Freedom from British, Separated to India and Pakistan

The partition of India led to slaughter, rape, and countless atrocities in the region; it further resulted in the Kashmir issue and bitter rivalry between a nuclear Pakistan and India. The tragic episode provides a lesson for the world to learn from.

In Pakistan and India, the history of the freedom movement has been written under the influence of the All-India Muslim League (AIML) and Indian National Congress (INC) parties respectively, to which the British transferred power in 1947. According to the traditional narrative propagated by these two parties, partition was inevitable and the two parties were responsible for bringing freedom to British India and the creation of Pakistan and India as separate states. But historical documents strongly suggest that the leaders of both parties did not have the power to demolish British rule. In fact, the reality is that the leaders of the AIML and the INC were playing into the hands of the British rulers. Ultimately, partition has only produced harsh consequences and unending hostility within the region.

In order to understand why partition was ill-advised from the outset, one must first understand why Muslim League and Congress leaders, who were responsible for partition, ultimately contributed to British interests. During the years leading up to partition, the British were seeking to maintain their rule over India, and thus pursued a policy of Divide and Rule. In other words, they sought to perpetuate divisions amongst the Muslims and Hindus, so that the Muslims and Hindus would not be able to rise up against British rule. There are countless examples of the British pursuit of this policy. Rather than forming a united front to undermine the British, Muslim League and Congress leaders instead added fuel to the fire by legitimizing and inflating the political differences between the Muslims and Hindus, ultimately blowing the conflict out of proportion. It is not difficult to see why this policy was in the interests of the Muslim and Hindu leaders. At the time, the British were very powerful and had the ability to sideline any leader who did not fall in line with their agenda. Thus, it was incumbent upon Muslim League and Congress leaders to perpetuate the Muslim-Hindu conflict, or risk losing their own political careers.

Throughout his political endeavors, freedom fighter Allama Mashriqi repeatedly sought to expose the vested interests of the prevailing Indian leadership. Mashriqi could foresee that the Muslim and Hindu leaders’ divisive words and actions were setting the stage for the partition of the nation. He recognized that partition would be devastating to the nation and would bring about everlasting hostility in the region. In a monumental press statement in early 1947, he categorically warned, “I see massacre of at least one million people.” He also sent a telegram to Lord Mountbatten (Viceroy of India) “foreshadowing murder and ruin of at least ten million Indians…” Envisioning the serious repercussions of partition, Mashriqi worked tirelessly to bring about the liberation of a united India. This struggle almost cost him his life, and he was stabbed and arrested in Delhi, where the AIML was holding a meeting at the Imperial Hotel (on June 09, 1947) to accept a truncated Pakistan.

With the partition of India, Mashriqi’s dire warning came to fruition. Partition brought unthinkable tragedy, as at least one million Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs were brutally killed and countless young Muslim and non-Muslim females were raped or abducted. Parents, children, and spouses witnessed the slaughter of loved ones and were forcefully separated. There are countless heartbreaking stories such as these that speak to the atrocities that befell innocent people as a result of the country’s division; these Muslim and non-Muslim civilians were the unfortunate victims of the politics of the AIML and Congress (their deaths were not a necessary sacrifice for independence, as has been suggested by some writers and speakers). Beyond the direct human toll, partition also produced a host of other far-reaching consequences in the region, including the Kashmir conflict, four wars, countless border clashes, and the spread of terrorism in the region. Perhaps most importantly, a nation comprised of communities that had co-existed for centuries has now been transformed into two nuclear-armed hostile neighbors. The regional and global instability caused by partition has had immeasurable consequences, and the people of the two nations continue to suffer from these consequences even today.

It is clear then that the partition of India was one of the biggest blunders of the 20th century. Yet instead of condemning the policies of the political parties that actually created this partition, historians and writers have presented partition as an inevitable occurrence. They project AIML and Congress leaders as heroes, while ignoring the fact that their actions resulted in tremendous human tragedy and everlasting hostility within the region. Furthermore, writers neglect to mention that partition would not have occurred, had it not been in the interest of the ruling power at the time. While bolstering the pro-partition perspective of those in power, mainstream writers have simultaneously distorted the views of Mashriqi (and others who strongly favored a united India). The print and electronic media (including television) further contribute to this distortion, as they do not publish or allow discussion of facts that are contrary to the traditional narrative of partition. In both Pakistan and India, they promote the leaders of the AIML and Congress respectively. A lack of independent researchers and scholars in these countries has also contributed to the problem. It is no surprise then, that the true history of the nation is unknown to people of both countries. In fact, the history of both countries, as currently written, is biased and does not reflect reality.

Despite the false narrative that has been portrayed in books and the media, it is not too late to change the status quo. The people of Pakistan and India must learn from the errors of the past and stop endorsing partition, as it only leads to continuing hostility between the two nations; the concocted and exaggerated stories regarding the freedom movement must come to an end. History can still be restored through independent writing and thought; educational institutions must also be reformed to encourage new ideas and research. Ultimately, the people of Pakistan and India must strive not only for better relations, but also to unite the two countries. The reunion of over a billion people in Pakistan and India would be an unprecedented action. By returning to Allama Mashriqi’s selfless ideology and vision of a united India, we could undo the devastating effects of partition. The Kashmir issue would be resolved, the potential for nuclear war between the two neighboring countries would disappear, and the threat of terrorism could be eradicated jointly. Unification would thus finally bring much-needed political, social, and economic stability to the South Asian region, and have far-reaching benefits for the world at large.

Beleaguered Chinese Church to Provide Legal Aid to Members

Leaders of the troubled Shouwang house church in Beijing have established a legal committee to assist church members facing arrest or house arrest, the loss of employment or homes and forced relocation to their home towns.

In a press statement issued Tuesday (June 28), the unregistered church described the forced relocation of one church member to Shandong province as “a flagrant violation of the law.” (See  “Chinese Authorities Expel Shouwang Church Member from Beijing,” June 29.)

Leaders charged the committee, composed of legal experts within the church and officially formed last week, with collecting evidence of “citizens of faith being forced to leave their jobs or being evicted because of their religious belief.” The church would hold officials legally responsible for these violations, as outlined in an earlier press statement on May 12.

For the past three months, Shouwang church members have committed to meet in a public square in Zhongguancun, northwestern Beijing, in response to repeated attempts by the gov-ernment to deny them access to a permanent worship venue. (See www.compassdirect.org, “Church in China to Risk Worshipping in Park,” April 7.)

Shouwang represents the “third church” phenomenon in China – consisting of large Protestant or Catholic churches functioning openly rather than underground, but refusing to register with government approved bodies such as the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) or the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA).

China is also currently embroiled in a tense debate with Vatican leaders over the unauthorized ordination of Catholic bishops within the CCPA, according to a Union of Catholic Asian News report on Tuesday (June 28).

Pressure MountsOn Sunday (June 26) police arrested 15 people who showed up at Shouwang’s designated outdoor worship venue, including several from other house churches. Many church leaders remained under permanent house arrest, while scores of church members were detained in homes or hotel rooms, according to a China Aid Association (CAA) report.

One of those detained on Sunday had traveled all the way from Henan province to express her support, the CAA said.

Two other women from Shuangshu house church in Beijing had planned on traveling to the venue, but police prevented them from leaving home. Within 24 hours their landlord also asked them to move out of their rented apartment, according to CAA.

CAA also claimed that officials pressured the management of the Beijing office of World Vision to dismiss employee and church member Xia Xiao, a claim that World Vision refutes.

“World Vision has fired no one and has come under no pressure to fire anyone,” World Vision spokesperson Cynthia Colin said in a press statement. “The staff member in question has in fact been working as normal out of her office this week.”

For the second week in a row, pastors from TSPM were called in to “counsel” Sunday’s de-tainees, according to the CAA.

In mid-May the director of the State Administration for Religious Affairs convened a meeting of Three-Self leaders from 15 provinces and municipalities, asking them “not to heed Shouwang church’s statement of faith,” and repeatedly slandering Shouwang church, according to Bob Fu, president of the CAA.

The national daily Xinhua published an article on Monday (June 27) extolling the freedom of TSPM churches. As evidence, the article listed several TSPM churches around the country with congregations of over 4,000 people; the construction of 11 new churches in Nanjing, including one with seating for 5,000 people; the “abundant” provision of Bibles through China’s Amity Printing Press, and the training of over 2,000 TSPM clergymen through the government approved Nanjing Union Theological Seminary.

“I feel that the most pressing issue for Chinese churches is to figure out how they can be helpful to society, and how they can become integrated with traditional Chinese culture,” Pastor Kan Renping of St. Paul’s Church in Nanjing province told Xinhua.

Shouwang Church Member Expel by Chinese Authorities from Beijing

Chinese authorities detained a member of one of Beijing’s largest unregistered churches on Monday and sent him to his home town in Shandong Province, sources said.

Three officers from Beijing’s Dongsheng police station detained the Shouwang church member at about 5 p.m. while he was at a market to get a mobile phone fixed, they said. They handed him over to a Shandong office based in the capital, which sent him to his hometown that evening. He was the second member of the church to be expelled from the city since authorities allegedly compelled the owners of the church’s rented facility to stop leasing to the congregation in April, forcing them to meet outdoors the past three months.

The same Dongsheng police station in Beijing’s northwest Haidian district sent the first Shouwang member to be expelled from Beijing to his hometown in Hubei Province on May 8, sources said.

After Monday’s expulsion, the Shouwang member was forbidden to use his mobile phone, but at noon yesterday he was sent to his parents’ home and was able to send a text message to church members. He said his identity card was confiscated, and he was warned not to return to Beijing before July 1, the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. Authorities told local village officials to monitor him.

In the church’s weekly statement issued yesterday, Shouwang Church leaders said they had filed a protest against the expulsion.

“The forced expatriation by Dongsheng Police Station and Haidian Public Security Bureau has constituted a complete contempt for and a flagrant violation of the law, in effect depriving a citizen of any guarantee of the most basic of foundational existential rights,” the statement read.

The first expulsion of a Shouwang member came after the church held a fifth consecutive Sunday of outdoor worship. At least 15 people were taken to 10 police stations across Beijing on May 8th. All were released within 24 hours, except one who was jailed at Dongsheng police station for 48 hours and then turned over to the Wuhan municipal governmental office in Beijing. Wuhan is the capital of Hubei Province, where the household of the detained Shouwang member was registered.

After previous detentions, he had already been forced to quit his job as an instructor at an international school for children under 3 years old. As he had lived at the school office, he also lost his lodging.

The church member on May 10 told a contact by phone that he had been sent to Wuhan’s Beijing office from the police station earlier that day. Police ordered the office to buy a train ticket for his return to Hubei, he said. Police confiscated his identity card, later telling him that they could not find it. They told him to go to Hubei to apply for a new one.

The detained Christian later told another church member by phone that he wanted to see his parents and his maternal grandmother, and that he also wanted to rest after being detained four times for having attended five Sunday outdoor worship services.

With a police officer from the Wuhan Public Security Bureau based in Beijing’s Wuhan office, he took a train to Hubei’s provincial capital on the evening of May 11. More than 20 Shouwang congregants went to the Beijing West Railway Station to see him off, praying hand-in-hand and singing a hymn in the waiting area of the station.

The Shouwang member and the police officer arrived in Wuhan the next morning, then went to his hometown in Hubei. After having lunch, the police officer returned to Wuhan. On May 16, two local police officers came to the church member’s home asking for basic information on his family. He returned to Beijing in mid-June and has continued to attend outdoor worship, being detained every Sunday since.

Hundreds of Shouwang parishioners have been detained or confined to their homes on Sundays as well as weekdays since April 10. Some church members have lost their jobs or rented homes, or both. They are mostly young professionals working at companies or universities.

Before April 10, the Shouwang congregation had gathered in a conference hall of the Old Story Club in the northern area of Beijing for more than a year. But according to Shouwang Church leaders, the owner of the rented venue was under mounting pressure from the government.

In March, Shouwang planned to rent a conference hall of a hotel in the northwest of the city, but the church said some government agencies again interfered and prevented it from renting the new premises.

Shouwang Church first started as a family Bible study group in 1993. By 2005, Shouwang, which means “keeping watch,” had more than 10 fellowships. At that time, the church decided to apply to register with the government. But in 2006, authorities rejected Shouwang’s application, asking it to join the official Three-Self Patriotic Movement church.

In late 2009, Shouwang paid about 27 million yuan or about US$4 million for the second floor of the Daheng Science and Technology Tower in northwest Beijing’s Zhongguancun area, known as “China’s Silicon Valley.” Funding came from the Shouwang congregation and other contributors for the purchase of a permanent worship place. Authorities once again interfered, according to church leaders, and the property developer refused to hand the key over to the church.

Shouwang Church had more than 1,000 worshippers each Sunday before the outdoor worship began in April. It still has dozens of family groups and fellowships.

In a related development, China Aid Association (CAA) reported yesterday that two women from another Beijing house church, Shuangshu Church, were planning to join Shouwang’s outdoor worship service on Sunday (June 26), but that police prevented them from leaving their home. Their landlord later came to pressure them to move out, according to CAA.

BANGLADESH AWAMI LEAGUE SNUB INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

Indigenous community leaders have expressed anguish and frustration over the amended constitution not acknowledging their existence despite a pre-poll promise of the ruling Bangladesh Awami League. The 15 th amendment to the constitution passed on Thursday makes every citizen of Bangladesh a 'Bengalee'. A press release signed by Parbatya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samiti ( PCJSS) information and communications secretary Mangal Kumar Chakma said the amendment put the identity of Bengalee on indigenous people speaking different languages. "Like in the past, the distinctive ethnic identity and the fundamental rights of the indigenous people have been denied," the statement said. The amendment reflected 'intense pride, intense communalism and undemocratic attitude' of the rulers, the release said. The terms 'tribes, minor races, ethnic sects and communities' are humiliating and insulting to the indigenous people, it said. PCJSS in 1993 signed the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord with the then Awami League government, drawing an end to the decade-long bush war between the indigenous people and the army. The 15 th amendment could not convince the indigenous people, said Chakma Raja Devasish Roy. "What could have been was not done. It cannot be said that on the whole we are happy. There is no proper recognition of indigenous people here," he said. "Even though we do not appreciate state religion, at least the constitution speaks of giving equal treatment to people following other religions. But what about those speaking other tongues?" Devasish said under articles 28 and 29 , the government can make special provisions for the backward quarters. "But the indigenous people have not been termed as backward," he said. "We demanded reserved parliament seats for the indigenous people. 

The government did not keep that request either. In future perhaps an indigenous MP will not be elected even from the hills. In the hills, we have karbaris and circle chiefs, but no such provision is there for the indigenous people in the plains. So they will remain unrepresented in the local governments." Sanjeeb Drong, general secretary of Bangladesh Adivasi Forum, said no state can change the identity and culture of a community. "We wanted to be recognised as indigenous, but the government has termed us tribal and ethnic minorities," Sanjeeb told bdnews24. com in his reaction immediately after the 15 th amendment bill passage on Thursday. "We're disturbed, hurt and aggrieved," he said. The indigenous people have long been demanding that they be recognised as 'indigenous' constitutionally. Several other indigenous leaders, including Chakma Circle head Raja Devasish Roy, Parbatya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samiti chief Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma and Santu Larma, have also been pressing for the recognition. Rights activists and academicians also sought their constitutional recognition. Sanjeeb also voiced his frustration saying that with the amendment, the ruling Awami League also "has backtracked from its election manifesto where it had termed us indigenous". He said such a refusal was a violation of human rights and the United Nations laws. The Awami League's election manifesto, published ahead of the 2008 polls, states, "Terrorism, discriminatory treatment and human rights violations against religious and ethnic minorities and indigenous people must come to an end permanently."

Religious Based Politics in Bangladesh : Restriction Eased

Bangladesh Parliament yesterday eased constitutional restrictions on the use of religion in politics to make way for Islamist parties to continue functioning.

After cancellation of the Fifth Amendment last year, the stringent restrictions on the use of religion in politics, imposed by the 1972 constitution, were restored. But the House did not enforce the ban considering the prevailing political situation.

The proviso of Article-38 of the 1972 constitution was made immediately after the country's independence. It banned the use of religion for political purpose.

"No person shall have the right to form, or be a member or otherwise take part in the activities of any communal or other association or union which in the name or on the basis of any religion has for its object or pursues, a political purpose,” said the proviso.

But the latest amendment eased the limitations, allowing them to form and continue function of a political party in the name or on the basis of any religion.

The changes, however, discourage not to form any party for the purpose of destroying the religious, social and communal harmony among the citizens.

During the passage of the bill yesterday, lawmakers belonging to Workers Party and Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal strongly opposed easing the restrictions. They proposed retaining the restrictions imposed by the 1972 constitution.

Thousands protest in Bangladesh against Islamic constitution

Thousands of protesters marched in capital Dhaka on Thursday against Bangladesh parliament adopted an Islamic constitution, steering away from a secular political culture, which was enshrined in 1972 constitution.

A half a mile long rally organized by a conglomerate of left parties and pro-secular groups, chanting anti-government slogans and waving red flags marched towards the parliament, where the ruling party and her alliance lawmakers hastily adopted several amendments to the constitution on Thursday noon.

Hundreds of riot police in flak jackets, armed with shot guns and tear gas shells blocked the marchers putting up barbed-wire fences. The protesters in summer heat and intermittent rain stopped at exit of the Dhaka University, where leaders in makeshift dais addressed the crowd and bitterly criticized the government for switching to an Islamic constitution.

In a massive constitutional reform, the non-partisan interim government has been deleted, which was practiced for 15 years to hold credible elections and ensure smooth transition to an incumbent political government. The opposition fears that the ruling party will rig the election, despite denial by the prime minister.

A set of 55 amendment proposals were incorporated in the constitution amendment bill by 289-1 division vote.

Main opposition described the abrogation of neutral caretaker government from the democratic constitution will be written in the history as a “black day”. Opposition leader and former prime minister Khaleda Zia threatened series of street protests and political agitations to undo the constitution reforms.

Prime minister Shiekh Hasina warned the opposition not to create anarchy and instead olive branches to hold parleys with the government and suggest how to hold a credible election scheduled in 2014 and also reduce military interference in state polity.

The prime minister was highly critical of the last military-backed caretaker government (2006-8), which sent the present prime minister and opposition leader to prison for corruption.

The independence war veterans, secularist and left leaning parties have came down heavily on the government for converting a secular political culture to an Islamic one.

Several lawmakers mostly from the left leaning parties have voted against the proposed amendment of the constitution, which has included Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim (in the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful), a verse from Koran in the preamble and Islam as state religion.

The ethnic minority leader Mangal Kumar Chakma in a statement protested the new constitution, which has termed the indigenous peoples as “tribals, small nationalities, ethnic groups and communities.”

What angered the indigenous peoples when the discovered that they have been bracketed as “Bangalee”, who are majoritarian Sunni Muslims. The indigenous communities divided in several sub-groups have different languages and are mostly Buddhist, Hindu and animist.

Bangladesh gained independence from Islamic Pakistan after a bloody war on the principle to establish a secular and democratic nation.

Former Justice Golam Rabbany lamented at a seminar on Thursday that from now the nation has lost its secular identity, which was gained after decades of struggle. The sacrifices of thousands of martyrs during the independence war forty years ago have been insulted, he decried.

Feast of the Most Precious Blood

The Roman Catholic Church, celebrated on July 1 is the Solemnity of the "Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ." This feast, celebrated in Spain in the 16th century, was later introduced to Italy by Saint Gaspar del Bufalo and extended to the whole Church by Pope Pius IX in 1849.

Meaning of the Feast Day

In Catholic belief, the Blood of Christ is precious because it is Christ's own great ransom paid for the redemption of mankind. As there was to be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood, Catholics hold that the "Incarnate Word" not only offered his life for the salvation of the world, but he offered to give up his life by a bloody death, and to hang bloodless, soulless and dead upon the Cross for the salvation of humanity. Jesus is said to have given his life - his blood - for the sake of all humanity, regardless of any religious division or difference in belief, atoning for every form of human sin. The Feast of the Precious Blood is a call to repentance and reparation.

The special reason underlying devotion to the Most Precious Blood of Christ is the fact that we were redeemed with the Precious Blood. The Precious Blood of Christ, shed unto the last drop during the Passion, is the price He paid for our salvation.

The Blood of Christ is true sacrificial Blood shed to ratify the New Covenant. As the Covenant on Mount Sinai was ratified by sprinkling the people with the blood of the Covenant (Ex. 24:8), so by the will of God and according to His Divine plan, the New Covenant required dedication by the blood of a victim, Jesus Christ. His Blood was far more excellent than the blood of sacrificial victims of the Old Covenant to cleanse and purify the tabernacle and its vessels. St. Paul says: "For Jesus has not entered into a Holy of Holies made by hands, a mere copy of the true, but into Heaven itself, to appear now before the Face of God on our behalf; ...once for all at the end of the ages, He has appeared for the destruction of sin by the Sacrifice of Himself... Christ was offered once to take away the sins of many." (Heb. 9:24-28)

Our Lord's words of Consecration over the chalice were: "Take ye all and drink of this; for this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the New and eternal Covenant, which shall be shed for you and for many, unto the remission of sins, in remembrance of Me."

The Precious Body and Blood of Christ is offered in the Mass as the Sacrifice of Christ's Mystical Body, a sacrifice in which each of us participates in virtue of our membership in His Mystical Body, the Holy Catholic Church. The Precious Body and Blood of Christ received in Holy Communion gives food, drink, refreshment and health to the life of the soul. The Lamb of God, slain for the sins of mankind, is the sacrifice and the banquet of the Christian soul, the very strength and inspiration for Christian living. Thus devotion to the Most Precious Blood encourages a greater love for the Mass.

This Blood of Christ is real drink (2), and, together with His Flesh, is food for our eternal life. () Jesus promised the Eucharist in these words: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day. For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He who eats My Flesh, and drinks My Blood, abides in Me and I in him." (John 6:54-57).

And St. Paul says, "For as often as you shall eat this Bread and drink the Chalice, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until He comes. Therefore, whoever eats this Bread or drinks the Chalice of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of the Chalice; for he who eats and drinks unworthily, without distinguishing the Body, eats and drinks judgment to himself." (1 Cor. 11:26-30) "The Chalice of blessing that we bless, is it not the sharing of the Blood of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16)

The Effects of Christ's Blood

Devotion to the Most Precious Blood rests on basic truths of Christianity. Mankind's fall from supernatural life in the Garden of Eden; man's utter inability to reinstate himself in God's friendship and grace; Christ's superabundant satisfaction for the sins of all men through the shedding of His Most Precious Blood; mankind's opportunity of reunion with God, both in this life and particularly in the next, through the application of the merits of the Precious Blood to souls - such fundamental truths should be emphasized in our age when men tend to glory in their material successes, unmindful of their total dependence upon God.

In the New Testament, and especially in the Epistles of St. Paul, there are many effects ascribed to Christ's true and bloody sacrifice.

By or through His Blood we have the forgiveness of sins. "In Him we have redemption through His Blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of His grace." (Eph. 1:7) "For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkled ashes of a heifer sanctify the unclean unto the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the Blood of Christ, Who through the Holy Ghost offered Himself unblemished unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9:13-14)

And St. John says, "And they overcame Him through the Blood of the Lamb and through the word of their witness, for they did not love their lives, even in the face of death." (Apoc. 12:11) "...the Blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7) "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb." (Apoc. 7:14) "To Him Who has loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own Blood, and made us to be a kingdom, and priests to God His Father--to Him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." (Apoc. 1:5-6)

By and through the Blood of Christ we have eternal redemption. "But when Christ appeared as High Priest of the good things to come, He entered once for all through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made by hands (that is, not of this creation), nor again by virtue of blood of goats and calves, but by virtue of His own Blood, into the Holy of Holies, having obtained eternal redemption." (Heb. 9:11-12). (While this redemption applies to all men without distinction, it must be remembered that all men do not thereby automatically attain salvation.)

We are justified and saved from the Divine wrath through the Blood of Christ. "Christ died for us. Much more now that we are justified by His Blood shall we be saved through Him from the wrath. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved by His life." (Rom. 5:9-10) (Here it is important to recall that salvation applies only to those men who cooperate with the graces of Christ's redemption, by living according to His teachings, and thus saving their souls.)

The Church was purchased by the Blood of the Savior. "Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock in which the Holy Ghost has placed you as Bishops, to rule the Church of God, which He has purchased with His own Blood." (Acts 20:28)

People are sanctified through the Blood of Christ. "And so Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people by His Blood suffered outside the gate." (Hebr. 13:12) This sanctification refers, of course, to the constant growth in virtue which is the sure vocation of every true child of God: "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."

By the Blood of the Cross of Christ reconciliation and peace were effected with the Father. "For it has pleased God the Father that in Him all His fullness should dwell, and that through Him He should reconcile to Himself all things, whether on the earth or in the heavens, making peace through the Blood of His Cross." (Col. 1:19-20)

In the Blood of Jesus we are incorporated in Christ by membership in His Church. "But now in Christ Jesus you, who were once afar off, have been brought near through the Blood of Christ." (Eph. 2:13)

Prayer

"Almighty and everlasting God, Who didst appoint Thine only-begotten Son the Redeemer of the world, and hast willed to be appeased by His Blood; grant unto us, we beseech Thee, so to venerate (with solemn worship) the price of our redemption, and by its power be so defended against the evils of this life, that we may enjoy the fruit thereof forevermore in Heaven. Through the same Our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. --Amen."

CENSORING COMMENT ON THE INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL IN BANGLADESH

Mukti Bahini attack Pakistani militiamen in 1971

Eric Avebury At an ICJ academic meeting on June 23 , attempts were made to silence Toby Cadman, and the President of the ICJ decided, without any consultation with the attendees, to strike Mr Cadman's speech from the record. If there is to be a published account of the proceedings at this meeting, Dr Aggarwala must be overruled, and the ICJ should consider whether it is appropriate to have a President who would censor a speech made at one of the organisation's own meetings at the behest of a small but vociferous section of the audience. I am drawing this to the attention of Helena Kennedy (Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws QC) who is head of Justice, the UK section of the ICJ. The statement by Toby Cadman follows:Statements Made by Toby Cadman of 9 Bedford Row International “ expunged” by the International Council of Jurists On 21 June 2011 I attended a conference hosted by the International Council of Jurists upon the invitation of its President, Dr. Aggarwala. The conference was on the rule of law and judicial reform - ( http://www.internationaljurists/org/schedule.php ). I was asked to present a paper. I offered to speak about the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh and international standards as this subject inevitably concerns matters of judicial reform and human rights. I provided the organizers of the conference with full notice of the topic that I intended to address. In the alternative, I offered to speak about three further topics involving defence rights and international criminal justice. No issue was taken at this stage by the President of the International Council of Jurists of the chosen topic and I was appointed to the Terrorism and Human Rights panel discussion. The conference was attended by the newly appointed Bangladesh Chief Justice, Muzammel Hossain, and another Justice of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik. 

I introduced myself to the Honourable Chief Justice in the morning and informed him that I would be speaking about the International Crimes Tribunal. I started my brief address by congratulating the Honourable Chief Justice on his recent appointment and I applauded him for his presentation earlier in the day. I stated that it was encouraging to hear his strong words on ensuring the judiciary in Bangladesh remained truly independent. Shortly after commencing my presentation the Honourable Chief Justice left the conference room. As far as I recall neither the Honourable Chief Justice nor Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik were present during my address. I spoke for no more than 10 minutes and covered the First Constitutional Amendment, the need for proper definitions of the crimes, the exportation of fundamental rights in the Constitution and the exclusion of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Evidence Act. I then spoke about the criticisms aimed by various international organizations. The point I made was that the discussions during the conference focused on human rights protection and the rule of law. There were also discussions that focused on bringing an end to impunity. I echoed these concerns and stated that none of the rights raised by the other speakers were being provided to accused in proceedings before the International Crimes Tribunal. I listed some of the rights that had been systematically removed by the Act and the Constitution. I concluded by stating that it was crucial to ensure the independence of the judiciary was maintained. At the end of my speech, a member of the audience, whom I now know to be Mr. Anis Rahman OBE, a Bangladeshi barrister based in London, made the point that I should not be making such statements in circumstances where the Government was not in a position to respond and clearly the Chief Justice could not respond. At this point I must state that I never intended to put anything to which the Honourable Chief Justice would be required to respond. Mr. Rahman stated that a number of accusations had been made against the Tribunal. He called for a point of order that my remarks be stricken or expunged from the record. The chair of the session, Justice Hassan B. Jallow, the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Chief Prosecutor, after some conferring with the other members of the panel refused to make such a point of order and stated that there was nothing inappropriate with what I presented. At the end of the panel session, the audience were invited to ask questions. However, Mr. Rahman rather than ask a question directed abuse at me personally and professionally. This was followed by Ms. Sonia Zaman Khan, a British-Bangladeshi solicitor, directing a number of remarks rather than questions. I was told that I should be ashamed of myself as these people “committed genocide, rape, murder, torture” and the small group of about 10- 12 Bangladeshi members of the audience started to chant repeatedly “shame, shame, shame” and bang the table repeatedly. This was all conducted in a very aggressive and provocative manner. I asked to be able to respond and reluctantly, the Chair of the Panel, Justice Jallow, permitted me to respond. I stated in reply that I had not attacked the Tribunal nor had I attacked any individual judge; I had criticized the procedures. Further, I had not opposed the establishment of the Tribunal but I had criticized the manner in which proceedings were being conducted. I further criticized the fact that despite widespread criticisms being made, including the recommendations by the US Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues, Stephen Rapp, to date no changes had been made to the Act, the Constitution or the Rules of Procedure. I used this opportunity to call the Government to bring the procedures in line with international standards. The small group of antagonists, and I must say this represented a very small segment of the audience, refused to listen to anything further and dismissed my answers out of hand. They continued to direct unsolicited abuse. Of particular note, Ms. Sonia Zaman Khan defended the legislation by stating that the international community, in particular the Canadian Government.had heralded the legislative framework. At the end of the session, a number of individuals approached me to commend me on my presentation and expressed their dismay as to how I was treated. I replied that this is a very emotive subject and therefore emotional statements are to be expected. I expressed some surprise; however, that at a gathering of distinguished jurists, there would be a complete disregard for a judicial process that met recognized fair trial standards. I was also taken aback by the suppression of any form of criticism of what is ostensibly a democratic nation. I left the conference shortly after my address. 

The following day I learned of a number of statements that had been made by members of the Bangladeshi community in the audience. In particular it was stated that Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik explained in detail the procedures of the International Crimes Tribunal and made it clear that all steps had been taken towards ensuring a trial process based on internationally accepted standards. It was also stated that I had made “grave insinuations against the legal process in Bangladesh but had also chosen the wrong forum to express views on the war crimes trial in the country”. In response to these statements the following remarks are made. First, I made it quite clear in my presentation that no offence was intended towards any member of the Bangladesh judiciary. Absolutely no accusations were addressed towards any judge or judicial institution of Bangladesh. I openly criticized the Act, the Rules of Procedures and the First Constitutional Amendment. I echoed the concerns of a number of international organizations, including Human Rights Watch, the International Center for Transitional Justice, Amnesty International, and importantly, the International Bar Association. In relation to Ms. Khan’s statements that the Act is heralded by the international community this is quite simply misleading and not supported by any credible facts. Second, I am not in a position to respond to Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik’s comments due to the fact that none of these comments were made in my presence. However, I will state once again that, in my opinion, which is shared by the vast majority of international observers of the legislative framework at the Tribunal, that the laws and procedures fall woefully short of what is understood to be recognized international standards. Third, as to the suggestion that my remarks were “expunged” I am not in a position to comment on what may or may not have occurred after I left the conference. What I am able to state with absolute certainty is that when the request was made in my presence, the Chair of the Panel, Justice Jallow, refused to dismiss my remarks. He made it quite clear that my remarks were not inappropriate nor were they directed to cause offence. I have also been subsequently informed that Sir Gavin Lightman, formerly Mr. Justice Lightman of the High Court of England and Wales, in summarizing the conclusions of the conference, adopted the same position. 

The article that appeared in The Daily Star on 22 June 2011 entitled “Judiciary Ensures Rule of Law in Bangladesh” ( http://www.thedailystar.net/ newDesign/news-details.php? nid=191143 ) is quite misleading and does not represent what actually transpired. For example, it conveniently fails to mention that one of the dignitaries attending the conference, Sir Gavin Lightman, made the point that there was no malice intended in my address. It also fails to address the point above that Justice Jallow refused to expunge my remarks when requested to do so by Mr. Rahman. Following the publication of the article in The Daily Star I sought to ascertain whether my remarks had in fact been expunged after my departure. Regrettably, I was informed that the President of the International Council of Jurists, Dr. Adish Aggarwala, had expunged my remarks from the proceedings. I immediately made contact with the International Council of Jurists and was informed by Dr. Aggarwala that if I submitted my paper the International Council of Jurists would take a final decision as to whether my controversial statement was relevant. By his own admission, the President of the International Council of Jurists confirmed that he was not present during my speech. What I now find particularly worrying is that my remarks were expunged by the President of the International Council of Jurists even though he had not heard them. He had concluded that my remarks were controversial again without hearing them. It is clear that my remarks were expunged at the request of those persons who had sought to suppress my criticisms of the legislative framework of the International Crimes Tribunal. It is also of concern that the conference was organized with the “academic support” of the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales and the reputation of this organization may lend support to a process which now appears to be quite flawed. It is of course the cornerstone of any democratic process that there is free debate on the issues and that the administration must be called to account for any process it seeks to implement. The rule of law and free speech is what distinguishes a democratic nation. Expunging remarks due to the fact that they are considered to be controversial or against the interest of the State does not represent a democratic process. My concluding remarks are as follows. I do not oppose the establishment of the International Crimes Tribunal as the State is under an obligation to bring an end to impunity. I have no desire to criticize the Government of Bangladesh nor do I have any desire to criticize the Tribunal or the Judges. I do consider; however, as I stated in my remarks on 21 June 2011 , that the legislative framework of the International Crimes Tribunal requires urgent reform. I do not consider it sufficient to amend the Rules of Procedure, as has been suggested. In my view the First Constitutional Amendment that removes the protection of fundamental rights must be amended. The Act and the Rules of Procedure must also be brought in line with Bangladesh’s responsibilities under international law. Finally, the legislative framework must be brought in line with Bangladesh’s responsibilities as a State Party to the Rome Statute. It is difficult to see where the controversy lies. 

Toby M. Cadman London , 26 June 2011

Peter and Paul: Two Early Martyrs

The New Testament tells a great deal about two of the most important Apostles: Peter and Paul. Contained in the book of Acts are stories of their travels, their actions, and their words. But one aspect of Peter and Paul is missing from Acts and, in fact, from the whole New Testament: how they died.

In order to find out about the deaths of Peter and Paul, we have to look outside the New Testament. A number of letters and other literary works were written within the Christian community of the First Century, but only twenty-seven made it into the New Testament. Books which did not make it into the New Testament are known as "Apocrypha." Among the New Testament Apocrypha is a book entitled "The Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul." In this book we find a description of the deaths of Peter and Paul. Toward the end we find Peter and Paul in front of Nero, and we pick up the story there:

"Both Peter and Paul were led away from the presence of Nero. And Paul was beheaded on the Ostesian road. And Peter, having come to the cross, said: ‘Since my Lord Jesus Christ, who came down from the heaven upon the earth, was raised upon the cross upright, and He was deigned to call to heaven me, who am of the earth, my cross ought to be fixed head down most, so as to direct my feet towards heaven; for I am not worthy to be crucified like my Lord.’ Then having reversed the cross, they nailed his feet up."

So, Peter was crucified upside down and Paul was beheaded by Nero. Or were they? Earlier in the story we find Peter and Paul in front of Nero with a magician named Simon. To make a long story short, Simon claimed to be the son of God. Nero was inclined to believe Simon, and so Peter and Simon engage in a discussion of whether Simon or Jesus was the son of God. Finally Simon says that he will prove he is the son of God. He stands on a high place and begins to fly. Nero looks at Peter and says (and I paraphrase), if you can do better than that I will believe in Jesus. Peter closes his eyes and prays "In the name of Jesus, I command the angels of Satan who are holding Simon up to be removed." Simon came crashing down and died. At that point Nero orders the death of Peter and Paul.

So, did Simon really fly? We would all say no. So, was Peter crucified upside down and Paul beheaded? Maybe. It is easy to see why this book was not included in the New Testament because people do not fly, but the death stories may be true.
The Apocrypha books were not excluded from the New Testament because they were total lies but because they were not inspired and had some falsehoods. Many New Testament scholars believe that the New Testament Apocrypha probably contain truthful accounts scattered here and there amidst the fabricated stories. But which are truthful and which are made up? In this book it is obvious that Simon’s flight was the product of someone’s imagination. But Peter crucified upside down and Paul beheaded? That could have happened. And it is easy to believe that Peter would have made the request to be crucified upside down for the reason he did.

Therefore the deaths of Peter and Paul are said to be "according to tradition." This means that we do not know for certain if it happened that way, but it is the best we have to go on.

Pope may go online to launch Vatican news portal

The Vatican, whose communications problems are no secret, is taking a leap into the world of new media with the launch next week of a news information portal that Pope Benedict XVI himself may put online with a papal click. Vatican officials said Saturday that Pope Benedict has been following the development of the portal which will for the first time aggregate information from the Vatican’s various print, online, radio and television media in a one-stop-shop for Holy See news. The portal is being launched Wednesday, the 60^th anniversary of Pope Benedict’s ordination as a priest. Monsignor Caludio Maria Celli who leads the Vatican office that developed the portal and will maintain it, said the Pope may put the site online himself with a click from the Apostolic Palace. It’s the latest effort by the Vatican to bring its evangelizing message to a greater, Internet-savvy audience. It’s also a significant step for the 84 year old Benedict, who has been bedeviled by communications woes during much of his six year papacy, much of it the fault of a large Vatican bureaucracy that doesn’t always communicate well internally. While the portal is designed mostly to provide Vatican news in an easy to use setting for the outside world, Celli said he hoped it would also improve the Vatican’s own internal communications by letting various departments know what one another are up to and help provide a more coherent message. The portal is outfitted for live streaming of papal events, audio feeds from Vatican Radio, photographs from L’Osservatore Romano and printed texts of Papal homilies, statements and speeches. It’s also designed to be social- media friendly, with Twitter feeds and Facebook links – part of the Vatican’s recent realization that it can reach a wide new audience by interacting witht eh outside world rather than merely preaching from afar.

Pope appeals for refugees, Middle East Christians

(June 24, 2011) Pope Benedict XVI on Friday appealed for those fleeing the turbulent situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa urging they be offered every possible help needed. Pope Benedict made the appeal while addressing some 80 participants in the meeting of the Reunion of Aid Agencies for the Oriental Churches, known by its Italian acronym ROACO. Created by the Vatican's Congregation for Eastern Churches in 1968, ROACO coordinates nearly 20 U.S. and European agencies and organizations that provide assistance to Eastern Catholic communities in Asia, Northern Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Addressing the group in four languages, the Pope expressed his closeness to “those who are suffering and to those who are trying desperately to escape, thereby increasing the flow of migration that often remains without hope.” The Holy Father hoped that “necessary emergency assistance will be forthcoming,” and that “every possible form of mediation will be explored, so that violence may cease and social harmony and peaceful coexistence may everywhere be restored, with respect for the rights of individuals as well as communities.” Speaking in French the Pope specifically addressed the situation of Christians in the Holy Land and the Middle East. He urged ROACO to do everything possible through their local as well as international contacts to ensure that native Christian pastors and faithful be able live in their homeland not as foreigners but as co-citizens who witness to Jesus Christ, just as the saints of the oriental Churches have done before them in the past.

BANGLADESH ETHNIC COMMUNITIES PROTEST ISLAMIZATION OF CONSTITUTION

The Bangladesh government’s dramatic turn around from secularism to Islamism has enraged the indigenous population, who are demanding to be recognized in a proposed re- draft of the country's constitution. The nation is poised to amend the constitution, which is likely to be tabled in the parliament on Thursday. The move has been vehemently protested by The Bangladesh government’s dramatic turn around from secularism to Islamism has enraged the indigenous population, who are demanding to be recognized in a proposed re- draft of the country's constitution. The nation is poised to amend the constitution, which is likely to be tabled in the parliament on Thursday. The move has been vehemently protested by independence war veterans, the pro-secularist lobby and social justice activists. Dissent is also being heard from within the ruling party and its pro- left alliance partners. The superior court, in a landmark judgment last July, asked the government to restore secularism in the spirit of the bloody war of independence of 1971. Secular activists charge the government has deliberately adopted dilly-dally tactics while the charter changes are considered. Former guerrilla leader Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma a. k.a. Shantu Larma, chairman of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Regional Council, on Thursday rejected the proposed Islamization of the constitution and demanded constitutional recognition of the indigenous or Adivasi community, who have resided in the country for centuries.

The guerrilla leader, who fought a bush war for two decades, demanded the government drop a proposal to keep a Koranic verse in the preamble of the constitution -- "Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim (in the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful)" and Islam as the state religion. "A state can't have a religion," said Larma, who signed the historic peace accord between guerillas and the government 13 years ago. The treaty recognizes the inhabitants of hill forest as indigenous communities, acknowledges its traditional governance system and established regional autonomy. However, the constitution does not acknowledge them as Adivasis. The matter of recognition of the indigenous people came to the fore recently following denial by a Bangladesh diplomat in the United Nations that there were no indigenous people in the country. The statement has been construed as another step by the government to further erode the already limited rights of indigenous people. Since Bangladesh gained independence four decades ago, the 35 ethnic groups that represent nearly 2 percent of the total 158 million majoritarian Sunni Muslims have demanded to be recognized as indigenous communities.

Arguments for Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the position that it is impossible to know many things especially questions surrounding the ultimate reality behind our existence, what happens to us when we die and the ontology (or intrinsic nature) of God. The question: ‘what is God’ must be a prerequisite to the question ‘does God exist’, because it makes no sense for one to try and prove the existence of something without defining what it is that one is trying to prove exists. The moment that the theist admits that they do not know what God is or what the nature of God is they have entered into the realm of Agnosticism. Gnosis is a Greek term that means ‘knowledge’ and for example Christian Gnostics claimed to have Esoteric Gnosis. The opposite is Agnosticism, or to claim to be without knowledge.  

In order to understand the position of the agnostic one has to begin with the branch of philosophy called epistemology. Epistemology is simply the study of knowledge, how we know what we know and distinguishing what we know to be true from what we believe to be true. It is my firm perspective that anyone who humbles themselves and deciphers what they know compared to what they believe that they will inevitably arrive at agnosticism (the position that it is impossible to know many things) and hopefully as a result they will abandon organized religion.

In short knowledge should not be seen as simply the accumilation and memorization of information by the the cognitive processes of the brain. Rather knowledge in an epistemic context has more to do with concrete data that is justifiable, falsifiable, verifiable, repeatable and thus the data translates to a warranted belief through a rational and empirical methodology. In short we know what we know because we can observe and test what we know through the scientific method. Anything that cannot be tested, observed and rationalized through our individual and collective efforts is not knowedge rather unjustified belief.

What we would want the followers of any organized religion to focus on is what they do NOT know even if they have beliefs about the unknown. Metaphysical claims such as the existence of God, Angels, Demons, Jinn, Heaven and Hell should be categorized as unknowns. No one truely knows what they are. Hence they are outside of the scope of rationality. Beliefs in the occurance of supernatural miracles however, such as Jesus walking on water or Muhammad splitting the moon, would be deemed irrational due to the fact that the claims are not metaphysical claims rather these are claims that directly have to do with the laws of physics that we do know. So there is rational, irrational and simply outside of the scope of rationality. While Theists can believe in a metaphysical reality the specific beliefs they have about metaphysical entities must be categorized as unknowns, unjustified beliefs, philisophical conjecture, and theorhetical possbilities based on imagination. Beliefs in supernatural miracles however are different than beliefs in metaphysical realities and are irrational because the claim is made that the laws of physics as we know them are defied and there is no rational basis for this.

So allow me to demonstrate that Muslims and Christians are actually closet agnostics. In Islam there is this notion of Ilm al Ghayb (knowledge of the unseen). This knowledge of the unseen in a nutshell is the ultimate reality of all things and only God posseses this knowledge. God reveals this ‘ilm-al-ghayb’ to special individuals, namely the Prophets of God, however even the Prophets of God are limited in their capacity at truely knowing what the mystical things they have come to experience are. Generally through esotericism and mysticism individuals have claimed to have had experiences that gave them spiritual knowledge not otherwise known to collective humanity. However even if an individual claims such Esoteric Gnosis they still do not know what it is they have experienced. The experience is a mystery and therefore the only real Gnosis they have come upon is that there is a mystery beyond the biology, chemistry and physics of all that appears on the surface. In reality their inability to know what it is that they have experienced brings them right back to Agnosticism. 

The moment the Muslim and Christian admits that they do not know what God is, what Angels are, what Jinn are etc. their beliefs collapse into agnosticism. There is a common discussion between the Purist/Literalist Salafi Muslims and the Ashari-Maturidi-Sufi Muslims. The purists will argue for example when the Qur’an describes the Divine in anthropomorphic terms that the true nature of the HANDS or FACE of God is unknown. Likewise, when the Qur’an mentions the ARSH or Throne of the Divine, which the Divine has ISTAWA or risen above (7:54), Muslims agree that the nature of the throne is simply unknown to collective humanity. The Ashari-Maturidi-Mu’tazili-Sufi types of Muslims will try and apply a metaphorical interpretation, but in the end agree with the Purists that the true nature of the Throne or Hands of God are unknown. Again, when one breaks down the theological perspective of Muslims and Christians not really knowing something, especially about what God is, what we find is that they are falling into the category of agnosticism. Therefore their agnosticism cannot be superior to anyone elses agnosticism. 

Epistemology totally recognizes that people have beliefs about unknown. In effect there are three types of Agnostics. Agnostic Theists, Agnostic Atheists and Agnostics who don’t care. Agnostic Theists have beliefs about God but ultimately admit that they don’t know what God is or what God ‘wants’ (if God wants anything at all). Agnostic Atheists admit that they cannot prove a negative or prove that God (or any metaphysical entity) does not exist but they believe that most of the evidence points to there not being a God (at least the gods that organized religions describe). The third category is self explained. 

Two beautiful sources for agnosticism in past human civilizations include Greek philosopher Socrates and Chinese philosopher Laotzi. The latter is known as the Father of Daosim and author of the Daodejing where he writes as follows:

The Dao that can be described is not the absolute Dao;

the name that can be given is not the absolute name.

Nameless it is the source of heaven and earth;

From Laotzi comes the approach of an unknowable God. The idea that any description that any one gives about God simply cannot really be what God is. However the notion that one can interact with oneself and the environment spiritually (i.e. interact with God) and not knowing the ontology or nature of that spiritual experience are two different issues. 

The story of Socrates is a bit more inspirational. Here you have an individual who goes to an Oracle that makes a bold statement: no one is as wise as Socrates. Now pay attention to the fact that the Oracle did not say that Socrates is the WISEST, rather the statement was that no one is as wise as Socrates. This message from the Oracle is something that Socrates himself struggled with because Socrates himself believed that he had no wisdom at all. He claimed that he had no knowledge. Eventually he came to realize what was meant by that statement. Socrates was taken to court for “corrupting the youth” and for denying the religion/gods of the Greeks. Socrates went to the people regarded as wise in the community, namely the politicians, artisans and poets in order to prove the Oracle wrong. What Socrates realized from his experiences was that while each individual he encountered had some wisdom in terms of their trade that they actually did not know more than him in terms of life’s big questions. Finally Socrates had come to realize what the Oracle meant. Socrates admitted that he knew nothing. Admitting to ignorance is in fact the ultimate wisdom that he had and therefore no one was wiser than Socrates. Socrates was sentenced to death due to his “blasphemy”. This story of Socrates being killed for standing up for Philosophy is far more intellectually and spiritually inspirational than that of Jesus who was killed for making erroneous metaphysical claims. 

In any event we hope from the bottom of my heart that Muslims and Christians seriously reflect, humbly admit, openly embrace and effectively grow from their inevtiable position of not knowing. Once they do that they will have renounced their position of wanting to implement and force their religion on others and especially their position that they have arrived at some type of exclusive understanding and absolutism concerning reality and existence.

Journalist Lisa Daftari : Her Conversation

Introduction: Since the fraudulent June 12th, 2009 Presidential Election in the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), an increasingly emboldened opposition, the Green Movement, has arisen to demand the overthrow of the IRI. The Green Movement refuses to desist from launching massive street protests in Tehran, and other major Iranian cities. All this is occurring despite violence wreaked upon thousands of valiant regime opponents by the ruling Mullahs and President Ahmadinejad.

To explore these emerging revolutionary prospects in Iran and turned to Lisa Daftari, an Iranian-American award-winning journalist with expertise in counterterrorism and the Middle East, particularly in Iranian affairs. Daftari has been in the forefront of communicating the important views of the Iranian opposition via her brilliant writing and commentary, as well as facilitating communications from within Iran to the world media.

Born in a suburb of New York City, she moved to Los Angeles, where she received a Masters degree in Broadcast Journalism from the University of Southern California.

Lisa has a gift for spotting an intriguing human story, luring the reader in, then gradually revealing her passion for the written word in lucid displays of prose. She is highly professional in her line of work. Lisa is a multifaceted, multitalented artist. She is a phenomenally gifted pianist who has the same control over the keyboard and the range of dynamics and finesse of touch as she has with written word. She is also a trained vocalist and has perfect pitch, which is the rare ability of a person to identify or re-create a given musical note without the benefit of an external reference.

Lisa recognizes the importance of keeping people informed. “Democracy does not work without a truly vibrant press. We, as journalists, have an obligation to sort it all out and supply quality news. Although many of the MSM report some stories well, like hurricanes and sporting events, thousands of exposés never get written because of the lack of investigative journalism. I feel this deprives the public of critical information they need to be intelligently informed,” says Lisa.

Her extensive stories have appeared on CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, the Washington Post and Voice of America. Lisa is a syndicated columnist and frequently appears on numerous radio and television programs. She has her own column in Front Page Magazine where she serves as the publication’s Iran analyst. Currently, Lisa is a Middle East commentator on the Fox News Channel.

The opposition Green Movement emerged spontaneously two years ago to challenge the results of the disputed 2009 presidential election. With the Green Movement in Iran, which began before the uprising in Tunisia at the beginning of this year, how is the so-called Arab Spring, the revolutions in Syria and elsewhere, impacting the freedom movement in Iran?

Daftari: The Freedom Movement was then, as it is now, an enduring democratic movement that started long before the 2009 Presidential Election in Iran. It was only triggered by the Election. According to most Middle East experts, Iran’s Green (Freedom) Movement inspired and triggered the Arab Spring. Iran has had the distinction of resisting assimilation by Arab invaders for over 14-centuries. Iran is the pacesetter in the region and radical Islam is only a passing aberration in its history. The millions who bravely filled the streets all over Iran protesting what they were convinced was the mullahs’ fraudulent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are still determined to defeat the Islamists and once again make Iran a beacon of democracy for other nations to emulate. The regime is rapidly collapsing and the Freedom Movement is distancing itself from any religious connections. Far from being defeated or dispirited, the secularists of Iran are battling on every front and by all means at their disposal to dislodge the mullahs from power.

Based on your contacts inside Iran, in what ways do you see the regime losing its grip on power?

Daftari: The mullahs’ government is not about governing through Islam. On the contrary, it is about usurping unlimited funds and regional power in the name of Islam, Shiite Islam to be exact.  But the seeds for the auto-destruction of the Islamic system were implanted within from its very inception. The system is a hybrid concoction of fanatic religionists who aimed to establish a fantasized Caliphate-like society. To begin with, there never was an ideal Caliphate society to be reborn. Even at Muhammad’s deathbed the various contenders for power began their infighting. The envisioned system is part democratic and part authoritarian. The two are like water and oil and do not mix. Therefore, the Islamic Republic’s system leaves considerable fissures that are bound to bring the entire structure down. At a practical level, the various factions within the system vie for a greater and greater share of power and resources. And this infighting, coupled with inner greed, corruption and incompetence assure the system’s demise.

How might the U.S. jump-start a SUCCESSFUL grassroots revolution in Iran?

Daftari: The Obama administration has been completely unhelpful to the grassroots revolution in Iran. The administration, and Obama in particular, failed to speak in support of the Movement, much less aid it in any significant material way. I have repeatedly proposed ways and means of supporting the Iranian people to remove the Islamists and their influence. I firmly believe that the valiant Iranian secularists will eventually prevail over the mullahs’ regime. What the U.S. can do is to strongly side with them to expedite the mullahs’ demise. It is indeed in the U.S.’s best and vital interests to come to the aid of the Iranian people who can be of the best friends they can have in the region.

What are your thoughts about the recent overture by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton regarding extending multi-entry visas to Iranian students?

Daftari: I hope this is an indication that the Obama administration is finally waking up to the existing reality in Iran.  Regretfully, there has been only a partial awakening of our government concerning international diplomacy, particularly where the Middle East and counterterrorism are involved. Instead of befriending and supporting the people of Iran, President Obama finds himself on the losing side with the Islamists. The people of Iran question Obama’s quick and zealous public support of the people of Egypt yet appeared untouched by the valiant attempt the Iranians made in 2009 to overthrow their government. Recall that it was the Iranian people’s massive movement against the re-election of Ahmadinejad that inspired the “Arab Spring.”

So, in essence, extending multi-entry visas may be a feeble attempt by the Obama Administration to placate the Iranian people. This token action, although long overdue, is welcome. It shouldn’t stop here. The Obama administration needs to abandon its heavily pro-Islamic policy that is buy the Islamic regime ample time to further develop its nuclear weapons and will assuredly bring disaster to America. If we are to stand and defend American ideals, we must align ourselves as great champions of democracy and human rights with the freedom-seeking secular forces of the Middle East.

It would behoove all freedom-loving individuals to call on President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to proclaim unequivocal support for the Iranian people and to back that claim with concrete effective peaceful actions. It is the best investment that the U.S. can make in attracting the powerful nation of Iran as a vital ally.

Do you think the deadly confrontation between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic of Iran is inevitable if the mullahs are allowed to make the bomb?

Daftari: For the past 32-years, thousands of dissident students, intellectuals and journalists have been systematically arrested, imprisoned and tortured for the sole crime of speaking up against repressive rule. Many are still languishing in prisons, some have died, and some have simply vanished with no record of what happened to them. Not only has the regime terrorized its own people, but they have also demonstrated a high priority for supporting global terrorism. Their support of extremist terrorist groups has extended far beyond neighboring countries but also as far away as Latin America. Hezbollah in Lebanon has been generously nurtured with funds, weapons and training. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad were assisted in numerous ways, and a professional army of Shiite Iraqis was trained and armed to be used in the present Iraqi theatre. Separately, Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia—the Mahdi Army—is directly funded, armed and controlled by the present Islamic regime, a gift of the former president Khatami to his successor—Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Stealth work on the nuclear program, in clear and defiant violation of the non-proliferation treaty to which the Islamic Republic is a signatory, proceeded ahead at full speed and with generous funding. It is obvious that the intention of the mullahs is not and has never been to protect the Iranian people or their nationalist interests.  The mullahs have proved that their most critical objective is to spread terrorism and radical Islam, at the cost of the Iranian people and the rest of humanity.

At the moment, I would not count on the U.S. Administration to do anything. We have a musical chairs type of government. Democrats out, Republicans in. Republicans in, Democrats out. They are more intent on fighting each other than taking on radical ideologies, and that will cost Americans and the people of the Middle East in the long run. The American public won’t support a war either. They have been burned by the misadventure in Iraq and they are plenty upset about being bogged down in Afghanistan.

Recently, the former president of the Islamic Republic, President Mohammad Khatami, asked for national reconciliation. What are your thoughts about the former president?

Daftari: Well, it was on Khatami’s watch that many students’ lives were extinguished solely for speaking out against the regime. Shamelessly, during the July 9, 1999 university uprising in Tehran, Khatami called the students, “A bunch of hooligans,” while his guards and police brutally attacked students in their dormitories, even throwing some students out of third floor windows. I find it very ironic that he was welcomed at Harvard University to lecture students of the same age and faculty on practicing tolerance. It was during President Khatami’s term that prisoners of conscience were routinely tortured to extract confessions about the crimes they did not commit. Some of the victims were permanently incapacitated while others died under brutal torture. Regretfully, no human rights organizations were allowed to inspect the prisons.

What are your final thoughts about where is Iran headed?

Daftari: Despite everything, I am rather optimistic about the future of Iran. This is indeed the dawn of a new day.  There are many factors that point to an imminent coming of age for the Iranian people and the end of a bloody and brutal era for the regime.  A nation of 70 million, an overwhelming, zealous youth population, a distancing from and despising of oppressive Islam and a multitude of educated, savvy, technologically advanced Iranians will not tolerate or endure the yolk of this repressive regime much longer. The conditions for a perfect storm are in place. It is up to the international community, and in particular, the American administration, who has been the hesitant, halfhearted, unconvincing leader of the free world, to nurture, support and encourage significant changes in Iran and the region.

Court theatrics sees Islam rear its ugly head again

Supporters rally outside court. Herald Sun

The preposterous excuses and Pythonesque theatrics of Carnita Matthews and her very vocal supporters outside a Sydney court this week would be comic, if they weren’t so threatening.

The 46-year-old mother of seven, wearing a full black niqab showing just her eyes, has successfully tied the justice system up in knots for the past year, simply to avoid paying a $197 traffic fine.

Described as being “deliberately malicious and … ruthless” by the magistrate who convicted her last November of falsely claiming a “racist” police highway patrol officer tried to tear off her veil during a random breath test, Matthews escaped her six-month jail sentence on appeal before the NSW District Court on Monday.

Ironically, appeal judge Clive Jeffreys could not be certain beyond reasonable doubt that it was Matthews who had lodged the complaint against Sen-Constable Paul Fogarty, because (drum roll) a person alleged to be her was wearing the niqab when she arrived at Campbelltown police station last June.

“All we know is that a person with a black burqa came in with a man in a brown suit with an envelope and that’s it,” said Judge Jeffreys.

But somebody lied about Sen-Constable Fogarty, whose innocence and gentlemanly restraint in the face of Matthews’ persistent provocation were evident on the 20-minute in-car police video recording, without which his career would certainly have been in jeopardy.

The prosecution was unable to satisfy Judge Jeffreys that the liar was Matthews, despite the fact her friend, former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib, alleged to radio 2GB’s Chris Smith on Tuesday that he had accompanied her to the police station to lodge the complaint.

Moreover, Channel 7 has footage of Matthews allegedly signing a statutory declaration and driving to Campbelltown police station with Habib.

Neither Habib nor anyone from Channel 7 was asked to give evidence, which makes you wonder if the prosecution’s heart was really in it.

Maybe the case was too hot to handle. It has grown from a simple traffic fine for a woman with a string of driving offences, to a core test of political Islam: whether a veiled Muslim woman has the right to refuse a police officer’s lawful request that she identify herself.

The answer is no. That right does not exist under our law. But that doesn’t stop some Islamist activists pushing for it, as if it is their due.

Regardless of who signed the false complaint against Sen-Constable Fogarty, it was the intimidating behaviour of some of Matthews’ male supporters outside court this week that was most offensive.

The bearded men who chanted “Allah akbar” (Allah is great) as they marched roughshod on cameramen weren’t behaving normally.

Their theatrics were a declaration of war – on Australia, on the media, on police.

Linking arms and striding down the street, chanting the phrase we have heard terrorists utter when they plough a plane into a building or commit some other appalling crime, was a show of power by people who only seem to want to obey their god.

It looked like a direct challenge to Australian law and order.

We increasingly see the same challenge whenever a hardline Islamist appears in court, as the call goes out for “brothers” to run “protection” for the accused.

Matthews’ husband, Hamdi Abu Ibrahim, sent out the call on his Facebook page this week and later thanked: “All the hero’s (sic) and lions of Allah whom (sic) had the chance to come to the court and fight for the sake of Allah . . . Allah has granted your oppressed sister victory over his enemies and he granted us a judge that from the word go he was defending your sister where everyone else was determined to see her jailed, but Allah had other plans. They plot, but Allah is the best of plotters.”

His Facebook page, which had the profile picture of a bloodied fist replaced yesterday by a handcuffed figure in a burqa, contains messages from supporters such as: “Allah akbar, may all the pigs burn in hell inshallah”.

It also features videos of Osama bin Laden, slurs against infidels and “Kufaars” (non-Muslims), “American pig savages” and “Zionist dogs”.

For example, last weekend Ibrahim wrote: “Ya zionist dogs there will be a day very soon that youll find no sheltr nor a wall to hind behind and we will eat your flesh and spit it to our dogs to chew off.”

And this: “How long are we going to stay weak, no more Mr Nice Guy, we will defend our Islam and our sisters with our blood, blood, blood.”

A video also appears with the title “8 US soldiers killed in Iraq” and the message from Ibrahim: “Keep them Comming”.

Another video, since removed, has the message: “Watch the American pigs the Aussie pigs the British pigs soldiers raping your Muslim sister.”

There is also, ominously, talk on the page about disrupting a coming rally in Sydney by the Australian Defence League, an anti-Islamist group. A similar protest against shariah law in Melbourne last month had to be shut down by police after violent clashes.

On Ibrahim’s website there is a lone brave voice of reason, from a woman he refers to as his “sister”, “Philosopha Phatoom”.

“The way u men handled this is very wrong … may Allah take away this hated and anger from ur hearts,” she wrote yesterday. “I’m not judging … i can only assure u that setting an example of Islam is not that way …Remember Islam was never spread by the sword, it caught peoples Hearts.”

The vast majority of moderate Muslims in Australia want no truck with Islamist ideology. Many know all too well the turmoil it has caused in their countries of origin.

It is for them, as much as for the rest of the community, that NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell and his Police Minister Mike Gallagher need to send a firm message that no one is above the law.

The burqa or niqab, as several Muslims have pointed out, is not a requirement of the Koran, which advises women only to dress modestly. But it has become a potent symbol of political Islam.

Gallagher has flagged a law change to allow Muslim women to use fingerprints to verify their identity instead of lifting their veils, but he must avoid creating special laws for any particular group.

Australia is one of the most successful immigrant nations on earth, and it would be a pity to follow the European path of banning Islamic face coverings, because the result would be further repression of women.

In order to safeguard freedom, not least of Muslim women to wear the veil, then every challenge to authority must be countered when it arises