Banner Advertiser

Monday, January 28, 2013

Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim



It is not hard to know goodness of a religion; we can read scriptures to get it. But – it is impossible to find negative points in the scripture; only a critic can provide such information. Therefore, a deserter will be a very good source of negative points about a religion.


Jiten Roy



--- On Mon, 1/28/13, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 7:51 PM

 

If you studied Islam with any passion, you would have known that Abul Kashem used to be one of the names of your Prophet Muhammad.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:33 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 

After witnessing what two Abuls did to our country, why did you decide to learn about Islam from a foreign Abul (Who left Islam)?

At least you should know, the guy who left Islam will not be unbiased for sure. Make sense? ;-)


Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 9:35 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim

 
"the FIRST CALIPH had a natural death"- so I believed too till Mr. Abul Kashem, an apostate columnist from BD living in Australia, asked me to read Tabari.

Learn the stuff properly before you display the depth of your wisdom.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:26 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Those who try to make others believe that Islam had been a creed of peace, does not care to know its history at all.  With three of its four rightly guided Caliphs being murdered by swords and spears, the first being poisoned;

>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't know something, it is no problem BUT you posted the same DISTORTED information on Islamic history and I have taken a lot of time (With credible/verifiable sources) tried to correct those "Mistakes" and here we go again.


To "Your kind" Islam will be the first to blame no matter what happens or what is the context of that event. Without going to details again, just note the FIRST CALIPH had a natural death (
Not poisoned!).


Our own Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did not have a natural death and he is still popular to millions of people in this country and many parts of the world. Therefore, simple "Unnatural death" by itself maybe more of the symbol of an open society than any type of narrative on Islam. For that matter, Mahatma Gadhi, John F Kennedy, India Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi ALSO had unnatural death and they are followed and loved by billions of people.


Thank You, Shah Deeldar!  Any physician is essentially a quack, no matter how many degrees he/she might have.  In ancient Rome, they were ill treated.  Patients were kept in a quarantine by the street side and people depended more on the passers by than on the physicians.  Even today, the advice they dispense is not worth much towards the cure of the disease they treat.  But that is another matter altogether

 >>>>>>>> Yeah, you got it. The whole world is plain "Mad" and ONLY you have it together
;-)
Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 5:40 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim

 
Thank You, Shah Deeldar!  Any physician is essentially a quack, no matter how many degrees he/she might have.  In ancient Rome, they were ill treated.  Patients were kept in a quarantine by the street side and people depended more on the passers by than on the physicians.  Even today, the advice they dispense is not worth much towards the cure of the disease they treat.  But that is another matter altogetherThose who try to make others believe that Islam had been a creed of peace, does not care to know its history at all.  With three of its four rightly guided Caliphs being murdered by swords and spears, the first being poisoned; even the corpse of the Prophet not found; it is indeed a violent creed from the beginning till today.  If some one writes, Muslims as killed more Muslims than non-Muslims that contradicts Prophet Muhammad's advice, doesn't it?  Any deeply religious person like myself deserves to analyze all religions, their contents and histories.  An Islamist, however, is not expected to follow the line of free thinking, even if he participates in 'muktomona'.
 
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
I must say, in a forum like this, degrees and gold medals are not much worth. It is basically making a point against another point. It would be far better for us to keep our degrees home for our friends, families and work places. If you are not making good points, your degrees would be rather your burden. Nobody really cares how hard you worked for those degrees. We have grown beyond that point.  

From member Das's postings, I know that he could be pretty rough and tough and that is alright with me. We had some arguments in the past and it was OK. If you do not like his comments, please make a counter point to show that he is wrong. He can take few punches, I suppose?
With respect and regards,
-SD  

 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

From: MOHAMMAD KHAN <mak_285@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:11 PM

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim

 
Mr. Kamal Das, you should have some decency when you write in a group. Could you tell us why you think this person who is going to Columbia University is an idiot? What is your qualification also?
M. Khan. M.D., F.R.C.S.
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013, 18:33
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim
 
This article is written by an idiot and propagated by another.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:48 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Dear members,

This is a good article to read. We spend so much time about history and Islam, it will be helpful to get a different perspective.


Shalom!


----
 
 
Haroon Moghul Haroon Moghul is a Fellow at New America Foundation and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is an author and a graduate student at Columbia University.

Haroon Moghul

The myth of the murderous Muslim


Islamophobia promotes a "racialised view of Islam" - the actions of the few represent the "intentions" of the whole.
 
The West has invented weapons of mass destruction and "used them in ways no other parts of the world have" [AP]
Muslims are subversive jihadists. The Middle East is perpetually unstable. "Islam has bloody borders." If you've already made up your mind, you'll find a way to twist the facts to support your conclusion. And if the facts don't do the job, you can always hire new ones. In the last year, American anti-Muslim hate groups have increased threefold. As playwright Wajahat Ali and others have found, the farther we move away from the September 11 terrorist attacks, the worse discrimination, prejudice and violence against Muslims become. There's a simple enough reason for this: Islamophobia has become an industry. In the absence of alternative narratives, which can make sense of Muslim extremism, place it into context and guide American domestic and foreign policy, we are stuck with the voices we have - too often, these have been unqualified and uninformed. It will take us a long time to get past the damage done by years of well-funded Islamophobes, who have dominated the media landscape (finally answering, incidentally, why it is that "Muslims don't do more to condemn terrorism" - nobody was listening). But the resistance to bigotry has already begun and has already scored a number of successes. There is only so long, after all, you can lie to people.The boy who cried Islamist
Islamophobia promotes a racialised view of Islam, viewing Arabs and Middle Easterners and Muslims generally as one interchangeable, subversive, homogenous mass; the actions of the few represent the intentions and aspirations of the whole. Thus we were led to believe there could be a plausible connection between bin Laden and Saddam. The resulting cost in American lives, treasure and credibility, is hard to quantify. This is Islamophobia's fruit: poisonous policies. For reasons of strategic shortsightedness alone, Islamophobia would be discredited soon enough. But there's another reason: Islamophobia doesn't correspond to reality. The more likely an American is to know a Muslim, the more likely she is to have a positive view of Islam. Exposure undermines prejudice. That is, meeting real Muslims pushes aside the media narrative that is so pernicious and harmful. Why? Because much of what Islamophobia peddles is hyperbolic, fanciful, or meaningless. Let's see how Islamophobia does its damage. The value extends beyond anti-Muslim bigotry, by the way. The same type of "reasoning" is employed by all bigotries - radical Muslim voices, who require a conflict between a homogenous West and an ideally homogenous Islam, make the same types of arguments, often down to the disturbing details. But then it shouldn't be any surprise that extremisms are broadly similar, or that they need to see opposites in the world, for their own identities to take root and thrive.

A lie told often enough feels true
Consider this interview from The New York Times, in which a prominent anti-Muslim voice makes the following remark:
Why isn't it a shrine dedicated to the victims of 9/11 or the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations and enslavements?
The woman behind these words, who I have no interest in naming (I don't want to give her any more attention than she already has), used to be a regular on Fox News, but has lost even that perch. Her extremism was too extreme. (Indeed, one of the best ways to fight Islamophobia is to give the bigots a microphone and let them keep talking. Their disturbing rhetoric will soon unsettle the overwhelming majority of people, who recoil from such extremism.)
But let's spend a moment to reflect on this allegation; namely, that "270 million" are victims of a homogenous jihadi juggernaut. It is certainly an amazingly precise claim. It is often frequently repeated - Islamophobia resembles nothing if not an echo chamber of incorrectness. In the months since, I've encountered many anti-Muslim voices repeat or inflate this number. Most recently, I've been challenged to explain the "300 million" killed by "jihad".
Even if we stick with the lower number, I can tell you that this number was probably pulled out of thin air. (Even if it wasn't, as I will show, it doesn't matter.) But for the sake of argument, let's take this claim seriously. Namely, that "Muslims" killed somewhere between two or three hundred million. Can that be possible? Where does this number come from? Does it reveal a uniquely and dangerously recurrent Islamic aptitude for mass violence? In short, no, out of nowhere, and no.
1,000 years of jihad
First, I think, it'd make sense to choose a time period. We're told there were 1,000 years of jihad, although to be fair, elsewhere the same person described millions of years of jihad, but this is a thought exercise. I imagine she means the period from roughly 600 to 1600 AD, which covers the time when Muslim states were generally not (as was subsequently true) on the receiving end of colonial conquest.
When Islam emerged in western Arabia, around 610 AD, the total population of the world was likely between 300 and 400 million. Fast forward to right past our period. The United Nations Census Report suggests that the world's total population in the year 1800 was 1 billion; since then, of course, it has shot up to some seven billion.
At that point, the world's largest Muslim population, which would be located in South Asia, was almost entirely under British rule. (In 1947, the population of the Indian subcontinent was under 350 million.) We are being asked to believe that jihadis killed, by the year 1600, more people than lived in South Asia in the year 1600. Keep in mind that India is one of the most densely populated parts of the planet and has long been a centre of world culture and civilisation.
How did Muslims kill so many people?
India, or properly most of northern India, was under Muslim rule from 1200 to 1800. By the Islamophobe's logic, millions of these Indians should have been slaughtered. But by whom? Muslims were never more than a minority and Islam was never imposed by force. The proof for this is in the geography - the capitals of Muslim India rotated between cities like Delhi and Agra, but conversion proceeded most widely on the fringes of these empires, in what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is like saying the Roman Empire imposed Christianity and Christian populations were found farthest from the centre of imperial power.
Further, under Muslim rule, India became increasingly wealthy. (The same happened, by the way, in Muslim Spain, as Arab rule brought with it an agricultural revolution and an urbanising boom.) How was India becoming increasingly wealthy while its Muslim rulers were slaughtering Indians left, right and centre? How were they able to cause so much damage, for so long, without being overthrown? Muslims never enjoyed the kind of decisive advantage in military technology the West enjoyed after 1800. And the organisation of Muslim India gives the lie to the entire edifice of eternal jihadism.
 
Dutch photographer was held by "Jihadis" on Turkey-Syria border
The capital of the world
We often look to the Ottomans as the world's most powerful pre-modern Muslim dynasty. But the Mughals, rulers of much of South Asia, ruled over far more people and were far wealthier - compare Istanbul's monuments to the Taj Mahal and you'll see what I mean. There is however one thing both empires had in common: both ruled over majority non-Muslim populations.
Under the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Mahal, some 30 percent of this Muslim dynasty's nobility were not Muslim, a proportion that had risen to 50 percent in the reign of his son Aurangzeb (1658-1707). By nobility, I mean those individuals given land and status based on their ability to muster troops to defend and expand the realm. If Islam was perpetual jihadism, why would so many non-Muslims join in - and be allowed to join in? If Muslims were savages bent on perpetual terror, by what moronic logic would they arm their enemies, teach them to fight and incorporate them into their armies? What would we make of the fact that the greatest threat to late 17th century Mughal rule was the remarkable rebellion of a Hindu king named Shivaji, who was finally captured and defeated by the Mughals' senior most general, whose name was Jai Singh - he, too, was not a Muslim.
Somewhere jihadis are killing everyone they come across, more or less, but still Muslim dynasties remain in power, their wealth increases, the urbanisation of their population increases and they leave behind magnificent public and private structures, which suggests they had quite a bit of free time. When the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed at the end of World War I, its capital, then called Constantinople, was over 50 percent non-Muslim. This is not to suggest the Ottomans were liberal democrats. But it also suggests they were remarkably tolerant for their time. Probably no other city in Europe was so diverse.
And we're not even talking about most of the planet.
Muslims aren't everywhere
Many of the territories conquered, ruled or dominated by Muslims, such as Central Asia, North Africa and Arabia were comparatively empty. Muslim dynasties never touched the Americas, Australia or East Asia; the last of these undoubtedly held a significant percentage of the world's population throughout the last 1,000 years plus.
So Muslims, who ruled over vast desert spaces and many sparsely populated areas of the world, still killed something of the equivalent of one-quarter of the world's population in 1800. When the first Mughal emperor Babur conquered north India - from another Muslim dynasty, I might add - his army is estimated to number around 10,000; his opponent's army is estimated at several times than that.
Is it conceivable that Muslim empires, such as the Umayyads, Ottomans and Mughals, who ruled over majority non-Muslim populations, could have contributed to the killing of huge percentages of the world's population while staying in power for centuries? How would they, as minorities, have been capable of sustained carnage for decades at a time? When did they get the time to build huge public works projects, establish towns, rebuild cities, fund wells, hospitals, mosques, pools and fountains?
What technological advantage did they have that made them so superior to their enemies that they could sustain such a bloody and vicious record - for 1,000 years? The Mongols exploded out into the world and caused horrific damage, but they managed that for only a few centuries and left nothing of the kind of legacy the great Muslim empires did. Indeed, the Mongols ended up adopting the religion of the peoples they conquered, whereas the reverse happened early in the Muslim period.
A most post-modern warfare
And thus we are left with an implausible and absurd suggestion that jihad killed 270 million people. But even with all this, still three more points need to be stressed, because in recognising their significance, we recognise the ultimate absurdity of the Islamophobic worldview.
First, more Muslims died fighting each other than died in battles against non-Muslim dynasties. Armies were often mixed too, which drives bigots off the wall; when the Ottomans were defeated at Vienna in 1683, they were finished off by a charge of Polish Muslim cavalry, allied with their enemies. Where do these casualties fit in? Should we arbitrarily decide that "intra-Muslim jihad" killed 50 percent of the total number? Why not, considering most of Islamophobia's made up? How were Muslims who so often fought each other also able to fight everyone else? Unless of course it's not about Islam versus non-Islam.
"Islamophobes link events that take place across the planet and hundreds of centuries apart and want us to take it seriously."
Second, this isn't real history. It's dumping "facts" on the unawares, hoping that the sheer flood of information covers up the lack of an explanatory framework. Not only does the Islamophobe play loose and fast with very different eras, places and peoples, but she ties events together without attempting to explain why. If jihad is really the most murderous ideology ever and it is equal to Islam, then why would so many people become Muslim? What motivated their violence? What sustained it? And how come most Muslims live peaceable lives? Bigots make up history because actual history undermines them.
Third, let's say for the sake of argument Muslims killed 300 million people over a 1,000 year span. That doesn't mean anything. One could just as easily construct a counter-narrative that works like Islamophobia does: arbitrarily, ignorantly and entirely unself-consciously. I mean, we'd link disparate events based on the religious (or cultural) identity of the culprit.
We could construct a narrative of Western perfidy in response.
According to Charles Mann's 1491, which explores the pre-Columbian Americas, nearly 100 million perished during the European "Age of Discovery", making that the most violent contact between peoples in human history. Nothing in Islamic history remotely compares. With the typical sloppiness of the Islamophobe, we could note how Western ideologies like Communism and Nazism led conservatively to the deaths of another 120 million people; we could note the brutal colonial exploitation of Africa and Asia, in which millions more perished and then breathlessly announce, "Five Hundred Years of Western Civilisation Kills Hundreds of Millions!"
We could toss in the fact that the West has invented weapons of mass destruction and used them in ways no other parts of the world have. (Chemical weapons in World War I; aerial bombing was invented by the Italians against Libyan civilians; and, of course, only America has used nuclear weapons, and twice, both times against civilian targets.) But this would be stupid, because it assumes that people in different times and places are the same, responsible for each other's actions and should only be judged by the dark chapters of their history.
Osama bin Laden portrayed the history of Islam and the West as one long narrative of confrontation, as do many intemperate and extremist voices. He chose to ignore all the countervailing evidence and ignored the differences between times and places, peoples and their leaders. He downplayed and dismissed the achievements of Western culture and civilisation, of which there are so many I'm hard-pressed to know where even to begin. Penicillin? Goethe? The modern museum? Islamophobes play a similar game, linking events that take place across the planet and hundreds of centuries apart, and they want us to take this seriously. And so you get numbers like "270 million" or "300 million". And these are brought up talismanically, as if they constitute overwhelming proof. The Islamophobe is completely and congenitally incapable of reflexivity. They cannot, in other words, look in the mirror; their mind has been made up, and what history is marshalled is not to engage in discussion but to preclude it.
The jihad on accuracy There is this last little problem. The Muslim proportion of the world's population has accelerated dramatically in the past centuries and continues to do so today; during our 600-1600 AD window, there were far fewer Muslims in the world, proportionally speaking. Which means we have to figure out what everyone else was up to. What about the people killed by other peoples - or, the biggest killer of all back then - disease and its most vulnerable victims, infants and the young? Where do we put the Crusades, the Aztecs and the Incans, the Eastern Roman Empire, the Mongols (good heavens), Slavs and Byzantines, the Chinese, Korean and Japanese?
Add them all together, and more people were probably killed than ever lived, which is about as accurate as you can expect this kind of nonsense to be.
Haroon Moghul is a Fellow at New America Foundation and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is an author and a graduate student at Columbia University.
Follow him on Twitter: @hsmoghul
2858
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.







__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Fwd: গলাচিপায় সংখ্যালঘুর বাড়িতে আগুন, কিশোরী অপহরণ





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rabin Das <dasrabin1978@gmail.com>
Date: 2013/1/27
Subject: গলাচিপায় সংখ্যালঘুর বাড়িতে আগুন, কিশোরী অপহরণ
To: bangladesh-progressives@googlegroups.com


 
THE DAILY JANAKANTHA সোমবার, ২৮ জানুয়ারী ২০১৩, ১৫ মাঘ ১৪১৯
 
গলাচিপায় সংখ্যালঘুর বাড়িতে আগুন, কিশোরী অপহরণ
প্রভাবশালীর দাপট ॥ ৭ পরিবারে আতঙ্ক
নিজস্ব সংবাদদাতা, গলাচিপা, ২৭ জানুয়ারি ॥ পটুয়াখালীর গলাচিপা উপজেলার ছোটগাবুয়া গ্রামের হতদরিদ্র সংখ্যালঘু মনোরঞ্জন বাঘমারের বাড়িতে এখন শ্মশানের নিরবতা। ঘরের ভিটায় পুড়ে যাওয়া কাঠ আর হোগলপাতার স্তূপ। চারদিকে ছড়ানো-ছিটানো পুরনো টিন। উপুড় হয়ে পড়ে আছে রান্নার চুলা। বাসনকোসন পড়ে আছে এখানে সেখানে। কারও পেটে পড়ছে না ভাত। নেই রাতের ঘুম। বরং গোটা বাড়ির নারী-পুরুষ এবং শিশুদের প্রতিটি মুহূর্ত কাটছে এক অজানা আতঙ্কে। এই বুঝি আবার এলো ওরা। গত ৬ দিন ধরে বাঘমার বাড়ির ৭টি পরিবারের প্রত্যেকটি সদস্যের এ ভাবেই কাটছে সময়।
জমিজমা নিয়ে বিরোধের জের ধরে একই গাঁয়ের প্রভাবশালী জোতদার আনোয়ার হোসেন ও তার দোসররা বাঘমার বাড়িতে রাতের আঁধারে শুধু হামলা চালিয়েই ক্ষান্ত হয়নি। চালিয়েছে লুটপাট। জীর্ণ বসতঘর পুড়িয়ে ছাই করে দিয়েছে। অপহরণ করে নিয়ে গেছে মনোরঞ্জন বাঘমারের কিশোরী মেয়ে রিতুমণি ওরফে মরিকে। সে সঙ্গে দিয়ে গেছে হুমকিÑএ নিয়ে বাড়াবাড়ি হলে বাড়ির কাউকে আস্ত রাখা হবে না। সবাইকে হয় দেশ ছাড়তে হবে, নয়তো কেটে টুকরো টুকরো করে নদীতে ভাসিয়ে দেয়া হবে। পুলিশ এ ঘটনায় এ যাবত একজনকে গ্রেফতার করলেও উদ্ধার হয়নি অপহৃত রিতুমণি। ঘটনার শীর্ষ হোতারাও কেউ গ্রেফতার হয়নি।
মামলার বিবরণ ও ভুক্তভোগীদের অভিযোগ, গত ২১ জানুয়ারি সোমবার গভীর রাতে একই গাঁয়ের প্রভাবশালী জোতদার আনোয়ার হোসেন হাওলাদারের ছেলে মজিবর রহমান টিপুর (২৮) নেতৃত্বে ১৫/১৬ জনের একদল দুর্বৃত্ত সন্ত্রাসী অনিল বাঘমারের ঘরে হামলা চালায়। এ সময় ঘরের মধ্যে দিনমজুর অনিল বাঘমার (৭৫), তার ছেলের বউ কাজল রানী, কাকা মনোরঞ্জন বাঘমারের মেয়ে (চাচাত বোন) রিতুমণি ওরফে মরি (১৭) ও ছোট্ট এক শিশু ঘুমিয়েছিল। সন্ত্রাসীরা পাতার দরজা ভেঙে ঘরের মধ্যে ঢুকেই রিতুমণি ওরফে মরির মুখ চেপে ধরে। রিতুমনির গোঙানির শব্দে কাজল রানী চিৎকার করে উঠলে সন্ত্রাসীরা তাকে থাপ্পড় মারে। সন্ত্রাসীরা মুখে কাপড় গুঁজে দিয়ে রিতুমনিকে পাজাকোলে করে তুলে নিয়ে যায়। সঙ্গী অন্য সন্ত্রাসীরা এ সময় অস্ত্রেরমুখে কাজল রানীর কানের রিংসহ ঘরের মালামাল লুট করে। মনোরঞ্জন বাঘমার ও তাঁর স্ত্রী রীতা রানী মেয়েকে ফিরে পাওয়ার আকুতি জানিয়ে বলেন, 'রিতুমণিকে অপহরণ করে নিয়ে যাওয়ায় আমরা কান্নাকাটি শুরু করলে সামনের রাস্তায় দাঁড়ানো আনোয়ার হোসেন আবার একদল সন্ত্রাসী পাঠিয়ে ঘরে আগুন দেয়ার নির্দেশ দেয়। এরপরই ঘরটিতে দাউ দাউ করে আগুন জ্বলে ওঠে। পুড়ে ছাই হয়ে যায় মাথা গোজার একমাত্র আশ্রয়।'
বাহাত্তর বছরের বৃদ্ধ মনোরঞ্জন বাঘমার অভিযোগ করেছেন, গলাচিপা শহরে আইনজীবীর সহকারী হিসেবে কর্মরত আনোয়ার হোসেন হাওলাদার তাঁদের তিন একর ৩৮ শতক জমি দীর্ঘদিন ধরে দখল করে রেখেছেন। এ নিয়ে দেওয়ানি আদালতে মামলা চলছে। সর্বশেষ ৮০ শতক জমির দখল নিয়েছেন। জমি ফেরত পাওয়ার জন্য গলাচিপা নির্বাহী ম্যাজিস্ট্রেট আদালতে মামলা করেছেন। এরপর থেকে আনোয়ার হোসেন মামলা তুলে নেয়ার জন্য হুমকি দিয়ে আসছেন। এর জের ধরেই বর্বরোচিত এ ঘটনা ঘটেছে। তিনি আরও বলেন, 'শ্যাষের মামলাডার কারণেই অরা আমাগো সর্বনাশ করছে। মাইয়াডারে তুইল্যা নিছে। আমাগো ভিডা দিয়া উৎখাত করতে ঘরে আগুন দিয়া পুইড়া দিচ্ছে।' রীতা রানী বলেন, 'জমিজমার লইগ্যা অরা আমাগো মাইয়াডা লইয়া গ্যাছে। আমরা আর কিছু চাই না। আমাগো মাইয়াডা ফেরত আইন্যা দ্যান।'
এ ঘটনায় অনিল বাঘমার ২৩ জানুয়ারি বুধবার গলাচিপা থানায় মজিবর রহমান টিপু, রাসেল, দেলোয়ার হোসেন, বাচ্চু হাওলাদার, জাহাঙ্গীর হাওলাদার, জৌলাস ওরফে জুলহাস হাওলাদার, ফজলুল হক হাওলাদার ও আনোয়ার হোসেন হাওলাদারের নাম উল্লেখসহ আরও অজ্ঞাত ৭/৮ জনকে আসামি করে মামলা দায়ের করেছেন। মামলা ও ঘটনার বিষয়ে গলাচিপা থানার অফিসার ইনচার্জ এস.এম. জিয়াউল হক জানান, সর্বাধিক গুরুত্ব দিয়ে মামলাটির তদন্ত করা হচ্ছে। অভিযোগ পাওয়ার পরই ঘটনাস্থল পরিদর্শন করা হয়েছে। মামলার ২ নম্বর আসামি রাসেলকে (২৫) গ্রেফতার করা হয়েছে। অপহৃতের খোঁজ জানতে রাসেলকে পাঁচদিনের রিমান্ড চাওয়া হলেও একদিনের রিমান্ড পাওয়া গেছে। তবে জিজ্ঞাসাবাদে তার কাছ থেকে কোন তথ্য পাওয়া যায়নি। অপহৃত কিশোরীকে উদ্ধার ও বাকি আসামিকে গ্রেফতারে সর্বাত্মক চেষ্টা করা হচ্ছে।
ঘটনার বিষয়ে মামলার ১ নম্বর আসামি ও আনোয়ার হোসেনের ছেলে মজিবর রহমান টিপু (৩৮) পলাতক অবস্থায় মোবাইল ফোনে জানান, বাঘমার বাড়ির লোকজনদের সঙ্গে তাদের জমিজমা নিয়ে বিরোধ রয়েছে। তাই বলে তারা মেয়ে অপহরণ কিংবা ঘরে আগুন দেয়নি। পুরো ঘটনা একটি সাজানো নাটক।
এ বিষয়ে এলাকার ইউপি মেম্বার মোঃ রফিকুল ইসলাম জানান, ঘটনা সত্য বলে শুনেছি। মেয়েটি এখনও উদ্ধার না হওয়ার বিষয়টি উদ্বেগজনক।

--
--
Disclaimer: All content provided on this discussion forum is for informational purposes only. The owner of this forum makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.
This policy is subject to change at anytime.
 
 
 



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] রাজধানীতে শিবিরের তাণ্ডব : দুই শতাধিক গাড়ি ভাঙচুর-আগুন



দুই শতাধিক গাড়ি ভাঙচুর-আগুন


রাজধানীতে শিবিরের তাণ্ডব

নিজস্ব প্রতিবেদক | তারিখ: ২৯-০১-২০১৩

  • রাজধানীর মতিঝিলে গতকাল ইসলামী ছাত্রশিবিরের কর্মীদের দেওয়া আগুনে পুড়ছে পুলিশের একটি ভ্যানসহ কয়

    রাজধানীর মতিঝিলে গতকাল ইসলামী ছাত্রশিবিরের কর্মীদের দেওয়া আগুনে পুড়ছে পুলিশের একটি ভ্যানসহ কয়েকটি গাড়ি

    ছবি: প্রথম আলো

  • শিবিরের তাণ্ডব চলাকালে গতকাল সকালে মতিঝিল এলাকার চিত্র

    শিবিরের তাণ্ডব চলাকালে গতকাল সকালে মতিঝিল এলাকার চিত্র

    ছবি: প্রথম আলো

  • রাজপথে লাঠি-বাঁশ হাতে শিবিরের কর্মীরা

    রাজপথে লাঠি-বাঁশ হাতে শিবিরের কর্মীরা

    ছবি: প্রথম আলো

  • আহত পুলিশ সদস্যকে হাসপাতালে নিয়ে যাওয়া হচ্ছে

    আহত পুলিশ সদস্যকে হাসপাতালে নিয়ে যাওয়া হচ্ছে

    ছবি: প্রথম আলো

  • মতিঝিলে ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের শিক্ষার্থী পরিবহন বাস ভাঙচুর করছেন শিবিরের কর্মীরা

    মতিঝিলে ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের শিক্ষার্থী পরিবহন বাস ভাঙচুর করছেন শিবিরের কর্মীরা

    ছবি: প্রথম আলো

  • মতিঝিলে ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের বাসে অগ্নিসংযোগের চেষ্টা

    মতিঝিলে ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের বাসে অগ্নিসংযোগের চেষ্টা

    ছবি: প্রথম আলো

1 2 3 4 5 6

আবার তাণ্ডব চালিয়েছে জামায়াতে ইসলামীর ছাত্র সংগঠন ইসলামী ছাত্রশিবির। মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধের মামলায় আটক শীর্ষস্থানীয় নেতাদের মুক্তি ও ট্রাইব্যুনাল বাতিলের দাবিতে 'বিক্ষোভে'র নামে তারা গতকাল সোমবার রাজধানীসহ দেশের বিভিন্ন স্থানে সহিংস তৎপরতা চালিয়েছে।
সকাল ১০টার দিকে প্রায় একযোগে ঢাকা, চট্টগ্রাম, রাজশাহী, দিনাজপুর, সাতক্ষীরা, জয়পুরহাট, ফরিদপুর, বগুড়া, সুনামগঞ্জসহ দেশের কয়েকটি স্থানে ছাত্রশিবিরের কর্মীরা লাঠিসোঁটা হাতে রাস্তায় নামেন। তাঁরা বেপরোয়া গাড়ি ভাঙচুর ও অগ্নিসংযোগ করেন এবং পুলিশের ওপর হামলা চালান। এতে অন্তত ৩০ পুলিশ সদস্য আহত হন। 
চট্টগ্রামের বাঁশখালীতে জামায়াত ও শিবিরের কর্মীদের সঙ্গে পুলিশের গুলিবিনিময়ও হয়েছে। এতে চারজন গুলিবিদ্ধ হয়েছেন। এ ঘটনায় বাঁশখালী জামায়াতের আমিরকে গ্রেপ্তার করা হয়েছে।
রাজধানীতে মতিঝিল থানার ওসিসহ অন্তত ২১ জন পুলিশ সদস্য আহত হন। ভাঙচুর করা হয় দুই শতাধিক গাড়ি। পুলিশের একটি পিকআপ ভ্যানসহ আগুন ধরিয়ে দেওয়া হয় তিনটি গাড়িতে। অর্থমন্ত্রীর প্রটোকলের গাড়িও ভাঙচুর করা হয়। তবে এ সময় মন্ত্রী গাড়িতে ছিলেন না। অর্থমন্ত্রীর নিরাপত্তার দায়িত্বে থাকা পুলিশ সদস্যরাও আহত হন।
মতিঝিলে হামলা-সংঘর্ষের পর ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় ক্যাম্পাসে চার দফায় ১৩টি হাতবোমার বিস্ফোরণ ঘটানো হয়। এসব হামলা-সংঘর্ষের সময় প্রধানমন্ত্রী শেখ হাসিনা সচিবালয়ের ভেতরে ছিলেন।
ঢাকা মহানগর পুলিশের (ডিএমপি) পক্ষ থেকে দাবি করা হয়, সংঘর্ষের সময় ১৫টি গাড়ি ভাঙচুর ও তিনটি গাড়িতে অগ্নিসংযোগ করা হয়েছে। এ ঘটনায় পুলিশ ৫৫ জনকে আটক করেছে। আহত পুলিশ সদস্যদের রাজারবাগ পুলিশ লাইনস হাসপাতালে ভর্তি করা হয়েছে। 
এর আগে একই দাবিতে গত বছরের ৬ নভেম্বর থেকে দফায় দফায় সারা দেশে চোরাগোপ্তা হামলা শুরু করে জামায়াত-শিবির। এসব মামলায় এ পর্যন্ত দুই শতাধিক পুলিশ সদস্য আহত হন। এর আগে হামলার ঘটনায় পুলিশের নিষ্ক্রিয়তার অভিযোগও ওঠে।
মতিঝিলে হামলা: প্রত্যক্ষদর্শীরা জানান, গতকালের হামলা-ভাঙচুরের চিত্র ছিল ভয়াবহ। সকাল পৌনে ১০টার দিকে কয়েক শ শিবিরকর্মী মতিঝিলের শাপলা চত্বর-সংলগ্ন এলাকা থেকে ঝটিকা মিছিল বের করে স্লোগান দিয়ে দৈনিক বাংলা মোড়ের দিকে যেতে থাকেন। তখন পুলিশ তাঁদের বাধা দেয়। এ নিয়ে দুই পক্ষের মধ্যে কথা-কাটাকাটি শুরু হয়। একপর্যায়ে শিবিরকর্মীরা পুলিশের ওপর হামলা চালালে শুরু হয় সংঘর্ষ। শিবিরকর্মীরা পুলিশকে লক্ষ্য করে ইটপাটকেল ছুড়তে থাকেন। পুলিশ কাঁদানে গ্যাসের শেল ও রাবার বুলেট ছুড়লে শিবিরকর্মীরা ছত্রভঙ্গ হয়ে আশপাশে বিভিন্ন স্থানে দৌড়ে চলে যান। শুরু হয় গাড়িতে ভাঙচুর ও অগ্নিসংযোগ।
প্রত্যক্ষদর্শীরা জানান, পুলিশের ধাওয়া খেয়ে শিবিরকর্মীরা কয়েক ভাগে বিভক্ত হয়ে পল্টন ও জিরো পয়েন্ট এবং বায়তুল মোকাররম ও রাজউক ভবনসংলগ্ন এলাকাসহ বিভিন্ন স্থানের দিকে চলে যান। দৌড়ে যেতে যেতেই তাঁরা সামনে পাওয়া কয়েকটি যাত্রীবাহী বাস ও কয়েকটি গাড়িতে ভাঙচুর করেন। পুলিশ প্রতিহত করতে গেলে শিবিরকর্মীরা চারদিক থেকে পুলিশকে লক্ষ্য করে ইটের টুকরা ছুড়ে মারতে থাকেন। ওই অবস্থায় পুলিশও কিছুটা কিংকর্তব্যবিমূঢ় হয়ে পড়ে।
এমনিতেই মতিঝিল এলাকা সব সময় থাকে ব্যস্ত। সকাল ১০টার দিকে শিক্ষাপ্রতিষ্ঠানমুখী শিক্ষার্থী এবং বিভিন্ন পেশাজীবী মানুষের উপস্থিতিতে পুরো এলাকা ছিল লোকারণ্য। ঠিক ওই সময় সংঘর্ষ হওয়ায় মুহূর্তেই পুরো এলাকায় আতঙ্ক ছড়িয়ে পড়ে। গাড়ি ভাঙচুরের সময় যাত্রীরা যে যেভাবে পারেন, বের হয়ে যান। অনেকেই বাসের জানালা দিয়ে লাফিয়ে বের হন।
পুলিশের মতিঝিল অঞ্চলের উপকমিশনার (ডিসি) আনোয়ার হোসেন বলেন, শতাধিক শিবিরকর্মী মতিঝিলের অগ্রণী ব্যাংকসংলগ্ন কোনো একটি গলি থেকে হঠাৎ ঝটিকা মিছিল শুরু করেন। সেখানে দায়িত্বরত পুলিশের ওপরও অতর্কিত হামলা চালানো হয়। 
ছাত্রশিবিরের কেন্দ্রীয় সাহিত্যবিষয়ক সম্পাদক ইয়াসির আরাফাতের দাবি, আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনাল বাতিল করে আটক নেতাদের মুক্তি ও শিবিরের কেন্দ্রীয় প্রচার সম্পাদক আবু সালেহ মো. ইয়াহিয়ার মুক্তির দাবিতে এবং শিক্ষাঙ্গনে ছাত্রলীগের সন্ত্রাসের প্রতিবাদে তাঁরা মিছিল বের করেন। এ সময় পুলিশের কাঁদানে গ্যাসের শেল ও রাবার বুলেটে অন্তত ৫০ জন শিবিরকর্মী আহত হন। 
এদিকে ব্যবসায়ীদের শীর্ষ সংগঠন এফবিসিসিআই গতকাল এক বিবৃতিতে বলেছে, 'একটি সন্ত্রাসী সংগঠন কর্তৃক ব্যবসাপ্রতিষ্ঠান এবং পুলিশের ওপর অতর্কিত হামলা, শতাধিক গাড়ি ভাঙচুর ও অগ্নিসংযোগ এবং বোমা হামলার ঘটনায় এফবিসিসিআই তীব্র নিন্দা ও গভীর উদ্বেগ জানাচ্ছে।' হামলাকারীদের বিরুদ্ধে আইনি ব্যবস্থা নিতে সরকারের প্রতি আহ্বান জানানো হয় বিবৃতিতে।



সাতক্ষীরায় রাইফেল কেড়ে নিয়ে পুলিশকে পেটালো শিবির
মোস্তাফিজুর রহমান উজ্জ্বল, জেলা প্রতিনিধি



পুলিশসহ আহত ১২, গ্রেপ্তার ১৭

বাঁশখালীতে শিবিরের গুলি

নিজস্ব প্রতিবেদক, চট্টগ্রাম | তারিখ: ২৯-০১-২০১৩

চট্টগ্রামের বাঁশখালীতে শিবিরের হামলায় আহত পুলিশ সদস্যদের চট্টগ্রাম মেডিকেল কলেজ হাসপাতালে নে�

চট্টগ্রামের বাঁশখালীতে শিবিরের হামলায় আহত পুলিশ সদস্যদের চট্টগ্রাম মেডিকেল কলেজ হাসপাতালে নেওয়া হচ্ছে

ছবি: প্রথম আলো

সাতক্ষীরায়  রাইফেল কেড়ে নিয়ে পুলিশকে পেটালো শিবির
মোস্তাফিজুর রহমান উজ্জ্বল, জেলা প্রতিনিধি








__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim



If you studied Islam with any passion, you would have known that Abul Kashem used to be one of the names of your Prophet Muhammad.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:33 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 

After witnessing what two Abuls did to our country, why did you decide to learn about Islam from a foreign Abul (Who left Islam)?

At least you should know, the guy who left Islam will not be unbiased for sure. Make sense? ;-)


Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 9:35 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim

 
"the FIRST CALIPH had a natural death"- so I believed too till Mr. Abul Kashem, an apostate columnist from BD living in Australia, asked me to read Tabari.

Learn the stuff properly before you display the depth of your wisdom.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:26 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Those who try to make others believe that Islam had been a creed of peace, does not care to know its history at all.  With three of its four rightly guided Caliphs being murdered by swords and spears, the first being poisoned;

>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't know something, it is no problem BUT you posted the same DISTORTED information on Islamic history and I have taken a lot of time (With credible/verifiable sources) tried to correct those "Mistakes" and here we go again.


To "Your kind" Islam will be the first to blame no matter what happens or what is the context of that event. Without going to details again, just note the FIRST CALIPH had a natural death (
Not poisoned!).


Our own Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did not have a natural death and he is still popular to millions of people in this country and many parts of the world. Therefore, simple "Unnatural death" by itself maybe more of the symbol of an open society than any type of narrative on Islam. For that matter, Mahatma Gadhi, John F Kennedy, India Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi ALSO had unnatural death and they are followed and loved by billions of people.


Thank You, Shah Deeldar!  Any physician is essentially a quack, no matter how many degrees he/she might have.  In ancient Rome, they were ill treated.  Patients were kept in a quarantine by the street side and people depended more on the passers by than on the physicians.  Even today, the advice they dispense is not worth much towards the cure of the disease they treat.  But that is another matter altogether

 >>>>>>>> Yeah, you got it. The whole world is plain "Mad" and ONLY you have it together
;-)
Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 5:40 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim

 
Thank You, Shah Deeldar!  Any physician is essentially a quack, no matter how many degrees he/she might have.  In ancient Rome, they were ill treated.  Patients were kept in a quarantine by the street side and people depended more on the passers by than on the physicians.  Even today, the advice they dispense is not worth much towards the cure of the disease they treat.  But that is another matter altogetherThose who try to make others believe that Islam had been a creed of peace, does not care to know its history at all.  With three of its four rightly guided Caliphs being murdered by swords and spears, the first being poisoned; even the corpse of the Prophet not found; it is indeed a violent creed from the beginning till today.  If some one writes, Muslims as killed more Muslims than non-Muslims that contradicts Prophet Muhammad's advice, doesn't it?  Any deeply religious person like myself deserves to analyze all religions, their contents and histories.  An Islamist, however, is not expected to follow the line of free thinking, even if he participates in 'muktomona'.
 
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
I must say, in a forum like this, degrees and gold medals are not much worth. It is basically making a point against another point. It would be far better for us to keep our degrees home for our friends, families and work places. If you are not making good points, your degrees would be rather your burden. Nobody really cares how hard you worked for those degrees. We have grown beyond that point.  

From member Das's postings, I know that he could be pretty rough and tough and that is alright with me. We had some arguments in the past and it was OK. If you do not like his comments, please make a counter point to show that he is wrong. He can take few punches, I suppose?
With respect and regards,
-SD  

 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

From: MOHAMMAD KHAN <mak_285@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:11 PM

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim

 
Mr. Kamal Das, you should have some decency when you write in a group. Could you tell us why you think this person who is going to Columbia University is an idiot? What is your qualification also?
M. Khan. M.D., F.R.C.S.
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013, 18:33
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: [ History Islam & Beyond . . .] The myth of the murderous Muslim
 
This article is written by an idiot and propagated by another.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:48 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Dear members,

This is a good article to read. We spend so much time about history and Islam, it will be helpful to get a different perspective.


Shalom!


----
 
 
Haroon Moghul Haroon Moghul is a Fellow at New America Foundation and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is an author and a graduate student at Columbia University.

Haroon Moghul

The myth of the murderous Muslim


Islamophobia promotes a "racialised view of Islam" - the actions of the few represent the "intentions" of the whole.
 
The West has invented weapons of mass destruction and "used them in ways no other parts of the world have" [AP]
Muslims are subversive jihadists. The Middle East is perpetually unstable. "Islam has bloody borders." If you've already made up your mind, you'll find a way to twist the facts to support your conclusion. And if the facts don't do the job, you can always hire new ones. In the last year, American anti-Muslim hate groups have increased threefold. As playwright Wajahat Ali and others have found, the farther we move away from the September 11 terrorist attacks, the worse discrimination, prejudice and violence against Muslims become. There's a simple enough reason for this: Islamophobia has become an industry. In the absence of alternative narratives, which can make sense of Muslim extremism, place it into context and guide American domestic and foreign policy, we are stuck with the voices we have - too often, these have been unqualified and uninformed. It will take us a long time to get past the damage done by years of well-funded Islamophobes, who have dominated the media landscape (finally answering, incidentally, why it is that "Muslims don't do more to condemn terrorism" - nobody was listening). But the resistance to bigotry has already begun and has already scored a number of successes. There is only so long, after all, you can lie to people.The boy who cried Islamist
Islamophobia promotes a racialised view of Islam, viewing Arabs and Middle Easterners and Muslims generally as one interchangeable, subversive, homogenous mass; the actions of the few represent the intentions and aspirations of the whole. Thus we were led to believe there could be a plausible connection between bin Laden and Saddam. The resulting cost in American lives, treasure and credibility, is hard to quantify. This is Islamophobia's fruit: poisonous policies. For reasons of strategic shortsightedness alone, Islamophobia would be discredited soon enough. But there's another reason: Islamophobia doesn't correspond to reality. The more likely an American is to know a Muslim, the more likely she is to have a positive view of Islam. Exposure undermines prejudice. That is, meeting real Muslims pushes aside the media narrative that is so pernicious and harmful. Why? Because much of what Islamophobia peddles is hyperbolic, fanciful, or meaningless. Let's see how Islamophobia does its damage. The value extends beyond anti-Muslim bigotry, by the way. The same type of "reasoning" is employed by all bigotries - radical Muslim voices, who require a conflict between a homogenous West and an ideally homogenous Islam, make the same types of arguments, often down to the disturbing details. But then it shouldn't be any surprise that extremisms are broadly similar, or that they need to see opposites in the world, for their own identities to take root and thrive.

A lie told often enough feels true
Consider this interview from The New York Times, in which a prominent anti-Muslim voice makes the following remark:
Why isn't it a shrine dedicated to the victims of 9/11 or the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations and enslavements?
The woman behind these words, who I have no interest in naming (I don't want to give her any more attention than she already has), used to be a regular on Fox News, but has lost even that perch. Her extremism was too extreme. (Indeed, one of the best ways to fight Islamophobia is to give the bigots a microphone and let them keep talking. Their disturbing rhetoric will soon unsettle the overwhelming majority of people, who recoil from such extremism.)
But let's spend a moment to reflect on this allegation; namely, that "270 million" are victims of a homogenous jihadi juggernaut. It is certainly an amazingly precise claim. It is often frequently repeated - Islamophobia resembles nothing if not an echo chamber of incorrectness. In the months since, I've encountered many anti-Muslim voices repeat or inflate this number. Most recently, I've been challenged to explain the "300 million" killed by "jihad".
Even if we stick with the lower number, I can tell you that this number was probably pulled out of thin air. (Even if it wasn't, as I will show, it doesn't matter.) But for the sake of argument, let's take this claim seriously. Namely, that "Muslims" killed somewhere between two or three hundred million. Can that be possible? Where does this number come from? Does it reveal a uniquely and dangerously recurrent Islamic aptitude for mass violence? In short, no, out of nowhere, and no.
1,000 years of jihad
First, I think, it'd make sense to choose a time period. We're told there were 1,000 years of jihad, although to be fair, elsewhere the same person described millions of years of jihad, but this is a thought exercise. I imagine she means the period from roughly 600 to 1600 AD, which covers the time when Muslim states were generally not (as was subsequently true) on the receiving end of colonial conquest.
When Islam emerged in western Arabia, around 610 AD, the total population of the world was likely between 300 and 400 million. Fast forward to right past our period. The United Nations Census Report suggests that the world's total population in the year 1800 was 1 billion; since then, of course, it has shot up to some seven billion.
At that point, the world's largest Muslim population, which would be located in South Asia, was almost entirely under British rule. (In 1947, the population of the Indian subcontinent was under 350 million.) We are being asked to believe that jihadis killed, by the year 1600, more people than lived in South Asia in the year 1600. Keep in mind that India is one of the most densely populated parts of the planet and has long been a centre of world culture and civilisation.
How did Muslims kill so many people?
India, or properly most of northern India, was under Muslim rule from 1200 to 1800. By the Islamophobe's logic, millions of these Indians should have been slaughtered. But by whom? Muslims were never more than a minority and Islam was never imposed by force. The proof for this is in the geography - the capitals of Muslim India rotated between cities like Delhi and Agra, but conversion proceeded most widely on the fringes of these empires, in what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is like saying the Roman Empire imposed Christianity and Christian populations were found farthest from the centre of imperial power.
Further, under Muslim rule, India became increasingly wealthy. (The same happened, by the way, in Muslim Spain, as Arab rule brought with it an agricultural revolution and an urbanising boom.) How was India becoming increasingly wealthy while its Muslim rulers were slaughtering Indians left, right and centre? How were they able to cause so much damage, for so long, without being overthrown? Muslims never enjoyed the kind of decisive advantage in military technology the West enjoyed after 1800. And the organisation of Muslim India gives the lie to the entire edifice of eternal jihadism.
 
Dutch photographer was held by "Jihadis" on Turkey-Syria border
The capital of the world
We often look to the Ottomans as the world's most powerful pre-modern Muslim dynasty. But the Mughals, rulers of much of South Asia, ruled over far more people and were far wealthier - compare Istanbul's monuments to the Taj Mahal and you'll see what I mean. There is however one thing both empires had in common: both ruled over majority non-Muslim populations.
Under the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Mahal, some 30 percent of this Muslim dynasty's nobility were not Muslim, a proportion that had risen to 50 percent in the reign of his son Aurangzeb (1658-1707). By nobility, I mean those individuals given land and status based on their ability to muster troops to defend and expand the realm. If Islam was perpetual jihadism, why would so many non-Muslims join in - and be allowed to join in? If Muslims were savages bent on perpetual terror, by what moronic logic would they arm their enemies, teach them to fight and incorporate them into their armies? What would we make of the fact that the greatest threat to late 17th century Mughal rule was the remarkable rebellion of a Hindu king named Shivaji, who was finally captured and defeated by the Mughals' senior most general, whose name was Jai Singh - he, too, was not a Muslim.
Somewhere jihadis are killing everyone they come across, more or less, but still Muslim dynasties remain in power, their wealth increases, the urbanisation of their population increases and they leave behind magnificent public and private structures, which suggests they had quite a bit of free time. When the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed at the end of World War I, its capital, then called Constantinople, was over 50 percent non-Muslim. This is not to suggest the Ottomans were liberal democrats. But it also suggests they were remarkably tolerant for their time. Probably no other city in Europe was so diverse.
And we're not even talking about most of the planet.
Muslims aren't everywhere
Many of the territories conquered, ruled or dominated by Muslims, such as Central Asia, North Africa and Arabia were comparatively empty. Muslim dynasties never touched the Americas, Australia or East Asia; the last of these undoubtedly held a significant percentage of the world's population throughout the last 1,000 years plus.
So Muslims, who ruled over vast desert spaces and many sparsely populated areas of the world, still killed something of the equivalent of one-quarter of the world's population in 1800. When the first Mughal emperor Babur conquered north India - from another Muslim dynasty, I might add - his army is estimated to number around 10,000; his opponent's army is estimated at several times than that.
Is it conceivable that Muslim empires, such as the Umayyads, Ottomans and Mughals, who ruled over majority non-Muslim populations, could have contributed to the killing of huge percentages of the world's population while staying in power for centuries? How would they, as minorities, have been capable of sustained carnage for decades at a time? When did they get the time to build huge public works projects, establish towns, rebuild cities, fund wells, hospitals, mosques, pools and fountains?
What technological advantage did they have that made them so superior to their enemies that they could sustain such a bloody and vicious record - for 1,000 years? The Mongols exploded out into the world and caused horrific damage, but they managed that for only a few centuries and left nothing of the kind of legacy the great Muslim empires did. Indeed, the Mongols ended up adopting the religion of the peoples they conquered, whereas the reverse happened early in the Muslim period.
A most post-modern warfare
And thus we are left with an implausible and absurd suggestion that jihad killed 270 million people. But even with all this, still three more points need to be stressed, because in recognising their significance, we recognise the ultimate absurdity of the Islamophobic worldview.
First, more Muslims died fighting each other than died in battles against non-Muslim dynasties. Armies were often mixed too, which drives bigots off the wall; when the Ottomans were defeated at Vienna in 1683, they were finished off by a charge of Polish Muslim cavalry, allied with their enemies. Where do these casualties fit in? Should we arbitrarily decide that "intra-Muslim jihad" killed 50 percent of the total number? Why not, considering most of Islamophobia's made up? How were Muslims who so often fought each other also able to fight everyone else? Unless of course it's not about Islam versus non-Islam.
"Islamophobes link events that take place across the planet and hundreds of centuries apart and want us to take it seriously."
Second, this isn't real history. It's dumping "facts" on the unawares, hoping that the sheer flood of information covers up the lack of an explanatory framework. Not only does the Islamophobe play loose and fast with very different eras, places and peoples, but she ties events together without attempting to explain why. If jihad is really the most murderous ideology ever and it is equal to Islam, then why would so many people become Muslim? What motivated their violence? What sustained it? And how come most Muslims live peaceable lives? Bigots make up history because actual history undermines them.
Third, let's say for the sake of argument Muslims killed 300 million people over a 1,000 year span. That doesn't mean anything. One could just as easily construct a counter-narrative that works like Islamophobia does: arbitrarily, ignorantly and entirely unself-consciously. I mean, we'd link disparate events based on the religious (or cultural) identity of the culprit.
We could construct a narrative of Western perfidy in response.
According to Charles Mann's 1491, which explores the pre-Columbian Americas, nearly 100 million perished during the European "Age of Discovery", making that the most violent contact between peoples in human history. Nothing in Islamic history remotely compares. With the typical sloppiness of the Islamophobe, we could note how Western ideologies like Communism and Nazism led conservatively to the deaths of another 120 million people; we could note the brutal colonial exploitation of Africa and Asia, in which millions more perished and then breathlessly announce, "Five Hundred Years of Western Civilisation Kills Hundreds of Millions!"
We could toss in the fact that the West has invented weapons of mass destruction and used them in ways no other parts of the world have. (Chemical weapons in World War I; aerial bombing was invented by the Italians against Libyan civilians; and, of course, only America has used nuclear weapons, and twice, both times against civilian targets.) But this would be stupid, because it assumes that people in different times and places are the same, responsible for each other's actions and should only be judged by the dark chapters of their history.
Osama bin Laden portrayed the history of Islam and the West as one long narrative of confrontation, as do many intemperate and extremist voices. He chose to ignore all the countervailing evidence and ignored the differences between times and places, peoples and their leaders. He downplayed and dismissed the achievements of Western culture and civilisation, of which there are so many I'm hard-pressed to know where even to begin. Penicillin? Goethe? The modern museum? Islamophobes play a similar game, linking events that take place across the planet and hundreds of centuries apart, and they want us to take this seriously. And so you get numbers like "270 million" or "300 million". And these are brought up talismanically, as if they constitute overwhelming proof. The Islamophobe is completely and congenitally incapable of reflexivity. They cannot, in other words, look in the mirror; their mind has been made up, and what history is marshalled is not to engage in discussion but to preclude it.
The jihad on accuracy There is this last little problem. The Muslim proportion of the world's population has accelerated dramatically in the past centuries and continues to do so today; during our 600-1600 AD window, there were far fewer Muslims in the world, proportionally speaking. Which means we have to figure out what everyone else was up to. What about the people killed by other peoples - or, the biggest killer of all back then - disease and its most vulnerable victims, infants and the young? Where do we put the Crusades, the Aztecs and the Incans, the Eastern Roman Empire, the Mongols (good heavens), Slavs and Byzantines, the Chinese, Korean and Japanese?
Add them all together, and more people were probably killed than ever lived, which is about as accurate as you can expect this kind of nonsense to be.
Haroon Moghul is a Fellow at New America Foundation and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. He is an author and a graduate student at Columbia University.
Follow him on Twitter: @hsmoghul
2858
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.







__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




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

__,_._,___