 |
|
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury |
Salah Choudhury is a Bangladeshi Muslim currently on trial for ostensibly spying for Israel. Alas, even prosecutors in Bangladesh are forced to concede the surface accusations are false. The real reason he’s being persecuted is for using his role as a leading newspaper editor to criticize radical Islam and advocate an open, tolerant Bangladeshi society. In a political environment where everyone is crying out for moderate Muslims to rise up, Mr.Choudhury appears to be the real thing. And he can use your help.
The Chicago Tribune gives us the back story for the of Choudhury’s saga –
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury…will be tried this month on charges of spying for the Jewish state. The crime is punishable by death in predominantly Muslim Bangladesh.…Choudhury was arrested at Dhaka-Zia International Airport [in November 2003] before boarding a flight to Israel, where he was scheduled to deliver a lecture on Muslim-Jewish relations. After several months behind bars, he was charged with sedition, a capital offense in Bangladesh.
“This is absolutely a false allegation,” Choudhury said. “I never, ever spy for any country. We work for the betterment of the interfaith.”
<
p>Why all the scorn from Choudhury? In part, his comments and public statements from such as this –
Bangladesh is known as a ‘moderate Muslim country’ and its people have the reputation of ‘moderate Muslims,’ free of rancor against other faiths. However, our society, like many others, is being subverted by the efforts of Muslim extremists.…Pressure to conform to extremist opinion is intense… Since my newspaper, the Weekly Blitz, published several articles that were favorable to Israel, we have been subject to various threats from local fanatics as well from the Palestinian ambassador in Dhaka…Destruction, fanaticism and terror are not the way to bring about positive changes in the minds of people or in any society“Destruction, fanaticism and terror are not the way to bring about positive changes in the minds of people or in any society”. Such attempts have always met a grim fate in the past, whether perpetrated by organizations or states.
<
p>His case has become a cause for Jewish activist Richard Benkin + others in the US and Israel. Through their lobbying the issue was taken up by US Rep Mark Kirk –
…In January 2005, Benkin’s prayers and letters were answered. U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) volunteered to help.“[Choudhury] is a passionate public advocate for dialogue with Israel,” Kirk said in an interview last week. “With near biblical certainty, I feel he has no official contact with the Israeli government.”
Kirk arranged a meeting with Bangladeshi Ambassador Shamsher M. Chowdhury, who agreed to help secure the jailed journalist’s release on bail and try to get the charges dropped. After 17 months in jail, Choudhury was released. But a judge ruled that his case would proceed to trial.
Rep. Kirk was able to secure Choudhury’s release by, in part, threatening to withold state aid to Bangladesh — few states are immune from being hit in the pocket book. Unfortunately, it appears that fate has dealt Mr. Choudhury a rather unfortunate Judge –
Over the past several weeks, Choudhury was optimistic that the government would drop the charges, which Bangladesh officials have admitted on many occasions to be false. The presiding judge, a member of the radical Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) party, ruled that his trial for sedition–a capital offense–is to proceed immediately.
Benkin’s description of the scene reads like the perverse opposite of the death row reprieve –
Judge Mohammed Momin Ullah, who had been presiding over the case, often appeared to be an agent of the prosecution. On the final court date, when the prosecution was to present its case against Shoaib, the judge repeatedly challenged the lack of evidence on the prosecution’s part, asking very pointed questions designed to give the state a chance to explain its position and present additional evidence. Yet, in every single such incident, the prosecution demurred and admitted that it had no real evidence. So obvious was it that after the hearing the Public Prosecutor congratulated Shoaib in anticipation of an order to drop the charges. But that was not to be. Ignoring the lack of evidence and the state’s explicit desire to drop the charges, Ullah ruled that Shoaib’s trial for sedition would proceed.…It cannot be ignored that Ullah is a member of the radical (and often terrorist) Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB). The JMB has long made public its goal to turn Bangladeshi into a Taliban state. Last year, it set off a number of terrorist bombs throughout the country and demanded that Sharia (Muslim religious law) become the law of the land.
And now, just days before his scheduled trial, Mr. Choudhury’s been targeted by an old fashioned lynch mob –
Mr. Choudhury was viciously attacked at his newspaper by what he termed ‘hooligans,’ including open Islamic radicals and members of the ruling Bangladesh National Party (BNP). He identified one of his attackers as Helal Khan, International Affairs Secretary, Cultural Wing of the BNP. As they were beating him, his attackers called Mr. Choudhury an “agent of Jews.” He has received treatment for his injuries, but security for both he and his family has not be renewed.
Sigh. Luckily, his story is getting more attention. BlogTalkRadio will be doing a segment on Choudhury’s case tonight at 6PM / 9ET. Folks can / should also contact the Bangladeshi Embassy and let Ambassador Shamser M. Choudury know that as an “ally and aid recipient in the US war on terror”, such persecution is unacceptable.
Nevermind 🙂 .
@Manju: Well, I don’t have it ALL figured out, but the ‘Islamists’ you refer to are some fictitous entity propogated by ignorant Western Media/Governments in order to justify foreign policy in oil-rich parts of the world. You think the US govt. will give a damn about Choudhury? Think again. Btw, my remarks were more aimed at your initial statement about the ‘enemy’ which I felt I had to respond to. I do believe that what is happening to the man in this article is wrong, but I think it is receiving disproportionate attention because it is connected to Islam. This smacks of hypocrisy, albeit an unsurprising type. And besides, reading the opinions of some other posters, and their apparent love for my fellow birth-country man (Dawkins) I believe that the kind of balanced discussion I seek will not really be found here.
Im a british muslim with bangladeshi parents and I am also free and liberal thinking! I dont approve of the thinking of extrimist muslims who get a thrill with the craziness the are spilling all over the world, and for that matter non muslims who the same. The thing that is annoying me more than anything is that people ask us why do muslims hate us so much, but why is it that the people who are supposed too know better i.e. the educated americans and brits always put normal muslims modertae muslims liberal thinking muslims and most of the sikh community into the same group as terrorists, and then hate us even more than we even understand. I have gone through a time through the 80’s where the NF were ripping through our community and then we built our self up, we went through the regeneration of a community and I live in a area where the multi culturlism has now made a great impact that we can live side by side which all people. Obviously its a matter of teaching our kids and showing them what is wrong and what is right, but what it is, is thatpropaganda is showing that the majority of muslims are terrorist and that the FREE people of the Thinking world are all civilised and decent folk from the America’s and britains only. Please could someone understand that the majority of the free thinking muslim workd are not TERRORISTS, but normal people like yourselves and I.
Vinod: solid post, thanks for bringing to our attention.
Ismat:
Yes please!!!
AD Khan: thank you for that comment. Your perspective is sound and important.
Manju, AMFD, Random Guy, Razib et al: it’s simple logic. Paint people into a corner and they will eventually become what you have painted them to be. As Manju says, Hezbollah and Hamas are different — from the Salafists, and indeed from each other. But continue to treat them as illegitimate political forces in their respective social contexts, and the brand of illegitimacy and rejection will become a stronger bond than the differences that separate them. When Huntington wrote his infamous book, the clash of civilizations was a fallacy — wishful thinking. Well, now it’s a reality. Great. Hello the rest of the 21st century. Perhaps if we and the next couple of generations manage to not blow the planet up, our great-grandchildren will learn from our mistakes and figure out a better plan. Most of us — Westerners, Easterners, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, powerful elites, manipulable populace alike — will be reincarnated as rodents and insects for our sins or commission or omission today, for our active participation in the oncoming disasters or for our failure to do anything to avert them, so we’ll never know the benefits.
Happy Friday.
This is not the first time that a liberal muslim is being targeted for initiating reform in islam. Tasleema Nasreen, Nazrul Islam, Salman Rushdie were all charged of conspiracy against islam. The reason being the claim that islam is a perfect religion and criticizing it amounts to blasphemy and punishable to death.
Tasleema Nasreen, Nazrul Islam, Salman Rushdie
not to harp, but tasleema nasreen & salman rushdie are “liberal muslims” if richard dawkins and josef stalin are “liberal christians.” let’s not butcher the language 🙂
Risible –
Great post! (# 36 ).
Should I say athiest liberal ex-muslims like Salman Rushdie. You bring up an important point. It is unfortunate that it takes a muslim to give up islam in order to be liberal.
Should I say athiest liberal ex-muslims like Salman Rushdie.
atheists. apostates.
Ex-muslims!! Are white atheists ever called “ex-christian”? Probably only if they renounced a sincere faith. But guys like Rushdie, who was never religious in the first place, are ‘ex-muslims’, even to anti-Muslim bigots that love them. A label you cannot escape…
Silly question: AMD once said he was no longer a Muslim, he was an “apostate” and I got the feeling that he formally left Islam. Is there an official way of doing so, or is it simply a matter of renouncing the tenets?
Thought some of you might be interested in this ( Freedom of Expression must include the license to offend ) debate, which is to be held at Asia Society in Manhattan on the 18th of october.
amongst the speakers, ( for the motion,…… ….weighing in at a portly 200 pounds or so, scotch connoisseur,Kissinger nemesis, the one, the only, your leader, my leader, our leader…..Chris “mugged by reality” Hitchens.
also appearing – Philip Gourevitch, Daisy Khan, etc, etc…
Btw, the show is sold out. however, i know a tried way, which will help the interested to obtain a ticket …legally and for original price.
AMD once said he was no longer a Muslim, he was an “apostate” and I got the feeling that he formally left Islam. Is there an official way of doing so, or is it simply a matter of renouncing the tenets?
heh. if there was an ‘official way’ in islam, like if you didn’t believe why would you go through it? sometimes ex-mormons specifically get their names listed out of the mormon registry. don’t think most muslim madrassas are that clerically efficient.
Ex-muslims!! Are white atheists ever called “ex-christian”? Probably only if they renounced a sincere faith. But guys like Rushdie, who was never religious in the first place, are ‘ex-muslims’, even to anti-Muslim bigots that love them. A label you cannot escape…
but it depends. frankly, i’ve noticed that jews and hindus are especially obstintate about ethnicizing islam. makes sense why, they simply project the norms of their own religion to everyone else. christians less so. evangelical christians the least. (in my exp.)
Nice post, Vinod.
siddhartha, Most of us — Westerners, Easterners, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, powerful elites, manipulable populace alike — will be reincarnated as rodents and insects for our sins or commission or omission today, Do you believe the bit on reincarnation? One of my beliefs, and pet peeves with those who critique Hinduism, is that reincarnation is not an essential part of the religion.
At the risk of ethnicizing, I really do think that what is happening in Bangladesh is somewhat different from what is happening in Palestine or Lebanon, and that different solutions are needed for different places. What I got from Naipaul’s “Among the Believers”, a book I would definitely recommend, is that Islam in different countries is highly dependent on the economic, social and cultural history of those countries. siddhartha makes an interesting point on increased confrontation inevitably leading to a clash of civilizations, which, I think, is very contextual in this discussion. There was an interesting e-mail exchange on Slate on this perceived clash between a certain Robert Kagan and Amartya Sen. I think Amartya sen’s opinions are relevent not just as an economist, but in this context, as an Indian, a Bengali and as someone raised partly in Bangladesh.
I watched most of the documentary “The Root of all Evil?”. Although the points made are certainly contextual for our time, there is not much new in what Richard Dawkins says, and it comes across as somewhat scientistic. I remember reading a good critique of the documentary in the Hindu earlier this year.
There are myths of him visiting France and Glastonbury in England.
heh. if there was an ‘official way’ in islam, like if you didn’t believe why would you go through it?
Pragmatic reasons? e.g. not being subject to Muslim personal laws? though I fully realize that’s generally not an option in Muslim countries.
Whoa, Topcat, generalize much? What about me and others like Taz? Do you even know the basic tenets of Ahmadis, which is a very liberal and progressive movement in Islam?
Siddhartha, give me some time and I will do–I’m running out of town for the weekend. But anyway, the talk was really fascinating. Shall I email it to you?
Do you even know the basic tenets of Ahmadis, which is a very liberal and progressive movement in Islam?
yes. were that all muslims were ahmadis…. (e.g., some of you should look up the way ahmadis define jihad, very nice 🙂
Ismat and DJ
I do know that Ahmadis are liberal and unorthodox followers of islam. I am also aware of the religious aparthied against the Ahmadis by orthodox muslims. You have my support anyday.
unorthodox followers of islam.
topcat, be a little sensitive. ahmadis don’t consider themselves ‘unorthodox’ 🙂 they think they orthodox.
I was going to post this comment yesterday but decided to wait one day to see how this thread developed…now I see I needn’t have waited…it occurs to me that if a Hindu judge in India, let’s say affiliated with the RSS or something, had behaved in the way this Muslim judge in Bangladesh did, there’d already be 200-300 comments on here castigating that (Hindu) judge in the harshest of terms…and rightly so…but with the Muslim judge, there’s almost a resigned acceptance that ‘that’s just how those people are’, or ‘those crazy Muslims…what are you gonna do with them…lol…’ Why the double standard?
Why the double standard?
if someone with down syndrome can do basic addition and substraction you give them a blue ribbon. same thing. islam are the ‘funny looking kid’ of civilizations, lower the bar brother 🙂
btw, the Richard Dawkins documentary was fun to watch. Thanks for the recommendation
One of the points that Richard Dawkins made in the documentary was that he thought that children should be protected from being “brain-washed” (not sure what term he used) by religion, and that children cannot be assumed to have the same religion as their parents. For instance, you don’t talk about “Tory” children and “Labor” children. I think this reflects his own bias in terms of what secularism should be. I think in countries like India and perhaps Bangladesh, this sort of rigorous separation of church and state may not be the right answer.
I remember cracking open my cousin’s textbook back in India earlier this year. There was one chapter on “The Sermon on the Mount”. The contents of the chapter were just that – an extract of the entire sermon on the mount from the bible. First reaction : shock. What about the separation of church and state and all that jazz? Second reaction : might not be a bad idea to introduce the Sermon on the Mount as a purely secular account (note that in India, secularism doesn’t mean separation of church and state). It would benefit Hindu kids and Christian kids and Muslim kids to all learn about each other’s religion this way, and perhaps learn that theirs is not the only way. Now that I think of the religious fundmentalists that Dawkins interviewed, I was like : maybe they would have turned out differently if they had to deal with a secular account of their own religion in school.
Looks like Harvard‘s reversed its previous stance on this matter and plans to to do just this, getting back to its “roots.” I read another article about this subject (either at the NYT or WaPo) but can’t seem to find it.
I’m glad you liked it. I do wish that he would redo the interviews. As I stated above, his point of view might come across better from a less “harsh” stance than his “religion is illogical” view. I can see the logical appeal for religon to some, even though I might view religion itself as illogical. Plus, you could tell Dawkins was getting quite pissed and losing his cool, esp. with the preacher out in Colorado. I think that hurts Dawkins’ cause. Baby steps…
Silly question: AMD once said he was no longer a Muslim, he was an “apostate” and I got the feeling that he formally left Islam. Is there an official way of doing so, or is it simply a matter of renouncing the tenets?
I never really formally left Islam nor did I formally ever embrace Islam. I was raised in a Muslim household to very religious parents and did the usual. I slowly stopped believing and then became a complete non-believer. I did believe for a long time though. The reason I brought up my ‘apostasy’ was to point out the fact that people like Razibs are not really apostates because they were never believers. I think its an important distinction. In the absence of this distinction, we end up attributing to people their parents religion and religion ends up being similar to national origin etc. Nobody calls a white atheist a former christian and I think the same respect should be accorded to brown and other third world living in and origin people.
I think Dawkins or James (DNA) Watson once said – “all religions are not equal, some are much worse than others”
How true.
Manju – you miss the point. We get comments from people insisting that this is a leftist blog because we fail to criticize islamic governments … and when we do, we haven’t done it “the right way”. I was neither labelling this a leftist blog nor a rightist post, I was responding to what some of our readers think it is.
I’d love to hear your hierarchy of religions.
No Desh, thanks for that Dawkins mini-series link. That was a couple of hours well spent. I’m not sure religion is the root of all evil, but surely a bit of it.
I meant, Hinduism not, Hiduism.
Funny exchange between Sakshi and Kritic. Religion has become, as Razib points out, racialized and hereditary; thus to criticize it make you a bigot of sorts, and to rank them makes you a something of a racial supremacist.
Of course Kritic views religion as merely a set of ideas, a philosophy; and some ideas are better than others.
But those who are truely within the religious fold do not recognize the legitimacy of other religions, for that would undermine their belief system (I mean, some do out of practicality, but it’s a condradiction…unless you’re a buddhist maybe).
So, ironically, the defense of religion on cultural/racial grounds is left to those who have no respect for religion’s claim to truth.
FWIW, lotsa folks have studied diff religious co-variances… I googled around a bit and I found this particular example (look for Table 4) but there are ton’s more… They’ll quibble w.r.t. details but generally map Religion vs. GDP sorta like this (highest to lowest) –
Fight amongst yourselves about what the data means and if it’s indicative… But there are other studies out there…
Sakshi –
Did I respond to your query – “I’d love to hear your hierarchy of religions.” I think, I did. Or, did I? Man, I really need to curb the daytime cocktails and the funny cigarettes. In any case, here goes again, I think. Deja F*%in Vu
From worst to best ( relatively speaking ) Islam Christianity Judaism Sikhsim Hinduism Buddhism
Disclaimer, I am an atheist.
you did respond. i read it. but now it’s gone…?
AlM #77: But don’t muslims believe all babies are born muslim?
What a ridiculous circle jerk of a blog thread.
That’s only true if you haven’t read a book or a newspaper since 1998, which obviously you haven’t.
Actually I know Ahmadiyas quite well, have done Jumma prayers at their mosques, etc. One interesting sidenote is their attitudes towards women are pretty orthodox. Although women are quite active, they are always in deep hijab, which I found interesting.
And of course the idea of having a central Huzur as leader of the global Ahmadi jamaat (who lives in London and whose Friday sermons are broadcast to all jamaats worldwide), is fundamentally an orthodox idea of leadership and divine gift, etc.
Razib, I see your point, but I wouldn’t say that Christianity doesn’t have a strong grasp in Europe. Quite the opposite, actually. In fact, I’d say that Christianity is far more ingrained in parts of Europe (remember the whole Protestant Reformation? Martin Luther? Hang on while I look up the Pope’s address on Wikipedia…aha, “1 Vatican Square”) than in America. But for whatever reason, it just doesn’t feel as threatening to the heathens, atheists, unbelievers, and apostates.
I don’t think the hierarchy really makes a lot of sense. I concede the point about Abrahamic God being all kinds of scary. But any and every religion can turn fundamentalist, given the right societal prodding. Hinduism and Buddhism might seem benign…until you’re a Muslim in Gujurat in 2002, or a Christian in Sri Lanka in 2003. There have been militant sects that advocate(d) violence in practically every religion. So yeah, I guess the hierarchy reflects something about the “here and now,” but I don’t think it says anything about the “why and how.”
Fundamentalism is not something inherent in “their” (Abrahamic) concept of God. Broadly speaking, it’s what happens when a group feels threatened, rightly or wrongly. Threats, perceived or real, push people to think in extremes. Suddenly normally rational people are condoning the removal of habeas corpus, or advocating redirecting water resources, or partying in the streets when their nation has developed an atomic bomb. In the right light, the most horrifying things seem wonderful.
As far as I can tell, neither Christianity nor Islam is exactly “endangered,” though. Both have hundreds of millions of adherents, yet each preaches a message of being under threat (Protestants, Sunnis, and Shi’ites, in particular) of persecution and extinction. Hell, I’m just continually surprised people are so consistently stupid as to buy into it.
Funny you should bring up Dawkins…I just got into a long discussion about meme theory today, and his name kept coming up. I guess my main beef with Dawkins and this “rationality uber alles” stance is that religion fills a niche in human societal structures. I may not happen to agree with it, I may not like much a lot of what comes out of it. But until it’s replaced by something better…um…well. Rationality won’t triumph over anything, is all. It’s like discussing how great it’ll be when mammals decide to stop using our livers*. Yeah, good luck. Maybe one day, but not anytime soon.
*I would have said “vermiform appendix,” but that’s kind of a human-only thing. And anyway, some people would take issue with the idea that religion serves no purpose. Myself included, come to think of it.
But don’t muslims believe all babies are born muslim?
No, Muslims believe that all babies are born in the state of fitrah (belief in the oneness of God) So according to Muslim belief, babies cannot for example be born as Hindus as all babies are strict monotheists when they are born. But they are not Muslim per se either as monotheism is also a belief found in other religious like Judaism etc.