The New Nation - Internet Edition

Upholding the spirit of Ramzan

THE holy month of Ramzan 1429(H) has begun today with promises of blessings, forgiveness and salvation from Allah. This month of revelation to earth of the holy Quran, and of attaining spiritual excellence and self-purification in personal and social life through fasting, self-restraint and other religious rituals. Fasting is the third pillar of Islam and compulsory for all physically able and mentally sound adult Muslims. Devotees refrain from food, drink, smoke and all sorts of physical gratification during day hours. It was on Lailat-ul-Qadr in this month that the holy Quran was revealed to guide man along the right path.

Fasting is not just to keep away from eating and drinking. It is also meant for gaining freedom from the bondage of beastliness. It is the measure of ascendancy to one's spiritual nature, which is a means to coming closer to Almighty Allah. Muslims devote to worship and recitation of verses from the holy Quran. But spiritual attainment is likely to remain unachievable without honesty and sincerity in worldly dealings. Fasting has got social implications. It is a guard against evils. Through fasting, rich and affluent sections of the Muslims pass the test of taking agonies of hunger for the forgiveness of God.

The teachings of the holy month of Ramzan bring some specific social responsibilities of all for the poorer section of the people. In many Muslim countries of the world, prices of essentials come down during Ramzan because of subsidy on the one hand and sincerity and honesty of the traders on the other. Unscrupulous sections of traders here tend to take advantage of high demand to make exorbitant profits against the spirit of Ramzan. May the holy month make all to exercise self-restraint and seek divine blessings by working for welfare of all.

Market of halal products

A FOUR-DAY fair of Malaysian halal products was held recently in a city hotel for boosting business of halal products and strengthening the trade connections with Bangladesh. Malaysian Ministry of Entrepreneur Cooperative Development and EPIC TIPS, a company of Kuala Lumpur in collaboration with the Malaysian High Commission in Dhaka organised the fair. Some 30 small and medium enterprises and over 80 business communities from Malaysia participated in the fair with the main objective of expanding the platform of halal products for the business communities of the two brotherly Muslim countries. Proactive steps are to be taken in seizing this opportunity by widely introducing halal products with a view to meeting the growing global demand.

It is to be mentioned here that Malaysia as a Muslim country has already become the world's 'halal-hub' and its various food products have become popular brand in many countries including Bangladesh because of quality and standard and, of course, with the confidence of its products being made as halal products. Malaysia will act as a catalyst, as Bangladeshi entrepreneurs can also do healthy networking with their Malaysian counterparts to further develop their own local halal market. Malaysia is well aware of the global halal market potential and Bangladesh's highly untapped market where a big majority of consumers are Muslims.

The global trade in halal food - if products such as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and other services are added in - the combined market value is believed well in excess of one trillion US dollars though the estimated market value of the halal food trade is now at US$ 580 billion. 'The World Halal Forum', held in Kuala Lumpur in the recent past, drew the prospect of the halal food industry saying it was expanding along with the Islamic faith, the world's fastest-growing religion.

Political crisis in Thailand

Md. Masum Billah

Thailand has seen for the last one week a serious political turmoil. On August 28 up to 35000 demonstrators stormed a state-run television station besieged at least three ministers and finally invaded the grounds of Government House stepping up a campaign to bring down the present Prime Minister Samak's administration. The demonstrators remained in the Government House till the sixth day. The Criminal Court has approved arrest warrants for nine people as proposed by the police including five People's Alliance Democracy leaders. The leaders face four charges among them the most severe is treason. The premier who was working from army headquarters said that his approach would be soft and gentle and that police would simply surround the seat of government until everyone had left. "If we get arrested, please don't follow us to the detention centre. If you leave the government house that means we have been defeated." The protest leaders thus boost the morality of the protesters. As riot police moved in leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy vowed to stay inside the Government House compound until Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej bows to their demands to step down. "The protest has already developed into a people's revolution." I do believe that Samak is going to resign, Protest leader Sondhi Limthongkul commented.

Police have indicated that they will enter the compound to arrest the PAD member but interior Minister Kowit Wattana appeared to be holding out for a peacefully solution. " I ask the protestors of the PAD to please withdraw from the Government House compound immediately.

You can rally somewhere else. Despite government pleas, the threat of arrest and even the onset of a tropical rain storm, protest leaders refused to budge." If you want to arrest us here, it is the government who must go." Somsak Kosaisuk told protesters most of whom are wearing yellow shirts to show allegiance to revered King Bhumibal Adulyadej. Correspondents saw hundreds of police some with batons and shields in the enclosure.

The security forces appeared relaxed watching the ongoing rally on the manicured lawns of the Government House.

Samak has won praise from Thailand's often-hostile English language press with a poll published showing nearly 68 percent of Bangkok residents surveyed did not agree with the Government House siege.

They have broken the law and it could be a serious setback for them. The government has a lot of options.

They have still time on their side. Some political annalists pass their comments in this way. Regular and peaceful demonstration hardly allows and recognizes the siege inside the country's presidential house. The protest leaders should show their judicious and ingenious way of demonstration which must not cross the democratic norms.

Since taking office, Smak has faced a series of setback. Court decisions forced three top government officials to resign with the ongoing PAD protest have helped send the stock market down nearly 18 percent. The alliance wants to force the government of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to step down accusing it of corruption and of serving as a proxy for former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was ousted in a 2006 coup and faces several corruption cases. After Thaksin was deposed in the bloodless coup, his party was dissolved and he was banned from public office until 2012.

But Samak led Thaksin's political allies to a December 2007 election victory and their assumption of power triggered fears that Thakisn would make a political comeback. Thaksin still remains popular with the country's rural majority. It is said that he brought a revolutionary change in rural Thailand through various welfare steps for the farmers.

But the corruption particularly with Telephone Companies led him face the present exile.. The protesters say that Western-style democracy has allowed corruption to flourish in Thailand.. They want a new government with a parliament in which most of the lawmakers is appointed and only thirty percent elected.

Thaksin fled to self-imposed exile in Britain faces an array of corruption charges.

The Chart Thai Party, a key member of Samak's six-party ruling coalition said it was ready to suggest that Samak step down. Thai parliament convened an emergency meeting on August 31 at the request of Prime Minister who understood and acknowledged that the administration cannot control spiraling anti government protest.

Samak's People' Power Party said it plans to present a compromise in parliament to appease thousands of protesters who have remained in the President House till sixth day of their siege. Samaks' six-party coalition government controls more than two-thirds of the seats in 480-seat lower house.

The coalition partners also say that the situation is deteriorating and we are thinking of telling the prime mister to decide on the future of the government. But Samak Sundaravej still is adamant not to bow down to public will. He wants to see the last. He says that he can restore law and order to the country despite protests spreading till today after from Bangkok to the regions forcing three airports to close.

At a time he angrily said to the protestors, "Who do you want as your next leader? Do you think that somebody will reward you or honour you?"

Bhumibol is a constitutional monarch of Thailand with no formal political role but has repeatedly brought calm in times of turbulence during his 60 years on the throne. Probably this time also he is going to play a heroic role. The country's influential army commander, General Anupong Paochinda rejected a request by Samak on August 30 to declare a state of emergency. Anupong has vowed that the army will not intervene and has called for resolving the crisis by political means. This is indeed a good indication that army does not want to embroil themselves in the political turmoil of the country. They want people's government .That's good. It is time for Samak also to honour what people say.

The new Cold War and Mideast

Claude Salhani

THERE is little doubt that Russia's incursion into Georgia has set off a chain reaction the repercussions of which will be felt beyond the Caucasus, as far away as the Middle East and possibly farther.

Russia's forceful response to Georgia's grossly miscalculated military and political gaffe in trying to settle disputes and quell desires of independence in the two autonomous republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia will have for effect the redistribution of power relations in a complicated political game throughout the Caucasus and beyond.

Russia's response to Georgia's formidable gaffe was disproportional and the balance of power between the two countries incomparable (Russia's armed forces: 641,000; Georgia: 26,900). And this was not incidental to the issue at hand: With the invasion of Georgia, Russia has made a clear and declarative statement of her renewed power.

The outcome of this sordid affair is yet to be determined, and to be sure, historians will probably look back at this Russo-Georgian War as the turning point in post-Cold War East-West relations.

However, where and how all this will end is far from clear at this moment. What is clear, just over a week after Russian troops entered Georgia, is that an era of extended détente between former-Soviet Russia and the West - one which came about with the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the demise of communism in Eastern Europe - appears to be over and a new era is begun.

What will this new era bring? What alliances will be born (or re- born)? What others will fail? It is still too early to tell. What is clear, however, is that Russia has unleashed a political tsunami that will alter the political landscape. And historians may also likely note that a rare opportunity had presented itself during those few years of lessened tensions between the United States and Russia - an opportunity that was foolishly wasted.

Instead of trying to engage the Russians in pushing through resolutions to long-standing disputes that threatened world stability, such as the Middle East conflict, the West, particularly the United States under the leadership of President George W. Bush, chose instead to alienate Moscow.

And when historians look back and analyse the conflict, they will likely discover that some of the blame for a coming re-alignment of certain countries in the Levant with Russia can be attributed to the misguided policies adopted by the Bush administration in regard to both Russia and two countries in the Middle East. Namely, Syria and Iran.

Regarding Russia, the Bush administration failed to engage the Russians on an equal footing as partners for peace, opting instead to aggravate Moscow by moving ahead with controversial projects such as the missile and radar system the United States is installing in the Czech Republic and Poland - both former Warsaw Pact countries. And in addition, rankling Moscow by inviting two former Soviet states, Georgia and Ukraine, to join Nato - an action perceived by Moscow as outright defiance. The Russians regard the deployment of US missiles in Eastern Europe as targeting them, even though the US has insisted that the missiles are defensive, and meant to deter future threats emanating from other sources - read here Iran. Russian offers to participate in the missile defence project and to install them in a former Central Asian Soviet republic, such as Azerbaijan, were summarily dismissed by Washington as inadequate and with facilities that are too antiquated. Combine the aggravation Bush has provided Russia with one of his Middle East policies, ignoring - and in fact demonising - two central figures and key players in the region, Syria and Iran. These two lines of foreign policy, espoused and acted upon during the greater part of his eight years in the White House, can only precipitate Damascus and Teheran to turn towards Moscow for political, military and moral support.

The uni-polar policy enjoyed by the US during the last eight years while Bush was in the White House will likely be replaced once again by a bi-polar system of power, with the Russians picking up where the Soviets left off; albeit with far less deterrent force than the Soviets once commanded.

Of course, we will never know for certain, but Russia's support in helping resolve the Arab-Israeli dispute, had it been sought, might have introduced an era of stability in the turbulent Middle East. Instead, the Bush doctrine will be remembered as one that left the country locked in two wars in the Muslim world, as well as a world wide militarism called the US war on terror, all fomenting anti-US sentiments in much of the Arab and Muslim world.

If that isn't bad enough, Bush's policies leave behind the development of a new and resurgent type of cold war. As a result of this emerging new Cold war era, new and potentially disadvantageous alliances against US national interests may begin to develop in the Middle East - where Russia's newly found status as a power to be reckoned with will once again emerge.

Why freedom of speech is a two-way street

Shahed Amanullah

BACK in 1989, when the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses sparked a new phenomenon of protests from Muslims - particularly by those in the West - I was a student body senator at the University of California at Berkeley, where the Free Speech Movement was born in the 1960s.

Two bookstores were firebombed - apparently in retaliation for the book, though without any claims of responsibility.

Along with several other Muslim students, I appeared on local television to denounce the bombings and state our belief that while Muslims could understandably be offended, no one had the right to impose censorship or intimidate others with threats to their safety or property. That situation put us in the unique position of being targets of abuse by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who either painted us as whitewashing a desire to impose our beliefs on others (this from the public in general) or apologising for a legitimate Muslim rage, regardless of whether it had crossed the line into violence (this from fellow Muslims). It was a paradox that has repeated itself many times in the 20 years since, most recently with the Danish cartoons and the violent reactions that some Muslims around the world had to them.

Some of the more abrasive encounters between Muslims and others during this time have not centred around politics or foreign policy, but rather in this arena of free expression.

Muslims have naturally taken exception to the way their faith has been portrayed by some artists, writers, and academics.

Non-Muslims have, in turn, criticised some books by Muslims that are offensive, along with the institutions that sell them (as have we, incidentally). In both cases, people often talk at and over each other rather than to each other. Ideas are not exchanged, and the cycle continues unabated.

So why do Muslims appear to be so sensitive about what the media says about them?

Muslims have generally felt embattled during the past few decades as their media image becomes increasingly unrepresentative of the average Muslim.

As they struggle against this imagery, they are told that the pre-requisite for changing it is for them to meaningfully change the behaviour of extremist Muslims, who exist far outside their sphere of influence - often a half a world away.

Muslims in this position feel they have no other choice but to push back harder against portrayals that are insulting or misrepresenting. Some, unfortunately, push too far. But Muslims aren't alone in this. Voices that seek to marginalise the presence of Muslims in public discourse routinely do the same.

Two recent examples illustrate this: the attempts by New York congressman Peter King and others to have "Why Islam" ads banned from New York City subways (based only on the reputation of an external supporter of these ads); and calls by some to prevent publication of the forthcoming book, Jewel of Medina. Neither effort has succeeded in effectively dealing with controversy, which will remain dormant only to reappear another day.

Watching this exchange over time has taught me that the best response to free speech is simply more speech in return. Anyone should have the right to publish whatever he or she wants about Islam or Muslims - even if their views are offensive - without fear of censorship or retribution.

Muslims, however, shouldn't be expected to be passive consumers of these views. An offended Muslim has the right - indeed, the responsibility - to vigorously critique anything written about them or their religion, provided they do not cross the line into intimidation and coercion. In an ideal world, both parties would open their minds enough to understand the other point of view.

Getting people on both sides of this equation to follow these guidelines will take a lot of reconditioning. But the alternative, a hyper-sensitive Muslim community that is unable to constructively respond to external criticism (or internal criticism, for that matter), coupled with a journalistic/ artistic/secular community that feels genuine fear and is prevented from free expression - cannot be an option. We are witnessing today the stagnation and increased misunderstanding that comes from a stifled discourse.

Ultimately, no one has the absolute right not to be offended, nor does anyone have the right to live without the uncomfortable opinions of others. This is true whether it concerns flag burning (which should harm nothing other than a piece of cloth) or non-Muslim views of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, (which should not have an impact on a Muslim's sincere belief).

Religion and a universal sense of civility both dictate that emotions be kept in check to preserve social order. In such an environment, the freedom to speak openly - and all the benefits that come from it - can flourish.

To move forward, we all need to develop thicker skins, more open minds, and a common understanding of the principles of free speech, such as those that influenced me as a student and allowed me to subsequently influence others. Only then will everyone - Muslim and non-Muslim - be able to progress their societies and simultaneously preserve their rights.