***All About Bangladeshi Politics: The Definitive Bangladeshi Politics Thread***

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Here's the thing, your gut reaction regardless of veracity, is still relevant to this thread. I'll admit I have absolutely zero evidence for my assertion, but thats exactly what an opinion is by definition, and I'm unaware of of forum rules prohibiting the posting of opinions.

Some have a gut reaction that Ashraful's 190 will be followed by many failures. There is no evidence to support that because its a future event. But its still a very reasonable gut reaction, no? So just because its a gut reaction does not mean it has no merit.

All I'm saying is that its reasonable to expect that majority of atheists oppose faith based politics. You are free to opine otherwise, just don't expect that others will be compelled to agree if you too are unable to give credible statistics backing your point.

My bad, I didn't mean to say don't bring your opinions here. I thought I was speaking from a legal point-of-view of freedom of speech when I brought up the atheist arrest cases, and that's why I said gut reactions won't have no relevancy. But opine away, bro - that's what BC is for.

Conclusion = even more atheists oppose Islamist politics

Let's assume your assumptions are correct. Opposing Islamist politics =/= demanding arrest/death for blogs, cartoons, tweets. Do we agree?

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
This is going to derail the thread a fair bit, I feel ... but here's the issue:

The idea isn't that one can't object to insults/offensive statements against one's God/Prophet/religion. But that it be done in a meaningful way that doesn't infringe on others basic human rights. Don't like an atheist's blog? Create your own blog to respond! You don't have to seek arrest/death for the person just for having an opinion you find offensive.

Firstly, I don't believe that the correct interpretation of shariah calls for the death of blasphemers, and I'd use surah Lahab as my daleel for that. But thats another issue for another thread.

I however, do not oppose fines or jail terms for unprovoked abuse of religion, regardless of whether that religion is the majority religion or the minority religion.

In the same fashion, if an atheist or a hindu claims to feel offended when Imams deliver sermons where they clearly say atheists and Hindus are destined for hellfire, should the Imams be arrested/killed?

No, because that is not the exact same crime. That would be the equivalent of an atheist blogger writing "Muhammad died 1400 years ago and his body just biodegraded somewhere in Saudi Arabia". Majority of Muslims wouldn't take issue with that, even though some Muslims don't believe that.

If an imam says something like "Krishna was filthy and uncircumcised..." implying the same of Hindus, then, I absolutely believe the same fine/jail term should be meted out as that of an atheist blogger who reviles Islam. Both are equal crimes, equally unprovoked, equally offensive, equally unnecessary, and equally futile. And they should be punished equally.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
No, because that is not the exact same crime. That would be the equivalent of an atheist blogger writing "Muhammad died 1400 years ago and his body just biodegraded somewhere in Saudi Arabia". Majority of Muslims wouldn't take issue with that, even though some Muslims don't believe that.

If an imam says something like "Krishna was filthy and uncircumcised..." implying the same of Hindus, then, I absolutely believe the same fine/jail term should be meted out as that of an atheist blogger who reviles Islam. Both are equal crimes, equally unprovoked, equally offensive, equally unnecessary, and equally futile. And they should be punished equally.

Lol, okay, you got me on semantics. Many Imams actually say much worse than that (including character attacks) - but from what you've said it seems you'd want punishment for them too.

I guess therein lies our fundamental difference. I don't think dissenting opinions (regardless of how crude or 'offensive' they seem to be) are punishable, but you do.

[cricket_pagol]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Prior to visiting Dhaka I had no idea about what Shahbag really was. Not that I know any better now, but now I can at least attest that not all Shahbaggers are atheists. Many of my relatives, all of them Muslims, some of them devout, none of them atheists were there and were proud.

That being said, almost all atheists are Shahbaggers. Not all, but most. And by most I mean significantly more than a mere 51% bare majority.

I have no issues with atheists. I do have issues with atheists who exploit the right to free speech in order to offend others, however. I may not like your mother's cooking, but is it necessary to call her names? Lets assume, for argument's sake, that Muhammad is indeed a pedophile or an epileptic marauder with schizophrenic hallucinations. That is relevant in the case about the verdict for a 1971 war crime because???

bro, with all due respect, there is no evidence to what you are saying:

almost all atheists are Shahbaggers. Not all, but most. And by most I mean significantly more than a mere 51% bare majority.

in fact your anecdote suggests, shahbag was mostly composed of regular bangladeshi Muslims.

As the for second issue about offending others, every human should respect the freedom and liberty of every other human. I am sure some atheist are guilty of being offensive, many religious people are guilty of the same crime. Let's not associate bad behavior with any other religion or lack of religion. Bad behavior is bad behavior. Don't we hate it when western people pin the bad behavior of a few muslims on us? You see, fundamentally these westerners are no different that you and I.

PS: I hope you realized that you just stereotyped and accused atheist people without any evidence. All I am asking is that you have to make evidence based argument.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
My bad, I didn't mean to say don't bring your opinions here. I thought I was speaking from a legal point-of-view of freedom of speech when I brought up the atheist arrest cases, and that's why I said gut reactions won't have no relevancy. But opine away, bro - that's what BC is for.

Ahh, point taken.

Let's assume your assumptions are correct. Opposing Islamist politics =/= demanding arrest/death for blogs, cartoons, tweets. Do we agree?

Mere opposition, certainly valid. But Shahbaggers, per my knowledge wanted a comprehensive ban on all Islamist parties. Implication is hunt them once they go underground and then jail them. It just so happens that now, for whatver reason, the AL governtment has betrayed the atheist bloggers and gone after them in the exact same fashion. Without actually banning atheism or blasphemy, to the best of my knowledge.

Elec, I simply refuse to believe that freedom of thought/speech/press must include freedom to blatantly offend. Sohel bhai and I have disagreed on this very topic in the original Shahbag thread. And there is a reason for that.

Just like the former Pimp who now labors tirelessly against the brutality of prostitution, I too was once an offender.

On more than one occaision in the not-distant enough past, I've used personal blogs, BanglaCricket forums, and other medium to launch unprovoked attacks on other's religious beliefs. And that is shameful. And unjustified. And unjustifiable.

I once posted a thinly veiled attack on a fellow BC member's religious restrictions against eating beef. He called me out on it, and I apologized, which he accepted. Done and dusted. But I'll never forget that feeling of guilt and shame. I had done exactly that very thing that was the trademark of those who I pitied for their ignorant views on Islam in a post 911 America.

This type of behavior cannot be tolerated by anyone with an ounce of civility.

[Zeeshan]

ei kothakopon guli bangladeshi 'torko-bitorkor' moton hole bhalo hoto noyki?

i mean, a skinny debate champion with glasses blasting away at fast pace: manoniyo judge, shomannito dorshok abong chotur protidondhi...

[Zunaid]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
Hey - EQ and Alfie - haven't we been there done that with you two on this in that other thread? I see nothing new here either. The horse is not only dead but is the glue you two are sniffing. Shall we move on and back to the topic.

Does anyone actually scroll back and read anything that has been posted while they were busy pandering to their own ego and crafting their masterpiece of an Internet riposte.

Take a break guys. Scroll back. Read. Breath. Go out and smell the coffee.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
Not to be pedantic here but predictive analytics is a big portion of what I do to earn my living and you could not be furthest from the truth.

These are not mutually exclusive events and each event is a function of set of parameters called features. One can model these features over a period of data points (past events) and can create predictive entities with various degrees of accuracy. And no, this is not like rolling the dice where each roll is independent of the previous role.

Bringing it back on topic - I bet we could have accurately predicted the current scenario based on past events. The sad thing is, we didn't need prescience, nor bayesian models, not logistic regression, to have predicted that what has transpired would have transpired with a high degree of probability. The only folks caught with their pants down appear to the leaguers - unless there is credence to your assertion that this might all be a calculated move.

Points taken. What I really meant to say was that future events cannot be foretold. It is unreasonable to suspect that Ash will score big in his next innings and similarly unreasonable to suspect that most atheists will support or be neutral to faith based politics.

At any rate, EQ and I seem to have reach an understanding of what the other was trying to say. Just a friendly disagreement on the breadth of "free speech".

[Rabz]

The end is nigh.

"....বাংলার মানুষ মুক্তি চায়,
বাংলার মানুষ বাঁচতে চায়
বাংলার মানুষ তার অধিকার চায়" .......

[Blah]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Mere opposition, certainly valid. But Shahbaggers, per my knowledge wanted a comprehensive ban on all Islamist parties.

If I am not wrong, religion in politics is against the law in bangladesh. It was originally made against the law by the founding fathers, the islamist led military dictators reversed the law, and finally (recently) the constitution was amended to its original state by banning religious based political party. Like most of the rest of the civilized world.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...K2gxXACMFuySog

I don't know the current state of the law, as that supreme court verdict was 2 years ago, or understand the bangladesh parliament process. Did they officially amend it? Maybe Navo, or anyone else who knows, can chime in. Does it need an official parliamentary amendment, or the court rule is good enough?

There is no example in the recent history of the civilized world, where allowing religion into politics turned out to be a good thing for democracy, freedom or the prosperity of the country.

Religion has no business in politics. IMO, and most of the democratic world agrees with it.

[reverse_swing]

Bangladesh Arrests 'Atheist Bloggers,' Cracking Down On Critics
WASHINGTON -- The Bangladeshi government is cracking down on bloggers critical of its pro-Islamist stance, arresting four of these writers in the capital of Dhaka this week.

Asif Mohiuddin, 30, is one of those bloggers. Mohiuddin has only recently recovered from injuries he incurred during an attack on him by a militant Islamist group in January. Detectives took him from his home on Wednesday night, just two days after police arrested three other bloggers for allegedly hurting the religious beliefs of the people.

Subrata Adhikary Shuvo, 24, Russell Parvez, 36, and Mashiur Rahman Biplob, 42, were picked up on Monday night. Like other bloggers around the world, they have criticized both politicians and the press, in this case for being biased toward Islamist views and ideologies in a country that is constitutionally supposed to be secular. All three wrote regularly for Amar Blog, a popular site that was also shut down after the arrests.

Even before bringing any official charges against the three, police marched them before reporters at a press conference on Tuesday. Detectives also seized their laptops and hard disks, which they displayed at the press conference as if the computers were arms recovered from a criminal den.

For now, the three bloggers have been remanded for police questioning for a week. The fate of Mohiuddin is still being determined.

This sort of crackdown on free speech in Bangladesh is nothing new. In the last decade, several journalists, including a cartoonist, have been arrested under the same blasphemy law under which the bloggers were arrested -- an archaic legacy of the British colonial system.

• Read more: Huffingtonpost >>

[Sun_]

Well, I want to put my two cents too. Mullahs of Bangladesh usually consider every non believer along with the believers of other religion like Hinduism, Buddhism as kafir. You will see that huzurs usually say bad things about idolatry almost in every religious gathering as well as they portrait a brief picture about how every kafir will burn in the fire of the hell. Even there is a program in Islamic tv where they bring a Muslim in the show who was previously a believer of other religion. I have seen one episode so far. In that episode the converted Muslim was a hindu in his early life and he was describing how pointless his previous religion and its praying system really was.

Similarly in Bangladesh one will find that Hindus are also writing & saying bad things about Islam in public especially about the Eid ul-adha. Almost every Hindu consider cow as a holy animal and slaughtering that is considered d as a heinous sin in Hinduism. Well as a follower of minor religion Hindus usually torment Muslim belief in a silent way for obvious reason of course but more or less they do so.

Now what an Atheist will do in such circumstances? He neither believes in god nor in his prophets. So Muhammad or Krishna doesn’t carry any extra flavor to him other than a simple human being and an imaginary kid. Obviously an atheist will talk about polygamy of Muhammad and will make fun of radha-krishna affair. The practical question is should we allow an atheist to write his own personal thought? Now if we allow huzurs to talk against idolatry which is obviously against Hindu belief then why shouldn’t we allow an atheist to express his thoughts about religion in his own way in his very own blog?

What about tolerance level. If we can’t tolerate their misinformation about religion we can always argue against that from a religious point, 2^nd their blog can be ignored and as a last resort every religious individual can start their own blog to preach their own religion. Fight against pen should be fought with a pen. Though the government act didn’t surprise me at all! When a govt can block YouTube for blasphemy then this arrest is nothing compared to that. I was actually surprised by seeing that these three bloggers are still breathing in fresh air. Though the way police have showed their faces in media, now I m actually concern about their safety. How will they protect themselves from these zealots in future?

[Blah]

This thread could use a little humor.

Explain atheism like I am Jesus and you are a used car salesman.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Blah
If I am not wrong, religion in politics is against the law in bangladesh. It was originally made against the law by the founding fathers, the islamist led military dictators reversed the law, and finally (recently) the constitution was amended to its original state by banning religious based political party. Like most of the rest of the civilized world.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...K2gxXACMFuySog

I don't know the current state of the law, as that supreme court verdict was 2 years ago, or understand the bangladesh parliament process. Did they officially amend it? Maybe Navo, or anyone else who knows, can chime in. Does it need an official parliamentary amendment, or the court rule is good enough?

There is no example in the recent history of the civilized world, where allowing religion into politics turned out to be a good thing for democracy, freedom or the prosperity of the country.

Religion has no business in politics. IMO, and most of the democratic world agrees with it.

I too am unsure of what the current Constitution says. But the one available on the net (http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/print_se...all.php?id=367) forbids this:

"the abuse of religion for political purposes."

If insulting Islam or the character of Muhammad is classified as "abuse" and if Islam is a "religion" and if the bloggers are involved in any "political" protests, then, in my opinion, this is a stronger indictment of the alleged bloggers than it is of faith based political parties. The literal interpretation of those words is exactly that. The argument now is about semantics.

[Blah]

I was specifically referring to this comment of yours:

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Mere opposition, certainly valid. But Shahbaggers, per my knowledge wanted a comprehensive ban on all Islamist parties.

Assuming its already in the constitution, a comprehensive ban is not only a very good idea, its well within the law of the land. They merely demanding implementation of the law. Nothing wrong with that.

----

I don't have much to say about bloggers insulting islam because I think its been highly politicized and I have a hard time believing that anyone can be stupid enough to openly make the type of comments in bangladesh, that they are accused of making. Not only that, they have opened themselves up in such a manner that they can be easily identified, individually. That just seems very stupid in their part, or most likely, something that didn't actually happen; meaning someone else did using their name.

If they can photoshop some idiot's face on the moon and make people believe its real, nothing is stopping this morally bankrupt people to make sh*t up about certain people and use their name to write anti-religious statement.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Blah
I was specifically referring to this comment of yours:



Assuming its already in the constitution, a comprehensive ban is not only a very good idea, its well within the law of the land. They merely demanding implementation of the law. Nothing wrong with that.

I didn't see anything in the Constitution that would warrant that. Rather it seems its against the abuse OF religion.

----

I don't have much to say about bloggers insulting islam because I think its been highly politicized and I have a hard time believing that anyone can be stupid enough to openly make the type of comments in bangladesh, that they are accused of making. Not only that, they have opened themselves up in such a manner that they can be easily identified, individually. That just seems very stupid in their part, or most likely, something that didn't actually happen; meaning someone else did using their name.

If they can photoshop some idiot's face on the moon and make people believe its real, nothing is stopping this morally bankrupt people to make sh*t up about certain people and use their name to write anti-religious statement.

Its entirely plausible. I've always called them "alleged" bloggers simply because we don't know and cannot know for a fact if they are guitly and the legal system is very poor even by Western standards.

I don't buy the intelligence arugement because Taslima Nasreen wasn't stupid. Salman Rushdie isn't dumb. And Theo van Gogh probably wasn't retarded either.

That being said, I don't put it past an atheist to do something like that nor would I put it past Jamaat-Shibir of manufacturing stuff for political gain. All conspiracy theories are equally plausible.

Until and unless civil soceity, the legal system, and politics attain a high level of transparency and lack of corruption its best to just leave things as they are. What needs to be understood by us is once you place or even force bloodthirst on an already corrupt institution, who will guarantee that it won't come after me next?

[Blah]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
I didn't see anything in the Constitution that would warrant that. Rather it seems its against the abuse OF religion.

hahaha.

I think you completely misunderstood what the constitution says. It says:

Secularism and freedom of religion
[ 12. The principle of secularism shall be realised by the elimination of -
(a) communalism in all its forms ;
(b) the granting by the State of political status in favour of any religion ;
(c) the abuse of religion for political purposes ;
(d) any discrimination against, or persecution of, persons practicing a particular religion.]

You highlighted the part out of context, it clearly says:

The principle of secularism shall be realised by the elimination of the abuse of religion for political purposes.

and the point before that, which you missed or ignored:

"the granting by the State of political status in favour of any religion "

I am sure you know what secularism means, but just in case:

"a view that religion and religious considerations should be ignored or excluded from social and political matters."

Its not up for interpretation, it pretty clear cut what it means. "Abuse of religion" clear means using religion to get political mandate.

As for insulting of religion, I am not well versed in constitution to say if there is a blasphemy law in bangladesh; but I am 99% there is no blashphemy law in bangladesh, which prevents anyone from insulting religion (whether they should or should not is a different matter, I personally think they shouldn't actively go out of their way to offend religious sentiment.) As a matter of fact I don't know under what law these so called bloggers where arrested. Maybe navo or someone else can chime in.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Blah
hahaha.

I think you completely misunderstood what the constitution says. It says:



You highlighted the part out of context, it clearly says:

The principle of secularism shall be realised by the elimination of the abuse of religion for political purposes.

and the point before that, which you missed or ignored:

"the granting by the State of political status in favour of any religion "

I am sure you know what secularism means, but just in case:

"a view that religion and religious considerations should be ignored or excluded from social and political matters."



As for insulting of religion, I am not well versed in constitution to say if there is a blasphemy law in bangladesh; but I am 99% there is no blashphemy law in bangladesh, which prevents anyone from insulting religion (whether they should or should not is a different matter, I personally think they shouldn't actively go out of their way to offend religious sentiment.) As a matter of fact I don't know under what law these so called bloggers where arrested. Maybe navo or someone else can chime in.

While that may be true, we should not ignore the literal meaning of the phrase "abuse OF religion" eg. by denigrating the character of religious figures on online blogs. It seems to me that that is also abuse of a religion for the purpose of a political end.

The thing is there is no such thing as "secularism" either in practice (US or India or Bangladesh) or in theory. Secularism is a creed just like religion. To enshrine secularism is actually not any different than any other sort of -ism...Islamism, Judaism, Hinduism, Marxism, Communism, or any other sort of -ism that may exist.

Its not up for interpretation, it pretty clear cut what it means. "Abuse of religion" clear means using religion to get political mandate.

Actually, it is up for interpretation. While your interpretation is valid, you cannot deny that "abuse of religion" can include people abusing religion for political gain. You see the Constitution as is, is written in imperfect English. If they wanted to avoid all ambiguity they should have specified "abuse BY religion" and not "abuse OF religion". I hope you see the clear difference.

[cricket_pagol]

Do we really need a movement to bring a few bloggers to justice for offensive comments they made online? First of all we don't know what those offensive comments are. If the politics behind the movement is taken into consideration, then it is very hard to have any respect for these people.

I understand policing newspaper articles or books for religiously insensitive materials, but going after bloggers in plain stupid. Next thing, we know that will be coming after the comments we make in a forum. Where does it end?

BTW, I am not in favor of shutting down and banning dissenting views, they should be fought with pen and paper and dealt with by providing a counter argument. If a few people writes nasty stuff about religion, does it take away anything from my religion? Most sensible people will reject nasty stuff anyway.

[BANFAN]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Doc, I do believe the call for death was from the very beginning of Shahbag. I heard, and believe although nothing is certain, that the whole thing was orchestrated by the government as their trump card to win the election. The first verdict was intentionally life to see which way the winds would blow and then the AL would infiltrate Shahbag and then take over a la the Trojan horse.

Originally Posted by Zunaid
Nice conspiracy theory but I don't think the AL has that much inept foresight. Foresight, yes. Inept, yes. Anyone with a few gray cells could have predicted the blowback - after all they (the Jamaat/Shibirs) have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory. If you read Omi's FB posts, he clearly says that this movement is an extension of GHADANIK started by Jahanara imam. Which was closely participated by AL, including Sk Hasina. The elaborate description he gives of their association with that and of Hasina with that and the satisfaction he expressed at the achievement of unfulfilled objectives of GHADANIK ... You have to notice the connection.

And he was using such statements to motivate and to be loyal to AL to achieve the goals.

It's really inconceivable that OMI and others were planning to implement aims of Ghadanik; without any consultations and blessings from the active AL & BCL leaders whom he praises a lot for that phase of Ghadanik movement.

Well, I get a clear impression of the link, just from OMI's own statements on FB and the activities of Ghadanik. .

Ghadanik actually got good response in those days too. But due to direct involvement of AL with them, was successfully exploited by BNP in power. so they just had to implement the lessons learnt and get AL technically detached by not being visible. Actually the initial response gave us a different feelings, now if you look at it, all AL had to do is be invisible, that drew the neutral mass. While the experienced leadership controlled it behind the scene, putting all unknown faces in front. Not so difficult I guess,

And call for death was from the beginning, because that was the verdict Ghadanik gave to all the war criminals, by a symbolic court... "Jonotar Rai" I hope you remember those events.

[mufi_02]

Nastiks VS Hefajots

Is that's what the country has come to? We have more than 99 problems but this shouldn't be the one.

To Hefajot - If you have right to practice your religion, then according to BD law, these bloggers have the right to practice no religion. Then your demand is against the blasphemy of Prophet and Islam. You want a blasphemy law that will arrest anyone who write such materials. Do you think it will stop them from writing such things? Even if few do, it will be out of fear. If you want follow Islamic ideals, then silencing your opposition by fear isn't the right way. There has always been people writing such materials for centuries and so just ignore them and stop giving them unwarranted attention.

To such Bloggers - Not all Shahbagis, Not all AL, Not all bloggers fall into these category. In fact such cheap writers are very few. Criticism/Analysis of religion is one thing and mockery/writing 'choti' about it is another. If your goal is to expose fallacies and irregularities within Islam, you are free to do so by using any of your logic and reasoning. No need to take that extra mile and offend the sentiments of millions. People always debate about comparative religions, and religions vs atheism in public forums but in a very civil way with respect for other views. But the fact that you are using such vile languages shows the other intention.

It's sad to see so many real issues are getting buried and we are fighting against who writes what in some blogs.

[HereWeGo]

[Zunaid]

Tru dat.

[Sun_]

হেফাজতেইসলামেরতেরদফাঃ

১) সংবিধানে ‘আল্লাহ্‌র উপর পূর্ণ আস্থা ও বিশ্বাস’ পুনঃস্থাপন এবং কোরান-সুন্নাহ্‌ বিরোধী সকল আইন বাতিল করতে হবে।

২) আল্লাহ্‌, রাসুল (সা.) ও ইসলাম ধর্মের অবমাননা এবং মুসলমানদের বিরুদ্ধে কুৎসা রোধে স...র্বোচ্চ শাস্তি মৃত্যুদণ্ডের বিধান রেখে জাতীয় সংসদে আইন পাস করতে হবে।

৩) কথিত শাহবাগী আন্দোলনে নেতৃত্বদানকারী স্বঘোষিত নাস্তিক-মুরতাদ এবং প্রিয় নবী (সা.)-র শানে জঘন্য কুৎসা রটনাকারী কুলাঙ্গার ব্লগার ও ইসলাম বিদ্বেষীদের সকল অপপ্রচার বন্ধসহ কঠোর শাস্তিদানের ব্যবস্থা করতে হবে।

৪) ব্যক্তি ও বাক-স্বাধীনতার নামে সকল বেহায়াপনা, অনাচার, ব্যভিচার, প্রকাশ্যে নারী-পুরুষের অবাধ বিচরণ, মোমবাতি প্রজ্বলনসহ সকল বিজাতীয় সংস্কৃতির অনুপ্রবেশ বন্ধ করতে হবে।

৫) ইসলামবিরোধী নারীনীতি, ধর্মহীন শিক্ষানীতি বাতিল করে শিক্ষার প্রাথমিক স্তর থেকে উচ্চ মাধ্যমিক স্তর পর্যন্ত ইসলাম ধর্মীয় শিক্ষাকে বাধ্যতামূলক করতে হবে।

৬) সরকারিভাবে কাদিয়ানিদের অমুসলিম ঘোষণা এবং তাদের প্রচারণা ও ষড়যন্ত্রমূলক সকল অপ-তৎপরতা বন্ধ করতে হবে।

৭) মসজিদের নগরী ঢাকাকে মূর্তির নগরীতে রূপান্তর এবং দেশব্যাপী রাস্তার মোড়ে ও কলেজ-ভার্সিটিতে ভাস্কর্যের নামে মূর্তি স্থাপন বন্ধ করতে হবে।

৮) জাতীয় মসজিদ বায়তুল মোকাররমসহ দেশের সকল মসজিদে মুসল্লিদের নির্বিঘ্নে নামাজ আদায়ে বাধা-বিপত্তি ও প্রতিবন্ধকতা অপসারণ এবং ওয়াজ-নসিহত ও ধর্মীয় কার্যকলাপে বাধাদান বন্ধ করতে হবে।

৯) রেডিও, টেলিভিশনসহ বিভিন্ন মিডিয়ায় দাড়ি-টুপি ও ইসলামী কৃষ্টি-কালচার নিয়ে হাসি-ঠাট্টা এবং নাটক-সিনেমায় খল ও নেতিবাচক চরিত্রে ধর্মীয় লেবাস-পোশাক পরিয়ে অভিনয়ের মাধ্যমে তরুণ প্রজন্মের মনে ইসলামের প্রতি বিদ্বেষমূলক মনোভাব সৃষ্টির অপপ্রয়াস বন্ধ করতে হবে।

১০) পার্বত্য চট্টগ্রামসহ দেশব্যাপী ইসলাম বিরোধী কর্মকাণ্ডে জড়িত এনজিও এবং খ্রিস্টান মিশনারীদের ধর্মান্তকরণসহ সকল অপ-তৎপরতা বন্ধ করতে হবে।

১১) রাসুলপ্রেমিক প্রতিবাদী আলেম-ওলামা, মাদরাসা ছাত্র এবং তৌহিদী জনতার ওপর হামলা, দমন-পীড়ন, নির্বিচার গুলিবর্ষণ এবং গণহত্যা বন্ধ করতে হবে।

১২) সারা দেশের কওমী মাদরাসার ছাত্র-শিক্ষক, ওলামা-মাশায়েখ এবং মসজিদের ইমাম-খতিবকে হুমকি-ধামকি ও ভয়ভীতি দানসহ তাদের বিরুদ্ধে সকল ষড়যন্ত্র বন্ধ করতে হবে।

১৩) অবিলম্বে গ্রেপ্তারকৃত সকল আলেম-ওলামা, মাদরাসা ছাত্র ও তৌহিদী জনতাকে মুক্তিদান, দায়েরকৃত সকল মিথ্যা মামলা প্রত্যাহার এবং আহত ও নিহতদের ক্ষতিপূরণসহ দুষ্কৃতকারীদেরকে বিচারের আওতায় এনে কঠোর শাস্তি দিতে হবে।

[riajul]

Yaa Allah, gov. Jodi ei beparta ajke santipurno vabe control korte na pare tahole je ki hobe ei deshtar. Yaa Allah amaderke rokkha korun.

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)