Biggest Islamist party banned in Bangladesh

[BarakzaiAbdali]

It is possible that Jamaat has support from the local folks but I read a book about the Bangladesh War of Independence that a Bengali friend suggested I read. The Jamaat's recourse to influence is by exploiting the rural conscience and more over outright lying. The Jamaat in Bangladesh were involved with the Pakistani Army as a vigilante force, killing Bengalis left and right/

Jamaat is rightfully banned in Bangladesh's case.

I need to read more about Bengladesh and its history. The one thing that I often find though is that these hyper secularist parties have their own agendas as well. I would say that its perhaps fine to go after their 30 to 40 year old past leadership if there are war crime to be dealt with, but the average rural person may find them the only recourse. What I see as the problem here is two potential sets of criminals sniping at each other. The issue with this high court ruling is that it effectively bans not only Jammat, but sets the precedence for perhaps a loyal indigenous movement that is more moderate from any participation. This in turn might radicalize more people.

What authorizes the Awami Party to first attempt to court them, and then attempt to mitigate their influence by inacting destabilizing and sweeping court decisions that smells of an Ataturkian approach?

I am bit confused by all the animosity toward Mawdudi for instance, when his commentary on Quranic matters doesn't really lean Salafist. For instance, in his discussion of the Mehdi, he talks about having a broad view of who this could be and to not assume its a turbaned man but might be a modernist (not saying I agree). He also resorts to Israeliyaat tradition for instance, in interpreting Dawud's troubles...

My reading of the East and West Pakistan issue and Jamiaat's earliest literature was that Jamiaat sprung from the Subcontinent's Khilafatist movements and also had intermixing with MB ideologies. That being said, they viewed any subdivision of Muslim nations as an affront to the ummah concept. This resulted in them feeling that breaking countries down along provincial lines and or ethnic lines was a backward progression from unity and therefore decided the breakdown of Pakistan was a bad thing. That being said, they certainly were doing a major injustice in ignoring the fact that the Bengali candidate won the election fair and square and they should have stood behind the will of the majority.

In any case, I am sure Toramana "loves" them . Usually an admittedly logically inconsistent way to start is to find out who Toramana doesn't like and then read in detail on them... often you will find some potentially appreciable trait in said persons.

[Toramana]

Good effort at explaining Akhwani terrorism Maulavi Barakzai except that you didn't mention that the Pakistani brand Akhwani terrorist jehadist JI has been a tissue paper of the Paki military and is just a fringe divisive group within the Muslim polity as lunatic ism of Akhwans of Egypt has indicated that has left Egypt divided.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@BarakzaiAbdali
or anyone,
What is an Islamist?

Admin, I think people make it too complex. Lets go to the data because I think your answer lies therein.

Dhalia Mogahed and John Esposito have done the largest study to date on the political landscape of Muslim majority countries. They interviewed wide swathes of people from so many variant backgrounds.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1595620176

Here is the PBS documentary on this work and some more info:
" based on six years of research and more than 50,000 interviews representing Muslims in more than 35 predominantly Muslim nations. Accounting for more than 90% of the world's Muslim community, this poll is the largest, most comprehensive study of its kin."

Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think - YouTube

Start watching at 7 minutes and 30 seconds.

Then start watching this Pape video:
Robert Pape - Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It (3 of 4) - YouTube

At 3 minutes 49 seconds to see Mogahed's data and conclusions in action. Watch till 8 min 50 seconds.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whats all this mean Admin in reference to your question? Let me re-refer you to another era of insurgency, led by this man:

The True Story of Che Guevara - The Documentary - YouTube

In Latin America, Roman Catholicism and some Evangelism are the dominant religions. But what of that? Well, its a nonstarter for Che and others to have used the religious schisms that were utilized by Christian's in past eras to justify their insurgency.

So what did they turn to? If you read Guevara, and you see his interactions with the Americans and then his rejection of the Soviets - you do not see a Marxist style theoretician or a Leninist to the core. Rather, you see someone who utilize socialist ideologies as a catalyst and as a powerful uniting vector against Western and European Imperialism against indigenous Latin American peoples. In one way, the Roman Catholic Church could not be used to justify Che's struggle because the conquistadores justified their excesses via religion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/wo...pope.html?_r=0

So socialism/Marxism was the language of political resistance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Dalia Mogahed's work shows that the Muslim masses turn to Islam or at least the language of religion, in the same way that the Latinos turned to their own political philosophies; there are precepts within the faith that hearken to social justice and provide a somewhat common ideology across kinship groups.

Michael Scheuer says it best when he says:

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...liberal-islam/

" a seven-year Gallup survey of the Muslim world published in 2007 shows that a greater degree of Sharia law in governance is favored by young and old, moderates and militants, men and even women in most Muslim countries. While a façade of democracy may well appear in new regimes in places like Egypt and Tunisia,"

He goes on to say: "A year from now, we will find that most Arab Muslims have neither embraced nor installed what they have long regarded as an irreligious and even pagan ideology—secular democracy. They will have instead adhered even more closely to the faith that has graced, ordered, and regulated their lives for more than 1400 years, and which helped them endure the oppressive rule of Western-supported tyrants and kleptocrats."

Let me reproduce that key statement:
"They will have instead adhered even more closely to the faith that has graced, ordered, and regulated their lives for more than 1400 years,..."

So Admin, what this means is that even the CIA recognizes that in many variant forms, Islamic mores and dictums have impacted regions of the Muslim world for centuries now. Its only natural that the language of political resistance would coalesce around it.

I think taking all the above into account is the closest and most honest way to answer your question -
In the Western parlance an Islamist is a blanket term to characterize anyone and everyone who in any way uses Islam as a tactic and tool to resist Western forms of governance and interference. Since the Arab Spring this has come to include even non violent movements like the Tunisian ruling party, the MB in Egypt, and Erdogan. But generally, the majority of Westerners view these folks as violent nihilists - through the informed and erudite scholars like Esposito and Scheuer know this to not be the case.

In the Eastern parlance, back home - it appears that Islamists are not seen as warrior scholars per se, but rather as folks that meld religion into politics. Local secular Marxists find Islamism to be a competitive philosophy as they, like their Latino comrades, used to claim the mantle of being anti British imperialism. Some of these local folks then view Islamists as either unknowing pawns in an imperial game, or folks who are using the language of religion to justify political ideologies.

I tend to think Scheuer and Pape are correct that the bottom line is that a group of people in the Muslim world have identified particular interventions (e.g. supporting various dictators, invasions, backing the 51st state etc) as infringing on their sovereignty. These folks, called Islamists, have turned to the language their people have known for 1400 years to deal with this threat.

You can sometimes hear this tendency even in the way our elders speak. How often have we heard our mishraan talking about "zama haqq." ? Its in inherent reflexive inflection toward using references to God to justify views and actions.

Whatever the case is, just assume anything Toramana says about the subject is wrong. ; ) Atheist ikhwanis are miffed at these folks and are an unreliable and partial party in this discussion.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Good effort at explaining Akhwani terrorism Maulavi Barakzai except that you didn't mention that the Pakistani brand Akhwani terrorist jehadist JI has been a tissue paper of the Paki military and is just a fringe divisive group within the Muslim polity as lunatic ism of Akhwans of Egypt has indicated that has left Egypt divided.

Refer to above to see why you are utterly wrong, lol. Once again Toramana your brainwashing serves as an errant compass in your mental travels. This is often why your mental forays end up in a dung heap of error.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Good effort at explaining Akhwani terrorism Maulavi Barakzai except that you didn't mention that the Pakistani brand Akhwani terrorist jehadist JI has been a tissue paper of the Paki military and is just a fringe divisive group within the Muslim polity as lunatic ism of Akhwans of Egypt has indicated that has left Egypt divided.

By the way the Pew Data and the thrice elected Salafist and MB really do some damage to your conclusions. How you can justify this obvious coup with made up mental starch is beyond me. The numbers simply don't support you.

[asad71]

1. This trial has been a circus from the beginning. PM Hasina needed to keep the so called Leftists happy, and retain India's support for her and her family. The Judges appointed in the court and the prosecutors are all a bunch of jokers. Only shows how non-serious Hasina has been- except to exact blood money to ensure no hanging takes place. There haven't been enough evidence; the proceedings have been marred by controversy. Remember Skype affair. And no court allows a law or ordinance to be effective if it has been brought in after the indictments. These guys will all walk free once the elections are announced.

2.JeI will bounce back through legal process. USA and EU do not want JeI banned. It is a bourgeois party pursuing parliamentary democratic process. The pressure is from India which wants BD to be isolated from the Ummah.

3. Let's not jump the gun. JeI has not been banned -till the full judgement is available. If the High Court has pointed out discrepancies, etc JeI can always make mends. It is not so simple to ban a registered political party.

[Badlun]

I need to read more about Bengladesh and its history. The one thing that I often find though is that these hyper secularist parties have their own agendas as well. I would say that its perhaps fine to go after their 30 to 40 year old past leadership if there are war crime to be dealt with, but the average rural person may find them the only recourse. What I see as the problem here is two potential sets of criminals sniping at each other. The issue with this high court ruling is that it effectively bans not only Jammat, but sets the precedence for perhaps a loyal indigenous movement that is more moderate from any participation. This in turn might radicalize more people.

What authorizes the Awami Party to first attempt to court them, and then attempt to mitigate their influence by inacting destabilizing and sweeping court decisions that smells of an Ataturkian approach?

I am bit confused by all the animosity toward Mawdudi for instance, when his commentary on Quranic matters doesn't really lean Salafist. For instance, in his discussion of the Mehdi, he talks about having a broad view of who this could be and to not assume its a turbaned man but might be a modernist (not saying I agree). He also resorts to Israeliyaat tradition for instance, in interpreting Dawud's troubles...

My reading of the East and West Pakistan issue and Jamiaat's earliest literature was that Jamiaat sprung from the Subcontinent's Khilafatist movements and also had intermixing with MB ideologies. That being said, they viewed any subdivision of Muslim nations as an affront to the ummah concept. This resulted in them feeling that breaking countries down along provincial lines and or ethnic lines was a backward progression from unity and therefore decided the breakdown of Pakistan was a bad thing. That being said, they certainly were doing a major injustice in ignoring the fact that the Bengali candidate won the election fair and square and they should have stood behind the will of the majority.

In any case, I am sure Toramana "loves" them . Usually an admittedly logically inconsistent way to start is to find out who Toramana doesn't like and then read in detail on them... often you will find some potentially appreciable trait in said persons.

I have read Tafhimul Quran, Tafhimat, Rasayal wa masayal, Khilafat wa Malookyat etc by Mawddodi and was reading Trajumanul Qquran for a long time. I remained attached for some time with JI and their students organizations.

I was kind of admirer of Mawdoodi and was considering him to be a modernest Muslim but seeing myself the reality and after reading his book Purdah I was disillusioned totally and now I think JI is like an atomic bomb for Muslims who is responsible for killing thousands of Pashtuns and Muslims in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

They are responsible for the atrocities and Islamism of Zialul Haq. Their mixing of religion with politics is the worst evil. I wish Pakistan and Afghanistan also ban this party.

[Badlun]

So what did they turn to? If you read Guevara, and you see his interactions with the Americans and then his rejection of the Soviets - you do not see a Marxist style theoretician or a Leninist to the core. Rather, you see someone who utilize socialist ideologies as a catalyst and as a powerful uniting vector against Western and European Imperialism against indigenous Latin American peoples. In one way, the Roman Catholic Church could not be used to justify Che's struggle because the conquistadores justified their excesses via religion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/wo...pope.html?_r=0

So socialism/Marxism was the language of political resistance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Dalia Mogahed's work shows that the Muslim masses turn to Islam or at least the language of religion, in the same way that the Latinos turned to their own political philosophies; there are precepts within the faith that hearken to social justice and provide a somewhat common ideology across kinship groups.



Let me reproduce that key statement:
"They will have instead adhered even more closely to the faith that has graced, ordered, and regulated their lives for more than 1400 years,..."

So Admin, what this means is that even the CIA recognizes that in many variant forms, Islamic mores and dictums have impacted regions of the Muslim world for centuries now. Its only natural that the language of political resistance would coalesce around it.

I think taking all the above into account is the closest and most honest way to answer your question -
In the Western parlance an Islamist is a blanket term to characterize anyone and everyone who in any way uses Islam as a tactic and tool to resist Western forms of governance and interference. Since the Arab Spring this has come to include even non violent movements like the Tunisian ruling party, the MB in Egypt, and Erdogan. But generally, the majority of Westerners view these folks as violent nihilists - through the informed and erudite scholars like Esposito and Scheuer know this to not be the case.

In the Eastern parlance, back home - it appears that Islamists are not seen as warrior scholars per se, but rather as folks that meld religion into politics. Local secular Marxists find Islamism to be a competitive philosophy as they, like their Latino comrades, used to claim the mantle of being anti British imperialism. Some of these local folks then view Islamists as either unknowing pawns in an imperial game, or folks who are using the language of religion to justify political ideologies.

I have been to the birth place of Che in Argentina and his tomb in Santa Clara Cuba. I have met his admirers and have discussed his thought and struggle with them. In Cuba the most irreligious and atheistic place in the world ,he is still a hero and his pictures can be seen everywhere.

Your example of quoting him is totally out of place. You your self say that he did not use religion or even communism for his movement so how can you use his name in this context? In Latin America religion had some role but now the role totally disappeared.

What grace Muslims got of their religion in the past 1400 years? Nothing. Except the physyical conquests by tyrants like Muawaya, Yazeed, Marwan and Abbasids what Muslims have to their credit? Few basic inventions? Those too by atheist kind of Muslims. Today is there any Muslim Nobel prize holder except few who are not Muslims according to Salafism.

Individual Muslims might have got some grace but that is never because of religion. One tiny Israel is nightmare for so many Arab states. What Muslims today have only terrorism, obscurantism, Islamism, backwardness, monarchies, dictators, tyranny, sectarianism, illiteracy and drugs.

Islamism is mixing religion with culture, society, economy and politics. Islam is only faith, worship and ethics.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Barakzai I suggest you read about the Razakars; they're a civilian paramilitary force made up of mainly Bengali traitors; they were students/members of Jamaat i Islami in Bangladesh.

This is why recently many Jamaat leaders were put to trial for warcrimes.

http://bdnews24.com/politics/2013/02/12/bill-to-ban-jamaat-on-way

Unlike Friend's absurd claim this is what the Bangladeshi News seems to be saying. It has less to do with secularism and more to do with Jamaat treachery.

‘Bill to ban Jamaat on way’
‘Bill to ban Jamaat on way’
Staff Correspondent, bdnews24.com
Published:2013-02-12 13:18:16.0 BdST Updated:2013-02-12 14:52:22.0 BdST

Jute and Textiles Minister Abdul Latif Siddiqui said on Tuesday that a bill seeking a ban on the Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing would be placed in the current parliament in line with the demand of the ongoing nationwide mass movement.



Siddiqui, also a Presidium Member of the ruling Awami League, said the bill was being drafted.

Deputy Leader of Parliament Syeda Sajeda Chowdhury backed his comment and said the demand for banning the party, which officially opposed the creation of Bangladesh as an independent country in 1971, was indeed of many political parties.

“But now it has become a national demand,” she said.

“We are discussing the issue, a process is on. It will take some time,” she said.

The leaders made the statement when they joined Tuesday’s three-minute silence at the Central Shaheed Minar demanding execution of Jamaat leader Abdul Quader Molla and other war criminals.

Millions of people across the country joined their hands and expressed their solidarity with the Shahbagh movement by holding a three-minute silence at 4pm on Tuesday to press for execution of all war criminals.

On Monday, the protesters from the centre stage at Shahbagh, named as Ganajagaran Manch, called upon the countrymen to stand three minutes in silence.

Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim, also a Presidium Member of the Awami League, said a national consensus was needed to ban the party.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Islamism is mixing religion with culture, society, economy and politics. Islam is only faith, worship and ethics.

Correction; this is your OPINION, not fact, of what YOU BELIEVE Islam should be. It is not what Islam actually IS, by its DOCTRINE. Your definition of Islamism is what Islam actually IS by doctrine.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

1. This trial has been a circus from the beginning. PM Hasina needed to keep the so called Leftists happy, and retain India's support for her and her family. The Judges appointed in the court and the prosecutors are all a bunch of jokers. Only shows how non-serious Hasina has been- except to exact blood money to ensure no hanging takes place. There haven't been enough evidence; the proceedings have been marred by controversy. Remember Skype affair. And no court allows a law or ordinance to be effective if it has been brought in after the indictments. These guys will all walk free once the elections are announced.

2.JeI will bounce back through legal process. USA and EU do not want JeI banned. It is a bourgeois party pursuing parliamentary democratic process. The pressure is from India which wants BD to be isolated from the Ummah.

3. Let's not jump the gun. JeI has not been banned -till the full judgement is available. If the High Court has pointed out discrepancies, etc JeI can always make mends. It is not so simple to ban a registered political party.

I don't think it is leftists that's an issue; Jamat participated in treacherous crimes and actually let Pakistani soldiers rape Bangladeshi women and were proud of it. You have to have some shame patronizing a party like that.

Are you a Razakar by the way?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I have been to the birth place of Che in Argentina and his tomb in Santa Clara Cuba. I have met his admirers and have discussed his thought and struggle with them. In Cuba the most irreligious and atheistic place in the world ,he is still a hero and his pictures can be seen everywhere.

Your example of quoting him is totally out of place. You your self say that he did not use religion or even communism for his movement so how can you use his name in this context?

You misunderstood. Che once said that he would "light 1000 Vietnam's for the Americans." This has nothing to do with claiming him for religion or any ism of any sort. The point was that these sorts of movements look to some sort of galvanizing doctrine or moral imperative. In Latin America's case, Socialist Marxism superceded a religion that was bought and put on by conquistadors.

You are also living a contradiction. By your standards Che should have cozied up to the US and done with the past dictators of Panama did instead of relying on theoretical ideologies and extracting Cuba's economy from the US completely.




In Latin America religion had some role but now the role totally disappeared.

You have not read his diaries then. He saw Marxism as a way to rise against what he called Yankee imperialism. He became disillusioned when he realized Cuba was being solely used by Russia as a strategic geographical foothold. He then became someone the Russians were not fond off either. His most prominent biographer vividly describes this. He was clearly a social marxist.

You also misunderstood the context, in fact I thought you would be happy with the assessment. What I am generally saying is that people, informed ir misinformed, utilize whatever gives them a moral imperative. If Aborigines or Native Americans have had to fight an outsider, they too will resort to a galvanizing and unifying ideology - it is human nature.

My point was actually slightly in agreement with yours... many people, rich and poor, smart and not smart, thief and upright - they use the language of Islam to justify their moral imperative.



What grace Muslims got of their religion in the past 1400 years?

A lot, they gave birth and dignity to people like Omar Mukhtar who, by Sufi standards and otherwise, led a dignified resistance steeped in religion against Italian aggression for instance. It also thankfully ensured that those that wanted to deislamacize or secularize the Pashtuns like Najib were utterly destroyed.

Nothing. Except the physyical conquests by tyrants like Muawaya, Yazeed, Marwan and Abbasids what Muslims have to their credit?

Muwiyah was still better than that murderer Dr. Najib and Babrak, and Hafizullah. So even when it comes to dictators, Marwan was and is more dignified to this day than Karzai.

Few basic inventions? Those too by atheist kind of Muslims.

No references.

Today is there any Muslim Nobel prize holder except few who are not Muslims according to Salafism.

Individual Muslims might have got some grace but that is never because of religion.

Historically incorrect statement.

One tiny Israel is nightmare for so many Arab states.

Very surface assessment. Israel is supported by the mightiest super power to ever inherit the globe.

What Muslims today have only terrorism, obscurantism, Islamism, backwardness, monarchies, dictators, tyranny, sectarianism, illiteracy and drugs.

And, you prove once again with this statement that the religion is the last dignity they have.

Islamism is mixing religion with culture, society, economy and politics. Islam is only faith, worship and ethics.

Your last sentence has no evidence basis. The Quranic edicts governing various practical aspects of life, eg. slaughter laws etc are not simply ethical in nature. Nor for instance are the inheritance commandments

x

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Badlun like any typical kafir and zindeeq calls mauwiyah a tyrant.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Good effort at explaining Akhwani terrorism Maulavi Barakzai except that you didn't mention that the Pakistani brand Akhwani terrorist jehadist JI has been a tissue paper of the Paki military and is just a fringe divisive group within the Muslim polity as lunatic ism of Akhwans of Egypt has indicated that has left Egypt divided.

Care to explain more about this alleged "Lunaticism" (correct term is lunacy) of the Ikhwan (not Akhwan) in Egypt? They were democratically elected; which means majority put them in power. Then the Military; not unlike the Pakistani Military that has run Pakistan for many years, ousted them. While Staging protests to legitimize their coup d'tat using violent and aggressive means.

Please explain why the Ikhwan, who peacefully were placed into power and governed peacefully and their "lunaticism" in contrast to a Military coup done violently.

[asad71]

I don't think it is leftists that's an issue; Jamat participated in treacherous crimes and actually let Pakistani soldiers rape Bangladeshi women and were proud of it. You have to have some shame patronizing a party like that.

Are you a Razakar by the way?

1. One ought to read and understand the message in a post before jumping with comments. Hasina, an old ally of JeI, has actually ensured that the criminals among those indicted, remain free from future actions against them. Additionally they will emerge as heroes.

2. The true war criminals were all (W) Pakistanis. People like Yahya, Bhutto, Umar, Niazi, Tikka and others. A total of 195 were identified for trial. But India let them off through the machinations of the Simla Pact. These local guys were collaborators, the bulk of whom we had eliminated just after the War. Some were later pardoned by Sheikh Mujib. But many like Ghulam Azam were abroad.

3. What we are witnessing is drama enacted by Hasina to please India which ensures that her Govt doesn't fall and also looks after her personal protection.

4. Razakar is an abuse in our culture. If you use that word again I shall also reply with certain Pashtu abuses that you will not savour. Never mind someone bans me. Like 99% of our people I also participated in the war, and being of military background I actually fought.

5. Here we call people like Hasina, and perhaps you, neo-Razakars.