The New Nation - Internet Edition

Shah Abdul Halim

A German scientist when asked whether he believes in God replied: I am seeing God. At that time the scientist was keenly observing how tiny ants are carrying food in the hole. In truth some people can see their Lord with the eyes of the hearts. Al Quran states: … Truly it is not the eyes that are blind, but the hearts … [22:46].

In my estimation Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan, our national professor, was one of those fortunate persons who could see God in the eyes of the hearts. Somebody might question why I am eulogizing our national littérateur with such an ornamental statement. Why he is so great in my estimation. I shall recount here several incidents from my personal encounter with Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan with whom I closely mingled during the last days of his life, during the formation of the Center for National Culture (C. N. C.) of which he was the founder chairman.

I still vividly remember that I met Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan for the first time at the festschrift ceremony on 26 March 1985 at Hotel Purbani International, Dhaka wherein he narrated the story of his birth. His illustrious mother dreamt that she is approaching Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) and then she handed over her son Syed Ali Ahsan to Prophet Ibrahim so that the great Prophet takes care of his upbringing. The dream only throws light on the later life of Syed Ali Ahsan, how great he will be in later life and the literary contribution he will make for onward march and progress of Islamic literature, culture and civilization in Bangladesh. Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan was born in 1920 in an eminent family of spiritual masters in Jessore, Bangladesh.

One day at his residence he expressed his desire that some of his books need to be translated in English. I pointed out to him that it would be almost impossible to translate his vast literature in English. I told him: If one book is to be translated in English, what is that book. He immediately without any hesitation replied that if only one of his books is to be translated in English it should be the 'Mahanabi' (The Great Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him) published by Ahmed Publishing House, Dhaka in August 1994. The instant reaction of Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan only shows his deep love for the noble Prophet.

He used to say, quoting eminent Iranian journalist Zeinolabedin Rahnema, who himself wrote a monumental book on the life of the Prophet Muhammad titled 'Payambar: The Messanger' published in three volumes in 1964 by Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore that has been translated into Bangla by Abu Jafar and published by Al-Ameen Prokashon, Dhaka under the title' Biswa Nabi Muhammad', that no writer's life is complete without writing a piece on the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Earlier part of this book has been published in Bangla first by Srijan Prokashoni Ltd., Dhaka and then by Wadud Publication, Dhaka.

Although I could not translate Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan's book on the noble Prophet, it was translated by distinguished scholar Muhammad Alamgir, now residing in Australia. The first edition of the English version was simultaneously published from Malaysia and Bangladesh under the new title 'Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets'. The Malaysian edition has been published in 2002 by A. S. Noordeen, Kuala Lumpur. Special Dhaka publication of the English version of the book was made available in September 2002 after Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan passed away and all copies of this edition were distributed as complimentary. Brother Muhammad Alamgir by adding footnotes and annotations has indeed made the English version more authentic and valuable. Muhammad Alamgir consulted, while adding footnotes and annotations, such books as 'Muhammad' by Martin Lings that he considers as the best biography on Prophet Muhammad in English, 'Siratun Nabi' by Shibli Numani and Sulayman Nadvi, 'Sirat Rasul Allah' by Ibn Ishaq and 'Sayyedul Mursalin' by Moulana Abdul Khaleque. I understand a second edition of the English version is now available in Bangladesh market.

One of the distinguished styles of his work was that Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan could absorb religious values in his literary writings in such a way that the reader will feel, while reading his book, as if he is reading a literary piece and not a book on theology. He would speak and give dictation for writing so eloquently as if words coming out form his mouth like tasbih- dana (pearls of chains), one linked with the other. Although Muhammad Alamgir while translating the book in English made painstaking efforts to make the book authentic, we can however say that he landed in a difficult arena and made an impossible attempt to keep in tact the literary style of Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan.

'Hey Provu Ami Upochthith' (O Lord I am Here), a journey to Holy Kaaba is another impeccable work of Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan. The third edition of the book has been published by Wadud Publication, Dhaka in 1998. The first edition of this book was published by Srijan Prokashoni Ltd., Dhaka in February 1988.

The other incident I want to mention here is something very important in the life of any Muslim nation. Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan and his friends - poet Benazir Ahmed, poet Farrukh Ahmed and poet Talim Hossain made a solemn vow, a bayah immediately after 14 August 1947 that they will work together for the resurgence of Islam in the new country. The result was that poet Benazir Ahmed wrote Islam O Communism.

Poet Farrukh Ahmed composed Shat Sagarer Majeyi, poet Talim Hossain composed Shaheen and Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan composed Chahar Darvesh. All these contributions made mark in our literary history. These are undeniably landmark contributions. Indeed these littérateurs kept their promise and made great contribution to Bangla literature depicting Islamic values, culture and civilization. Brother Masud Majumder, editor of now defunct Weekly Bikram, narrated this story to me as told by Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan.

One of his distinguished contributions was the Bangladesh National Cultural Commission Report 1989. Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan was the chairman of this commission. The commission was formed in 1988 and it submitted its report when H. M. Ershad was president of the country. But due to parochial mentality and outlook, the next government in 1991 did not care to see what is in the report just because the commission was formed when H. M. Ershad was the president. So is the case when Sheikh Hasina formed the government in 1996 as prime minister.

But when Begum Khaleda Zia formed government for the second term in 2001, the then education minister Dr. M. Osman Farruk took some interest in the report. Government then reviewed the report to find out the remaining recommendations of the report yet to be implemented. The 13-member Review Committee headed by Prof. Dr. Mansur Musa submitted its report on 25. 3. 2004. The committee came out with significant 14 recommendations. The Bangladesh National Cultural Commission Report 1989 has subsequently been published by Oitijjhya, Dhaka. The report is in Bangla. Interested readers may benefit by reading the report.

The government formed after one-eleven is again trying to formulate a new cultural policy. When this writer was consulted by the concerned people in the government responsible for formulating the new policy I brought to their notice about the Bangladesh National Cultural Commission Report 1989. I advised them to consult the report of the commission headed by Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan.

The people who are working behind the scene to formulate the new cultural policy wanted to know from me whether the report is controversial. My response was that some people like the report and others may not, but while formulating the new cultural policy they can consult all past reports including the one headed by Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan. Our narrow mentality stops us from taking a broad outlook and considering that what Bangladesh achieved has been accomplished by our successive national governments. Such mentality no doubt creates obstacles in our progress as a nation.

This piece shall not be complete and I shall not be doing justice on the subject I am dwelling in unless a word is said about the formation of C. N. C. in 1996 (registered in July 1998) and how myself (Shah Abdul Halim), A. W. M. Sanaullah Akhunji, M. Mahbubul Huq, Hasan Abdul Quiyum Selim, Kazi Mortaza Ali, Mohammad Abdul Hannan, Dr. Shah Muhammad Bulbul Islam and Ariful Haque - the core group came close to Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan. We friends were thinking for launching afresh a cultural movement in Bangladesh in continuation of our effort in 1969 when some of us established 'Muktabuddhi Shahittaya Sangha'.

We thought the new organization like the Muktabuddhi will work as nucleus for socio-cultural transformation. M. Mahbubul Huq as Managing Director of Srijan Prokashoni Ltd., Dhaka was known to Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan from before. In fact Srijan Prokashoni Ltd. earlier published several books of Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan. We therefore approached Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan to chair the new organization - Center for National Culture (C. N. C.) and he readily accepted the offer. Brother A. W. M. Sanaullah Akhunji, the first Executive Director of C. N. C. played important role in maintaining liaison with Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan and further improving the core group's relations with him. The core group became so close with Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan that he not only became the founder chairman of C. N. C. but it became his dream. He approached a good number of philanthropists-industrialists to raise funds for the C. N. C. Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan with a delegation of C. N. C. even met the then prime minister Begum Khaleda Zia and tried to convince her to extend helping hand to this cultural organization. No doubt today's C. N. C. is the dream and vision of Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan and the core group. During the sojourn others namely Dr. R. A. Ghani, M. Asafuddowlah, Dr. M. Shamsher Ali, Dr. Mohammad Moniruzzaman, Dr. Razia Khan, poet Abdul Mannan Talib, M. A. Malaque, Siddiq Jamal, Prof. Md. Fazle Azim, Moulana Abul Kalam Azad, principal Muhammad Habibur Rahman, Nurul Azam Chowdhury, Advocate A. K. M. Badurdduza, Muhammad Ashraful Islam, Sofia Husne Jahan, Dr. Mira Momtaz Sabeka, Muhammad Mokhlesur Rahman to name a few have joined C. N. C. as Trustees and some others have left but the march of C. N. C. under the new chairman Dr. R. A. Ghani and new Executive Director M. Mahbubul Huq continues. In the meantime eminent writer and social worker Prof. Abdul Gafur, Prof. Muhammad Motiur Rahman, Prof. Muhammad Sirajuddin, Abu Jafar Md. Iqbal, Dr. Shamuddowla, Mohammad Abdul Mannan, Ata Sarker, Muhammad Jahangir Chowdhury, Prof. Mir Kamal Chowdhury, Prof. Abul Basher Khan, Dr. Nazmul Huq Robi, poet Hasan Alim, poet Jakir Abu Zafar to name a few have joined C. N. C. as life-members.

[The writer is the Chairman of Islamic Information Bureau Bangladesh and a founder of C. N. C. The article is the summary of the lecture in memoriam of Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan organized by the Center for National Culture (C. N. C.) on 26. 07.2007].

Gabriele Marranci

Since the revolt of the monks against the military junta in Burma, all the western mass media have focused on the long history of oppression of this South Asian country, which, I suppose, few of us really know about. While in Italy, I saw people wearing purple T-shirts in the streets, at the universities, and organised protests at the Burmese embassies in support of the 'Buddhist monks'. This struggle for freedom has seen recently its first victims, and there is a general fear that the new protest can be as unsuccessful as the attempted revolution in 1988. Yet the attention is very much focused upon the courage of the 'peaceful' monks.

From an anthropological viewpoint, the revolt in Burma is particularly interesting for an anthropologist specialised in Muslim societies and communities. There are two elements that attract my attention. First of all, how this revolt is represented by the western mass media and secondly, the near total lack of reference to the drama that the Muslim minority, the so called Rohingya Muslims, have experienced in the last three decades. There are some hard stereotypes which affect how the mass media represent religions, and consequently, how ordinary people understand religions.

To make a long story short (and of course this means to over-generalise), religions are still understood through a Manichean vision: peaceful versus violent, good versus evil, true versus false. Of course, in the majority of cases, political correctness has transformed the vehement apologetic diatribe of Middle Age origin. Today, the Manichean discourse is passed to the mass media audience through latent or manifest stereotypes, which essentialize religion into a 'real thing'; a powerful cultural artifact from which actions derives. So, Buddhism is the most peaceful religion; Islam the aggressive and violent; Christianity the confused one.

The mass media needs to simplify, to present news in a sequence of exponential pathos, to attract your ocular bulbs and conquer your mind long enough to feed you all the appropriate advertisements (the real end of all the process). Yet religion is a complex phenomenon, and I can tell you that it is as variegate as the human beings which live on this beautiful, yet terminally ill, planet.

"Burma is a Buddhist state facing a Buddhist power struggle." This would be the headlines of newspapers if instead of a Buddhist state with Buddhist monks, Burma was Iran, where the confrontation between Shi'i Muslims and Sunni Muslims seems to be able to explain everything, including the failure of the Iraqi American dream. Of course, the Burmese drama is more complex than just a struggle within a religion or the struggle between saints and kings.

However, the mass media, which discusses and reports the oppression of the Buddhist population by the generals, neglects to inform you about another story, another tragedy. The omission, when compared, is not very dissimilar from the western attitude towards other Muslim minority and refugee tragedies. Just to mention one, allow me to remind you of the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and its genocide that nobody (not even Muslims) commemorate. Muslims often play only one part in the drama of headline news, the evil character, like the Indians in the Hollywood Western films , before Sergio Leone corrected the historical mistake.

Here is a reality of Burma that probably you have never heard about (if by any chance you had heard about Burma before!). Muslims in Burma are a persecuted minority. It is a long story and history that I will try to summarize for you, and let you read more from the little available on the topic.

Burma has about 4% of Muslim population (Muslim leaders say 10%). The life of Burmese Muslims has never been easy, and as other Muslims (i.e. Palestinians) they received amazing promises from us, the British, only to find themselves abandoned to a destiny of suffering after the end of the British colonialism. So, here is the story of the Rohingya Muslims, and their grim destiny. The Rohingya Muslims live mainly in the North of the Rakhine State and represent, officially, 4% of the entire Burmese population, but represent 50% of the population of Rakhine state (previously known as Arkana) itself. Islam reached the region during the 9th century through contact with Arab merchants. Arkana was an independent state until 1784 and developed it's own culture and also dialect. In 1784, a Burmese king, Bodawpaya, annexed Arkana to his domain. This provoked a long guerrilla war with the Muslims, which saw, according to historians, more than 200,000 Arkanese killed. Many of the local Muslim population, at that time, were reduced to slavery and forced to build Buddhist monasteries.

The struggle continued, but so unsuccessfully that in 1796 more than two-thirds of the Muslim population of Arkana had to leave the country and find refuge in what today is Bangladesh. Arkana was annexed to the rest of the British Empire by 1885, and many Rohingya Muslims decided to go back to their homeland. The journey between their homeland and Bangladesh would become a cruel ritual for this population. Until the Second World War, Muslims and Buddhists were able to live more or less peacefully side by side. Yet the Japanese were reaching the region in 1942, and so again the Muslims, and this time also the British, were forced to leave Arkana .The Buddhists found an opportunity to clear the Muslim population from Arkana, and thus another 20,000 Muslims had to reach the British Indian territories (again today Bangladesh). Indeed, while the Rakhine Buddhists supported the Japanese, the Muslims, as in other countries, supported the British forces. The British, to thank the Muslims for their support and loyalty, promised the Rohingyas an autonomous region in the north of the country. Many refugees decided to come back to their homes, full of hope for the possibility of having their own state. As usual in British foreign relationships and history, the promise was never honoured. Also the fact that the Muslim population had supported the British and tried to achieve autonomy in the northern region, made them appear suspicious to the Burmese regime and the main Buddhist population. These feelings toward the Muslim minority not only still exist today but also have been reinforced, after the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bayan.

Muslims in Burma are not considered to be citizens. They have no rights and often suffer discrimination and indiscriminate killings. Many of them, in particular after 1962, had to flee the country and still today live in refugee camps in Bangladesh, which actually do not welcome them. Although Muslims have taken active part in the 1988 revolt, and paid the consequences more than the Buddhist population, the majority of monks and Buddhists in Burma have anti-Muslim sentiments, in particular based on the fear of possible intermarriages.

Pamphlets glorifying race purity and Buddhism and actually reinforcing anti-Muslim sentiments have been distributed since 2001 (i.e. Myo Pyauk Hmar Soe Kyauk Hla Tai or The Fear of Losing One's Race). These inflammatory publications, preaching against the Muslim minority, as well as rumors spread about Muslims raping children in the streets, provoked a series of monk-led riots against Muslim families and the destruction of mosques. Muslims were killed and mosques destroyed, and again the Rohingya Muslims had to flee to Bangladesh.

Today we are witnessing a new Burmese revolt, organised mainly by the few politicised monks. Everybody hopes that the Buddhist monks can succeed in mobilising the population in a sort of Intifada. Some Muslims, I know, are repeating their Inshallahs in the not so distant Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh. They hope that the end of the military junta means the end of their oppression.

Nonetheless, a question remains, after such strong monk-led anti-Muslim campaigns which were also reinforced by the welcomed 'Bushit' rhetoric of 'war on terror': would the new, certainly Buddhist, regime accept the history and the existence, as Burmese citizens, of Rohingya Muslims? Or, would the new regime, like their predecessor generals the Muslims as an easy scapegoat?

John L. Esposito

(To be continued)

What creates unfavorable attitudes towards the United States? Belief that the United States is serious about democracy in Muslim countries has long been undermined by what is perceived as the United States' "double standard" in promoting democracy. Key factors of this perception include a long track record of supporting authoritarian regimes in the Arab and Muslim world while not promoting democracy there as it did elsewhere after the fall of the Soviet Union. Then, when weapons of mass destruction were not to be found in Iraq, the Bush administration boldly declared that the US-led invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein were intended to bring democracy to Iraq as part of a broader policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East. In a major policy address, Ambassador Richard Haass, a senior State Department official in the George W. Bush administration, acknowledged that both Democratic and Republican administrations had practiced what he termed "Democratic Exceptionalism" in the Muslim world: subordinating democracy to other national interests such as accessing oil, containing the Soviet Union, and grappling with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

While the spread of democracy has been the stated goal of the United States, majorities in every nation surveyed by Gallup do not believe that the United States was serious about the establishment of democratic systems in the region. For example, only 24 percent in Egypt and Jordan and only 16 percent in Turkey agreed that the United States was serious about establishing democratic systems. The largest groups in agreement are in Lebanon and Indonesia at 38 percent; but even there, 58 percent of Lebanese and 52 percent of Indonesians disagreed with the statement.

How can this be? Responses to another question shed some light. When respondents were asked if they believe the United States will allow people in the region to fashion their own political future as they see fit without direct US influence, only 22 percent of Jordanians agreed, and as low as 16 percent of Pakistanis. Yet, while saying that the United States is not serious about self-determination and democracy in the Muslim world, many respondents say the thing they admire most about the West is political liberty and freedom of speech. Large percentages also associate a fair judicial system and "citizens enjoying many liberties" with Western societies while critiquing their own societies. Lack of political freedom was what they admired least about the Islamic/Arab world.

Muslim perceptions of the US role and response to the Israeli wars in Gaza and Lebanon must also be seen within the broad context of the Arab and Muslim world. From North Africa to Southeast Asia, the Gallup World Poll indicates an overwhelming majority of people (91-95 percent) do not believe that the United States is trustworthy, friendly, or treats other countries respectfully, nor that it cares about human rights in other countries (80 percent). Outside of Iraq, over 90 percent of Muslims agreed that the invasion of Iraq has done more harm than good. The Bush administration recognized that the war on global terrorism has come to be equated in the minds of many Muslims (and others) with a war against Islam and the Muslim world and reemphasized the importance of public diplomacy. The administration appointed a senior Bush confidante, Karen Hughes, as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, and spoke of a war of ideas. However, public diplomacy is more than public relations. It is about acting consistently with the words one speaks - and so a return to foreign policy.

The administration's responses in Gaza and in Lebanon undercut both the president's credibility and the war on terrorism. The United States turned a blind eye to Israel's launching of two wars in which civilians were the primary casualties. The United States failed to support UN mediation in the face of clear violations of international law, refused to heed calls for a ceasefire and UN intervention, and continued to provide military assistance to Israel. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's criticism of the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon as an "excessive use of force" was countered the next day by the New York Times headline United States speeds up bomb delivery for the Israelis.

America's unconditional support of Israel cast it in the eyes of many as a partner, not simply in military action against HAMAS or Hizbollah militants, but in a war against the democratically elected Palestinian government in Gaza and the government of Lebanon, a long-time US ally. The primary victims in Gaza and Lebanon were hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, not terrorists. In Lebanon, more than 500 were killed, 2,000 wounded, and 800,000 displaced. Israeli's military destroyed the civilian infrastructures of both Gaza and Lebanon. International organizations like the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have criticized Israel for violating international law. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch has specifically cited the use of collective punishment and war crimes. The regional blowback from the approach that the United States has taken will be enormous and enduring.

The Bush administration's promotion of democracy and the Middle East Peace Process are in critical condition. The United States remains mired in Iraq and Afghanistan with no clear "success" stories in sight. The situation has been compounded by the US failure to respect the democratic choice of Palestinians, whatever its reservations, and then its passive and active compliance with Israel's wars in Gaza and Lebanon. HAMAS and Hizbollah have become symbols of resistance, enjoying a level of support that would have been unimagined in the past throughout much of the Muslim world. At the same time, many US allies in the Arab/Muslim world increasingly use the threat of extreme Islamists and the war against terrorism as excuses for increased authoritarianism and repression, trading their support for United States backing down on its democratic agenda. The unintended consequences of uncritical US support for Israel's extended war have played right into the hands of the Bin Ladens of the world.

A critical challenge for US policymakers will continue to be the need to distinguish between mainstream and extremists groups and to work with democratically-elected Islamists. US administrations have often said that they distinguish between mainstream and extremist groups. However, more often that not, they have looked the other way when autocratic rulers in Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere have intimidated and suppressed mainstream Islamist groups or attempted to reverse their successes in elections in the past several decades.

In the early 1990s, the Algerian military intervened to deny the Islamic Salvation Front its victory in parliamentary elections. Both the Algerian and Tunisian governments arrested and tried the Islamic party militarily, and were denounced by the international community. More recently, Egyptian elections were marred by attempts to silence opposition candidates, including the Muslim Brotherhood. In the post-election period, the Mubarak government, a long-time US ally, imprisoned the only opposition presidential candidate and cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian press. Despite its commitment to democratization, the Bush administration has been virtually silent.

A more recent and complex challenge is dealing with resistance movements like HAMAS and Hizbollah. Both are elected political parties with a popular base. At the same time they are resistance movements whose militias have fought Israeli occupation and whom Israel, the United States, and Europe have labeled as terrorist organizations. There are established precedents for dealing with such groups, such as the ANC in South Africa and Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA in Ireland, groups with which we've had to come to terms. The United States and others need to deal with the democratically elected officials, while also strongly condemning any acts of terrorism by their militias. Diplomacy, economic incentives, and sanctions should be emphasized, with military action taken as a last resort. However, overuse of economic sanctions by the Clinton and Bush administrations has reduced US negotiating leverage with countries like Iran and Sudan.

Equally difficult, the United States, while affirming its enduring support for Israel's existence and security, must clearly demonstrate that this support has clear limits. The United States should condemn Israel's disproportionate use of force, collective punishment, and other violations of international law. Finally, most fundamental and important is the recognition that widespread anti-Americanism among mainstream Muslims and Islamists results from what the United States does-its policies and actions-not its way of life, culture, or religion.

The Gallup Organization, in association with Gallup Senior Scientist John L. Esposito, is producing the "largest, most in-depth study of Muslim opinion ever done." Its careful and rigorous methodology has taken care to ensure that the data is nationally representative, with questions and interview lengths standardized across nations and over time. The preliminary findings of the Gallup study reflect the voices and opinions of 800 million Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia. Samples include at least 1,000 adults surveyed in each of the poll's 10 targeted preliminary countries. By the end of 2006, the study will reflect the views of more than one billion Muslims in nearly 40 countries, about 90 percent of the world's Muslim population.

(Source: Harvard International Review. John L. Esposito is University Professor of Religion & International Affairs and Director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University.)