Bangladesh: Islamic or Secular?

[VladMamu]

As most of you know, I am studying your history currently for a Partition of Research project in 1905 for my University college.

Here is a quote:

"Bangladesh presents an interesting case of confued identity. If Bangladesh asserts its Islamic identity, it cannot justify its liberation struggle, as that was not only directed against Islamic Pakistan but was actively aided by "Hindu" India. Alternatively, if it displays its Bengali credentials, it runs the risk of merging its identity beyond recognition into that of the West Bengal and its major city, Calcutta, the cultural capital for all Bengalis in India and abroad. Even a simultaneous assertion of Bengali and Islamic identities serves only a limited purpose because this does not satisfactorily distinguish Bangladesh from West Bengal.

This is a very interesting article. It goes on to say that 13 million Bengalis migrated to West Bengal in recent years. It says that Bangladesh has the largest population per square mile in the world. 500!!! peple for every square mile. Canada is 4 people. If you take only areas that can be developed, it is still only 20 people.

Anyway, I'm trying to understand this article, and I was wondering, do most Bangladeshis find themselves more Secular or Islamic right now, any other imput or discussion about this is appreciated. Thanks for your help.

Extracted from: Asian Survey, Vol. 33, No. 7, South Asia: Responses to the Ayodhya Crisis (Jul., 1993, 697 - 710.

p.s. You guys truly have a Fascinating and complex history.

[Ehsan]

Originally posted by whiteguy

Here is a quote:

"Bangladesh presents an interesting case of confued identity. If Bangladesh asserts its Islamic identity, it cannot justify its liberation struggle, as that was not only directed against Islamic Pakistan

That quote is a crap! Who said we can't assert our Islamic identity? We fought against injustice and torment, it does not matter if that injustice and torment was done by an Islamic country. And Islam is what distinguishes Bangladesh from West Bengal without a doubt!

For Muslims, Islam comes first and before everything even culture. Islam is not just another religion, it is the way of life.

Edited on, July 22, 2005, 9:07 PM GMT, by Ehsan.

[newbie]

Originally posted by Ehsan
For Muslims, Islam comes first and before everything even culture. Islam is not just another religion, it is the way of life.

True for muslims, but NOT all Bangladeshis.

[Ehsan]

Originally posted by newbie
True for muslims, but NOT all Bangladeshis.

Yes, but for most Bangladeshis who are muslims.

Edited on, July 22, 2005, 9:10 PM GMT, by Ehsan.

[Dawah]

Originally posted by whiteguy
Here is a quote:

"Bangladesh presents an interesting case of confued identity. If Bangladesh asserts its Islamic identity, it cannot justify its liberation struggle, as that was not only directed against Islamic Pakistan but was actively aided by "Hindu" India. .

1971 was a struggle against a tyrant regime of Pakistan.
Those tyrants happened to be Muslims.

And Pakistan was a Muslim country then, but it was never an "Islamic" state. An "Islamic" state is ruled by "shariah" laws directly. Pakistan was never ruled by any "shariah" law.

India has its reasons in helping Bangladesh. But, did you know India has more Muslims then all of Bangladesh?

[Dawah]

Alhumdulillah, our independence was a good thing. We are different people, other than being Muslims, we are a lot different than Pakistanies. And those Pakistani leaders are just like our Jamat-shibir leaders who use Islam as a tool to gain power.

I am thank full that I am a Bangladeshi Muslim for a various reasons.

Edited on, July 22, 2005, 9:54 PM GMT, by dawah.tabligh.

[VladMamu]

Ehsan. Are you saying that most Bangladeshis who are Muslim are for a pro Islamic state?
Are there not legitimate devout Muslims, who view themselves as being Bengalis first?

Further, I appreciate your replies, to help me understand. I would like to add that we should not disrepect our scholars or the points of view which will be added here - hopefully to help me with my research. Incidently, I forgot to add this ones name to above reference. Partha S. Ghosh.
Everyone has differing opinions.
I also would love to know how Bangladeshis in Bangladesh, OR Muslims in Bangladesh, OR Bangladeshis who are Muslims in Bangladesh view this? It appears that it has been (the political system) going back and forth between the secular first and Islamic first government idea.
It also appears
It also appears that: according to
"Bengals in Pakistan" Journal of Asian Studies Vol. XXXIV, No. 2. February 1975.

"The two groups (Hindu and Muslim), have lived together for many years, further mixed with Indian Christians, Eurasians and in some instances British with little disaffection. Religious holidays were often shared: farms were worked side-by-side regardless of religious affiliation. Communal friction occurred now and then, but usually was short-lived and not of serious nature."

The article goes on, as do ALL articles I have read to state that the violence and problems started in 1905 when there was the first partition of Bengal. This is my topic. This is what my paper is due on by Monday 4pm.

Please remember there is no right or wrong opinion here on the net. It's anonymous, (except keep to forum rules), and you can see what your fellow brothers really think. It will help me to see what is the common view now. It was about 50/50 in 1991, so the views here will digress I'm sure.
Again, thank you for helping me understand.

[cricman]

Originally posted by dawah.tabligh
India has its reasons in helping Bangladesh. But, did you know India has more Muslims then all of Bangladesh?

I actually wondered why there were so many Hindi moves dealing with muslims issues(besdies the fact some of the Top actors are muslim) so India a country of 1 billion have more than 100 million muslims i never knew that.

Well any way i Think 10% of Bangladeshi's are Hindi so thats about 15 million thats more than the USA .

so the ratio is the same 1:10 from the majority to the minority. I'm probably wrong since there are followers of Budda and christanity in India as well.

Edited on, July 22, 2005, 10:08 PM GMT, by cricman.

[Dawah]

If any one wishes to call Pakistan an "Islamic" country, then India could be called an "Islamic" Country.

Edited on, July 22, 2005, 9:53 PM GMT, by dawah.tabligh.

[Zunaid]

Bangladesh presents an interesting case of confued identity. If Bangladesh asserts its Islamic identity, it cannot justify its liberation struggle, as that was not only directed against Islamic Pakistan but was actively aided by "Hindu" India. Alternatively, if it displays its Bengali credentials, it runs the risk of merging its identity beyond recognition into that of the West Bengal and its major city, Calcutta, the cultural capital for all Bengalis in India and abroad. Even a simultaneous assertion of Bengali and Islamic identities serves only a limited purpose because this does not satisfactorily distinguish Bangladesh from West Bengal.

Looks like this was written by some one with a partisan agenda to hone on.

The first part about a conflict with Islamic identity and our liberation struggle has been aptly dealt wth by the various responses here.

The second one is equally an inept comment. Kolkata is no longer the cultural capital of Bangla - at one time it was but it no longer can assert this any longer. With the dominance of Hindi (NOT HINDU please) linguistic and cultural ascendancy, Kolkata can no longer hold that claim. It is in Dhaka that there is vitality in Bangla and Bengali culture. It is unique and it is different than what it is in West Bengal - the very nature of us being an independent overwhelmingly Bengali has provided us with a cultural vitality that Kolkata can only envy these days.

[Zunaid]

Also check the discussion in this usenet thread:

>> google link <<

[oracle]

Extracted from: Asian Survey, Vol. 33, No. 7, South Asia: Responses to the Ayodhya Crisis (Jul., 1993, 697 - 710.

Whiteguy

I am not satisfied with the sources and leads that are qouted and presented here. Can we do a better job/ attempt to highlight the sources clearly, as i still cannot figure out what the publication name is, or its point of origin.

In short , they are vague in my opinion. In future, clarification please!

[cricman]

Originally posted by whiteguy
This is what my paper is due on by Monday 4pm.

I hope you can turn procrastination into an art

[Ehsan]

Originally posted by whiteguy
Ehsan. Are you saying that most Bangladeshis who are Muslim are for a pro Islamic state?
Are there not legitimate devout Muslims, who view themselves as being Bengalis first?

Islam does not teach us to differentiate between races. We are all the same.

Edited on, July 23, 2005, 12:40 AM GMT, by Ehsan.

[al]

Originally posted by dawah.tabligh
If any one wishes to call Pakistan an "Islamic" country, then India could be called an "Islamic" Country.

Edited on, July 22, 2005, 9:53 PM GMT, by dawah.tabligh.

India-islamic country, give me a break. 2002 riot, (should I say genocide as brothers from India states) is forgotten so easily. Just ask those IMRC folks. I am sure, you know about them if you go to friday prayers. check here.
http://www.imrc.ws/html/events___appeals.html
[

Edited on, July 23, 2005, 1:56 AM GMT, by al.

[al]

Originally posted by Ehsan

Islam does not teach us to differentiate between races. We are all the same.

Edited on, July 23, 2005, 12:40 AM GMT, by Ehsan.

Yes. i agree.
These days, if you are a practicing muslim or even trying to be a practicing, you can be labelled as jamat lover. This kind of mental sickness needs to be treated

[

Edited on, July 23, 2005, 1:31 AM GMT, by al.

[desi_pride]

first Jamat Islam is not Al Qaida, i mean terrorist
second what the hell is a secular

[Zunaid]

Originally posted by desi_pride
second what the hell is a secular

I recommend investing in a dictionary.

[desi_pride]

i asked you what does secular means not too tell me what to do

[Zunaid]

Originally posted by desi_pride
i asked you what does secular means not too tell me what to do

You teach a man to fish ... etc....

[al]

ok guys. let's chill out. Take it easy. If you cannot take it easy, go as easy as you can.

[desi_pride]

Originally posted by Zunaid

You teach a man to fish ... etc....

what do you mean by that

[desi_pride]

look " WEBMASTER" Zunaid if you don't want to explain what is a secular you do not have to reply!

[Zunaid]

Originally posted by desi_pride
look " WEBMASTER" Zunaid if you don't want to explain what is a secular you do not have to reply!

Don't be so obtuse.... Can't expect everything to be spoonfed do you? I am doing you a favor here by asking you to to do a bit of reasearch before you go off the deep end.

And pray sir, why the "WEBMASTER" bit?

I have a name and my life is an open book on the web.

Edited on, July 23, 2005, 3:31 AM GMT, by Zunaid.

[Zunaid]

Definitions of secular on the Web:

* laic: concerning those not members of the clergy; "set his collar in laic rather than clerical position"; "the lay ministry"; "the choir sings both sacred and secular music"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* This article concerns secularity, that is, being secular, in various senses.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular

* Not religious.
www.windsor-brooke.com/DaughtersGlossary.htm

* Long term as opposed to seasonal or cyclical. BACK TO TOP
http://www.comerica.com/cma/cda/main...A_1859,00.html

* Pertaining to long periods of time on the order of a century, as secular perturbations, secular terms.
roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary/s.html

* an item that is free of religion.
www.religioustolerance.org/gl_s.htm

* material & worldly as opposed to spiritual; thus ANYTHING not religious.
www.ancientpathway.com/reference/glossary.html

* 1) in relation to clergy, priests living in the world, not under a rule, who are bound by no vows and may possess property, working under the authority of a bishop: 2) more generally, refers to people who are not clergy, the laity
medievalwriting.50megs.com/churchglossary/glossaryr.htm

* things not regarded as religious or spiritual.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

* term used to describe early music with no connection to religion, that is not sacred music
www.mso.com.au/edu/glossary/glossaryfull.asp

* Matters not regarded as religious, spiritual or sacred. The secular world exists outside Church orders.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_histo...churgloss.html

* not having any connection with religion.
www.ffotogallery.org/th-edu/glossary.htm

* Long enduring, long term, usually used in contrast to short term. Technically, when used in non-religious terminology, secular implies a duration of several centuries. When used in reference to religion (HA. 527,587), secular means worldly, nonreligious, outside of the church.
www.mises.org/easier/S.asp

* non-religious.
http://www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/r...2-glossary.cfm

* sec·u·lar (sèk¹ye-ler) adjective 1. Worldly rather than spiritual. 2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music. 3. Relating to or advocating secularism. 4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy. 5. Occurring or observed once in an age or a century. 6. Lasting from century to century. Noun 1. A member of the secular clergy. 2. A layperson. [Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saeculâris, from Latin, of an age, from saeculum, generation, age.] — sec¹u·lar·ly adver
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/pc-gls_2.htm

* Concerned with the affairs of this world, worldly, not sacred, not monastic, not ecclesiastical - temporal, profane.
dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/theo305/glossary.htm

* The word has a meaning beyond nonreligious: occurring over a long period.
http://www.careerjournaleurope.com/c.../glossary.html

* not involving religion Iraq may not end up with a strong secular government.
http://www.bathpublicschools.com/mhs...dg/101904g.htm

* A long-term trend as opposed to a cyclical or short-term trend.
www.freebuck.com/reference/glossary/s.htm