The New Nation - Internet Edition

Protecting Irrawaddy Dolphins

MUCH to the pleasure of the wildlife conservationists, a survey along Bangladesh's coast and estuaries counted about six thousand of the Irrawaddy dolphins. Their existence was believed to be under serious threat. The International Union of Conservation of Nature had put it in the list of critically endangered animals. The New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society and the Bangladesh Cetacean Diversity Project jointly launched the survey in 2003 as part a five-year wildlife study. The researchers surveyed the waters along Bangladesh's 1,400-kilometres coastline and discovered by far the biggest population of these dolphins.

Irrawaddy dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) was identified by Sir Richard Owen in 1866 and is one of the two species of the genus (the other being the Australian Snubfin Dolphin). Though the animal is sometimes called after the Irrawaddy River, it is actually and oceanic dolphin that lives near the coasts and enters rivers including the Ganges, the Mekong and the Irrawaddy. Its range extends from the Bay of Bengal to New Guinea and the Philippines. Many of the dolphins have reportedly been found in the world's largest mangrove forest, the Sundarbans.

The presence of the species is a yardstick of measuring the environmental condition of their habitat. The concentration of the Irrawaddy dolphins in the Bay indicates that the pollution level of the area is not yet threatening for the existence of the species. A scientific study is expected to lead to further grasp on environmental condition of the Bay and the life of aquatic animals. Netting of the animals for oil and meat is a serious threat to their existence. The Bay of Bengal must be protected from pollution. At the same time, trading in dolphin products must be banned to protect the animals from extinction.

Contradictory donor prescriptions

THE Least Developed Countries (LDC) have been advised by the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) very often to go for reforms though these prescriptions are contradictory not only to each other but also to the rules being dictated by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as very rightly pointed out by speakers at an international civil society forum recently held in Dhaka city. Those who suggest reforms even do not check for themselves how their recommendations for reforms would be carried out by the LDCs contradicting the WTO regulations.

The WB at one point advised Bangladesh to reduce import tariff on some items and the IMF once came out with recommendation to increase interest rates and later to reduce it. It was also pointed out that both developed and developing countries made commitments to give special and preferential treatment to the LDCs but they did not keep their promises. The poor nations continued to suffer in various ways and the developed countries reaped the real benefit from the WTO negotiations. Both WB and IMF could take proper note before suggesting any reform so that the poorest countries do not face pressures and difficulties while carrying out various reforms.

The Finance Adviser of Bangladesh also expressed his disgust and dissatisfaction on a number of occasions over such controversial issues raised at meetings held in Dhaka or Washington by multilateral agencies. The donors do not try to see the problems of the poorest nations through the eyes of the poorest countries. The forum at its plenary styled 'State of the Doha Round' for advancing LDCS' interests, has come up with the suggestion that a regulatory co-relation between multlateral donor agencies and WTO is needed to study all these important aspects.

Religiosity in America

Maswood Alam Khan

Before arriving in USA I had an apprehension that Americans might be taking Muslims always with a grain of salt and American Muslims must have been passing bad days of discriminations and persecutions, especially after 9/11. My idea about discriminations against American Muslims has been reversed after I had attended a few Islamic functions and festivals in different parts of USA. Speakers in those functions didn't mince their words while criticising any quarter, no matter that quarter is favoured by the American government or not.

Islamic organizations and Islamic schools are there in many counties in almost all the major states and the Muslims who are associated with those institutions, as I found, seem to be much more religious, well-mannered, and educated than those who we find frequent mosques and madrasas in Bangladesh.

Officially Muslims constitute 0.6 percent of total US population that translates into somewhere near 2 million. But, unofficially, the number may be much higher as mosques do not keep membership rosters nor do they register the number of converts and some of the new converts opt to keep their faiths secret for fear of persecution from family and friends.

On the eve of the 27th day of Ramadan, the holy night of Laylat al-Qadr (the night of Decree when the first verse of Quran was revealed to Muhammad (SM), our last prophet) I said my prayers in a mosque on 5301 Edgewood Road, College Park, Maryland 20740 in a complex run by Dar-us-Salam, an Islamic organization which also runs in the same complex a fulltime Islamic school named Al-Huda School for courses from kindergarten up to tenth grade. Dar-us-Salam is committed to sharing the message of Islam by words as well as deeds. Their social activities like feeding the homeless and caring the environment earned plaudits from Americans many of whom heard about Islamic philosophy for the first time in their life.

The 'Isha' prayer (the night-time daily prayer) I participated in Al-Huda mosque on Laylat-al-Qadr was led by one young Imam in his 30s named Mr. Haroon Bakai, a Masters in Computer Science from Maryland University and a Quran-E-Hafiz (one who has committed to his memory the whole Quran by rote) from a school in Saudi Arabia.

The same Imam also led about five hundred of us---both males and females inside the same mosque with a screen in between---in the Tarabi prayer, the night-time prayer preferred by Muslims to listen to Quran. I felt so carried away, so besotted by the Imam's impeccable Quranic pronunciation that for the first time in my life I was in a kind of trance for about six hours inside the mosque while praying and listening to lectures by erudite scholars with no feelings of fatigue or boredom.

That night I realized how delivery, manner of speaking, pronunciation, and educational background of an Imam can influence followers of a faith and gain converts. The way Mr. Safi Khan opened his lecture on fundraising was really amazing. His way of presenting provocative questions, startling statements, unusual analogy, striking examples, personal anecdote, dramatic contrast, powerful quotes from Quran, etc. mesmerized the whole audience so much so that about US Dollar 25 thousand, including US Dollar 50 from my own pocket, was raised during his one hour lecture on the night of Laylat-al-Qadr.

A new episode about Salman Rushdie's 'The Satanic Verses' was also revealed to me during my stay in the mosque on the same night as I was listening to the fundraising lecture by Mr. Safi Khan, the founder of Dar-us-Salam. A few weeks back Mr. Khan, as he said, went to a number of bookshops to buy the book 'The Satanic Verses' with a view to reading what was written in the controversial book against Islam, but the book was not available. The American publisher perhaps decided not to publish any new edition of the book---the book which was once the bestseller in America. In the course of his endeavour to find out the mystery behind the apathy of the publisher in reprinting the commercially lucrative book Mr. Safi Khan at last could dig out the secret, as was discreetly disclosed to him by some insiders from publishing companies, that Americans who are not so comfortable with rapid spread of Islam in the United States discovered to their chagrin that when book lovers were in a frenzy of buying Rushdie's 'The Satanic Verses' they, after reading Rushdie's book, were more enthusiastic in buying books on Islam out of curiosity resulting in more sales of books on Islam than that of 'The Satanic Verses'. Some observers believe, as he said, that with a view to stopping the spread of words on Islam anti-Islam groups were perhaps instrumental in thwarting the printing of new editions of 'The Satanic Verses'.

Mr. Khan's discovery and views of some observers, who were perhaps Muslims, that the publisher with a view to stopping the spread of Islam is not reprinting 'The Satanic Verses' sound to me a little self-serving. Because, Americans, as I have found, are very broad in their views and they respect others' religions as much as they respect their own. Even some Muslims' views about religions being practiced by others who are not Muslims are not so broad. Americans, if they were afraid of Islam, could throttle back publishing books on Islam instead of discouraging updated publication of 'The Satanic Verses'. In fact, reputed publishers are loath to publish anything that may generate violence or backlash from any big community out of fear of losing readership. A few months back, Random House refused to publish another controversial book 'The Jewel of Medina' by Sherry Jones that caricatured our last prophet's wedding with Bibi Ayesha. Random House perhaps feared igniting violent protests such as those that followed the release 20 years ago of 'The Satanic Verses' and the publication of Danish cartoons of Muhammad (SM) in 2005---or even a repeat of the murder of the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh after his documentary about women in Islam.

Yes, there are some groups in America, very few though in the vast demography of 305 million people, who are antagonistic towards Muslims. They observe in horrified disbelief how Islam is becoming the fastest-growing religion in the world and the pace at which Americans, especially those who are black and Hispanic, are embracing Islam after 9/11.

A few days back Mini, my sister-in-law, whose home in Cockeysville, Maryland is my temporary address in USA, received a copy of a 60-minute DVD titled "Obsession: Radical Islam's War against the West". This terror propaganda DVD, as a part of 28 million copies of the same, is being delivered to registered voters all over USA, especially in swing states where the voters have not yet made up their mind about who to vote in the US presidential election due November 4 next. Most of the DVD copies are being bundled in newspaper deliveries by about 70 newspaper publishers. Funding for making and distribution of this DVD with a goal to demonize Muslims and instil fear, hatred and Islamophobia into people for fomenting hatred against Islam is reportedly coming from a shadowy outfit whose financial backers are unclear.

Majority of the American Muslims will probably vote for Obama in the coming presidential election mainly for the pragmatic and non-beleaguering tactics and strategies as to US domestic and foreign policies he would adopt if elected US President. But, support of Muslims for Obama is misconstrued by some smear campaigners who are spreading virulent propagandas through whispered words of mouth that 'Obama was a Muslim as his middle name 'Hussain' is an Arabic word and if he is elected US President Muslims would be given a passport to perpetuate terrorism against USA.

Most Americans got outrageous by this smear campaign against Muslims and in turn against Obama and they believe the DVD containing dirty stunt of blatant lies is tailored with a view to influencing swing voters. Many conscientious Americans, as reported in US newspapers, nuked the unopened package of the DVD for about 10 seconds in the microwave, wrote in huge block letters on front and back 'RETURN TO SENDER' and mailed the trash.

Years back one day I asked Bill Allen, an American who was my neighbour in Banani, Dhaka, which country he deemed favourable where he would enjoy settling and spending his retired life. His quick answer was: "New Zealand". To my curiosity 'why?' he answered: "Life in New Zealand is serene as there people are hospitable and crime is minimal". I asked: "What would be your second option?" He said: "Bangladesh". "You must be kidding!" I quipped. A Christian by faith, Bill said: "I am not kidding. Life in Bangladesh is much better than in USA from security, climate, economy, and many other points of view. In USA you may spend 50 years without facing a hazard threatening your life; but, you may also be shot dead by any of those freely moving gun-toting-guys on the streets on the 5th day of your arrival in America".

If someone asks me which country I would deem suitable for my retired life my answer would obviously be 'Bangladesh' as my first option. My second option would be USA if I can earn there just enough money to make both ends meet. My second option favouring USA is basically for one prime reason: 'disciplined liberty in America'. Liberty I mean in all respects: liberty to express, liberty to access to information, liberty to exercise your own religion, liberty to do with dignity whatever work you find, and liberty to enrol yourself as a student in any American University usually with a scholarship---if you are a senior US citizen, no matter if you are aged 65 or 75 or 95.

The Palin- Biden debate: High time to move beyond clichés

Ramzy Baroud

One should rightly assume that the weight of the US financial crisis, the full impact of which is just beginning to unravel, and the widening military debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, would compel new thinking amongst leading US politicians. And then again, maybe not.

Aside from tactical and rhetorical differences, presidential candidates and their vice-president-hopefuls are yet to strictly champion and act upon a truly different leadership strategy: Barack Obama's current foreign policy visions are more or less those of President Bush in his second term. Republican candidate John McCain, however, advocates a less solid and increasingly confusing set of principles: he strives to distance himself from a discredited, unpopular president, position himself as a man of experience and resolve, yet pander to the religious right and defend a hawkish strategy that is no less destructive than that championed by the neoconservative-designed Bush Doctrine, which led to two major wars and a near-complete loss of US credibility and leadership abroad.

More alarmingly however, are both candidates' choices for their vice president. Obama, who has repeatedly cornered his old rival Hilary Clinton with the tireless accusation that, unlike him, she is a Washington-insider, has chosen Senator Joe Biden, the embodiment of what partisan politics is all about, and someone who, prior to his candidacy, seemed much closer to McCain's views, than to those of Obama. On the other hand, McCain, in an apparent game of wit, picked Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, a poor choice by any count, simply because he wished to exploit Obama's fallout with a supposedly disgruntled female constituency following the defeat of his Democratic rival, Clinton.

Back to the seemingly odd choice of Biden. Columnist Susan Abulhawa rationalized Obama's decision. "Biden, the self-proclaimed Zionist, assuages Israeli and Jewish American fears that Mr. Obama might not be so accommodating to Israel." This view was corroborated repeatedly in Israeli media, but most importantly by Biden himself in the first vice presidential debate on October 3. To outdo Palin's passionate answer to a question about Israel, where she asserted that a McCain-Palin administration "will never allow a second Holocaust," Biden cut to the chase: "… no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion."

The new mantra was sure to work. At least he tried it successfully in a talk before Jewish Democratic audience in Florida, on September 23. According to the Israeli Jerusalem Post, Biden sent the audience to repeated rounds of laughter, then, in a solemn decided moment he declared: "My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head ..I promise you, I guarantee you, I guarantee you, I would not have joined Barack Obama's campaign as vice president if I had any doubt, even the slightest doubt, that he shared the same commitment to Israel that I share."

Considering the deafening cries for war that emanated from Israel and neoconservative circles prior to the Iraq war - and now against Iran - and the unmistakable disastrous policy that has contributed to America's largest foreign policy breakdown in the Middle East, one would think that the agents of "change" in this time of political decline and economic collapse would have the courtesy to exercise a level of restraint in their love for Israel, and, for once place the long-term interests of their country, and the world, first.

Following his 'knockout' answer, Palin graciously opted out of the who-loves-Israel-the-most debate: "I'm so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Senator Biden. I respect your position on that."

It's not an overstatement to argue that peace with justice in Palestine and Israel should be the most pressing issue before any future US administration. In order for that administration to embark on a serious rethink with any chances of success in the Middle East, there has to be a complete overhaul in the US' total backing of Israel, and total disregard for Palestinian rights. But neither Biden and Palin, nor Obama and McCain have expressed the slightest interest in abandoning the current course of action, which has fueled untold animosity towards the US in the Middle East and far beyond.

Unlike the Palestinian-Israeli problem, where both parties are clear on their love for Israel and their total dismissal of Palestinians, the Iraq debate is much convoluted. Republicans continue to push mantras of a victorious America with global military responsibilities. Democrats, on the other hand, wary of the unpopular Iraq war, feel the need to paint a different image, albeit a more confusing one. Yet, ironically, according to Biden: "Barack Obama offered a clear plan; Shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months. Draw down our combat troops…you've got to have a time line to draw down the troops…we're spending $10 billion a month while Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus. Barack says it's time for them to spend their own money and have the 400,000 military we trained for them begin to take their own responsibility." Not only does Obama's plan, articulated by Biden lack clear finality, and can always finds reasons to justify the delay of the promised withdrawal (such as the Iraqis are not taking responsibilities, the Iraqi army is not yet ready, and so forth), it lacks any hint of moral liability. After all, the US invaded, under flimsy excuses, a sovereign country to control its oil and to extend US-Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Pointing the finger at the Iraqis for Bush-made disasters is highly dishonest, to say the least.

It's unfortunate that even such hard times as these when America is rife with fears and anticipation, are yet to awaken top politicians in the two leading parties to the urgent need for a different and more sensible course of action in foreign policy. Yet more clichés and more mantras, ones that can perhaps rake in substantial donations but do nothing by way of earnest and decided change, for the sake of America itself, and by extension, the world.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

Why do they hate us?

Aijaz Zaka Syed

Every time I manage to write something, I wait for the feedback with bated breath. This is always the case, week after week. One awaits the readers' verdict as a nervous student would wait for results after a critical exam. And the feedback is invariably instructive; even one doesn't always agree with the views.

Look at this take by a Canada-based writer, for instance, on my recent piece on Islam and how some Muslims misrepresent its humane teachings. I had argued that if the world has a negative view of the great religion, its followers are largely to blame.

Frankly, I was rather stunned by Dr Vijaya Rajiva's response and her views on Islam and Muslims. Because Vijaya is not only a fellow Indian but like me she has also been a passionate supporter of the Palestinian cause, frequently writing on their dispossession and struggle.

In her take on my recent piece, Vijaya wrote: "I have nothing against Muslims, especially Indian Muslims who are basically converts from one of the indigenous religions. My quarrel is with Islam itself. Its history has been one of war and violence. The conquest of southern Europe, the other countries of the Middle East, Iran, Iraq and later Afghanistan, the Muslim conquest of Sind in the 8th century AD (have all been the result of Islam's war). Well, I'm sure you know your history!

"To give an example, Mohamed of Ghazni did come and plunder and loot India but that was only one of his aims.

The other (aim) was conversion of the infidels, at the point of the sword. Those who did not convert were summarily killed. Nadir Shah standing on the ramparts (of Delhi) watching the inhabitants of the city being put to death because they were infidels is a well-known fact. The entire history of Muslim conquests is well known. Hundreds of temples were destroyed, sacred books burned and thousands were killed or converted (in India). ??I would be interested in knowing when exactly Islam morphed into a 'peaceful' religion!"??

Then she goes on to say: "Intellectually, I find it insulting there is only one God, and one Prophet. I much prefer the truth that the divine principle is a mystery and each of us has access to it. (There is) not just the One Way!"

Well, I wish I could reproduce the fascinating letter in its entirety but can't do it for obvious space constraints.

One could write a whole book in response to these familiar rants steeped in ignorance and mostly based on hearsay and utter lies shamelessly peddled by European crusaders dressed as historians and scholars for a thousand years now.

I respect Vijaya for her activism on behalf of the Palestinians. But let me say this. Her ignorance and mixing of historical facts with fiction is not only surprising, it's downright pathetic.

Mahmoud of Ghazni, who she calls Mohamed of Ghazni, and numerous 'Muslim rulers' who invaded India at one time or another, were not driven by a missionary zeal to convert the subcontinent to Islam. They were merely greedy kings and conquerors like hundreds of others who came to India for its fabled riches.

Be it Mahmoud of Ghazni, who invaded India 17 times, or Mohammed Ghouri, they were not ideal Muslims nor did they represent Islam. Like other conquerors in history, they were merely men driven by a craving for power, not by a holy mission to spread Islam. They just happened to be Muslims -- just like some European and Indian conquerors happened to be Christian or Hindu.

Just as Ashoka the Great was not driven by any religious zeal when he painted Kalinga red with the blood of its people, Muslim conquerors were not on a proselytizing mission.

This is why they were equally ruthless in dealing with fellow Muslims. What Babar did to Ibrahim Khilji and what Sher Shah Suri did to Humayun is what emperors and kings routinely did to each other -- and not just in India.

Nadir Shah of Iran, who Rajiva says watched from the ramparts of Delhi while the 'infidels' were killed, did not kill only Hindus. If this is any consolation, almost all of those killed in Delhi at the time were Muslim subjects of the reigning king Mohammed Shah.

If Muslim rulers fought and killed Hindu kings and their subjects, they also killed their fellow Muslim rulers and their subjects with equal impunity. Mughal emperor Aurangzeb incarcerated and killed his own father and brothers.

All this was for power and the religion of these rulers had nothing to do with the whole circus. Even the most benign of Muslim emperors like Akbar did not represent Islam or Muslims, just as most of the current lot of Muslim rulers do not.

If these men had indeed been real models of Islam and its teachings, their subjects would have thanked them as the persecuted Jews did when the second Caliph Syedna Omar entered Jerusalem or as the oppressed Christians did when Tareq bin Ziad led the Muslim army into Spain.

As for the charge of forcing the Hindus to convert to Islam, there's a simple answer to the accusation. If the Muslims had indeed converted the indigenous population at sword's point, India would have been a Muslim country today, which is not the case. The Muslims are still a minority in the country of a billion. The same would have been true of Spain. Remember, both India and Spain were ruled by the Muslims for nearly a thousand years.

That said, I understand if well-read and informed friends like Vijaya Rajiva demonstrate such incredible ignorance about Islam and Muslims. Despite the wealth of resources at their disposal and their growing numbers (recently the Vatican admitted Muslims have replaced Christians as the world's biggest religious bloc), the Muslims have done little to bridge this gulf of mistrust and hatred that alienates them from the rest of the world.

They remain their faith's worst enemies doing nothing to present its real, pristine face before the world. They're busy chasing worthless mirages in concrete while the world builds on and multiplies its prejudices against Islam and Muslims. No wonder then the world can barely conceal its contempt for us.