Subimalda,
Please do not tell so much cold truth at the same time. It will be hard for me to digest. 
Even God shows Himself or Herself a little bit at a time! We will not be able to see whole of His or Her glory at the same time. TG
Even God shows Himself or Herself a little bit at a time! We will not be able to see whole of His or Her glory at the same time. TG From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: এই জলে আগুন জ্বলে
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: এই জলে আগুন জ্বলে
1. By saying that "primarily by ISI and initially backed by America. We know how that worked out", you have avoided answering my questions.
2. You have love for what is happening in Malaysia, Turkey, and Egypt. What is your opinion about the US (probably your adopted country) and Bangladesh (your motherland) (1972) constitutions? Don't you think that they are better than or at least as good as those of Malayasia, Turkey, and Egypt? Why can't you accept the principle of "separation of church and state"? I don't understand how you prefer, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood (primarily for the Sunni) to the secular rules which theoretically provide equal rights to all citizens. Admittedly even a secular constitution is not perfect. Why can't we build on what we have in such constitutions? Medina Charter happened 1500 hundred years ago. Since then we have advanced and more progressive thoughts. Abolition of slavery and expanded women's rights are two of them. Whatever is good in Medina Charter, I am sure, has been captured in the great constitutions of the world. Why do we have to stick to only the Medina Charter exclusively?
3. This is a time to strongly specifically condemn Jamat-Shibir's heinous activities which you seem to be unwiling to do. This is also the time to criticize BNP for its present role with respect to trial of the war criminals and its position on Jamat-Shibir's heinous activities. One will not do it only if he or she is allied with Jamat-BNP politics. You need to understand that this is a serious moment and it has great implications for our great spirits of the liberation war.
4. I feel good when you say, "However if you want to speak about Jamaat, I do understand where you are coming from." Yes, I come from the big forum which believes in the great spirits (secularism is one of them) of 1971 liberation struggle. Are you coming from a different place? Do you endorse Jamat's anti-Ahmadiya stance?
5. You are confusing between an Islamic rule and a Muslim rule. An Islamic rule is essentially biased against the religious minorities. Mujib was a Muslim ruler but he believed in the four state principles until the notorious 4th Amendment. Pakistan, an Islamic Republic, cannot have a non-Muslim President. Pakistan has declared Ahmadiyas non-Muslims. Muslim Brotherhood cannot have a woman President.
6. If you read holy books critically, you will see that many of the teachings have to be reinterpreted in the light of the present context.
7. It is not only Bush who took the nation to war. Brilliant presidents also have done the same thing. This is a different issue and cannot be used as an excuse to undermine the US constitution which is not yet perfect and that's why which is still evolving hopefully for the better. Is not your favorite Turkey messing up with the Kurds? Take the example from Bangladesh also. What has Zia done with the CHT people?
8. Islamic rule is fundamentally flawed as it is not secular and cannot guarantee equal rights to all the citizens including women and probably non-Sunni sects. Only one with religious ego can feel good with the tag "Islamic" in the constitution, banking, and legal systems.
From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: এই জলে আগুন জ্বলে
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: এই জলে আগুন জ্বলে
Doesn't Mollah Omar believe in what he is doing? Didn't bin Laden believe in what he was doing? Were they merely the robots programmed by ISI or America?
>>>>>>>>> Primarily by ISI and initially backed by America. We know how that worked out.
If you don't mind I will ask you to mention them one more time. How would the finish goods look like? >>>>>>>>>> I said Malaysia, Turkey and Egypt are work in progress. Finished goods should reflect the spirit of Media, which was the first multi-faith society with codified rights for minority citizens. We have discussed this before and briefly here the state assumes responsibility of safety and security of all minorities.
We have discussed this topic before. You can read books on the "Medina charter". Yes, all political parties including AL can be violent. >>>>>>>>>>> In fact in previous years, all major parties have proven to be violent. Does it mean that we should shy away from specifically calling Jamat a fascist party? I don't think so. >>>>>>>>> Brother, you are welcome to speak your mind anytime. I welcome it. I also try to shed some light into these topics time to time. If you know all parties have violent activities, it is only "Proper" to say so. However if you want to speak about Jamaat, I do understand where you are coming from. Khaleda has turned BNP into Jamat's puppet. >>>>>>>>> You can say that. There are a lot of people who would readily agree with that. It is interesting that, Jamaat once proclaimed that, there are against female "Head of state" but they ended up allied with BOTH BAL and BNP whenever it suited them. The latter is essentially divisive in a multi-religious country. It cannot but be biased against the religious minorities. Aurangzeb turned to Islam only to weaken the great Mughal empire. >>>>>>>>> I respectfully disagree. History tells us that, Islam was used positively and it gave birth to earliest pluralistic communities in many places. Click here to watch a PBS documentary on this topic. A theocracy is run by representatives of God and they follow the divine authorities >>>>>>>>>>> That is NOT the case of Turkey, Egypt or Malaysia. Even other countries are "Electing" Islamic parties to power. Maybe you are thinking of Catholic church, Japanese Royal family or Iran (Which has part of the leadership by election and part by selection). They follow rules and laws rooted in holy and revealed scriptures. Because of all these, a theocracy is flawless and infallible. >>>>>>>>>> I can only speak of Islamic concept and I am yet to see any "Problem" in Islamic text itself. However if you don't have the right people, they are screw things up pretty easily. Even in a mature democracy like the US, you folks elected a world class idiot like George Bush TWICE, who took the nation to war by "Mistake" and worked as a catalyst of a world wide recession. He also curbed many civil rights for American citizens. So Islamic rule is not much different. When you have dumb asses for rulers, they can ruin a country in a hurry.
And I understand you have preference for "Secular" system and I have no problem respecting you for it. Personally I feel, the "Right theocracy" can positively enhance the secular concept and address needs of people.
Just look at the world wide banking industry scandals. Only Islamic banking offered a credible and workable alternative to current "Interest based" model. You can do your own research on this. Money always talks and BS walks.....
Shalom!
If you don't mind I will ask you to mention them one more time. How would the finish goods look like? >>>>>>>>>> I said Malaysia, Turkey and Egypt are work in progress. Finished goods should reflect the spirit of Media, which was the first multi-faith society with codified rights for minority citizens. We have discussed this before and briefly here the state assumes responsibility of safety and security of all minorities.
We have discussed this topic before. You can read books on the "Medina charter". Yes, all political parties including AL can be violent. >>>>>>>>>>> In fact in previous years, all major parties have proven to be violent. Does it mean that we should shy away from specifically calling Jamat a fascist party? I don't think so. >>>>>>>>> Brother, you are welcome to speak your mind anytime. I welcome it. I also try to shed some light into these topics time to time. If you know all parties have violent activities, it is only "Proper" to say so. However if you want to speak about Jamaat, I do understand where you are coming from. Khaleda has turned BNP into Jamat's puppet. >>>>>>>>> You can say that. There are a lot of people who would readily agree with that. It is interesting that, Jamaat once proclaimed that, there are against female "Head of state" but they ended up allied with BOTH BAL and BNP whenever it suited them. The latter is essentially divisive in a multi-religious country. It cannot but be biased against the religious minorities. Aurangzeb turned to Islam only to weaken the great Mughal empire. >>>>>>>>> I respectfully disagree. History tells us that, Islam was used positively and it gave birth to earliest pluralistic communities in many places. Click here to watch a PBS documentary on this topic. A theocracy is run by representatives of God and they follow the divine authorities >>>>>>>>>>> That is NOT the case of Turkey, Egypt or Malaysia. Even other countries are "Electing" Islamic parties to power. Maybe you are thinking of Catholic church, Japanese Royal family or Iran (Which has part of the leadership by election and part by selection). They follow rules and laws rooted in holy and revealed scriptures. Because of all these, a theocracy is flawless and infallible. >>>>>>>>>> I can only speak of Islamic concept and I am yet to see any "Problem" in Islamic text itself. However if you don't have the right people, they are screw things up pretty easily. Even in a mature democracy like the US, you folks elected a world class idiot like George Bush TWICE, who took the nation to war by "Mistake" and worked as a catalyst of a world wide recession. He also curbed many civil rights for American citizens. So Islamic rule is not much different. When you have dumb asses for rulers, they can ruin a country in a hurry.
And I understand you have preference for "Secular" system and I have no problem respecting you for it. Personally I feel, the "Right theocracy" can positively enhance the secular concept and address needs of people.
Just look at the world wide banking industry scandals. Only Islamic banking offered a credible and workable alternative to current "Interest based" model. You can do your own research on this. Money always talks and BS walks.....
Shalom!
-----Original Message-----
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 10:15 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: এই জলে আগুন জ্বলে
From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 10:15 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: এই জলে আগুন জ্বলে
Doesn't Mollah Omar believe in what he is doing? Didn't bin Laden believe in what he was doing? Were they merely the robots programmed by ISI or America?
I missed your examples of work-in-progress countries. If you don't mind I will ask you to mention them one more time. How would the finish goods look like? Would you kindly shed some light on it?
Yes, all political parties including AL can be violent. Does it mean that we should shy away from specifically calling Jamat a fascist party? I don't think so. This is the political blunder of BNP. I don't know if the nation will remember this. BNP has a lot of freedom fighters who have been marginalized and made voiceless by the dictatorial power of Khaleda Zia who does not seem to understand and appreciate the significance of the great spirits of our liberation movement. BNP is in wrong hands. Khaleda has turned BNP into Jamat's puppet.
Islamic rule and Muslim rule are not synonymous. A Muslim ruler can be secular but an Islamic ruler cannot. The latter is essentially divisive in a multi-religious country. It cannot but be biased against the religious minorities. Aurangzeb turned to Islam only to weaken the great Mughal empire.
If I were you I would not have measured theocracy and other forms government on the same scale. A theocracy is run by representatives of God and they follow the divine authorities. They follow rules and laws rooted in holy and revealed scriptures. Because of all these, a theocracy is flawless and infallible. The other forms of government are run by a whole bunch of humans who bring with them their human limitations. I have said all this because you have high regard for theocracy.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:58 AM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
I was only trying to offer an explanation from "Islamic perspective". Since some of the members are not aware of some information. If you feel strongly about secular system, I respect your opinion.
I count myself as a true "Mukto-Mona", so I have no attachments with any political parties. In this forum, I made in abundantly clear, I am against ALL sort of "Violent politics". Unfortunately all major political parties have "Violent people" among them and frequently they are "Used" by their respective parties. I think we have to go beyond name calling and take legal and solid measures to stand up against violence. Unfortunately our highly educated members in this forum (Most of them) are UNABLE to get out of their party affiliation and think FREELY.
Mullah Omar was no a tool used by ISI. Don't think they had "Promotion of Islam" in their hearts!! I have given you some SPECIFIC examples of countries which I called "Work in progress". NO matter what system we prefer, we have to honor democratic system (So power always stays to common people).
Islam have shown the world how to live in a mufti-religious country. So we have hundreds of years of experience to fall back into. One member recently said, even in India, religion was NOT imposed by Muslim rulers.
5. I have mentioned the period of Khulafa-e-Rashedeen as one of the best periods in Islamic history. My point was that even this period, although run under the complete guidance of God, could not guarantee a system free from power struggle.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are NO system, where you don't find "Power struggle". Don't know why this simple fact escaped your imagination. :-)
Shalom!-----Original Message----- From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Mon, Mar 4, 2013 8:35 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: এই জলে আগুন জ্বলে1. Nobody will say that people enjoyed less religious freedom during the time when one of the state principles was secularism. Introduction of religious flavor in the constitution by Zia and Ershad was obviously for political purpose. People in general don't care. It is the political elements (they may not have any personal political ambition) who try to convince them about the necessity of mingling religion with politics, legal system, and socio-economic system. The so called educated people should stop doing this. They do not realize that knowingly or unknowingly they are simply encouraging Jamat kind of politics only to divide the country.2. I really wonder why you do not consider Jamat as a fascist force. Look at its history. Particularly reflect on the anti-Ahmadiya riot it incited. Look at its present activities. Look at its attitudes towards our independence.3. Work-in-progress! Was Afghanistan under Mollah Omar not a finished good? Or was it still a work-in-progress? Can you please mention some countries that can be called works-in-progress? I am curious.4. The modern world is multi-religious. Any particular religion must not get priority. If Manu, for example, has any thing good in it, it will obviously have respectable place in the legal system or constitution. It does not need to be specifically mentioned. The constitution and legal system of any modern secular state are the best that one society can have. It has evolved over time. And it is still evolving. It has captured every thing good in the various religious, social, legal, and political systems from the past. Take a particular religion of your choice and compare it with, for example, 1972 constitution of Bangladesh. Do you really need any thing different from the 1972 constitution except the fact that it can still be improved?5. I have mentioned the period of Khulafa-e-Rashedeen as one of the best periods in Islamic history. My point was that even this period, although run under the complete guidance of God, could not guarantee a system free from power struggle.From: QR <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com; history_islam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: এই জলে আগুন জ্বলে1. The concept of "complete code of life" stretched beyond personal religious life is nothing but a political slogan by those who want to capture the state power.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Partly true. There are millions of people around the world believes in it without having any political ambitions.
but those who use religion to capture power absolutely are. These people are divisive.
>>>>>>>>> I agree. Religion should NOT be "Abused" as a tool to get to power.
However since Islam offers a complete solution, it can be offered as an alternative to whatever other choices people may have. Therefore, we should NOT be banning any system from "Free people", rather allow people to pick the best system of their choice.
This is the situation in Egypt and Turkey today. Both place have Islamic parties came to power via pure democratic process and if they FAIL to deliver, people will retain the power to revert back to a better system for themselves.
Jamat is a prime example. It is not possible for them to offer a peaceful and cooperative pluralistic society. They have other vices too.
>>>>>>>>>> This is a popular perception of Jamaat and unless they work hard to change this, they will have VERY hard time to be accepted to common people.
The era of Khulafa-e-Rashedeen ( or Kingdom of Ashoka to take as another example) may be an exception although that period was also not free from internal conflicts.
>>>>>>>>>>> Having a theocratic state is NOT an utopia but assuming there are some system which will ALWAYS remain "Conflict-free" is an utopia/pipe-dream. Even the best among us always had some opposition or some groups who actively opposed them.
You can think of Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Jesus son of Mary (PBUH), Muhammad Bin Abdullah (PBUH), Hazrat Ali (RA) etc. Even Rabindranath had quite a few serious critics during his time. Therefore, even the best countries of the our world have to have police, army, courts etc to punish bad people and preserve peace for rest of us.
You will probably never aspire to live in an Islamic theocratic state like Talibani Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or even Iran (don't take this personally as this applies to anybody who believes and loves theocracy.) You will probably prefer your kid being in Harvard to being in a world renowned madrasah.
>&g
__._,_.___
