বাংলাদেশ খেলাফত আন্দোলনের আমির মাওলানা আহমদুল্লাহ আশরাফ বলেন, বতর্মান মহাজোট সরকার নির্বাচনের আগে বলেছিল, ক্ষমতায় গেলে কোরআন-সুন্নাহবিরোধী কোনো আইন তারা করবে না। কিন্তু দেখা যাচ্ছে, তাদের মদতে ইসলামবিরোধী কর্মকাণ্ড সীমা ছাড়িয়ে যাচ্ছে। বছরজুড়ে সংঘটিত বিভিন্ন ইসলামবিরোধী কর্মকাণ্ডের বর্ণনা দিয়ে তিনি বলেন, সরকার তার ওয়াদা ভঙ্গ করেছে। ইসলামবিরোধী তত্পরতা বন্ধে নিষ্ক্রিয় ভূমিকায় সরকারের ইসলামবিদ্বেষী মনোভাবের প্রকাশ ঘটেছে। এ অবস্থা থেকে ফিরে না এলে সরকারকে চরম পরিণতি ভোগ করতে হবে।
বর্তমান আওয়ামী লীগ সরকার ক্ষমতাসীন হওয়ার পর থেকেই ইসলামবিরোধী ও বিতর্কিত কর্মকাণ্ডের মাত্রা এ বছর ব্যাপক আকার ধারণ করে। সরকারিভাবে ইসলামবিরোধী নানা পদক্ষেপ এবং বক্তব্য-বিবৃতির পাশাপাশি বেশ তত্পর ছিল বেসরকারি বিভিন্ন মহল। পঞ্চম সংশোধনী বাতিলের মাধ্যমে সংবিধানের মূলনীতি থেকে ‘আল্লাহর ওপর আস্থা ও বিশ্বাস, বিসমিল্লাহ ও রাষ্ট্রধর্ম ইসলাম’ উঠিয়ে দেয়া, ধর্মভিত্তিক রাজনীতি নিষিদ্ধ করা, ধর্মনিরপেক্ষ শিক্ষানীতি প্রণয়ন, ফতোয়া নিষিদ্ধ, সমঅধিকার আইন করার সরকারি ঘোষণা এবং বোরকাবিরোধী আইন করার পাশাপাশি আল্লাহ ও রাসুল (সা.) সম্পর্কে কটূক্তি, জেহাদি বইয়ের নামে কোরআন-হাদিস ও ইসলামী সাহিত্যবিরোধী অপপ্রচার, বোরকা ও টুপিধারীদের হয়রানি, ইসলামিক ফাউন্ডেশনে অশ্লীল নৃত্যসহ বিভিন্ন ইসলামবিরোধী কর্মকাণ্ডে দেশের ধর্মপ্রাণ মানুষের মধ্যে ক্ষোভ ছড়িয়ে পড়ে। অনেকের মতে, ২০১০ সাল ছিল দেশকে ধর্মহীন করার ষড়যন্ত্রের বছর। এ বছর ইসলাম ও দেশের মুসলমানদের ঈমান-আকিদার ওপর মারাত্মক আঘাত আসে। আর এসব কর্মকাণ্ডের প্রেক্ষিতে দেশের প্রায় সব ইসলামী দলসহ ধর্মপ্রাণ মানুষের প্রতিবাদ-বিক্ষোভে মুখর ছিল পুরো বছর। নির্বাচনের আগে ‘কোরআন-সুন্নাহবিরোধী কোনো আইন করা হবে না’ বলে ওয়াদা করলেও বর্তমানে তা ভঙ্গ করায় আ’লীগ সরকারকে ইসলামবিরোধী আখ্যায়িত করে ইমান ও ইসলাম রক্ষায় তাদের বিরুদ্ধে সবাইকে ঐক্যবদ্ধ হওয়ার আহ্বান জানান সংশ্লিষ্টরা। তবে এসব প্রতিবাদ বিক্ষোভ দমনে সরকারের পুলিশবাহিনীও ছিল কঠোর অবস্থানে।
এ বছরের শুরুর দিকেই একটি অনুষ্ঠানে প্রধানমন্ত্রী ঘোষণা করেছিলেন, সম্পত্তিতে নারী-পুরুষের সমানাধিকার নিশ্চিত করা হবে। এ ঘোষণাকে পবিত্র কোরআনের মিরাছি আইনবিরোধীআখ্যায়িত করে তার প্রতিবাদ জানায় বিভিন্ন ইসলামী দল। কোনো অবস্থাতেই মিরাছি আইন পরিবর্তনের সুযোগ নেই বলে ওলামারা জানান। এর কয়েকদিন আগে রাষ্ট্রপতি ঘোষণা দেন, সব ধরনের ফতোয়া নিষিদ্ধ করা হবে। এই বক্তব্যে ধর্মপ্রাণ মানুষের মধ্যে তীব্র ক্ষোভের সৃষ্টি হয়। কারণ ফতোয়া ইসলামের বিধান। মুসলমানদের জন্য এটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ বিষয়। তাই কোনোভাবেই ফতোয়া বন্ধ করা যাবে না বলে তাদের অভিমত। মার্চের দিকে বাংলাদেশ ব্যাংকের একটি অনুষ্ঠান কোরআন তেলাওয়াতের পরিবর্তে রবীন্দ্রসঙ্গীত দিয়ে শুরু করা হয়। এছাড়া বছরের এপ্রিলে প্রধান নির্বাচন কমিশনার আল্লাহর ক্ষমতা নিয়ে মন্তব্য করলে তীব্র প্রতিবাদ জানান ধর্মপ্রাণ মানুষ।
এদিকে এ বছরের ফেব্রুয়ারি মাসে রাজধানীর ইডেন ও বদরুন্নেসা কলেজে বোরকাধারী ছাত্রীদের হয়রানি ও নির্যাতনের ঘটনায় সারাদেশে তোলপাড় সৃষ্টি হয়। ইডেন কলেজে বোরকাপরা ছাত্রীদের ধরে বোরকা খুলে সাংবাদিকদের সামনে হাজির করা হয়। রাজশাহী বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের ছাত্রী হলেও তল্লাশির নামে পর্দানশিন ও নামাজি ছাত্রীদের হয়রানির ঘটনা ঘটে। এসব প্রতিষ্ঠানে ছাত্রীদের রুম থেকে ইসলামী বই-পুস্তককে জিহাদি বই বলে তা জব্দ করে নিয়ে যায় পুলিশ।
প্রশাসনের সহায়তায় এ ধরনের কর্মকাণ্ডে সারাদেশে বোরকাধারী ছাত্রীদের মধ্যে আতঙ্ক ও ক্ষোভের সৃষ্টি হয়। অপরদিকে ইডেন কলেজে ছাত্রলীগ নেত্রীদের মাধ্যমে ছাত্রীদের অনৈতিক কাজে বাধ্য করার খবরে সব মহলে ঘৃণার সৃষ্টি হয়। এদিকে এ বছর পয়লা বৈশাখ উদযাপন অনুষ্ঠানে ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় ক্যাম্পাসে ছাত্রলীগ ক্যাডারদের হাতে লাঞ্ছিত হয় অর্ধশতাধিক ছাত্রী। একুশে ফেব্রুয়ারির অনুষ্ঠানেও তাদের হাতে লাঞ্ছিত হয় বেশ কয়েকজন ছাত্রী ও অভিভাবক। এছাড়া অনৈতিক কাজে রাজি না হওয়ায় রাজশাহী ও জগন্নাথ বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ে ছাত্রীদের লাঞ্ছিত করে ছাত্রলীগ ক্যাডাররা। এসব ঘটনার মাধ্যমেই সারাদেশে ইভটিজিং ও অসামাজিক কার্যকলাপ ব্যাপকহারে ছড়িয়ে পড়ে। রাজশাহী বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় শিক্ষার্থীদের পাজামা-পাঞ্জাবি ও বোরকা পরে আসতে নিষেধ করেন এক শিক্ষক।
বছরজুড়েই আলোচিত ছিল ’৭২-এর সংবিধান চালু ও ধর্মভিত্তিক রাজনীতি নিষিদ্ধ করার প্রসঙ্গ। বর্তমান সরকার ক্ষমতায় আসার পর থেকেই সংবিধানের ৫ম সংশোধনী বাতিল করে ’৭২-এর সংবিধান চালুর ঘোষণায় আতঙ্কে ছিল ইসলামী দলগুলো। কারণ এটি চালু হলে ধর্মভিত্তিক রাজনীতির সুযোগ হয়ে পড়ে অনিশ্চিত। এজন্য শুরু থেকেই তারা এর বিরোধিতা করে আসছিল। কিন্তু শত বিরোধিতা সত্ত্বেও এবছর হাইকোর্টের রায়ের মাধ্যমে সংবিধানের ৫ম সংশোধনী বাতিল করা হয়। এর পরপরই সরকারের মন্ত্রী-এমপিরা বলতে থাকেন, ধর্মভিত্তিক রাজনীতির সুযোগ শেষ হয়ে গেছে, ধর্মভিত্তিক রাজনৈতিক দলগুলো নিষিদ্ধ হবে ইত্যাদি। অবশ্য প্রধানমন্ত্রী শেখ হাসিনা একাধিক অনুষ্ঠানে বলেছেন, ধর্মভিত্তিক রাজনীতি নিষিদ্ধ করা হবে না। এরপরও অন্য মন্ত্রী-এমপিরা এই রাজনীতি নিষিদ্ধ করার কথা বলেন। এ নিয়ে নির্বাচন কমিশন ও মন্ত্রীদের মধ্যে পাল্টাপাল্টি বক্তব্য বিনিময়ও হয়। মন্ত্রীরা বলেন, ধর্মভিত্তিক দল নিষিদ্ধ করবে নির্বাচন কমিশন। অপরদিকে নির্বাচন কমিশন থেকে বলা হয়, এ দায়িত্ব সরকারের, ইসির নয়।
এদিকে ধর্মীয় রাজনীতি নিষিদ্ধের এ তত্পরতায় সংশ্লিষ্ট দলগুলোতে টনক নড়ে। দেশের প্রায় সব ইসলামী দল পৃথক বিক্ষোভ-সমাবেশ করে ধর্মীয় রাজনীতি নিষিদ্ধের ষড়যন্ত্র বন্ধ করতে সরকারকে হুশিয়ার করে।
এ বিষয়ে রাজধানীতে সবচেয়ে বড় কর্মসূচি পালন করে চরমোনাই পীর মুফতি সৈয়দ মোহাম্মদ রেজাউল করিমের নেতৃত্বাধীন সংগঠন ইসলামী আন্দোলন। গত ৫ নভেম্বর মুক্তাঙ্গনে দলটির মহাসমাবেশ থেকে ইসলামী রাজনীতি নিষিদ্ধসহ ইসলামবিরোধী তত্পরতা বন্ধে সরকারকে আল্টিমেটাম দেয়া হয়।
একইভাবে মুফতি ফজলুল হক আমিনীর নেতৃত্বাধীন ইসলামী আইন বাস্তবায়ন কমিটি ও ইসলামী ঐক্যজোট একাধিক বিক্ষোভ সমাবেশ করে।
এছাড়া বাংলাদেশ খেলাফত আন্দোলন, বাংলাদেশ খেলাফত মজলিস, সম্মিলিত ওলামা-মাশায়েখ পরিষদসহ বিভিন্ন ইসলামী দল, ধর্মীয় ও সামাজিক সংগঠন ইসলামী রাজনীতি নিষিদ্ধের ষড়যন্ত্রের প্রতিবাদে কর্মসূচি পালন করে।
ধর্মীয় রাজনীতি নিষিদ্ধ ইস্যুর পরপরই ছিল ধর্মনিরপেক্ষ শিক্ষানীতি চালু। বর্তমান সরকার নাস্তিক হিসেবে পরিচিত অধ্যাপক কবির চৌধুরীর নেতৃত্বে যে জাতীয় শিক্ষানীতি প্রণয়ন কমিটি গঠন করেছিল, শুরু থেকেই তার প্রতিবাদ জানিয়ে আসছিল ধর্মীয় বিভিন্ন সংগঠন। পরে ওই কমিটি ধর্মনিরপেক্ষ শিক্ষানীতির যে রিপোর্ট দেয় তা প্রত্যাখ্যান করে সংশোধন বা বাতিলের জোর দাবি জানান সংশ্লিষ্টরা। কিন্তু এসব দাবি ও আলেম-ওলামাদের মতামত উপেক্ষা করেই সরকার শিক্ষানীতি চূড়ান্ত করে এবং গত ৭ ডিসেম্বর তা সংসদে পাস হয়। এতে সংশ্লিষ্ট মহলে চরম ক্ষোভের সৃষ্টি হয়। তারা এই শিক্ষানীতিকে ধর্মহীন ও মাদ্রাসা শিক্ষা ধ্বংসের ষড়যন্ত্র আখ্যায়িত করে কোনোভাবেই এই নীতি বাস্তবায়ন করতে দেয়া হবে না বলে ঘোষণা দেয়। এরই মধ্যে এই শিক্ষানীতি সংশোধনের দাবিতে ২৬ ডিসেম্বর সম্মিলিত ওলামা-মাশায়েখ পরিষদ হরতালের ডাক দেয়। অবশ্য পরে তা সরকারের সঙ্গে আলোচনার প্রেক্ষিতে স্থগিত করা হয়। এছাড়া এই শিক্ষানীতি সংশোধন বা বাতিলের দাবি জানিয়ে প্রতিবাদ-বিক্ষোভ করেছে বিভিন্ন সংগঠন। কওমী মাদ্রাসার বোর্ড সারাদেশে কর্মসূচি ঘোষণা করেছে। এটি বাতিলের দাবি জানিয়েছে শিক্ষক-কর্মচারী ঐক্যজোটসহ শিক্ষাপ্রতিষ্ঠানকেন্দ্রিক বিভিন্ন সংগঠন। এদিকে অক্টোবরে কোনো শিক্ষাপ্রতিষ্ঠানে কাউকে বোরকা পরতে বাধ্য করা যাবে না মর্মে হাইকোর্টের নির্দেশনা ও শিক্ষা মন্ত্রণালয়ের পরিপত্র জারির প্রেক্ষিতে সারাদেশে ক্ষোভ ছড়িয়ে পড়ে। এ সিদ্ধান্তকে কোরআনের বিধান পরিপন্থী এবং নারীদের বেপর্দা করার ষড়যন্ত্র হিসেবে আখ্যায়িত করেন সংশ্লিষ্টরা।
আওয়ামী লীগ সরকার ক্ষমতায় আসার পর থেকেই ইসলামবিরোধী কর্মকাণ্ডের অংশ হিসেবে ২০১০ সালে আরেকটি আলোচিত বিষয় ছিল জিহাদি বই। সরকারের বিরুদ্ধে প্রতিবাদকারী, বিরোধী মতকে দমন বা ইসলামবিরোধী ষড়যন্ত্রের অন্যতম হাতিয়ার ছিল এটি। পুলিশ জিহাদি বই পাওয়ার অভিযোগে গ্রেফতার করে বিভিন্ন ইসলামী দলের অসংখ্য নেতাকর্মীকে। জিহাদি বই উদ্ধারের নামে পুলিশ নিয়ে যায় মূল্যবান ইসলামী বইপত্র। অথচ এসব বইয়ের কোনোটিই সরকারিভাবে নিষিদ্ধ নয়। পুলিশের এ তত্পরতায় সারাদেশে জিহাদি আতঙ্ক সৃষ্টি হয় ধর্মপ্রাণ সাধারণ মানুষের মাঝেও। সরকারের পুলিশবাহিনীর এসব কর্মকাণ্ডের প্রতিবাদ জানানো হলেও তাদের অপতত্পরতা অব্যাহত রয়েছে।
এবছর সরকারি ধর্মীয় প্রতিষ্ঠান ইসলামিক ফাউন্ডেশনের নানা অনৈসলামিক ও বিতর্কিত কর্মকাণ্ডও ছিল বেশ আলোচিত। প্রতিষ্ঠানটির ডিজি হিসেবে বর্তমান সরকার নিযুক্ত সামীম মোহাম্মদ আফজালের নেতৃত্বেই এসব অনৈসলামিক কর্মকাণ্ড হয়। ফাউন্ডেশনের মসজিদভিত্তিক গণশিক্ষা প্রকল্প নিয়ে ষড়যন্ত্র, অশ্লীল গানবাজনা আয়োজনের ধারাবাহিকতায় গত ২৭ নভেম্বর ফাউন্ডেশনের ইমাম প্রশিক্ষণ অনুষ্ঠানে মার্কিন তরুণ-তরুণীদের দিয়ে অশ্লীল উদর-নৃত্য প্রদর্শনের ঘটনায় সারাদেশে বিক্ষোভ ছড়িয়ে পড়ে। এসব অনৈসলামিক কর্মকাণ্ডের কারণে ইফা ডিজির অপসারণ দাবিতে আন্দোলন চালিয়ে যাচ্ছে বিভিন্ন ইসলামী সংগঠন।
সরকারের এসব বিতর্কিত সিদ্ধান্তের পাশাপাশি বেসরকারিভাবেও ইসলামবিরোধী নানা বক্তব্য-বিবৃতি ছিল আলোচিত বিষয়। আগস্টে দেব নারায়ণ মহেশ্বর নামে এক ব্যক্তি কোরবানি বিষয়ে পবিত্র কোরআনের বিশুদ্ধতা চ্যালেঞ্জ করে হাইকোর্টে রিট করে। এর বিরুদ্ধে তীব্র প্রতিবাদ বিক্ষোভের একপর্যায়ে রিটটি খারিজ করে দেন হাইকোর্ট। পরে তার বিরুদ্ধে গ্রেফতারি পরোয়ানা জারি হলেও তাকে আটক করা হয়নি। সম্প্রতি ঢাকা সেনানিবাসের আর্মি স্টেডিয়ামে ‘কিংখান লাইভ শো’র নামে ভারতীয় শিল্পীদের এনে অশ্লীল ও নগ্ন নাচগানের আয়োজনের ঘটনায় প্রতিবাদ জানায় বিভিন্ন মহল। এছাড়া ইসলামবিরোধী নানা কর্মকাণ্ডের পাশাপাশি দেশের স্বার্থবিরোধী ইস্যুতে বছরজুড়েই ধর্মপ্রাণ মানুষ ছিলেন প্রতিবাদমুখর। তবে সরকার পুলিশবাহিনী দিয়ে প্রতিবাদকারীদের কঠোরভাবে দমনের চেষ্টা চালায়। বিভিন্ন ইসলামী দলের বেশকিছু কর্মসূচিতে হামলা চালায় পুলিশ ও সরকারদলীয় ক্যাডাররা। এতে আহত হন অনেক নেতাকর্মী।
গত এক বছর দেশে অনৈসলামিক কর্মকাণ্ড প্রসঙ্গে খেলাফত মজলিসের আমির মাওলানা মোহাম্মদ ইসহাক বলেন, আওয়ামী লীগ যখনই ক্ষমতায় আসে তখনই ইসলামের বিরুদ্ধে কাজ করে। গোড়া থেকেই তারা ইসলাম ও মুসলমানদের প্রতি বৈরী মনোভাব প্রকাশ করে আসছে। ইসলামের কথা শুনলেই তাদের মাথাব্যথা হয়। তাদের সময় দেব নারায়ণদের মতো ইসলামবিদ্বেষীরা উত্সাহিত হয়। তারা আওয়ামী মুসলিম লীগ থেকে ‘মুসলিম’ শব্দটি বরদাশত করতে পারেনি। তারা ইসলামবিদ্বেষী, ভারতপ্রেমী। এজন্য তারা ধর্মহীন শিক্ষানীতির বিরুদ্ধে কথা বলতে দেয় না। তারা বাকশালী কায়দায় স্বৈরশাসন চালাতে চাচ্ছে। তাই এ সরকার থেকে রক্ষা পেতে জাতীয়তাবাদী ও ইসলামী মূল্যবোধে বিশ্বাসী এবং আলেম-ওলামাদের ঐক্যবদ্ধ হয়ে আন্দোলনে নামতে হবে। তাছাড়া দেশের স্বাধীনতা-সার্বভৌমত্ব এবং ইসলামী মূল্যবোধ রক্ষা করা যাবে না।
বাংলাদেশ জামায়াতে ইসলামীর ভারপ্রাপ্ত সেক্রেটারি জেনারেল এটিএম আজহারুল ইসলাম বলেন, ২০১০ সাল ছিল দেশকে ধর্মহীন করার বছর। এ বছর ধর্মহীন শিক্ষানীতি প্রণয়নের মাধ্যমে মাদ্রাসা শিক্ষাকে ধ্বংসের ষড়যন্ত্র করা হয়েছে। অশ্লীল গানবাজনা আর নারীদের নগ্ন প্রদর্শনীসহ সাংস্কৃতিক আগ্রাসনের মাধ্যমে ধর্মীয় মূল্যবোধকে ধ্বংসের অপপ্রয়াস চলেছে। তিনি বলেন, এ বছর ফতোয়া নিষিদ্ধ করার উদ্যোগ নেয় সরকার। জঙ্গিবাদের কথা বলে ইসলামী দল ও নেতাদের চরিত্র হনন করা হয়েছে। তিনি বলেন, যুগ যুগ ধরে ধর্মপ্রাণ মানুষ কোরআন-হাদিস ও ইসলামী বই পড়ে আসছেন। কিন্তু এ বছর সরকার জিহাদি বইয়ের ধোয়া তুলে এসব বই পড়ার প্রতি মানুষের অনাগ্রহ সৃষ্টির ষড়যন্ত্র করেছে। অথচ সরকার এসব বইকে নিষিদ্ধ ঘোষণা করার সাহস করেনি।
ইসলামী ঐক্যজোটের চেয়ারম্যান মুফতি ফজলুল হক আমিনী দেশের রাষ্ট্রপতি, প্রধানমন্ত্রীসহ সরকারের মন্ত্রী-এমপিদের ইসলামবিরোধী কর্মকাণ্ডের ফিরিস্তি তুলে ধরে বলেন, তুর্কি ও স্পেনের স্টাইলে মুসলমানদের এ বাংলাদেশ থেকে সম্পূর্ণরূপে ইসলাম নির্মূলের মিশন বাস্তবায়ন করতে আন্তর্জাতিক ষড়যন্ত্রের অংশ হিসেবেই বর্তমান সরকারকে ক্ষমতায় বসানো হয়েছে। তাদের ক্ষমতা যত দীর্ঘস্থায়ী হবে, দেশ, ইসলাম ও মুসলমানদের জন্য তত বেশি বিপদ ঘনিয়ে আসবে। দেশ ও ইসলামের স্বার্থেই এ সরকারের পতন তরান্বিত করতে হবে। কারণ রাষ্ট্র পরিচালনার গুরুভার যাদের হাতে ন্যস্ত, তারা যখন অন্যায়-অনাচার, পাপাচারে জড়িয়ে পড়ে, সাধারণ মানুষের মাঝে যখন গুনাহের কাজ ব্যাপকহারে ছড়িয়ে পড়ে, তখন সেদেশ ও জাতির ওপর আল্লাহর গজব অনিবার্য হয়ে পড়ে। সম্প্রতি দেশের নানা ঘটনাপ্রবাহে সে গজবের অশনিসঙ্কেত শোনা যাচ্ছে। বর্তমান সরকার ক্ষমতাসীন হওয়ার পর ইসলামবিরোধী এমন সব ষড়যন্ত্র হচ্ছে, যা এর আগে এদেশে কল্পনা করাও কঠিন ছিল।
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
WikiLeaks cables: Bangladeshi 'death squad' trained by UK government - The Guardian
Courtesy : The Guardian, UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-cables-british-police-bangladesh-death-squad
Rapid Action Battalion, accused of hundreds of extra-judicial killings, received training from UK officers, cables reveal
Fariha Karim and Ian Cobain
The British government has been training a Bangladeshi paramilitary force condemned by human rights organisations as a "government death squad", leaked US embassy cables have revealed.
Members of the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), which has been held responsible for hundreds of extra-judicial killings in recent years and is said to routinely use torture, have received British training in "investigative interviewing techniques" and "rules of engagement".
Details of the training were revealed in a number of cables, released by WikiLeaks, which address the counter-terrorism objectives of the US and UK governments in Bangladesh. One cable makes clear that the US would not offer any assistance other than human rights training to the RAB – and that it would be illegal under US law to do so – because its members commit gross human rights violations with impunity.
Since the RAB was established six years ago, it is estimated by some human rights activists to have been responsible for more than 1,000 extra-judicial killings, described euphemistically as "crossfire" deaths. In September last year the director general of the RAB said his men had killed 577 people in "crossfire". In March this year he updated the figure, saying they had killed 622 people.
The RAB's use of torture has also been exhaustively documented by human rights organisations. In addition, officers from the paramilitary force are alleged to have been involved in kidnap and extortion, and are frequently accused of taking large bribes in return for carrying out crossfire killings.
However, the cables reveal that both the British and the Americans, in their determination to strengthen counter-terrorism operations in Bangladesh, are in favour of bolstering the force, arguing that the "RAB enjoys a great deal of respect and admiration from a population scarred by decreasing law and order over the last decade". In one cable, the US ambassador to Dhaka, James Moriarty, expresses the view that the RAB is the "enforcement organisation best positioned to one day become a Bangladeshi version of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation".
In another cable, Moriarty quotes British officials as saying they have been "training RAB for 18 months in areas such as investigative interviewing techniques and rules of engagement". Asked about the training assistance for the RAB, the Foreign Office said the UK government "provides a range of human rights assistance" in the country. However, the RAB's head of training, Mejbah Uddin, told the Guardian that he was unaware of any human rights training since he was appointed last summer.
The cables make clear that British training for RAB officers began three years ago under the last Labour government.
However, RAB officials confirmed independently of the cables that they had taken part in a series of courses and workshops as recently as October, five months after the formation of the coalition government. Asked whether ministers had approved the training programme, the Foreign Office said only that William Hague, the foreign secretary, and other ministers, had been briefed on counter-terrorism spending.
The US ambassador explains in the cables that the US government is "constrained by RAB's alleged human rights violations, which have rendered the organisation ineligible to receive training or assistance" under laws which prohibit American funding or training for overseas military units which abuse human rights with impunity.
Human rights organisations say the RAB cannot be reformed, noting that its human rights record has deterioriated still further in the last 12 months. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly described the RAB as a government death squad.
Brad Adams, the organisation's Asia director, said: "RAB is a Latin American-style death squad dressed up as an anti-crime force. The British government has let its desire for a functional counter-terrorism partner in Bangladesh blind it to the risks of working with RAB, and the legitimacy that it gives to RAB inside Bangladesh. Furthermore, it is not clear that the British government has ever made it a priority at the highest levels to tell RAB that if it doesn't change, it will not co-operate with it."
Amnesty International has also repeatedly condemned the RAB, while the Bangladeshi human rights organisation Odhikar has painstakingly documented the RAB's involvement in extra-judicial killings and torture since the creation of the force in March 2004.
Asked to comment on the rights groups' concern about the RAB, the Foreign Office said: "We do not discuss the detail of operational counter-terrorism cooperation. Counter-terrorism assistance is fully in line with our laws and values." At least some of the British training has been conducted by serving British police officers, working under the auspices of the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), which was established in 2007 to build policing capacity and standards. Recent courses for RAB have been provided by officers from West Mercia and Humberside Police.
Asked whether it believed it was appropriate for British officers to be training members of an organisation condemned as "a government death squad", and whether courses in investigative interviewing techniques might not render torture more effective, an NPIA spokesman said the courses had been approved by the government and by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
"The NPIA has given limited support to the Bangladeshi Police and the RAB in technical areas of policing such as forensic awareness, management of crime scenes and recovery of evidence. Throughout the training we have emphasised the importance of respecting the human rights of witnesses, suspects and victims."The purpose of our sanctioned engagement is to support the development and improvement of professional policing that supports democratic, human rights-based practices linked to the rule of law in countries that may have different laws, faiths and policing practices from our own."
It is understood that there have been disagreements within the Foreign Office about the British government's involvement with the RAB. Some officials have argued that the partnership with the RAB is an essential component of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy in the region, while others have expressed concern that the relationship could prove damaging to Britain's reputation.
Successive Bangladeshi governments have promised to end the RAB's use of murder. The current government promised in its manifesto that it would end all extra-judicial killings, but they have continued following its election two years ago.In October last year, the shipping minister, Shahjahan Khan, speaking in a discussion organised by the BBC, said: "There are incidents of trials that are not possible under the laws of the land. The government will need to continue with extra-judicial killings, commonly called crossfire, until terrorist activities and extortion are uprooted."
In December last year the high court in Dhaka ruled that such killings must be brought to a halt following litigation by victims' familes and human rights groups, but they continue on an almost weekly basis. Most of the victims are young men, some are alleged to be petty criminals or are said to be left-wing activists, and the killings invariably take place in the middle of the night.
In the most recent "crossfire" killings, the RAB reported that it had shot dead Mohammad Mamun, 25, in the town of Tangail, shortly after midnight on Monday, and that 90 minutes later its officers in Dhaka, 50 miles to the south, had shot dead a second man, Taku Alam, 30. Today the RAB announced it had shot dead a 45-year-old man, Anisur Rahman, said to be a member of the Communist party in the west of the country.
Details of the training were revealed in a number of cables, released by WikiLeaks, which address the counter-terrorism objectives of the US and UK governments in Bangladesh. One cable makes clear that the US would not offer any assistance other than human rights training to the RAB – and that it would be illegal under US law to do so – because its members commit gross human rights violations with impunity.
Since the RAB was established six years ago, it is estimated by some human rights activists to have been responsible for more than 1,000 extra-judicial killings, described euphemistically as "crossfire" deaths. In September last year the director general of the RAB said his men had killed 577 people in "crossfire". In March this year he updated the figure, saying they had killed 622 people.
The RAB's use of torture has also been exhaustively documented by human rights organisations. In addition, officers from the paramilitary force are alleged to have been involved in kidnap and extortion, and are frequently accused of taking large bribes in return for carrying out crossfire killings.
However, the cables reveal that both the British and the Americans, in their determination to strengthen counter-terrorism operations in Bangladesh, are in favour of bolstering the force, arguing that the "RAB enjoys a great deal of respect and admiration from a population scarred by decreasing law and order over the last decade". In one cable, the US ambassador to Dhaka, James Moriarty, expresses the view that the RAB is the "enforcement organisation best positioned to one day become a Bangladeshi version of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation".
In another cable, Moriarty quotes British officials as saying they have been "training RAB for 18 months in areas such as investigative interviewing techniques and rules of engagement". Asked about the training assistance for the RAB, the Foreign Office said the UK government "provides a range of human rights assistance" in the country. However, the RAB's head of training, Mejbah Uddin, told the Guardian that he was unaware of any human rights training since he was appointed last summer.
The cables make clear that British training for RAB officers began three years ago under the last Labour government.
However, RAB officials confirmed independently of the cables that they had taken part in a series of courses and workshops as recently as October, five months after the formation of the coalition government. Asked whether ministers had approved the training programme, the Foreign Office said only that William Hague, the foreign secretary, and other ministers, had been briefed on counter-terrorism spending.
The US ambassador explains in the cables that the US government is "constrained by RAB's alleged human rights violations, which have rendered the organisation ineligible to receive training or assistance" under laws which prohibit American funding or training for overseas military units which abuse human rights with impunity.
Human rights organisations say the RAB cannot be reformed, noting that its human rights record has deterioriated still further in the last 12 months. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly described the RAB as a government death squad.
Brad Adams, the organisation's Asia director, said: "RAB is a Latin American-style death squad dressed up as an anti-crime force. The British government has let its desire for a functional counter-terrorism partner in Bangladesh blind it to the risks of working with RAB, and the legitimacy that it gives to RAB inside Bangladesh. Furthermore, it is not clear that the British government has ever made it a priority at the highest levels to tell RAB that if it doesn't change, it will not co-operate with it."
Amnesty International has also repeatedly condemned the RAB, while the Bangladeshi human rights organisation Odhikar has painstakingly documented the RAB's involvement in extra-judicial killings and torture since the creation of the force in March 2004.
Asked to comment on the rights groups' concern about the RAB, the Foreign Office said: "We do not discuss the detail of operational counter-terrorism cooperation. Counter-terrorism assistance is fully in line with our laws and values." At least some of the British training has been conducted by serving British police officers, working under the auspices of the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), which was established in 2007 to build policing capacity and standards. Recent courses for RAB have been provided by officers from West Mercia and Humberside Police.
Asked whether it believed it was appropriate for British officers to be training members of an organisation condemned as "a government death squad", and whether courses in investigative interviewing techniques might not render torture more effective, an NPIA spokesman said the courses had been approved by the government and by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
"The NPIA has given limited support to the Bangladeshi Police and the RAB in technical areas of policing such as forensic awareness, management of crime scenes and recovery of evidence. Throughout the training we have emphasised the importance of respecting the human rights of witnesses, suspects and victims."The purpose of our sanctioned engagement is to support the development and improvement of professional policing that supports democratic, human rights-based practices linked to the rule of law in countries that may have different laws, faiths and policing practices from our own."
It is understood that there have been disagreements within the Foreign Office about the British government's involvement with the RAB. Some officials have argued that the partnership with the RAB is an essential component of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy in the region, while others have expressed concern that the relationship could prove damaging to Britain's reputation.
Successive Bangladeshi governments have promised to end the RAB's use of murder. The current government promised in its manifesto that it would end all extra-judicial killings, but they have continued following its election two years ago.In October last year, the shipping minister, Shahjahan Khan, speaking in a discussion organised by the BBC, said: "There are incidents of trials that are not possible under the laws of the land. The government will need to continue with extra-judicial killings, commonly called crossfire, until terrorist activities and extortion are uprooted."
In December last year the high court in Dhaka ruled that such killings must be brought to a halt following litigation by victims' familes and human rights groups, but they continue on an almost weekly basis. Most of the victims are young men, some are alleged to be petty criminals or are said to be left-wing activists, and the killings invariably take place in the middle of the night.
In the most recent "crossfire" killings, the RAB reported that it had shot dead Mohammad Mamun, 25, in the town of Tangail, shortly after midnight on Monday, and that 90 minutes later its officers in Dhaka, 50 miles to the south, had shot dead a second man, Taku Alam, 30. Today the RAB announced it had shot dead a 45-year-old man, Anisur Rahman, said to be a member of the Communist party in the west of the country.
Courtesy : The Guardian, UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-cables-british-police-bangladesh-death-squad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-cables-british-police-bangladesh-death-squad
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Apostate Politics: How Some Recanted Muslims Have Bolstered Militarist US Policies
Though the research and analysis produced by these self-styled “apostates of Islam” often has limited scholarly value, they have played an important role in providing a purportedly moral justification for Western military campaigns in Muslim countries.
Samer Araabi | Posted: December 18, 2010
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/apostate_politics_how_some_recanted_muslims_have_bolstered_militarist_us_po#
Adopted by the Right
The hawkish right in the United States has heavily promoted the writings of these women, who have subsequently joined the ranks of neoconservative organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, and the Middle East Media Research Institute. Unsurprisingly, these groups share many of the views of their new pundits: an unapologetic defense of all things “western,” a perceived moral duty to protect the civilized West against Islam, and a willingness to use all means necessary to achieve this objective. Commenting on this pattern, Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald has pointed out that those keenest to “help” the oppressed people of the Middle East are also those most eager to bomb countries in the region.[10]
These apostate Muslims and their neocon colleagues have developed tight, symbiotic relationships. Rightwing institutions provide platforms and legitimacy, allowing otherwise little known individuals to rise to positions of international prominence. None of these so-called experts have produced serious scholarship or careful analysis of actual political effects, aside from personal or anecdotal experience. And their main value, at least in terms of political discourse in the United States, appears to be that, as former insiders, they can provide a sheen of legitimacy to the Islamophobic tendencies of their rightwing supporters.
A similar phenomenon can be seen with the growing prominence of Western-born Muslims who, although not apostates, promote hawkish U.S. policies toward the Middle East. One such figure is Zuhdi Jasser, a Wisconsin-born practicing Muslim who is a member of the neocon-led Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) and founder of the group American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Jasser is quoted on the CPD website, saying: “Only freedom-loving devotional American Muslims can lead an effective counter-jihad from within the Muslim community. The future of American liberty and the free world as we know it depends upon the moral courage of anti-Islamist Muslims.”[11]
The Militarist Agenda
The views expressed by these apostates tend to bolster some of the more hawkish U.S. Mideast policies. For example, Hirsi Ali’s August 2010 article in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “How to Win the Clash of Civilizations,” advocated a “divide-and-rule” strategy to protect “our civilization” from destruction. She goes on to praise “The greatest advantage of Huntington's civilizational model of international relations … [is that] it reflects the world as it is—not as we wish it to be. It allows us to distinguish friends from enemies.”[12] In earlier article, she called for a continued military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, implying that any withdrawal would have “jihadis dancing in jubilation.”[13]
Nonie Darwish has railed against the willingness of Western countries to “appease … and assimilate” Muslims, since “all mosques have an anti-American and an anti-peace message” based in a “culture of jihad, tribalism and terror.”[14]
Even more alarmingly, Wafa Sultan has publicly stated that “1.3 billion Muslims … have to realize they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed,” implying that the “pressure” may have to take the form of “atom bombs.”[15]
Comments like these are given more weight because of the identities of the sources. By vilifying the aspirations of the societies they’ve left behind, their discourse takes on an air of “truth to power,” safe from charges of neo-colonialism or western exceptionalism. Their hyperbolic pronouncements have consistently been used to buttress conservative arguments for war by creating a pretense that “people from the region” support such actions. Publications advocating tougher, more aggressive policies in the “war on terror” often rely on narratives provided by these figures, in ways reminiscent of Chalabi’s “intelligence” on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Amir Abbas Fakhravar’s claims of impending Iranian collapse.[16]
There is a certain paradox in the effort to rely on indigenous opinions to justify policies, while ignoring the overwhelming condemnation of such perspectives by the vast majority of the indigenous people themselves. And yet, these figures are repeatedly held up to mirror and confirm the predetermined opinions of war-hungry organizations eager to validate their destructive agendas.
The New Face of Orientalism
Early this year, David Frum, a speechwriter for President George W. Bush who famously coined the “Axis of Evil” phrase, hosted a posh gathering in northwest Washington D.C. to honor Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her “strength,” “courage,” and “intelligence.”[17] Though attendees were limited for “security reasons,” Hirsi Ali was surrounded by fellow neocons, discussing topics from the “liberation of Iran” to the “religious extremism” behind the Gaza flotilla.[18] The respect afforded by militarist ideologues to Hirsi Ali and her compatriots is palpable, based almost solely on the ability of these figures to validate simplistic perceptions of the Muslim world as violent, backward, and dangerous.
Just as diehard Cold Warriors viewed all socialist countries as a single, threatening entity, these apostates and their rightwing supporters have reified the Islamic world into an undifferentiated mass. They conveniently lump the disparate strains of Islam, the competing visions of Muslim identity, and the blurred and fluid boundaries of the Middle East, into a single—and threatening—unit. But in reality, the “Muslim world,” if such an entity can be said to exist, would encompass not only the Deobandis of Pakistan and the Wahhabis of the Gulf, but also Sufi mystics in Konya, Druzes in Lebanon, Shafi’i in Indonesia, and countless others.
Additionally, this monolithic view leaves little room for positive developments, such as the creation of democratic institutions in 23 Muslim countries. And it seems to have blinded these apostates to the injustices that have resulted from U.S. military interventions.[19] This view also fails to account for the many actors and organizations throughout the Greater Middle East who may disagree with Western policies for reasons not derived from religion or culture, such as the secular PFLP in Palestine or the Free Patriotic Movement in Lebanon.
As The Economist notes in its review of Hirsi Ali’s autobiography Infidel (Free Press 2007), the lives of “Muslims [are] more complex than many people in the West may have realized. But the West’s tendency to seek simplistic explanations is a weakness that Ms. Hirsi Ali also shows she has been happy to exploit.”[20]
The Irony of Demonization
There is an irony underlying the careers of these recanted Muslims—namely, that the very same western policies they refuse to condemn often spur the resentment they ascribe as cultural backwardness or religious fervor. The anger and protestations of Muslims are often more rooted in rational considerations than Western militarists are willing to admit. Muslims, like any other group, possess layered identities, any aspect of which can be aroused in anger. As M. Junaid Levesque-Alam of the Crossing the Crescent blog explains, “When three planes hurtled into national icons, did anger and hatred rise in American hearts only after consultation of Biblical verses?”[21]
Indeed, the very existence of icons such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Nonie Darwish falsifies to a great extent the notion of a monolithic Muslim world. Their ability to react and rebel against their environment, as well as the variety of Muslim responses to their work, demonstrate the diversity of thought and opinion within Muslim society. Portraying Muslims in a simplistic and negative light may be a useful tool to build popular support for military campaigns. But in the long term, ignorance and stereotyping will only serve to undermine any policy objectives in the region. A more thoughtful foreign policy would be one that is grounded in dialogue, interaction, and the drive for understanding—not demonizing and finger-pointing. The sooner the U.S. public confronts this reality, the sooner peace can be achieved in the Middle East.
Samer Araabi is a Right Web research assistant and a contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus.
References
Samer Araabi | Posted: December 18, 2010
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/apostate_politics_how_some_recanted_muslims_have_bolstered_militarist_us_po#
There is a tendency among right-wing think tanks in the United States involved in Middle East policy to employ “experts” from the region to bolster their pro-war advocacy campaigns. One of the more infamous cases is that of Ahmad Chalabi, the darling of the neocon crowd during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq who, after his return to Iraq, leveraged his wealth and connections to become a major political figure there, often to the embarrassment of his erstwhile comrades.
More recently, there has emerged a cadre of high-profile individuals from the Greater Middle East who, unlike Chalabi, have turned against Islam and embraced their lives in the West. In doing so, they have adopted views strikingly similar to some of the more hawkish factions in U.S. politics. Notable examples include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Nonie Darwish, all known for their vociferous condemnations of Islam, their affiliations with prominent neoconservative organizations, and the anger they have aroused from both Arabs and Muslims worldwide. Though the research and analysis produced by these self-styled “apostates of Islam” often has limited scholarly value, they have played an important role in providing a purportedly moral justification for Western military campaigns in Muslim countries.
Adopting the Clash of Civilizations
The background of many of theses apostates, including the three mentioned above, follow a common pattern. As natives of Arab or Muslim countries, they have each experienced pivotal events that shaped their perspectives on their countries of origin and religion. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali emigrant who once served in the Dutch House of Representatives and now works as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute[1], was raised in war-torn Somalia, where she was subjected to the appalling practice of female genital mutilation.
Wafa Sultan, the Syrian-American author of A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam, grew up in Syria where, in her words, “the tentacles of the Saudi octopus” had nurtured religious fanatics who murdered her university professor.[2] For Nonie Darwish, the Egyptian-American founder of Arabs for Israel, it was the death of her father, killed by an Israeli parcel bomb while organizing Palestinian resistance in Gaza, and the pressure put upon her to take revenge. [3]
These traumatic experiences helped convince these women that Islam was immoral and dangerous. They abandoned what they perceived to be a “backward culture” in favor of the “enlightened values” of the West. Hirsi Ali abandoned religion altogether. Darwish converted to Christianity. And Sultan asserts that “I even don’t believe in Islam, but I am a Muslim.”[4]
These “crusaders against Islam” are also often characterized by a Manichean worldview pitting the West against Islam. They tend to broadly portray Islam as a homogenous system of highly conformed practice, wherein singular experiences can be extrapolated to explain the broader culture. All three borrow language from Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations thesis to depict the collision between these “opposing forces.” Sultan has stated that “the clash we are witnessing around the world is … a clash between freedom and oppression.”[5] Hirsli Ali describes “the clash of values between the tribal culture of Islam and Western modernity.”[6] And Darwish refers to Islam as “an attack on civilization itself by haters of civilization.”[7]
These apostates also frequently adopt a certain presumptuous arrogance in their statements about Islam and its adherents that non-Muslim westerners would likely find difficult to pull off. Hirsi Ali, for example, has spoken repeatedly of “the tragedy of the tribal Muslim man” who has fallen prey to “the grip of jihad,” claiming that “the only difference between my relatives and me is that I opened my mind.”[8] Sultan has claimed that the Crusades were simply the logical reaction to “Islamic religious teachings.” And Darwish has frequently spoken of the “culture of death” in the Middle East.[9]
More recently, there has emerged a cadre of high-profile individuals from the Greater Middle East who, unlike Chalabi, have turned against Islam and embraced their lives in the West. In doing so, they have adopted views strikingly similar to some of the more hawkish factions in U.S. politics. Notable examples include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Nonie Darwish, all known for their vociferous condemnations of Islam, their affiliations with prominent neoconservative organizations, and the anger they have aroused from both Arabs and Muslims worldwide. Though the research and analysis produced by these self-styled “apostates of Islam” often has limited scholarly value, they have played an important role in providing a purportedly moral justification for Western military campaigns in Muslim countries.
Adopting the Clash of Civilizations
The background of many of theses apostates, including the three mentioned above, follow a common pattern. As natives of Arab or Muslim countries, they have each experienced pivotal events that shaped their perspectives on their countries of origin and religion. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali emigrant who once served in the Dutch House of Representatives and now works as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute[1], was raised in war-torn Somalia, where she was subjected to the appalling practice of female genital mutilation.
Wafa Sultan, the Syrian-American author of A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam, grew up in Syria where, in her words, “the tentacles of the Saudi octopus” had nurtured religious fanatics who murdered her university professor.[2] For Nonie Darwish, the Egyptian-American founder of Arabs for Israel, it was the death of her father, killed by an Israeli parcel bomb while organizing Palestinian resistance in Gaza, and the pressure put upon her to take revenge. [3]
These traumatic experiences helped convince these women that Islam was immoral and dangerous. They abandoned what they perceived to be a “backward culture” in favor of the “enlightened values” of the West. Hirsi Ali abandoned religion altogether. Darwish converted to Christianity. And Sultan asserts that “I even don’t believe in Islam, but I am a Muslim.”[4]
These “crusaders against Islam” are also often characterized by a Manichean worldview pitting the West against Islam. They tend to broadly portray Islam as a homogenous system of highly conformed practice, wherein singular experiences can be extrapolated to explain the broader culture. All three borrow language from Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations thesis to depict the collision between these “opposing forces.” Sultan has stated that “the clash we are witnessing around the world is … a clash between freedom and oppression.”[5] Hirsli Ali describes “the clash of values between the tribal culture of Islam and Western modernity.”[6] And Darwish refers to Islam as “an attack on civilization itself by haters of civilization.”[7]
These apostates also frequently adopt a certain presumptuous arrogance in their statements about Islam and its adherents that non-Muslim westerners would likely find difficult to pull off. Hirsi Ali, for example, has spoken repeatedly of “the tragedy of the tribal Muslim man” who has fallen prey to “the grip of jihad,” claiming that “the only difference between my relatives and me is that I opened my mind.”[8] Sultan has claimed that the Crusades were simply the logical reaction to “Islamic religious teachings.” And Darwish has frequently spoken of the “culture of death” in the Middle East.[9]
Adopted by the Right
The hawkish right in the United States has heavily promoted the writings of these women, who have subsequently joined the ranks of neoconservative organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, and the Middle East Media Research Institute. Unsurprisingly, these groups share many of the views of their new pundits: an unapologetic defense of all things “western,” a perceived moral duty to protect the civilized West against Islam, and a willingness to use all means necessary to achieve this objective. Commenting on this pattern, Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald has pointed out that those keenest to “help” the oppressed people of the Middle East are also those most eager to bomb countries in the region.[10]
These apostate Muslims and their neocon colleagues have developed tight, symbiotic relationships. Rightwing institutions provide platforms and legitimacy, allowing otherwise little known individuals to rise to positions of international prominence. None of these so-called experts have produced serious scholarship or careful analysis of actual political effects, aside from personal or anecdotal experience. And their main value, at least in terms of political discourse in the United States, appears to be that, as former insiders, they can provide a sheen of legitimacy to the Islamophobic tendencies of their rightwing supporters.
A similar phenomenon can be seen with the growing prominence of Western-born Muslims who, although not apostates, promote hawkish U.S. policies toward the Middle East. One such figure is Zuhdi Jasser, a Wisconsin-born practicing Muslim who is a member of the neocon-led Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) and founder of the group American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Jasser is quoted on the CPD website, saying: “Only freedom-loving devotional American Muslims can lead an effective counter-jihad from within the Muslim community. The future of American liberty and the free world as we know it depends upon the moral courage of anti-Islamist Muslims.”[11]
The Militarist Agenda
The views expressed by these apostates tend to bolster some of the more hawkish U.S. Mideast policies. For example, Hirsi Ali’s August 2010 article in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “How to Win the Clash of Civilizations,” advocated a “divide-and-rule” strategy to protect “our civilization” from destruction. She goes on to praise “The greatest advantage of Huntington's civilizational model of international relations … [is that] it reflects the world as it is—not as we wish it to be. It allows us to distinguish friends from enemies.”[12] In earlier article, she called for a continued military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, implying that any withdrawal would have “jihadis dancing in jubilation.”[13]
Nonie Darwish has railed against the willingness of Western countries to “appease … and assimilate” Muslims, since “all mosques have an anti-American and an anti-peace message” based in a “culture of jihad, tribalism and terror.”[14]
Even more alarmingly, Wafa Sultan has publicly stated that “1.3 billion Muslims … have to realize they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed,” implying that the “pressure” may have to take the form of “atom bombs.”[15]
Comments like these are given more weight because of the identities of the sources. By vilifying the aspirations of the societies they’ve left behind, their discourse takes on an air of “truth to power,” safe from charges of neo-colonialism or western exceptionalism. Their hyperbolic pronouncements have consistently been used to buttress conservative arguments for war by creating a pretense that “people from the region” support such actions. Publications advocating tougher, more aggressive policies in the “war on terror” often rely on narratives provided by these figures, in ways reminiscent of Chalabi’s “intelligence” on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Amir Abbas Fakhravar’s claims of impending Iranian collapse.[16]
There is a certain paradox in the effort to rely on indigenous opinions to justify policies, while ignoring the overwhelming condemnation of such perspectives by the vast majority of the indigenous people themselves. And yet, these figures are repeatedly held up to mirror and confirm the predetermined opinions of war-hungry organizations eager to validate their destructive agendas.
The New Face of Orientalism
Early this year, David Frum, a speechwriter for President George W. Bush who famously coined the “Axis of Evil” phrase, hosted a posh gathering in northwest Washington D.C. to honor Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her “strength,” “courage,” and “intelligence.”[17] Though attendees were limited for “security reasons,” Hirsi Ali was surrounded by fellow neocons, discussing topics from the “liberation of Iran” to the “religious extremism” behind the Gaza flotilla.[18] The respect afforded by militarist ideologues to Hirsi Ali and her compatriots is palpable, based almost solely on the ability of these figures to validate simplistic perceptions of the Muslim world as violent, backward, and dangerous.
Just as diehard Cold Warriors viewed all socialist countries as a single, threatening entity, these apostates and their rightwing supporters have reified the Islamic world into an undifferentiated mass. They conveniently lump the disparate strains of Islam, the competing visions of Muslim identity, and the blurred and fluid boundaries of the Middle East, into a single—and threatening—unit. But in reality, the “Muslim world,” if such an entity can be said to exist, would encompass not only the Deobandis of Pakistan and the Wahhabis of the Gulf, but also Sufi mystics in Konya, Druzes in Lebanon, Shafi’i in Indonesia, and countless others.
Additionally, this monolithic view leaves little room for positive developments, such as the creation of democratic institutions in 23 Muslim countries. And it seems to have blinded these apostates to the injustices that have resulted from U.S. military interventions.[19] This view also fails to account for the many actors and organizations throughout the Greater Middle East who may disagree with Western policies for reasons not derived from religion or culture, such as the secular PFLP in Palestine or the Free Patriotic Movement in Lebanon.
As The Economist notes in its review of Hirsi Ali’s autobiography Infidel (Free Press 2007), the lives of “Muslims [are] more complex than many people in the West may have realized. But the West’s tendency to seek simplistic explanations is a weakness that Ms. Hirsi Ali also shows she has been happy to exploit.”[20]
The Irony of Demonization
There is an irony underlying the careers of these recanted Muslims—namely, that the very same western policies they refuse to condemn often spur the resentment they ascribe as cultural backwardness or religious fervor. The anger and protestations of Muslims are often more rooted in rational considerations than Western militarists are willing to admit. Muslims, like any other group, possess layered identities, any aspect of which can be aroused in anger. As M. Junaid Levesque-Alam of the Crossing the Crescent blog explains, “When three planes hurtled into national icons, did anger and hatred rise in American hearts only after consultation of Biblical verses?”[21]
Indeed, the very existence of icons such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Nonie Darwish falsifies to a great extent the notion of a monolithic Muslim world. Their ability to react and rebel against their environment, as well as the variety of Muslim responses to their work, demonstrate the diversity of thought and opinion within Muslim society. Portraying Muslims in a simplistic and negative light may be a useful tool to build popular support for military campaigns. But in the long term, ignorance and stereotyping will only serve to undermine any policy objectives in the region. A more thoughtful foreign policy would be one that is grounded in dialogue, interaction, and the drive for understanding—not demonizing and finger-pointing. The sooner the U.S. public confronts this reality, the sooner peace can be achieved in the Middle East.
Samer Araabi is a Right Web research assistant and a contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus.
[1]American Enterprise Institute, “Scholars & Fellows, Ayaan Hirsi Ali”, American Enterprise Institute, http://www.aei.org/scholar/117.
[2]Wafa Sultan, A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009.
[3]James Langton, “Life as an Infidel,” The Guardian, May 13, 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/13/islam.religion.
[4]Asra Q. Nomani, “Wafa Sultan,” Time, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187385,00.html.
[5]Asra Q. Nomani, “Wafa Sultan,” Time, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187385,00.html.
[6]Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations,” New York: Free Press, 2010, p. 79.
[7]Nonie Darwish, “Now they call me infidel: why I rejected the jihad for America, Israel, and the war on terror,” London: Sentinal, 2006, p. 197.
[8]Pankaj Mishra, “Islamism: How should Western intellectuals respond to Muslim scholars?” The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/06/07/100607crat_atlarge_mishra.
[9]Hesham Hassaballa, “A Lost Opportunity,” AltMuslim, March 13, 2006, http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2329; Jim Holstun, “Nonie Darwish and the al-Bureij massacre,” Electronic Intifada, June 26, 2008, http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9646.shtml.
[10]Glenn Greenwald, “John McCain on the Evil, Barbaric Iranians,” Salon.com, June 12, 2010, http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/12/mccain/index.html.
[11]Quoted from the website of the Committee on the Present Danger, “M. Zuhdi Jasser, MD.,” http://www.committeeonthepresentdanger.org/index.php?option=com_cpdteam&id=1621&Itemid=89.
[12]Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “How to Win the Clash of Civilizations,” Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2010, http://www.aei.org/article/102433.
[13]Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Cut and Run Won’t Do,” The Australian, November 4, 2008, http://www.aei.org/article/28883.
[14]Renee Taylor, “Exclusive: Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law,” Family Security Matters, http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2207/pub_detail.asp.
[15]Garibaldi, “Wafa Sultan is Better Known as Wafa Stalin,” Loonwatch.com, December 2, 2009, http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/wafa-sultan-is-better-known-as-wafa-stalin-sultan.
[16]Laura Rozen, “Iran Hawks Reorganize,” The American Prospect, November 13, 2006, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12209.
[17]Pamela Paul, “The Party, in Exile,” New York Times, June 13, 2006,http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/fashion/13Party.html.
[18]Pamela Paul, “The Party, in Exile,” New York Times, June 13, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/fashion/13Party.html.
[19]Philip N. Howard, Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. (2010).
[20]The Economist, “A Critic of Islam: Dark Secrets,” The Economist, February 8, 2007, http://www.economist.com/node/8663231.
[21]M. Junaid Levesque-Alam, “Robert Wright and the Koran: Grappling with the Wrong Religion,” Foreign Policy in Focus, September 15, 2010, http://www.fpif.org/blog/robert_wright_and_the_koran_grappling_with_the_wrong_religion.
Apostate Politics: How Some Recanted Muslims Have Bolstered Militarist US Policies
Though the research and analysis produced by these self-styled “apostates of Islam” often has limited scholarly value, they have played an important role in providing a purportedly moral justification for Western military campaigns in Muslim countries.
Samer Araabi | Posted: December 18, 2010
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/apostate_politics_how_some_recanted_muslims_have_bolstered_militarist_us_po#
Adopted by the Right
The hawkish right in the United States has heavily promoted the writings of these women, who have subsequently joined the ranks of neoconservative organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, and the Middle East Media Research Institute. Unsurprisingly, these groups share many of the views of their new pundits: an unapologetic defense of all things “western,” a perceived moral duty to protect the civilized West against Islam, and a willingness to use all means necessary to achieve this objective. Commenting on this pattern, Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald has pointed out that those keenest to “help” the oppressed people of the Middle East are also those most eager to bomb countries in the region.[10]
These apostate Muslims and their neocon colleagues have developed tight, symbiotic relationships. Rightwing institutions provide platforms and legitimacy, allowing otherwise little known individuals to rise to positions of international prominence. None of these so-called experts have produced serious scholarship or careful analysis of actual political effects, aside from personal or anecdotal experience. And their main value, at least in terms of political discourse in the United States, appears to be that, as former insiders, they can provide a sheen of legitimacy to the Islamophobic tendencies of their rightwing supporters.
A similar phenomenon can be seen with the growing prominence of Western-born Muslims who, although not apostates, promote hawkish U.S. policies toward the Middle East. One such figure is Zuhdi Jasser, a Wisconsin-born practicing Muslim who is a member of the neocon-led Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) and founder of the group American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Jasser is quoted on the CPD website, saying: “Only freedom-loving devotional American Muslims can lead an effective counter-jihad from within the Muslim community. The future of American liberty and the free world as we know it depends upon the moral courage of anti-Islamist Muslims.”[11]
The Militarist Agenda
The views expressed by these apostates tend to bolster some of the more hawkish U.S. Mideast policies. For example, Hirsi Ali’s August 2010 article in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “How to Win the Clash of Civilizations,” advocated a “divide-and-rule” strategy to protect “our civilization” from destruction. She goes on to praise “The greatest advantage of Huntington's civilizational model of international relations … [is that] it reflects the world as it is—not as we wish it to be. It allows us to distinguish friends from enemies.”[12] In earlier article, she called for a continued military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, implying that any withdrawal would have “jihadis dancing in jubilation.”[13]
Nonie Darwish has railed against the willingness of Western countries to “appease … and assimilate” Muslims, since “all mosques have an anti-American and an anti-peace message” based in a “culture of jihad, tribalism and terror.”[14]
Even more alarmingly, Wafa Sultan has publicly stated that “1.3 billion Muslims … have to realize they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed,” implying that the “pressure” may have to take the form of “atom bombs.”[15]
Comments like these are given more weight because of the identities of the sources. By vilifying the aspirations of the societies they’ve left behind, their discourse takes on an air of “truth to power,” safe from charges of neo-colonialism or western exceptionalism. Their hyperbolic pronouncements have consistently been used to buttress conservative arguments for war by creating a pretense that “people from the region” support such actions. Publications advocating tougher, more aggressive policies in the “war on terror” often rely on narratives provided by these figures, in ways reminiscent of Chalabi’s “intelligence” on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Amir Abbas Fakhravar’s claims of impending Iranian collapse.[16]
There is a certain paradox in the effort to rely on indigenous opinions to justify policies, while ignoring the overwhelming condemnation of such perspectives by the vast majority of the indigenous people themselves. And yet, these figures are repeatedly held up to mirror and confirm the predetermined opinions of war-hungry organizations eager to validate their destructive agendas.
The New Face of Orientalism
Early this year, David Frum, a speechwriter for President George W. Bush who famously coined the “Axis of Evil” phrase, hosted a posh gathering in northwest Washington D.C. to honor Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her “strength,” “courage,” and “intelligence.”[17] Though attendees were limited for “security reasons,” Hirsi Ali was surrounded by fellow neocons, discussing topics from the “liberation of Iran” to the “religious extremism” behind the Gaza flotilla.[18] The respect afforded by militarist ideologues to Hirsi Ali and her compatriots is palpable, based almost solely on the ability of these figures to validate simplistic perceptions of the Muslim world as violent, backward, and dangerous.
Just as diehard Cold Warriors viewed all socialist countries as a single, threatening entity, these apostates and their rightwing supporters have reified the Islamic world into an undifferentiated mass. They conveniently lump the disparate strains of Islam, the competing visions of Muslim identity, and the blurred and fluid boundaries of the Middle East, into a single—and threatening—unit. But in reality, the “Muslim world,” if such an entity can be said to exist, would encompass not only the Deobandis of Pakistan and the Wahhabis of the Gulf, but also Sufi mystics in Konya, Druzes in Lebanon, Shafi’i in Indonesia, and countless others.
Additionally, this monolithic view leaves little room for positive developments, such as the creation of democratic institutions in 23 Muslim countries. And it seems to have blinded these apostates to the injustices that have resulted from U.S. military interventions.[19] This view also fails to account for the many actors and organizations throughout the Greater Middle East who may disagree with Western policies for reasons not derived from religion or culture, such as the secular PFLP in Palestine or the Free Patriotic Movement in Lebanon.
As The Economist notes in its review of Hirsi Ali’s autobiography Infidel (Free Press 2007), the lives of “Muslims [are] more complex than many people in the West may have realized. But the West’s tendency to seek simplistic explanations is a weakness that Ms. Hirsi Ali also shows she has been happy to exploit.”[20]
The Irony of Demonization
There is an irony underlying the careers of these recanted Muslims—namely, that the very same western policies they refuse to condemn often spur the resentment they ascribe as cultural backwardness or religious fervor. The anger and protestations of Muslims are often more rooted in rational considerations than Western militarists are willing to admit. Muslims, like any other group, possess layered identities, any aspect of which can be aroused in anger. As M. Junaid Levesque-Alam of the Crossing the Crescent blog explains, “When three planes hurtled into national icons, did anger and hatred rise in American hearts only after consultation of Biblical verses?”[21]
Indeed, the very existence of icons such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Nonie Darwish falsifies to a great extent the notion of a monolithic Muslim world. Their ability to react and rebel against their environment, as well as the variety of Muslim responses to their work, demonstrate the diversity of thought and opinion within Muslim society. Portraying Muslims in a simplistic and negative light may be a useful tool to build popular support for military campaigns. But in the long term, ignorance and stereotyping will only serve to undermine any policy objectives in the region. A more thoughtful foreign policy would be one that is grounded in dialogue, interaction, and the drive for understanding—not demonizing and finger-pointing. The sooner the U.S. public confronts this reality, the sooner peace can be achieved in the Middle East.
Samer Araabi is a Right Web research assistant and a contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus.
References
Samer Araabi | Posted: December 18, 2010
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/apostate_politics_how_some_recanted_muslims_have_bolstered_militarist_us_po#
There is a tendency among right-wing think tanks in the United States involved in Middle East policy to employ “experts” from the region to bolster their pro-war advocacy campaigns. One of the more infamous cases is that of Ahmad Chalabi, the darling of the neocon crowd during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq who, after his return to Iraq, leveraged his wealth and connections to become a major political figure there, often to the embarrassment of his erstwhile comrades.
More recently, there has emerged a cadre of high-profile individuals from the Greater Middle East who, unlike Chalabi, have turned against Islam and embraced their lives in the West. In doing so, they have adopted views strikingly similar to some of the more hawkish factions in U.S. politics. Notable examples include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Nonie Darwish, all known for their vociferous condemnations of Islam, their affiliations with prominent neoconservative organizations, and the anger they have aroused from both Arabs and Muslims worldwide. Though the research and analysis produced by these self-styled “apostates of Islam” often has limited scholarly value, they have played an important role in providing a purportedly moral justification for Western military campaigns in Muslim countries.
Adopting the Clash of Civilizations
The background of many of theses apostates, including the three mentioned above, follow a common pattern. As natives of Arab or Muslim countries, they have each experienced pivotal events that shaped their perspectives on their countries of origin and religion. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali emigrant who once served in the Dutch House of Representatives and now works as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute[1], was raised in war-torn Somalia, where she was subjected to the appalling practice of female genital mutilation.
Wafa Sultan, the Syrian-American author of A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam, grew up in Syria where, in her words, “the tentacles of the Saudi octopus” had nurtured religious fanatics who murdered her university professor.[2] For Nonie Darwish, the Egyptian-American founder of Arabs for Israel, it was the death of her father, killed by an Israeli parcel bomb while organizing Palestinian resistance in Gaza, and the pressure put upon her to take revenge. [3]
These traumatic experiences helped convince these women that Islam was immoral and dangerous. They abandoned what they perceived to be a “backward culture” in favor of the “enlightened values” of the West. Hirsi Ali abandoned religion altogether. Darwish converted to Christianity. And Sultan asserts that “I even don’t believe in Islam, but I am a Muslim.”[4]
These “crusaders against Islam” are also often characterized by a Manichean worldview pitting the West against Islam. They tend to broadly portray Islam as a homogenous system of highly conformed practice, wherein singular experiences can be extrapolated to explain the broader culture. All three borrow language from Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations thesis to depict the collision between these “opposing forces.” Sultan has stated that “the clash we are witnessing around the world is … a clash between freedom and oppression.”[5] Hirsli Ali describes “the clash of values between the tribal culture of Islam and Western modernity.”[6] And Darwish refers to Islam as “an attack on civilization itself by haters of civilization.”[7]
These apostates also frequently adopt a certain presumptuous arrogance in their statements about Islam and its adherents that non-Muslim westerners would likely find difficult to pull off. Hirsi Ali, for example, has spoken repeatedly of “the tragedy of the tribal Muslim man” who has fallen prey to “the grip of jihad,” claiming that “the only difference between my relatives and me is that I opened my mind.”[8] Sultan has claimed that the Crusades were simply the logical reaction to “Islamic religious teachings.” And Darwish has frequently spoken of the “culture of death” in the Middle East.[9]
More recently, there has emerged a cadre of high-profile individuals from the Greater Middle East who, unlike Chalabi, have turned against Islam and embraced their lives in the West. In doing so, they have adopted views strikingly similar to some of the more hawkish factions in U.S. politics. Notable examples include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Nonie Darwish, all known for their vociferous condemnations of Islam, their affiliations with prominent neoconservative organizations, and the anger they have aroused from both Arabs and Muslims worldwide. Though the research and analysis produced by these self-styled “apostates of Islam” often has limited scholarly value, they have played an important role in providing a purportedly moral justification for Western military campaigns in Muslim countries.
Adopting the Clash of Civilizations
The background of many of theses apostates, including the three mentioned above, follow a common pattern. As natives of Arab or Muslim countries, they have each experienced pivotal events that shaped their perspectives on their countries of origin and religion. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali emigrant who once served in the Dutch House of Representatives and now works as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute[1], was raised in war-torn Somalia, where she was subjected to the appalling practice of female genital mutilation.
Wafa Sultan, the Syrian-American author of A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam, grew up in Syria where, in her words, “the tentacles of the Saudi octopus” had nurtured religious fanatics who murdered her university professor.[2] For Nonie Darwish, the Egyptian-American founder of Arabs for Israel, it was the death of her father, killed by an Israeli parcel bomb while organizing Palestinian resistance in Gaza, and the pressure put upon her to take revenge. [3]
These traumatic experiences helped convince these women that Islam was immoral and dangerous. They abandoned what they perceived to be a “backward culture” in favor of the “enlightened values” of the West. Hirsi Ali abandoned religion altogether. Darwish converted to Christianity. And Sultan asserts that “I even don’t believe in Islam, but I am a Muslim.”[4]
These “crusaders against Islam” are also often characterized by a Manichean worldview pitting the West against Islam. They tend to broadly portray Islam as a homogenous system of highly conformed practice, wherein singular experiences can be extrapolated to explain the broader culture. All three borrow language from Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations thesis to depict the collision between these “opposing forces.” Sultan has stated that “the clash we are witnessing around the world is … a clash between freedom and oppression.”[5] Hirsli Ali describes “the clash of values between the tribal culture of Islam and Western modernity.”[6] And Darwish refers to Islam as “an attack on civilization itself by haters of civilization.”[7]
These apostates also frequently adopt a certain presumptuous arrogance in their statements about Islam and its adherents that non-Muslim westerners would likely find difficult to pull off. Hirsi Ali, for example, has spoken repeatedly of “the tragedy of the tribal Muslim man” who has fallen prey to “the grip of jihad,” claiming that “the only difference between my relatives and me is that I opened my mind.”[8] Sultan has claimed that the Crusades were simply the logical reaction to “Islamic religious teachings.” And Darwish has frequently spoken of the “culture of death” in the Middle East.[9]
Adopted by the Right
The hawkish right in the United States has heavily promoted the writings of these women, who have subsequently joined the ranks of neoconservative organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, and the Middle East Media Research Institute. Unsurprisingly, these groups share many of the views of their new pundits: an unapologetic defense of all things “western,” a perceived moral duty to protect the civilized West against Islam, and a willingness to use all means necessary to achieve this objective. Commenting on this pattern, Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald has pointed out that those keenest to “help” the oppressed people of the Middle East are also those most eager to bomb countries in the region.[10]
These apostate Muslims and their neocon colleagues have developed tight, symbiotic relationships. Rightwing institutions provide platforms and legitimacy, allowing otherwise little known individuals to rise to positions of international prominence. None of these so-called experts have produced serious scholarship or careful analysis of actual political effects, aside from personal or anecdotal experience. And their main value, at least in terms of political discourse in the United States, appears to be that, as former insiders, they can provide a sheen of legitimacy to the Islamophobic tendencies of their rightwing supporters.
A similar phenomenon can be seen with the growing prominence of Western-born Muslims who, although not apostates, promote hawkish U.S. policies toward the Middle East. One such figure is Zuhdi Jasser, a Wisconsin-born practicing Muslim who is a member of the neocon-led Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) and founder of the group American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Jasser is quoted on the CPD website, saying: “Only freedom-loving devotional American Muslims can lead an effective counter-jihad from within the Muslim community. The future of American liberty and the free world as we know it depends upon the moral courage of anti-Islamist Muslims.”[11]
The Militarist Agenda
The views expressed by these apostates tend to bolster some of the more hawkish U.S. Mideast policies. For example, Hirsi Ali’s August 2010 article in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “How to Win the Clash of Civilizations,” advocated a “divide-and-rule” strategy to protect “our civilization” from destruction. She goes on to praise “The greatest advantage of Huntington's civilizational model of international relations … [is that] it reflects the world as it is—not as we wish it to be. It allows us to distinguish friends from enemies.”[12] In earlier article, she called for a continued military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, implying that any withdrawal would have “jihadis dancing in jubilation.”[13]
Nonie Darwish has railed against the willingness of Western countries to “appease … and assimilate” Muslims, since “all mosques have an anti-American and an anti-peace message” based in a “culture of jihad, tribalism and terror.”[14]
Even more alarmingly, Wafa Sultan has publicly stated that “1.3 billion Muslims … have to realize they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed,” implying that the “pressure” may have to take the form of “atom bombs.”[15]
Comments like these are given more weight because of the identities of the sources. By vilifying the aspirations of the societies they’ve left behind, their discourse takes on an air of “truth to power,” safe from charges of neo-colonialism or western exceptionalism. Their hyperbolic pronouncements have consistently been used to buttress conservative arguments for war by creating a pretense that “people from the region” support such actions. Publications advocating tougher, more aggressive policies in the “war on terror” often rely on narratives provided by these figures, in ways reminiscent of Chalabi’s “intelligence” on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Amir Abbas Fakhravar’s claims of impending Iranian collapse.[16]
There is a certain paradox in the effort to rely on indigenous opinions to justify policies, while ignoring the overwhelming condemnation of such perspectives by the vast majority of the indigenous people themselves. And yet, these figures are repeatedly held up to mirror and confirm the predetermined opinions of war-hungry organizations eager to validate their destructive agendas.
The New Face of Orientalism
Early this year, David Frum, a speechwriter for President George W. Bush who famously coined the “Axis of Evil” phrase, hosted a posh gathering in northwest Washington D.C. to honor Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her “strength,” “courage,” and “intelligence.”[17] Though attendees were limited for “security reasons,” Hirsi Ali was surrounded by fellow neocons, discussing topics from the “liberation of Iran” to the “religious extremism” behind the Gaza flotilla.[18] The respect afforded by militarist ideologues to Hirsi Ali and her compatriots is palpable, based almost solely on the ability of these figures to validate simplistic perceptions of the Muslim world as violent, backward, and dangerous.
Just as diehard Cold Warriors viewed all socialist countries as a single, threatening entity, these apostates and their rightwing supporters have reified the Islamic world into an undifferentiated mass. They conveniently lump the disparate strains of Islam, the competing visions of Muslim identity, and the blurred and fluid boundaries of the Middle East, into a single—and threatening—unit. But in reality, the “Muslim world,” if such an entity can be said to exist, would encompass not only the Deobandis of Pakistan and the Wahhabis of the Gulf, but also Sufi mystics in Konya, Druzes in Lebanon, Shafi’i in Indonesia, and countless others.
Additionally, this monolithic view leaves little room for positive developments, such as the creation of democratic institutions in 23 Muslim countries. And it seems to have blinded these apostates to the injustices that have resulted from U.S. military interventions.[19] This view also fails to account for the many actors and organizations throughout the Greater Middle East who may disagree with Western policies for reasons not derived from religion or culture, such as the secular PFLP in Palestine or the Free Patriotic Movement in Lebanon.
As The Economist notes in its review of Hirsi Ali’s autobiography Infidel (Free Press 2007), the lives of “Muslims [are] more complex than many people in the West may have realized. But the West’s tendency to seek simplistic explanations is a weakness that Ms. Hirsi Ali also shows she has been happy to exploit.”[20]
The Irony of Demonization
There is an irony underlying the careers of these recanted Muslims—namely, that the very same western policies they refuse to condemn often spur the resentment they ascribe as cultural backwardness or religious fervor. The anger and protestations of Muslims are often more rooted in rational considerations than Western militarists are willing to admit. Muslims, like any other group, possess layered identities, any aspect of which can be aroused in anger. As M. Junaid Levesque-Alam of the Crossing the Crescent blog explains, “When three planes hurtled into national icons, did anger and hatred rise in American hearts only after consultation of Biblical verses?”[21]
Indeed, the very existence of icons such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Nonie Darwish falsifies to a great extent the notion of a monolithic Muslim world. Their ability to react and rebel against their environment, as well as the variety of Muslim responses to their work, demonstrate the diversity of thought and opinion within Muslim society. Portraying Muslims in a simplistic and negative light may be a useful tool to build popular support for military campaigns. But in the long term, ignorance and stereotyping will only serve to undermine any policy objectives in the region. A more thoughtful foreign policy would be one that is grounded in dialogue, interaction, and the drive for understanding—not demonizing and finger-pointing. The sooner the U.S. public confronts this reality, the sooner peace can be achieved in the Middle East.
Samer Araabi is a Right Web research assistant and a contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus.
[1]American Enterprise Institute, “Scholars & Fellows, Ayaan Hirsi Ali”, American Enterprise Institute, http://www.aei.org/scholar/117.
[2]Wafa Sultan, A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009.
[3]James Langton, “Life as an Infidel,” The Guardian, May 13, 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/13/islam.religion.
[4]Asra Q. Nomani, “Wafa Sultan,” Time, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187385,00.html.
[5]Asra Q. Nomani, “Wafa Sultan,” Time, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187385,00.html.
[6]Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations,” New York: Free Press, 2010, p. 79.
[7]Nonie Darwish, “Now they call me infidel: why I rejected the jihad for America, Israel, and the war on terror,” London: Sentinal, 2006, p. 197.
[8]Pankaj Mishra, “Islamism: How should Western intellectuals respond to Muslim scholars?” The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/06/07/100607crat_atlarge_mishra.
[9]Hesham Hassaballa, “A Lost Opportunity,” AltMuslim, March 13, 2006, http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2329; Jim Holstun, “Nonie Darwish and the al-Bureij massacre,” Electronic Intifada, June 26, 2008, http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9646.shtml.
[10]Glenn Greenwald, “John McCain on the Evil, Barbaric Iranians,” Salon.com, June 12, 2010, http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/12/mccain/index.html.
[11]Quoted from the website of the Committee on the Present Danger, “M. Zuhdi Jasser, MD.,” http://www.committeeonthepresentdanger.org/index.php?option=com_cpdteam&id=1621&Itemid=89.
[12]Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “How to Win the Clash of Civilizations,” Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2010, http://www.aei.org/article/102433.
[13]Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Cut and Run Won’t Do,” The Australian, November 4, 2008, http://www.aei.org/article/28883.
[14]Renee Taylor, “Exclusive: Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law,” Family Security Matters, http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2207/pub_detail.asp.
[15]Garibaldi, “Wafa Sultan is Better Known as Wafa Stalin,” Loonwatch.com, December 2, 2009, http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/wafa-sultan-is-better-known-as-wafa-stalin-sultan.
[16]Laura Rozen, “Iran Hawks Reorganize,” The American Prospect, November 13, 2006, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12209.
[17]Pamela Paul, “The Party, in Exile,” New York Times, June 13, 2006,http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/fashion/13Party.html.
[18]Pamela Paul, “The Party, in Exile,” New York Times, June 13, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/fashion/13Party.html.
[19]Philip N. Howard, Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. (2010).
[20]The Economist, “A Critic of Islam: Dark Secrets,” The Economist, February 8, 2007, http://www.economist.com/node/8663231.
[21]M. Junaid Levesque-Alam, “Robert Wright and the Koran: Grappling with the Wrong Religion,” Foreign Policy in Focus, September 15, 2010, http://www.fpif.org/blog/robert_wright_and_the_koran_grappling_with_the_wrong_religion.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Tensions With India Grow After US Cheers TSA Groping of Ambassador
State Dept Insists 'Enhanced Pat-Down' of Ambassador Perfectly Fine
by Jason Ditz, December 09, 2010
US State Department officials are cheering tonight after TSA workers in Jackson, Mississippi subjected the Indian Ambassador to the United States Meera Shankar to an “enhanced pat-down” on the grounds that she was wearing a sari, traditional Indian garb.Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also defended the frisking of the Indian ambassador, insisting that it was “by the book” and that diplomats have to subject themselves to the same “basic screening” as everyone else.
But the sexually-charged pat downs are not “basic screening” in most of the world, and indeed have sparked a growing outcry from opponents in the United States, though officials maintain that the policy won’t change no matter how much popular opposition there is.
In the meantime, however, the US is going to have to contend with some serious fallout over Ms. Shankar’s groping, and India’s Foreign Minister has already pledged to raise the issue with the Obama Administration.
Indians are already upset by the TSA’s policies, and many have complained they are being singled out for being suspiciously dark-colored. The issue became prominent with many Indians after the 2009 detention of movie star Shahrukh Khan.
=0=
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101209/ts_nm/us_usa_india_ambassador
Airport pat-down of India envoy appropriate: U.S.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – An airport pat-down of the Indian ambassador to the United States in Mississippi angered her government but the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday said it was appropriate under the circumstances.U.S. and Indian media reported that Ambassador Meera Shankar received a pat-down as she was leaving Jackson, Mississippi, where she had been invited by Mississippi State University.
Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna was quoted by Indian media groups calling the incident "unacceptable" and saying he planned to raise the issue with the U.S. government.
"This is unacceptable to India and we are going to take it up with the U.S. government and I hope things could be resolved so that such unpleasant incidents do not recur," Krishna told journalists, according to the Hindu newspaper.
The U.S. State Department said diplomats are subject to the same basic screening as other passengers at U.S. airports.
Following attempted attacks, including last year's attempt to blow up a flight to Detroit by a passenger with a bomb hidden in his clothes, U.S. authorities have deployed hundreds of full-body scanners and two months ago began doing more physical pat-downs that many travelers find invasive.
Asked about the incident involving Shankar, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she had looked into the matter and concluded that "it was by the book."
"It was a pat-down that followed our procedures, and I think it was appropriate under the circumstances," Napolitano told reporters.
She said there are protocols in which if U.S. authorities are notified before a passenger with special credentials gets to an airport, they can try to expedite their security check.
"In this particular instance, that protocol had not been utilized," she said. "I think what was done by the ... officer was done appropriately and by the book."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that she was "concerned" by the incident and would look into it "to determine both what happened and what we could do to prevent such incidents in the future."
(Editing by Xavier Briand)
Friday, December 3, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
From Norwich Muslim Community
http://www.muslimsofnorwich.org.uk/?page_id=8
Islam is now the second largest and fastest growing faith in the world. There are over a thousand million Muslims worldwide and between 1.5 and 3 million in the UK alone.
2. Salah – Obligatory daily prayer. All adult Muslims must pray 5 times daily at specified times. The times are fajr (dawn), dhuhr (midday), ‘asr (late afternoon), maghrib (sunset) and ‘isha (nightfall).
3. Sawm – Fasting. All adult Muslims must fast during daylight hours during the holy month of Ramadan. The month lasts 29 or 30 days depending on the sighting of the moon.
4. Zakah – Wealth-Tax. All Muslims are required to pay a tax on their surplus wealth once it reaches a specified level. This tax is taken by the leader of the community and paid to members of the community, such as the poor and travellers.
5. Hajj – Pilgrimage. All Muslims must make the pilgrimage to the Ka’ba in Mecca at least once in their lives; if they are able to.
Islam
In our opinion the Internet is not the best way to learn about Islam, it’s much better to learn by meeting Muslims. However the following is a brief introduction to Islam and will hopefully answer any basic questions you may have. If you’d like to learn more why not come to the Mosque and see for yourself, guests are always welcome
- Islam means submission, safety and peace.
- It is a final and complete teaching for all people brought to us by our Master Muhammad, the last of the Messengers of Allah and the Seal of all the Prophets (peace and blessings be upon him).
- The Quran was first revealed over 1400 years ago to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) by the Angel Gabriel.
- Islam has ‘five pillars’, which are the obligatory acts that all Muslims must adhere to:
2. Salah – Obligatory daily prayer. All adult Muslims must pray 5 times daily at specified times. The times are fajr (dawn), dhuhr (midday), ‘asr (late afternoon), maghrib (sunset) and ‘isha (nightfall).
3. Sawm – Fasting. All adult Muslims must fast during daylight hours during the holy month of Ramadan. The month lasts 29 or 30 days depending on the sighting of the moon.
4. Zakah – Wealth-Tax. All Muslims are required to pay a tax on their surplus wealth once it reaches a specified level. This tax is taken by the leader of the community and paid to members of the community, such as the poor and travellers.
5. Hajj – Pilgrimage. All Muslims must make the pilgrimage to the Ka’ba in Mecca at least once in their lives; if they are able to.
নতুন ধারার বিশ্ব ইজতেমার দাওয়াত
http://www.samakal.com.bd/details.php?news=72&action=main&menu_type&option=single&news_id=112878&pub_no=531&type
এই জোড়ে শুধু চিল্লার সঙ্গীরাই অংশ নিয়ে থাকেন। আয়োজকরা জানান, ১০-১২টি দেশ থেকে তবলিগ জামাতের পাঁচ শতাধিক প্রতিনিধি এবারের জোড়ে অংশ নিয়েছেন। তাদের অনেকেই বিশ্ব ইজতেমা পর্যন্ত বাংলাদেশে তবলিগের কাজে নিয়োজিত থাকবেন।
মূলত এই জোড় শেষ হওয়ার পর থেকেই শুরু হয় বিশ্ব ইজতেমার কাজ। এখান থেকেই নির্ধারণ করা হবে মোট কতটি জামাত মাঠে থাকবে প্যান্ডেল নির্মাণের কাজে। এর বাকি জামাতগুলোকে পাঠিয়ে দেওয়া হবে দেশের বিভিন্ন অঞ্চলে। সেখান থেকে তারা গাশত করে আগামী বছরের জন্য ১ চিল্লা, ২ চিল্লা, ৩ চিল্লা বা এক বছরের জন্য লোক তাশকিল করে মাঠে নিয়ে আসবেন। তারা ইজতেমার তিন দিন মাঠে অবস্থান করে চলে যাবেন দাওয়াতের কাজে।
বিশ্ব ইজতেমা সূত্র জানিয়েছে, এবারই প্রথমবারের মতো ইজতেমা দু'পর্বে মোট ছয় দিন চলবে। তবলিগ জামাতের মজলিসে শূরায় গত বছরই ২০১১ সাল থেকে দু'দফায় বিশ্ব ইজতেমা অনুষ্ঠানের সিদ্ধান্ত নেওয়া হয়। সে অনুযায়ী এবার ইজতেমার প্রথম পর্ব ২১ থেকে ২৩ জানুয়ারি এবং দ্বিতীয় পর্ব ২৮ থেকে ৩০ জানুয়ারি অনুষ্ঠিত হওয়ার কথা রয়েছে। প্রথম দফায় ৩২ জেলা এবং দ্বিতীয় দফায় বাকি ৩২ জেলার লোক এতে অংশ নেবেন। তবে ঢাকা জেলার লোকজনকে ২১ জানুয়ারি থেকে ৩০ জানুয়ারি পর্যন্ত বিরতির দিনসহ মাঠেই থাকতে হবে। এখন পর্যন্ত নির্ধারণ করা হয়নি কোন কোন জেলা কোন পর্বে অংশ নেবে।
মাঠে স্থান সংকুলান না হওয়ায় লাখ লাখ মুসলিল্গ খোলা আকাশের নিচে অবস্থান নেন। এই দুর্ভোগের কথা বিবেচনা করেই আগত মুসলিল্গদের সুবিধার্থে এ সিদ্ধান্ত নেওয়া হয়েছে। উভয়পর্বে বিদেশি মুসলিল্গরাসহ শীর্ষস্থানীয় ওলামায়ে-কেরামরা উপস্থিত থাকবেন।
এদিকে বিশ্ব ইজতেমা তিন দিনের পরিবর্তে দু'ভাগে ছয় দিন করার প্রস্তাবকে সরকার পুনর্বিবেচনার আহ্বান জানিয়েছে। সরকার ব্যাপক জনদুর্ভোগের কথা বিবেচনা করে বিশ্ব ইজতেমা তিন দিনে সীমাবদ্ধ রাখতে ইজতেমা আয়োজকদের কাছে অনুরোধ জানিয়েছে। সরকারের প্রস্তাবের পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে আইন-শৃঙ্খলা পরিস্থিতিসহ সার্বিক বিষয় বিবেচনায় মুরবি্বরা আলোচনার জন্য শিগগিরই সরকারি পর্যায়ে বৈঠকে বসবেন বলে জানা গেছে।
'ইজতেমা' শব্দের অর্থ সমবেত করা, সভা-সমাবেশ বা সম্মেলন। ধর্মীয় কোনো কাজের জন্য মানুষকে একত্র করা, কাজের গুরুত্ব বোঝানো, কাজটি যথাযথভাবে সম্পন্ন করার জন্য সিদ্ধান্ত নেওয়া এবং ব্যাপকভাবে এর প্রচার, প্রসারের জন্য পদক্ষেপ গ্রহণ করা ইত্যাদি বিষয়কে ইসলামের পরিভাষায় ইজতেমা বলা হয়ে থাকে। হজরত রাসূলুল্লাহর (সা.) মুখ নিঃসৃত বাণী 'আমার পক্ষ হতে মানুষকে পেঁৗছাতে থাক যদিও একটিমাত্র আয়াত হয়'_ এই হাদিসের আলোকে টঙ্গীতে প্রতি বছর অনুষ্ঠিত হচ্ছে তবলিগ জামাতের উদ্যোগে বিশ্ব ইজতেমা।
বাংলাদেশের প্রত্যন্ত গ্রাম-শহর-বন্দর থেকে লাখ লাখ ধর্মপ্রাণ মুসলমান এই ইজতেমায় শরিক হন। একই সঙ্গে বিশ্বের অর্ধশতাধিক দেশ থেকে আগত হাজার হাজার তবলিগ অনুসারী ইমানদার মুসলিল্গ মিলিত হন। তারা কোনো রকম বৈষয়িক লাভের আশা না করে কেবল আল্লাহর সন্তুষ্টির জন্য দ্বীনের মেহনত করে ইজতেমা ময়দানকে মুসলিম মহামিলনের জন্য প্রস্তুত করে তোলেন।
ইসলাম প্রচারে তবলিগ জামাতের মুসলিল্গদের আল্লাহর পথে মানুষকে আহ্বানের যে নিরন্তর প্রচেষ্টা, যে গভীর আন্তরিকতা এরই এক প্রাণবন্ত বহিঃপ্রকাশ বিশ্ব ইজতেমা। ধর্মের কাজে তারা একদিকে নিজেকে পরিশুদ্ধ ও উন্নত করার জন্য, অন্যদিকে যারা উদাসীন তাদের ধর্মের প্রতি আহ্বান করতে অনেক ত্যাগ স্বীকার করেন। দুনিয়া ও আখিরাতে মানুষের আত্মিক প্রশান্তি লাভের জন্য ইজতেমা খুবই গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। মুসলিল্গরা আল্লাহর দ্বীন ইসলাম প্রতিষ্ঠার লক্ষ্যে পাগলপারা ও নবীপ্রেমিক হয়ে ঘরবাড়ি, আরাম-আয়েশ ত্যাগ করে বিশ্ব ইজতেমায় একত্র হন। বিশ্ববরেণ্য আলেম-ওলামা ও ধর্মীয় নেতারা বিশ্ব ইজতেমায় শামিল হয়ে ইসলামের শাশ্বত বাণী বয়ান করেন এবং মানুষকে ধর্মের পথে জীবন পরিচালনার জন্য উদাত্ত কণ্ঠে আহ্বান জানান। বিশ্ব ইজতেমার প্রধান উদ্দেশ্য হচ্ছে, দেশ-বিদেশের আলেম-ওলামাদের কাছ থেকে পবিত্র কোরআন ও হাদিসের আলোকে দ্বীনের বয়ান শুনে ইমান-আমলের দাওয়াত সারাবিশ্বে পেঁৗছে দেওয়া।
শুধু ধর্মীয় বয়ান শোনা বা বিশ্ববাসীর শান্তি ও হেদায়েতের জন্য আখেরি মোনাজাতে প্রচুর লোকের অংশগ্রহণ বিশ্ব ইজতেমার উদ্দেশ্য নয়, বরং যাতে বেশি জামাত দ্বীনের কাজে বের হয় এর দিকনির্দেশনা এখানে প্রদান করা হয়। যেন প্রতিটি জামাত নির্ধারিত এলাকার মসজিদে দু'তিন দিন করে অবস্থান করে তবলিগের ছয় উসুল_ কালেমা, নামাজ, এলেম ও জিকির, ইকরামুল মুসলিমিন ও সহিহ নিয়ত তবলিগসহ তাওহিদ, রিসালাত, আখিরাত, ইমান এবং আমলের দাওয়াত দেয়।
পৃথিবীর সৃষ্টি থেকে আজ পর্যন্ত সবচেয়ে ব্যাপক ও গতিশীল ইসলামী আন্দোলনের একটি প্রধান ধারা দাওয়াতে তবলিগ। তবলিগের সঙ্গীরা জামাত বেঁধে মানবতার টানে আল্লাহর প্রেমে মসজিদ থেকে মসজিদে সফর করেন, গ্রাম থেকে গ্রামান্তরে যান, মানুষের বাড়িতে বাড়িতে গিয়ে সবিনয়ে আল্লাহর পথে দাওয়াত দেন, জামাতে নামাজ আদায়ের কথা বলেন, পরোপকার শিক্ষা দেন, পবিত্র কোরআন তিলাওয়াত ও ধর্মীয় শিক্ষার কথা বলেন, নিয়ত পরিশুদ্ধির কথা বলেন। এমন অনেক মুসলমান আছেন, যারা তবলিগ জামাতের মাধ্যমে সত্যিকারের দ্বীন শিক্ষা ও পরহেজগারি অর্জন করেছেন এবং ধর্মীয় বিষয়াদি সম্পর্কে শিক্ষিত ও সচেতন হয়েছেন। আর এ ধারাকে আরও বেগবান করতে আগামী বছরের নতুন ধারার বিশ্ব ইজতেমার দাওয়াত পেশ করা হলো সবাইকে।
muftianaet@gmail.com
নতুন ধারার বিশ্ব ইজতেমার দাওয়াত
আখেরি মোনাজাতে প্রচুর লোকের অংশগ্রহণ ইজতেমার উদ্দেশ্য নয়, বরং যাতে বেশি বেশি জামাত বের হয় এই নির্দেশনা এখানে প্রদান করা হয়
মুফতি এনায়েতুল্লাহ
গত মঙ্গলবার মোনাজাতের মাধ্যমে শেষ হলো বিশ্ব ইজতেমা-পূর্ব তবলিগ জামাতের চিল্লার সঙ্গীদের নিয়ে পাঁচদিনব্যাপী জোড়। দুপুর সোয়া ১২টায় তবলিগের মুরবি্ব মাওলানা মোহাম্মদ ইবরাহিম জোড়ে আখেরি মোনাজাত পরিচালনা করেন। লক্ষাধিক চিল্লার সঙ্গী এতে অংশ নেন।
গত মঙ্গলবার মোনাজাতের মাধ্যমে শেষ হলো বিশ্ব ইজতেমা-পূর্ব তবলিগ জামাতের চিল্লার সঙ্গীদের নিয়ে পাঁচদিনব্যাপী জোড়। দুপুর সোয়া ১২টায় তবলিগের মুরবি্ব মাওলানা মোহাম্মদ ইবরাহিম জোড়ে আখেরি মোনাজাত পরিচালনা করেন। লক্ষাধিক চিল্লার সঙ্গী এতে অংশ নেন।
এই জোড়ে শুধু চিল্লার সঙ্গীরাই অংশ নিয়ে থাকেন। আয়োজকরা জানান, ১০-১২টি দেশ থেকে তবলিগ জামাতের পাঁচ শতাধিক প্রতিনিধি এবারের জোড়ে অংশ নিয়েছেন। তাদের অনেকেই বিশ্ব ইজতেমা পর্যন্ত বাংলাদেশে তবলিগের কাজে নিয়োজিত থাকবেন।
মূলত এই জোড় শেষ হওয়ার পর থেকেই শুরু হয় বিশ্ব ইজতেমার কাজ। এখান থেকেই নির্ধারণ করা হবে মোট কতটি জামাত মাঠে থাকবে প্যান্ডেল নির্মাণের কাজে। এর বাকি জামাতগুলোকে পাঠিয়ে দেওয়া হবে দেশের বিভিন্ন অঞ্চলে। সেখান থেকে তারা গাশত করে আগামী বছরের জন্য ১ চিল্লা, ২ চিল্লা, ৩ চিল্লা বা এক বছরের জন্য লোক তাশকিল করে মাঠে নিয়ে আসবেন। তারা ইজতেমার তিন দিন মাঠে অবস্থান করে চলে যাবেন দাওয়াতের কাজে।
বিশ্ব ইজতেমা সূত্র জানিয়েছে, এবারই প্রথমবারের মতো ইজতেমা দু'পর্বে মোট ছয় দিন চলবে। তবলিগ জামাতের মজলিসে শূরায় গত বছরই ২০১১ সাল থেকে দু'দফায় বিশ্ব ইজতেমা অনুষ্ঠানের সিদ্ধান্ত নেওয়া হয়। সে অনুযায়ী এবার ইজতেমার প্রথম পর্ব ২১ থেকে ২৩ জানুয়ারি এবং দ্বিতীয় পর্ব ২৮ থেকে ৩০ জানুয়ারি অনুষ্ঠিত হওয়ার কথা রয়েছে। প্রথম দফায় ৩২ জেলা এবং দ্বিতীয় দফায় বাকি ৩২ জেলার লোক এতে অংশ নেবেন। তবে ঢাকা জেলার লোকজনকে ২১ জানুয়ারি থেকে ৩০ জানুয়ারি পর্যন্ত বিরতির দিনসহ মাঠেই থাকতে হবে। এখন পর্যন্ত নির্ধারণ করা হয়নি কোন কোন জেলা কোন পর্বে অংশ নেবে।
মাঠে স্থান সংকুলান না হওয়ায় লাখ লাখ মুসলিল্গ খোলা আকাশের নিচে অবস্থান নেন। এই দুর্ভোগের কথা বিবেচনা করেই আগত মুসলিল্গদের সুবিধার্থে এ সিদ্ধান্ত নেওয়া হয়েছে। উভয়পর্বে বিদেশি মুসলিল্গরাসহ শীর্ষস্থানীয় ওলামায়ে-কেরামরা উপস্থিত থাকবেন।
এদিকে বিশ্ব ইজতেমা তিন দিনের পরিবর্তে দু'ভাগে ছয় দিন করার প্রস্তাবকে সরকার পুনর্বিবেচনার আহ্বান জানিয়েছে। সরকার ব্যাপক জনদুর্ভোগের কথা বিবেচনা করে বিশ্ব ইজতেমা তিন দিনে সীমাবদ্ধ রাখতে ইজতেমা আয়োজকদের কাছে অনুরোধ জানিয়েছে। সরকারের প্রস্তাবের পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে আইন-শৃঙ্খলা পরিস্থিতিসহ সার্বিক বিষয় বিবেচনায় মুরবি্বরা আলোচনার জন্য শিগগিরই সরকারি পর্যায়ে বৈঠকে বসবেন বলে জানা গেছে।
'ইজতেমা' শব্দের অর্থ সমবেত করা, সভা-সমাবেশ বা সম্মেলন। ধর্মীয় কোনো কাজের জন্য মানুষকে একত্র করা, কাজের গুরুত্ব বোঝানো, কাজটি যথাযথভাবে সম্পন্ন করার জন্য সিদ্ধান্ত নেওয়া এবং ব্যাপকভাবে এর প্রচার, প্রসারের জন্য পদক্ষেপ গ্রহণ করা ইত্যাদি বিষয়কে ইসলামের পরিভাষায় ইজতেমা বলা হয়ে থাকে। হজরত রাসূলুল্লাহর (সা.) মুখ নিঃসৃত বাণী 'আমার পক্ষ হতে মানুষকে পেঁৗছাতে থাক যদিও একটিমাত্র আয়াত হয়'_ এই হাদিসের আলোকে টঙ্গীতে প্রতি বছর অনুষ্ঠিত হচ্ছে তবলিগ জামাতের উদ্যোগে বিশ্ব ইজতেমা।
বাংলাদেশের প্রত্যন্ত গ্রাম-শহর-বন্দর থেকে লাখ লাখ ধর্মপ্রাণ মুসলমান এই ইজতেমায় শরিক হন। একই সঙ্গে বিশ্বের অর্ধশতাধিক দেশ থেকে আগত হাজার হাজার তবলিগ অনুসারী ইমানদার মুসলিল্গ মিলিত হন। তারা কোনো রকম বৈষয়িক লাভের আশা না করে কেবল আল্লাহর সন্তুষ্টির জন্য দ্বীনের মেহনত করে ইজতেমা ময়দানকে মুসলিম মহামিলনের জন্য প্রস্তুত করে তোলেন।
ইসলাম প্রচারে তবলিগ জামাতের মুসলিল্গদের আল্লাহর পথে মানুষকে আহ্বানের যে নিরন্তর প্রচেষ্টা, যে গভীর আন্তরিকতা এরই এক প্রাণবন্ত বহিঃপ্রকাশ বিশ্ব ইজতেমা। ধর্মের কাজে তারা একদিকে নিজেকে পরিশুদ্ধ ও উন্নত করার জন্য, অন্যদিকে যারা উদাসীন তাদের ধর্মের প্রতি আহ্বান করতে অনেক ত্যাগ স্বীকার করেন। দুনিয়া ও আখিরাতে মানুষের আত্মিক প্রশান্তি লাভের জন্য ইজতেমা খুবই গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। মুসলিল্গরা আল্লাহর দ্বীন ইসলাম প্রতিষ্ঠার লক্ষ্যে পাগলপারা ও নবীপ্রেমিক হয়ে ঘরবাড়ি, আরাম-আয়েশ ত্যাগ করে বিশ্ব ইজতেমায় একত্র হন। বিশ্ববরেণ্য আলেম-ওলামা ও ধর্মীয় নেতারা বিশ্ব ইজতেমায় শামিল হয়ে ইসলামের শাশ্বত বাণী বয়ান করেন এবং মানুষকে ধর্মের পথে জীবন পরিচালনার জন্য উদাত্ত কণ্ঠে আহ্বান জানান। বিশ্ব ইজতেমার প্রধান উদ্দেশ্য হচ্ছে, দেশ-বিদেশের আলেম-ওলামাদের কাছ থেকে পবিত্র কোরআন ও হাদিসের আলোকে দ্বীনের বয়ান শুনে ইমান-আমলের দাওয়াত সারাবিশ্বে পেঁৗছে দেওয়া।
শুধু ধর্মীয় বয়ান শোনা বা বিশ্ববাসীর শান্তি ও হেদায়েতের জন্য আখেরি মোনাজাতে প্রচুর লোকের অংশগ্রহণ বিশ্ব ইজতেমার উদ্দেশ্য নয়, বরং যাতে বেশি জামাত দ্বীনের কাজে বের হয় এর দিকনির্দেশনা এখানে প্রদান করা হয়। যেন প্রতিটি জামাত নির্ধারিত এলাকার মসজিদে দু'তিন দিন করে অবস্থান করে তবলিগের ছয় উসুল_ কালেমা, নামাজ, এলেম ও জিকির, ইকরামুল মুসলিমিন ও সহিহ নিয়ত তবলিগসহ তাওহিদ, রিসালাত, আখিরাত, ইমান এবং আমলের দাওয়াত দেয়।
পৃথিবীর সৃষ্টি থেকে আজ পর্যন্ত সবচেয়ে ব্যাপক ও গতিশীল ইসলামী আন্দোলনের একটি প্রধান ধারা দাওয়াতে তবলিগ। তবলিগের সঙ্গীরা জামাত বেঁধে মানবতার টানে আল্লাহর প্রেমে মসজিদ থেকে মসজিদে সফর করেন, গ্রাম থেকে গ্রামান্তরে যান, মানুষের বাড়িতে বাড়িতে গিয়ে সবিনয়ে আল্লাহর পথে দাওয়াত দেন, জামাতে নামাজ আদায়ের কথা বলেন, পরোপকার শিক্ষা দেন, পবিত্র কোরআন তিলাওয়াত ও ধর্মীয় শিক্ষার কথা বলেন, নিয়ত পরিশুদ্ধির কথা বলেন। এমন অনেক মুসলমান আছেন, যারা তবলিগ জামাতের মাধ্যমে সত্যিকারের দ্বীন শিক্ষা ও পরহেজগারি অর্জন করেছেন এবং ধর্মীয় বিষয়াদি সম্পর্কে শিক্ষিত ও সচেতন হয়েছেন। আর এ ধারাকে আরও বেগবান করতে আগামী বছরের নতুন ধারার বিশ্ব ইজতেমার দাওয়াত পেশ করা হলো সবাইকে।
muftianaet@gmail.com
সৈজন্যে: দৈনিক সমকাল
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)