PDA

View Full Version : Attack on Mazar of Hazrat Shah Jalal


oracle
January 13, 2004, 04:44 PM
If anyone has been to Sylhet the shrine is one of the prominent destinations for Bangladeshis. These sort of attacks are becoming regular with death of innocent people. OK, now I understand that some people have problem with this whole "Mazar" idea.
But what bothered me since yesterday was that the fishes were poisened in an earlier attack.
What kind od sicko goes and poisons 300 fishes? Just to make a statement?
:-/:-/

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by oracle : This is my instant reaction of the day]

Mahmood
January 13, 2004, 05:07 PM
Yup, this is horrible and shamefull.

The bomb on Pohela Boishakh was another in this series.

Shubho
January 14, 2004, 08:44 AM
oracle is 100% right. i find this whole mazar business despicable, but to desecrate that place is a shameful business. so much for tolerance among bangalees. btw, what's with persecuting ahmadiyyas? why does the govt have to ban their books? what the hell is going on back home?

chinaman
January 14, 2004, 10:22 AM
Don't mean to offend anyone and I don't have much knowledge on the subject, just honestly offering my own humble views. First of all, I denounce violance and terrorising / killing people. I donot prescribe to the mazar thing. A mazar in my view is a graveyard only. If it belongs to someone I care about, I like to go there quietly and pray for him, myself and other people. Asking for a "dead man's" help is out of question for me. If I need help (as I do need it always), I know exactly where to ask for.

Besides, mazars, as I came to know of, have become business places and for some reason attract criminals in particular. Of course innocent peace loving people are attracted too. I happened to live within walking distance of the said mazar for many many years in the past. I love to say my prayer in that mosque. One of my most beloved person's graveyard lies in the slope east of that mosque. That makes a personal attachment for me with that place.

I do consider Hazrat Shah Jalal as a highly esteemed muslim. His settlement made huge impact in the propagation of islam in the region. True, I might not be a born muslim today without his migration. But the truth is, he is not the one to ask help from. And his place does not deserve to be a place of violance either, let alone the ongoing antisocial and anti-muslim activities.

About ahmadiyyas, I personally do not consider them as muslims. They should be identified as a different religion and be duely garanteed of their own rights by the government, of course without violance.

rafiq
January 18, 2004, 09:35 AM
It doesn't matter whether we personally consider the Ahmadiyas Muslim or not. That should be upto God, in my opinion. What matters is that they remain free to practise their religion and beliefs as guaranteed by the Bangaldeshi Constitution. It is sickening to see that they are being persecuted by bigots and extremists and except for the usual "anti-state" rabble rousers, no one gives a damn. I hope those people in the ruling government who are also sickened by this can somehow make a stand against it.

oracle
January 18, 2004, 09:49 AM
last week PM has declined to call them non muslims. Actually I found the act of banning those books more troubling. Banning any books is more oppressive and undemocratic, makes us look insecure.

Navarene
January 18, 2004, 10:07 AM
very well said, Rafiq. You've just put the words out of my mind. I also appreciate oracle's view on banning Ahmadiyaa's literatures.

chinaman
January 18, 2004, 10:34 AM
I aggree with both of your opinion. However there is a technical problem. As a muslim, I cannot write books proclaiming myself akin to a prophet at the same time calling myself a good practicing muslim. It'd be a blashphemus act. On the other hand, I can practice different faith and write such books at will.

Islam is a very well defined religion firmly based on five distinct pillers at it's core. A muslim must stick to those five pillers. If Ahmadyias are not the followers of the pillers, only a minority religious status might ensure their due rights.

rafiq
January 18, 2004, 01:49 PM
If you want to debate the 5 pillars and do a cross-reference table with check marks next to what Sunni, Shia, Ahmaddiya, et all believe in then I would suggest a positive discussion on that. Let's do a fair amount of research on exactly where the divergence is.

But Chinaman I'm afraid you are missing the point. "True" Islam is a religion that teaches a wide degree of tolerance, yet it is used constantly to showcase intolerance. Even if the divergence between Ahmaddiya and mainstream Muslim beliefs are so wide that you have to conclude they are non-Muslims, that is not the issue. In a country where the burden of corruption, education, healthcare, poverty, crime, lack of good governance, systematic failure of politics and society at large are the burning issues, why do we need to worry about whether the Ahmadiyas are Muslims or not? Who is pulling the government's strings and to what purpose?

You cannot ban the books of any religious group anywhere, whether they are majority or minority. That is a fundamental human right guranteed up the wazoo by everyone and their mother. What if the US govt claims that the Quran has references to "jihad" and therefore should be banned for the sake of national security and so that Pat Robertson doesn't get offended?

Anyway, if we are to launch a full blooded Ahmadiya discussion, I recommend everyone please read the unfortunate path taken by Pakistan re: this issue. Naeem Mohaimen recently wrote a good article on it: you can find it in the archives of the Daily Star, Shobak.org, Drishtipat.org and Muslimwakeup.org

regards

chinaman
January 18, 2004, 02:48 PM
I must admit my knowledge in regards to Ahmadiya is severely restricted. The opinion I gave earlier only reflects my own personal view that I formed in course of time from limited readings. I hope to enrich my knowledge in the future about the Ahmadiyas.

Anyway, why do we need to worry? True we have many more burning issues at hand now, but, I don't see any harm if we can deal with a small issue which has potentials to become a burning one by itself later on.

I can't really comment much on banning those books since I never had a chance to look at them.

fab
January 19, 2004, 09:33 PM
Excuse me if I am wrong, but since BD is a secular state what right does the government have to ban religious books?

If the books are blasphemous according to Islam that shouldn't have anything to do with the secular Government. To me it's akin to say, the Australian govn banning the Quran because it is blasphemous against the Bible..

It's incidents like this that make it really difficult to convince non-muslims that Islam really is a tolerant religion.

rafiq
January 20, 2004, 12:27 PM
Actually Bangladesh is not a secular state. After a series of proclamations from his predecessors which eroded secularism in the country, HM Ershad had the Constitution amended in 1988 (I think it was) to make Islam the state religion. The Constitution continues to protect the right of citizens to practise all religions.

Nurul Kabir, Enayetullah Khan's deputy at the New Age, takes a look at all this in

Bangladesh's stillborn secularism, its burial and the aftermath (http://www.thepersecution.org/world/bangladesh/2004/na040114ed.html)

rafiq
January 20, 2004, 12:28 PM
ps don't blame Islam for what Bangladeshi politicians and assorted war criminals do.

Pundit
January 20, 2004, 12:56 PM
Secularism is a mantra preached by the defeated forces of mainly Communists and a majority of the have-been Socialists who have plagued third world societies ever since their (the country's) inception.

Just as the Socialists have used/use Secularism today to advance their not-to-be-had bygone agenda, hard-core Islamists are resorting to the misuse of Islam's (like any other religion) less interpreted vagaries to muscle their way to power.

Both parties have diabolical intent that certainly do not have human progress (subjective ?), achievement, and prosperity, as priorities.

So, neither secularism nor Islamic fundementalism (basic credence) is bad. Actually, my personal preference is to have the first as a sub-set of the latter i.e. strong minority rights and collective participation in nation building.

Additionally, if I remember correctly, BD became an Islamic state solely for Saudi $$$. Mr. Ershad's decision was by no stretch of imagination influenced by " a series of proclamations from his predecessors."

fab
January 20, 2004, 08:47 PM
Thanks for the link rafiq. Very interesting read. From the article:

"Moududi, according to an article printed in the Karachi-based Dawn in August 2003, told the Justice Munir Comission that debated the Ahmadiya issue in Pakistan, that the ~SNon-Muslims in Islamic Pakistan should be declared zimmis~T. Asked about Muslims in non-Islamic states, namely India, Moududi reportedly replied: ~SI should have no objection even if the Muslims of India are treated in that form of government as shudras and malishes (sic) and Manu~Rs laws are applied to them, depriving them of all share in the government and the rights of a citizen.~T"

Disgusting. If this is the path BD wants to follow..

btw, I don't blame Islam for the misdeeds of brainless muslims. These types of incidents just make our case of tolerance unbelievable to some and inevitably lead to the standard conclusion that moderatre muslims are apathetic in their fight against such filth.

Pundit wrote:

Secularism is a mantra preached by the defeated forces of mainly Communists and a majority of the have-been Socialists who have plagued third world societies ever since their (the country's) inception.

Secularism isn't just a socialist mantra - it is also a basic tenet of democracy! FULL freedom of citizens can only be achieved if State and Religion remain separate.
Just as the Socialists have used/use Secularism today to advance their not-to-be-had bygone agenda,
eh? Jacques Chirac can hardly be called a socialist. In fact, I'm sure he'd be quite offended if you suggested that :)
Both parties have diabolical intent that certainly do not have human progress (subjective ?), achievement, and prosperity, as priorities.
Whatever their intent, I cannot understand how you find the OUTCOME of secularism comparable to that of Islamic fundamentalism.

Arnab
January 21, 2004, 03:29 PM
I think Pundit has a very strong allergic reaction to anything that comes with 'socialism', as defined by him.

It's a very interesting leap of logic. If you are secular, you must be a socialist! And if you're a socialist, you must be diabolical! If I only knew what creates this type of logical short-circuitry inside human brain, I would have gotten a Nobel prize.

I actually agree with the rest of his stuff.

[Edited on 21-1-2004 by Arnab]

Pundit
January 21, 2004, 07:06 PM
More problem with the Bengali socialists, than Socialism itself. Actually I think that the Scandanavian models are really neat, but perhaps only good for them.

Also, I thought I was saying - Socialists are proponents of Secularism, not vice-versa ? And that is a fact, not a logical derivation, though that could be too, maybe !

Socialists are diabolical - yes, that could be a logical assertion, true !! I probably meant to say this because they are essentially anti-religion or mainly not too keen of it.

Ok, nothing more really from me.

fab
January 21, 2004, 11:07 PM
So, neither secularism nor Islamic fundementalism (basic credence) is bad. Actually, my personal preference is to have the first as a sub-set of the latter i.e. strong minority rights and collective participation in nation building.
I don't think the above scenario is possible under Islamic Sharia. The current incident with Ahmadiyyas is a perfect example of why it wouldn't work (and apparently we are pretty moderate!).

The Scandanavian model of social democracy works there because 1) they have a small population and 2) they pay the highest amount of taxes in the world.
And yeah you are right it probably wouldn't work in BD as we all know where tax money goes in BD :)

[Edited on 22-1-2004 by fab]

Arnab
January 24, 2004, 09:25 AM
OK, I will spill out the obvious (albeit being gross stereotypes) here:

The Scandinavian model works because:

1. These are intelligent white people. And we all 'know' that intelligent white people are the most intelligent people on earth. They rule the world.

2. They are more or less honest about themselves. That's also because of their intelligence.

3. They also don't ascribe to any religion or other such ideological bull****. Because they are intelligent. The absence of religion keeps their head cool and out of petty bigortry over some stupid mythological stories about morality.

[Edited on 24-1-2004 by Arnab]

[Edited on 1-24-2004 by chinaman : Moderation]

Navarene
January 24, 2004, 12:58 PM
I don't think that religion or religious philosophy, for that matter, is absent in the mindset of western world. In fact, religion is still widely practiced amongst the mass in europe and in the US.

In France, a predominantly Catholic country, almost 10 in 20 attend a religious service every week. In the US, about one in three do. Almost 50 per cent of all Europeans say religion is 'very important' to them. In the US, close to 60 per cent say the same. The only fact is that State is always remains seperate from religion in western world. And this is the key word.

Government should have no intervention rights in religious beliefs UNLESS there is a danger to individuals, ie. taking of human life, injury, prasctices that would or could cause danger to life, liberty or the pursuit of religious belief. But unfortunately, this theory doesn't apply in a half-feudal pre-capitalist country like Bangladesh.

And what is a Scandinavian model? The only model of state mechanism in the Scandinavian countries is corporate capital. They had a long hard fight with neighbouring capitalist countries to compete in market economy. Their key to success being a capitalist force has nothing to do with their complexion/skin color.