in human history, Islam was NOT meant for any specific nations or tribes, it was sent as a solution for the humanity. When you look at the topic from this perspective, it will make more sense to you. :-) Shalom! -----Original Message----- From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 7:38 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate I agree completely what you just said - do not invite troubles. My argument was against the "generality" of the phrase - disrespecting Quran is an INTOLERABLE offense to Muslims.  My argument was - such act is not intolerable to all Muslims; otherwise all Muslims would have reacted violently, like the others who did. I think I am right. I also think - most Muslims believe Allah will punish those who disrespect Quran, and those who do it will face the consequence when they face Allah. Again, this is just a logical argument against the generality of the phrase. Everybody has the right to commit sin also, as long as such act does not affect others. No one will probably pay much attention to the sinner. You may argue – disrespecting Quran will cause pain and anguish in many Muslims, and some people could react violently; that's understandable. The trouble-maker has to take into account of the consequence the act before performing it. That being said - I am still puzzled by the fact that - why some people take religious-feeling so seriously than others. Reacting  to a religious feeling violently is a needless reaction, in my view, if you believe in the consequences on the Day of Judgment. Just leave to the Almighty; will you? Jiten Roy   --- On Mon, 12/3/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote: From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, December 3, 2012, 4:58 PM Regardless of our opinions about "Disrespecting the holy Qur'an", we should NOT allow average people getting into the business of punishment. Mob rule never brings anything good for any population. Despite my respect for the holy Qur'an, I do NOT support "Mob justice". No so called "Islamist party" should support such attacks on religious places. While it has been a command of Allah (SWT) to Muslims to stay away from such practices. At the same time, I like to slightly differ with member Roy as well. Do understand Islam is a religion which addresses and acknowledges "Natural laws of human". When we live in a country consisting of around 85% Muslim population, insulting holy  book of Islam does NOT promote harmony among people. Therefore, it makes the security situation more risky. Do understand MOST Muslims do not respond to such "provocation" violently. But even if a tiny minority reacts, that can cause law and order situation. For example, if I slaughter a cow in front of Victoria memorial (In Kolkata), there is a good chance most people will hurt and tolerate it. At the SAME TIME, it is almost guaranteed that I am simply inviting some "Ass kicking" here. You try to say awful things about the "Christianity" in the Bible belt of America, you will surely get your "Ass whipped" by more than a minority population. Therefore, in principal I agree that, Allah (SWT) will surely punish the people who insult His holy book for humanity. At the same time for practical purpose I would not encourage such idiotic behavior from anyone. We should think bring people closer and live in harmony. We are more than enough troubles and challenges in front of us. There is no good reason to encourage idiots to bring chaos into this tiny country of ours. Shalom! -----Original Message----- From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sun, Dec 2, 2012 11:42 pm Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate "কুরআনের অসম্মান মুসলিম জাতির কাছে অসহ্য একটি বিষয়"   Hannan Saheb,   Why is mistreatment of Quran so intolerable to Muslims?   If Muslims believe Quran is the wills of  Allah, they have nothing to worry about when someone mistreats Quran; Allah will punish those violators in the Day of Judgment. When someone commits sin, the duty of a religious person is to point it out and advise the sinner to change the course. That's all. The rest is up to the sinner.   Do you think Allah will be satisfied with the punishment you render to the sinner? Do you think the sinner will go to Behestah (Heaven) after you deliver the punishment for the sin? I don't think so. What you are doing is punishing the sinner for nothing; he will be punished again for the same crime when he faces Allah. It's a redundant punishment you are rendering. My friend, I want you to propagate this message to the ignorant people, who participated in the carnage.    If you consider mistreatment of Quran is so intolerable offense to Muslims - that justifies attacking the person who mistreats Quran also, which you are trying to denounce. You cannot have both ways. I expect better interpretation from you.   I am sure - all Muslims are not following all of the wills of Allah, as written in the Quran. You can't do anything about those violators, and you don't need to also - because Allah will punish them in the Day of Judgment. Why can't you have the same justice to non-Muslim violators? Why is this double standard?   Jiten Roy   --- On Sun, 12/2/12, SAHANNAN <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote: From: SAHANNAN <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> Subject: [mukto-mona] About communalism and non communalism--please see my writeup as lot peole accuse Islamists of communalism--please circulate To: puspitadr@gmail.com, dahuk@yahoogroups.com, khabor@yahoogroups.com, mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com, "'sahannan sahannan'" <sahannan@yahoogroups.com>, "'lutful bari'" <lutfulb2000@yahoo.com>, zahid_du003@yahoo.co.uk, nibulbul2006@yahoo.com, mrkarim_80@yahoo.com, monjucp@yahoo.co.in, maftabuzzaman@gmail.com, "'NAZMUS SAKIB NIRJHOR'" <nirjhor019@yahoo.com> Date: Sunday, December 2, 2012, 9:11 AM   About communalism and non communalism--please see my write-up as lot of people  accuse Islamists of communalism.   সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতা শাহ আবদুল হান্নান কক্সবাজারের রামুতে দু'টি অত্যন্ত দুঃখজনক ঘটনা ঘটেছে। একটি হচ্ছে ফেসবুকে উত্তম কুমার বড়–য়ার অ্যাকাউন্টে কুরআনের এক চিত্র, যার ওপর একজন নারী পা দিয়ে রেখেছে। দ্বিতীয়ত, এর প্রতিক্রিয়ায় রামুর বৌদ্ধ গ্রামে হামলা এবং কয়েকটি বৌদ্ধ উপাসনালয় পুড়িয়ে দেয়া। দু'টি ঘটনাই ক্ষমার অযোগ্য। কুরআনের অসম্মান মুসলিম জাতির কাছে অসহ্য একটি বিষয়। অন্য দিকে একদল মুসলিমের প্রতিক্রিয়ায় বৌদ্ধপল্লীতে হামলা কোনো বিচারেই মেনে নেয়া যায় না। ইসলামেও এর কোনো স্থান নেই। এ জন্য বাংলাদেশের সব ইসলামি দল এর বিরুদ্ধে বিবৃতি দিয়েছে। ৪ অক্টোবর ডেইলি স্টারের রিপোর্টে দেখা যায়, একটি ফোন রিপেয়ারের দোকান থেকে এর সূত্রপাত। দোকানের মালিক উমর ফারুক উত্তম কুমার বড়–য়ার ফেসবুকের অ্যাকাউন্টে কুরআনের অপমানজনক ছবিটি দেখেন। এ খবর অন্যরা জানলে তারা তার কাছে কপি চান। ফারুক ছবিটির কপি তাদের দেন। পরে আরো লোক এসে ছবি চান। ফারুক দিতে না চাইলেও শেষ পর্যন্ত দিতে বাধ্য হন। এভাবেই ছবিটি ছড়িয়ে পড়ে। পরবর্তীকালে লোকজন একত্র হয়ে মিছিল করে এবং একসময় বৌদ্ধপল্লীতে হামলা চালায়। আমি এ রিপোর্ট থেকে বুঝতে পেরেছি উত্তম কুমার বড়–য়ার ফেসবুক থেকে ছবিটি ছড়িয়ে পড়ায় হঠাৎ উত্তেজনায় এ দুর্ঘটনা ঘটে, যা নিঃসন্দেহে নিন্দনীয়। এতে কোনো রাজনৈতিক দল বা ইসলামিক দল বা রোহিঙ্গারা জড়িত নয়; যদিও সরকারের ভেতরের এবং বাইরের কিছু লোক এ ঘটনার জন্য রোহিঙ্গা এবং বিভিন্ন রাজনৈতিক ও ইসলামি দলকে দায়ী করছেন। বিশেষ করে সরকারের এটা করা উচিত নয়। এ ঘটনাকে কেন্দ্র করে সেকুলার ও বামের কিছু লোক নতুন করে সাম্প্রদায়িকতার অভিযোগ তুলছেন যে, এটা সম্প্রদায়িক চেতনার জন্য হচ্ছে। এটা সেকুলার ও বামের পুরনো রোগ। আর যারা বাংলাদেশের রাজনীতির সাথে পরিচিত তারা জানেন যে, সাম্প্রদায়িকতা বলতে বাম ও সেকুলাররা ইসলাম, ইসলামি দল, ইসলামপ্রীতি ও ইসলামি রাষ্ট্র দাবির প্রতি ইঙ্গিত করে থাকেন। এরা ইসলামি দল নিষিদ্ধ করা চান, শিক্ষায় ইসলামের কোনো স্থান চান না। এ পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ও অসাম্প্রদায়িকতা সম্পর্কে কিছু আলোচনা করব। সমাজতত্ত্বে বা সোসিওলজিতে সম্প্রদায় (কমিউনিটি, সোসাইটি) একটি পজিটিভ পরিভাষা। এর মাধ্যমে বিভিন্ন জনগোষ্ঠীকে বোঝানো হয়। সমাজতত্ত্বে এটা কোনো নিন্দনীয় পরিভাষা নয়। সমাজে সম্প্রদায় থাকবে। সব সম্প্রদায়ের অধিকার রয়েছে তার বিশ্বাস মোতাবেক চলার এবং কর্মসূচি নেয়ার। মুসলিমসমাজ বা সম্প্রদায়েরও একই অধিকার। ইসলাম একই সাথে একটি ধর্ম ও জীবনব্যবস্থা। তাই মুসলমানেরা যেখানে সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ, সেখানে তাদের ইসলামি সমাজ বা রাষ্ট্র গঠন করার সব ধরনের চেষ্টা করা তাদের অধিকার। এটাকে সাম্প্রদায়িক চেতনা বলে নিন্দা করা যায় না। অসাম্প্রদায়িক অর্থ যার কোনো সম্প্রদায় নেই। তার মানে তার কোনো আদর্শ ও নীতিবোধ নেই। এ ধরনের নীতিহীনতা ও নীতিহীন লোক দিয়ে কোনো কল্যাণ হতে পারে না। এসব শব্দের ভুল ব্যবহার করা হচ্ছে। বিশেষ করে ইসলামকে রাষ্ট্রীয় ও সামাজিক ক্ষেত্র থেকে হটিয়ে দেয়ার জন্য। সবাই কমিউনিস্ট নয়, তবু কমিউনিস্ট পার্টি করলে তাকে সাম্প্রদায়িক বলা হয় না। সবাই সেকুলার নয়, তবু সেকুলার পার্টি করলে তাকে সাম্প্রদায়িক বলা হয় না। তাহলে ইসলামি দলের ক্ষেত্রে তা কেন বলা হবে? সবশেষে রামুর ঘটনার শিক্ষা কী? প্রথমত, ধর্মগ্রন্থের অবমাননা করা যাবে না। তার ফলাফল ভালো হবে না। দ্বিতীয়ত, উত্তেজনার বশে নিরীহ লোকদের ওপর হামলা করা যাবে না। যারা এসব করবে তাদের যথাযথ শাস্তি ভোগ করতে হবে। এ ধরনের ক্ষেত্রে সরকারি এজেন্সিগুলোকে দ্রুত ব্যবস্থা নিতে হবে। রামুর ক্ষেত্রে এরা দেরিতে কাজ করেছে, যার ফলে অনেক বাড়ি ও ধর্মস্থান ক্ষতিগ্রস্ত হয়েছে। শব্দের ব্যবহারের ক্ষেত্রে সাবধান হতে হবে। সাম্প্রদায়িকতার অভিযোগে যারা দায়ী নয়, তাদের দায়ী করা যাবে না। আমাদের অসাম্প্রদায়িক চেতনাবোধ নয়, ধর্মীয় সহিষ্ণুতার প্রচার-প্রসার ঘটাতে হবে। লেখক : সাবেক সচিব, বাংলাদেশ সরকার