Reporter faces death for pro-Israel view
Submitted by Administrator on Mon, 07/20/2009 - 05:50
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionSince 2003, Bangladeshi journalist and peace activist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury has been investigated by Bangladeshi authorities on charges of sedition, treason and insulting religious belief.
Choudhury, 44, has spent years opposing Muslim extremism through his writings, especially the Weekly Blitz which he started in 2003. He has called for interfaith dialogue and for normalizing relations between Muslim countries and Israel. On Wednesday, Choudhury returns to court. He is accused of insulting Islam and harming the state's reputation abroad, charges which, when couched as "sedition," carry a possible death penalty. "According to my lawyers in Bangladesh, the government is determined to conclude the trial as soon as possible," he wrote in a public letter over the weekend. "No one knows what will be the verdict. But, of course, seeing the past track record, we cannot hold any hope for a good [result] because the court is not applying its judicial mind, but trying to appease the Islamists." Choudhury's newspaper offices were bombed on July 6, 2006, after he expressed public sympathy for the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam. On October 5, he was attacked in his office by a mob that included prominent members of the then-ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party, which historically has aligned itself with Islamist parties in the country, who accused him of being an Israeli agent. He was badly beaten. Choudhury was the subject of US House Resolution 64 of March 13, 2007, which objected to continued "harassment and intimidation" and his incarceration in 2004 for 17 months without legal recourse, during which he was placed in solitary confinement and "suffered harsh interrogation techniques and received no treatment for a debilitating case of glaucoma," according to the resolution. The House resolution called for the Bangladeshi government to "immediately drop all pending charges against Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury… and take steps to protect Mr. Choudhury." It noted that the "US Commission on International Religious Freedom visited with Mr. Choudhury on their trip to Bangladesh in February and March 2006... and identified Mr. Choudhury as one of those voices that should not be silenced." Choudhury's case has been taken up by human rights groups and activists including Canadian human rights expert and MP Irwin Cotler, Dr. Richard L. Benkin - like Choudhury, an advisory board member of the Islam-Israel Fellowship - the Committee to Protect Journalists, the American Jewish Committee and Reporters Without Borders Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443852664&pagename=JPost%...
Hi friends I appreciate the
Hi friends
I appreciate the stance of Bangladeshi journalist and peace activist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury and and laud his efforts to end extremism in Islam; which was never in fact there to start with in Islam. Quran/Islam/Muhammad never supported it; it is the wrong interpretation of Mullah to make Islam to look warlike.
I also like his view point wherein he has called for interfaith dialogue with peaceful arguments. Every human being has a right to choose the best of the faiths/religions. Ahamdi peaceful Muslims do not like violence and terrorism; and they like that a peaceful dialogue should take place.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
"Ahamdi peaceful Muslims do
"Ahamdi peaceful Muslims do not like violence and terrorism; and they like that a peaceful dialogue should take place."
The problem is that your sect ahmadi is labeled as haram by other muslims and they always resort to violence and insult. Want to test it out?
Hi, Paarsurrey, You said
Hi, Paarsurrey,
You said some good things about this reporter and that people should be able to choose faith. Are you democratically minded? Can Islam and democracy coexist eternally (as long as there are humans) together in your view? You see, as I see it, in dictatorial countries there were and are always these dominant few, the elite, that rule, and the subservient many, who are oppressed and exploited. This is happening in Iran and did happen under the Taliban in Afghanistan. But can there be large groups of Muslims who openly state, that they never want to subjugate fellow-muslims, or infidels? Only aiming to have a fair say, through democratic rules? Acquiescing in a government serving the people, instead of people serving an Islamic government, let alone some dictator-clique? Can large groups of Muslims first and foremost endorse eternal democracy?
Another alternative would be for Muslims to create countries where people can come, stay or go freely, and establish Islamic societies there.
But it seems to us that in its history and still now a part of the Muslims most often wanted to dominate, over subservient people, with many muslims and jizya-paying dhimmi's. Can't there be a large Islamic movement who guarantees eternal freedom of religion, democratic rights to all? But this would mean preferring America, Europe, India, all democracies over all dictatorial states, including Islamic dictatorial states. If Muslims stay intransigent about this, isn't it logical that many others are suspicious, wary of Muslims and their intentions?
Hi friends Moooo and
Hi friends Moooo and Demsci
I think that this site is not against Muslims; at least I understand like that. What Muslims States do or do not do ; they are responsible for that and that is Politics.They would be responsible for their actions and they would be judged as per the teachings of Quran/Islam/Muhammad; if they do bad deeds, they would get punishment from God Allah YHWH; if they do good deeds they would be rewarded accordingly.
Krishna, Moses, Jesus; were they democratic?
Please answer this question so that we may discuss it further.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peacefully Muslim