Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

For some fun on a lazy Sunday, read the comments (comment 5,  comment 6, comment 7) by the poster from Bangladesh claiming to be both ‘Steve Johnson’ and ‘Abul Hashem’ in response to my post on Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. Also, read my response explaining the fraud.

Enjoy.

I received another email from Rabbi Sue Levy. I wanted once again to share our continuing conversation with the reader. I thank Rabbi Levy for the opportunity to engage her in discussion about Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.

Rabbi Levy’s email is below followed by my response:

Dear Mr. Rahman,

 

It’s obvious to me that no words of mine will persuade you of Shoaib Choudhury’s goodness and that no word’s of your’s will persuade me of the contrary, so we won’t accomplish anything by continuing our conversation about him.

 

I do want to make you aware of one point. The people who support Shoaib come from a broad spectrum of opinion about Israel and everything else. I don’t agree with Sheikh Palazzi in his position about Israel and the Palestinians. In the Jewish community, we have our liberals and our fundamentalists. Those of us who are liberals do not take every word of Torah as God’s revealed word, and we do not operate from an assumption that God gave us the land of Israel. We do believe that it is our homeland, since Jews have been there continuously for more than three thousand years. Having said that, the huge majority of us believe in a two-state solution to the conflict with our Palestinian brothers and sisters, and we believe in peace with justice for all sides.

 

Those among us who are fundamentalists certainly believe that God gave us the Land of Israel, but there is nothing in the Torah which forbids us from sharing what is our’s or even from giving something away that was given to us by God, since the Torah is given to us, ultimately, as a roadmap toward a more peaceful time. There are many maps and many paths, and I hope you will understand that I am making no comparison with a rather dubious political plan by the same name.

 

I am a member of a group called Rabbis for Human Rights. Our work in Israel includes proactive efforts to assist innocent Palestinians who are victimized by our Jewish brothers and sisters. Our members have stood in front of bulldozers in an attempt to keep them from destroying Palestinian homes and have gone into the olive groves with Palestinians to help them harvest their crops safely in place where Israeli "settlers" might have harmed them.

 

All this has become much more difficult since Hamas has come to power. I don’t know any Israeli or any Jew in his or her right mind who would consent to giving an inch of land to someone whose sworn purpose is to destroy you. I would advocate negotiations toward a peaceful settlement, even one that includes making concessions about land for a Palestinian state, if the Palestinians could provide Israel with an honest and sincere bargaining partner. This is not likely to happen while Hamas is in power, and I find that very sad. Would you negotiate with a suicide bomber? Would you negotiate with a government that is using the "peace" process as a way of buying time so that it can strengthen and attack again?

 

I don’t espouse genocide, and to say that all of Shoaib Choudhury’s supports do is neither honest nor fair. It is reasonable to say that there are some Muslims who believe that the Qur’an states that Allah has given the Land of Israel to the Jewish people, and that some of them draw conclusions from that upon which neither you nor I agree. And, it is correct to say that at least one of these people, Imam Palazzi, supports Shoaib Choudhury.

 

Shoaib for his part, has taken no position regarding Israel at all, except that the government of Bangladesh should recognize Israel and establish diplomatic and trade relations with it. His editorial policy is to publish articles by people who express many opinions in the hope that the people of Bangladesh will have the opportunity to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

 

All this is quite apart from any other discussions we have had about him. It is something that I wanted to clarify, while still understanding that we will disagree on many things regarding Choudhury.

 

I’m saddened that you and others find it necessary to hold onto so much bitterness. The divisions in Bangladesh run very deep. A lot of what happens in your home country comes from people who seem to believe that it is still 1971 when, I believe, it would be healthier for Bangladeshis to move on and look to the needs of the future without reliving the past. Shoaib is not my only friend in Bangladesh, but he is the only one who has become a "public figure." In the course of the friendships I have made, I have come to care very much about your homeland, and it is hard for me to watch what people with either greed or grudges or both are doing to each other. I hope for a better time for all of us.

 

Assalamu Alaykum,

 

Sue Levy

Dear Rabbi Levy,

 

Thank you once again for your response.

 

You stated in your email that we will not accomplish anything by continuing our conversation. On the contrary, I think we have accomplished a great deal. We have both expressed our views on the matter in open debate to , I hope, the benefit of the reader. As you will recall, we began this conversation with a request from you that I retract my original post and that I apologize as well. I remain prepared to correct any errors of fact in my original post if I am provided with credible news account to the contrary. I hope you will understand that I will not be persuaded by opinions of Mr. Choudhury’s supporters unless those opinions are backed up by credible news reports.

 

I want to thank you for making it clear that you do not agree with Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi’s views regarding the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. I also applaud your work with Rabbis for Human Rights in your effort to defend the human rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. I firmly believe the only path to peace in Israel and Palestine is through reconciliation and dialogue. I am heartened that you both share those views and champion efforts to make that happen.

 

You said in your email that it was unfair and dishonest to say that all of Mr. Choudhury’s supporters espouse genocide. Specifically, you said the following:

I don’t espouse genocide, and to say that all of Shoaib Choudhury’s supports do is neither honest nor fair. It is reasonable to say that there are some Muslims who believe that the Qur’an states that Allah has given the Land of Israel to the Jewish people, and that some of them draw conclusions from that upon which neither you nor I agree. And, it is correct to say that at least one of these people, Imam Palazzi, supports Shoaib Choudhury.

I want to note that I did not accuse anyone of espousing genocide. I did however say that the Islam-Israel Fellowship, of which Mr. Choudhury and Dr. Benkin are advisory board members and Sheikh Palazzi is the co-founder, espouses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. To support my statement, I cited some of the many commentaries written by this group and available on their web site. I also did not state, and certainly did not mean to imply, that all of Mr. Choudhury’s supporters espouse ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. If I left you with that impression, I want to clarify that it was not my intention. Specifically, I do not think I ever suggested that you were a member of Islam-Israel Fellowship or that you subscribed to their views about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

 

I will reiterate what I have said before. Both Mr. Choudhury and Dr. Benkin belong to the Islam-Israel Fellowship, along with Sheikh Palazzi. Many of the contributors on Mr. Choudhury’s Weekly Blitz are members of Islam-Israel Fellowship. Given the extreme views of Islam-Israel Fellowship, to suggest that Mr. Choudhury is somehow unaware of them while choosing to remain on their advisory board once again stretches credulity. I should further note that the one person who seems to be the source of almost all "reporting" on Mr. Choudhury is Dr. Benkin, who is not only associated with Islam-Israel Fellowship, but has written numerous articles expressing views that are consistent with the group.

 

You stated the following in your email:

I’m saddened that you and others find it necessary to hold onto so much bitterness. The divisions in Bangladesh run very deep. A lot of what happens in your home country comes from people who seem to believe that it is still 1971 when, I believe, it would be healthier for Bangladeshis to move on and look to the needs of the future without reliving the past.

I have to confess that your comments both sadden and disturb me a great deal. Bangladeshis are not "reliving the past" by remembering the genocide of 1971. The events of 1971 are a very important part of Bengali national identity and largely define the foundations of Bangladesh today. We are not prepared to "move on" and somehow forget the most concentrated act of genocide in the 20th century, where up to 3 million Bengalis were massacred in the name of religious extremism. Any suggestion to "move on" is an insult to me as a Bengali, to the memory of my parents, to the memory of my relatives who lost their lives, to the hundreds of thousands of women and girls who were raped, to the millions who were slaughtered, and to the Bengalis who survived the horrors and live with the scars today. 1971 is important to Bangladeshis just as the Holocaust is important to the Jews. We remember 1971 so as not to repeat it, in the same way the world remembers the Holocaust so the unimaginable savagery is never visited upon this Earth again.

 

The memory of 1971 is especially important in the post 9/11 world. In 1971 Bangladesh fought for the ideal of a secular state against the tyranny of religious extremism. Bangladesh is proud of its founding as a Muslim majority state with a secular parliamentary democracy. While our fellow Hindu brothers and sisters were being slaughtered by the Pakistani army, Muslims and Hindus in Bangladesh came together to resist the atrocities and ultimately drive the perpetrators out. We stood up in 1971 as one nation united by our common humanity and not divided by the false seduction of religious extremism. The independence of Bangladesh was a triumph of secularism over religious bigotry.

 

Since 1971 there have been extremist forces that have re-entered Bangladesh who continue to try to subvert the secular nature of Bangladeshi society. It is the memory of 1971 that reinvigorates the desire of the Bengali nation to resist all forms of extremism. So, no, we will not "move on" nor will we ever forget.

 

You also stated in your email:

Shoaib is not my only friend in Bangladesh, but he is the only one who has become a "public figure." In the course of the friendships I have made, I have come to care very much about your homeland, and it is hard for me to watch what people with either greed or grudges or both are doing to each other.

With due respect, Rabbi Levy, while I do not question your caring for Bangladesh, I do question your knowledge of the political landscape in Bangladesh. In a post dated January 23, 2007 defending Mr. Choudhury, you wrote the following:

This is taking place against a background of governmental and social instability in Bangladesh. A new interim "caretaker" government has taken control of the country after many weeks of violent demonstrations, strikes and unrest fomented by the Awami League, a coalition of parties which has most recently been in the minority in the Bangladeshi Parliament. These groups represent the radical Islamist faction whose goal it is to see a Taliban-like government take control of the country with the Islamic Shari’ah (religious law) as the law of the land. The interim government is working to meet one of their demands by correcting some large discrepancies in the lists of registered voters. It seems apparent that these radicals will win many more seats in the parliament than they have had before when elections are held in the late spring. It is, indeed, possible that they will win a majority. Al Queda is making incursions into the country, and an international group of journalists has made a statement that Bangladesh is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists who are often imprisoned and sometimes executed. [Emphasis added by me.]

I am concerned that you are propagating patently false information about Bangladesh and those that come to read your posts will, because of the respect they hold for you, believe your words. You asserted in your post that the Awami League represent "the radical Islamist faction" who want to see a "Taliban-like" government and impost "Shari’ah" law in Bangladesh. It might surprise you to learn that the Awami League is the leading secular party in Bangladesh. It was the Awami League that led the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 under the banner of secular democracy. If the Awami League were to come to power, and they have held power in Bangladesh numerous times before, hell is likely to freeze over before you see a "Taliban-like" government in Bangladesh.

 

The immediate past government in Bangladesh, led by the BNP, had within its ruling coalition, the Jamaat-e-Islami  – the leading Islamist party in Bangladesh. If any party would want to bring "Taliban-like" government to Bangladesh, it would be the Jamaat-e-Islami, not the secular Awami League. Fortunately, though Jamaat-e-Islami, like other small parties in a parliamentary democracy, can form coalitions with the major parties to form a government, they do not have a following large enough to actually control a government in Bangladesh. I will take this opportunity to again point out that Mr. Choudhury, the person you defend, was intimately connected to the Jamaat-e-Islami. Yet, in your post, you state falsely that the Awami League is a "radical Islamist faction", which as should become obvious to you is quite the opposite of the truth.. Once again you do a disservice to the truth and to Bangladesh by propagating false and misleading information.

 

I would like to conclude by asking you to continue to visit my blog and engage me and my readers in open dialogue.

 

Shalom,

 

Mashuqur Rahman

 

Rabbi Sue Levi, a contributor to the Weekly Blitz, has sent an email in response to our email conversation regarding Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. Her email and my response are below:

Dear Mash,

I want to clarify three things about Shoaib Choudhury and then I’ll drop the subject on this blog.

First, you proclaimed that, by definition, Shoaib is/was an Islamist because he worked for one year at Inqilab. I wasn’t acquainted with him at the time, so I asked him about that employment. He told me that many people with families to support will take employment in places the might not otherwise choose. He took the position, even though he was aware of their Islamist religious beliefs and politics, and got out of there as soon as he was able. He was never in agreement with their policies while he was employed there.

Second, the internet has made this a very small world. Shoaib’s newspaper, Weekly Blitz, is read in many Arab countries where the ruling powers need to discredit him when he writes favorably about Israel and interfaith understanding and when he writes unfavorable about radical Islam which is becoming more and more prevelant in Bangladesh. Saudi Arabia is the primary perpetrator of the smear tactics against him. Their government, often speaking through their embassies abroad, have also been involved in this effort. Their most egregrious charge is that he is an Israeli espionage agent. If you think about this, espionage agents do their work covertly. They don’t go out and publish newspapers supporting the country they are supposedly working for. This is a baseless and malicious charge emanating from Saudi Arabia.

And finally, there is no hope for due process for Shoaib Choudhury or for anyone else in Bangladesh. In their legal system the accused individual is not permitted to bring defense witnesses or evidence in his or her defense. The only think a defense attorney can do is to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution. And, there is no jury. A judge makes a unilateral decision after the witnesses have been heard, but all the witnesses are there to condemn him. In Shoaib Choudhury’s case, the judge made a written statement that he sees no reason to acquit him long before a single witness was heard. So, there is no such thing as due process in Bangladesh. If there were, I would agree with the many writers here who have called for it.

I would like to suggest that your readers spend some time reading Shoaib’s newspaper online to think about it for themselves. www.weeklyblitz.net

Shoaib returns to court this Thursday, March 8th.

I want to thank you for allowing me to defend him. It is the only placewhere that will happen.

Rabbi Sue Levy
Houston, Texas, USA

My response is below:

Dear Rabbi Levi,

Thank you again for your email. I wanted to respond to the three issues you raised in your email.

You stated in your email that Mr. Choudhury took the job at the Islamist daily, Inqilab, because he needed to support his family. You further stated that he did not support their policies while he worked there. I should point out that Mr. Choudhury was also the managing director of Inqilab Television, the would-be on-air mouthpiece of the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami party. According to Mr. Choudhury’s own words, he was a 30% owner of Inqilab Television and had a $1 million stake in the venture. Clearly, he was aware that Inqilab Television, the namesake of the newspaper, was also an Islamist mouthpiece when he became managing director and a 30% owner of the venture. It stretches credulity to suggest that he took the job at Inqilab newspaper simply to support his family, yet had $1 million to invest in the Islamist television venture. Mr. Choudhury clearly was a major partner in the Islamist venture according to his own words. A person usually does not invest $1 million in an Islamist mouthpiece if that person does not subscribe to its politics.

You also stated that Saudi Arabia is the "primary perpetrator of the smear tactics against him". In your previous email you had also made similar allegations, without citing any sources, against the Bangladesh Embassy in Washington – I am glad to see that you have not repeated that allegation. First, I would ask you once again to provide some proof of your allegations. Please provide some credible news account of the Saudi involvement that you claim. Second, I should point out that if indeed Saudi Arabia is orchestrating a smear campaign, as you allege, they are clearly doing a very poor job. A simple Google search on Mr. Choudhury will show that almost every single article that is returned is written by Dr. Benkin or others connected with him. All these articles portray falsely that Mr. Choudhury is a moderate Muslim who is being persecuted for his attempts at inter-faith dialogue – it is the same story repeated over and over again by the same people. If the Saudis are trying to influence the debate, they are doing a very poor job indeed. On the contrary, the picture that clearly emerges is an orchestrated campaign by Mr. Choudhury’s friends to portray Mr. Choudhury as a martyr, unfairly tar Bangladesh’s image to an uninformed reader, and leave the impression that Mr. Choudhury is being persecuted when in fact he is out on bail, enjoys the freedom to publish and express himself freely, and is being accorded due process. It is also no accident that these friends of Mr. Choudhury all seem to be connected to the Islam-Israel Fellowship, a group who advocates the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

Finally, you stated in your email that "there is no hope for due process for Shoaib Choudhury or for anyone else in Bangladesh." You also claimed "In their legal system the accused individual is not permitted to bring defense witnesses or evidence in his or her defense. The only think a defense attorney can do is to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution." I am afraid that you are grossly misinformed about the Bangladesh legal system. I fear that those who have explained the Bangladesh legal system to you have either intentionally or unintentionally misled you.

I should tell you that my wife was a practicing criminal defense lawyer in Bangladesh before we were married. She and her law partners have brought many defense witnesses into court during the course of legal proceedings. Any suggestion that the defense is not permitted to bring their own witnesses is patently false. You also mentioned that there is no jury system in Bangladesh. While it is true that there is no jury system in Bangladesh, it is not unusual in the world not to have a jury system. In fact, the world’s largest democracy, India, does not have a jury system. Japan did not have a jury system until 2004. The majority of criminal cases in England are heard without a jury. There are pros and cons to a jury system, but to suggest that judicial systems such as Bangladesh that do not have a jury system are devoid of due process is simply uninformed.

The Bangladeshi judicial system has a long and rich history – it is based primarily on British law and to a lesser extent, Islamic and Hindu legal systems that predated the advent of the British system. The Bangladesh Constitution grants the writ of habeas corpus, something that Alberto Gonzales has claimed the United States Constitution does not do. The Bangladesh Constitution, in articles 26 to 47, guarantees the right to hear charges against the accused, the right to challenge one’s detention, equal protection under the law, and the fundamental rights to speech, thought, conscience, religion, assembly, movement, and association, among other enumerated rights. Any suggestion that Mr. Choudhury will not be accorded due process flies in the face of Bangladeshi law and the history of criminal proceedings in Bangladesh. It is worth noting again that Mr. Choudhury is out on bail while continuing to publish in Bangladesh.

The Bangladeshi courts have often ruled against the government. They have also convicted some very high profile Islamist extremists as recently as last year. All those convicted of a death penalty offence have a right to automatic appeal all the way up to the Bangladesh Supreme Court. Bangladesh is not known for summary executions or of quick dispensation of death penalty cases. The individuals who assassinated the Bangladeshi Prime Minister in 1975 were tried and convicted (three were acquitted) and sentenced to death after a long trial that ended in 2001. The trial was universally hailed as fair. The sentences of those convicted are yet to be carried out while the convicted pursue their legal rights to appeal in the Bangladeshi courts. So your uninformed assertion that "there is no such thing as due process in Bangladesh" is without merit and patently false.

To conclude, I should debunk the claim that somehow Mr. Choudhury is being targeted for speaking out against Islamist extremists and the government. It might interest you to know that the Bangladeshi press has been quite vocal in speaking out against extremists. To suggest the Mr. Choudhury is somehow a lone "moderate" amongst a sea of extremists is simply ludicrous and false. As an example, consider this article from 2004 in The Daily Star that criticizes the government as well as the Islamist extremists; or this article from 2005 exposing Jamaat-e-Islami’s links to militants; or this article from 2003 about Islamist militants in Bangladesh. There are countless other examples – anyone who has read a Bangladeshi newspaper will not be surprised by their independence and their invaluable service in exposing extremists whenever they can. Anyone who knows Bangladesh’s long struggle to independence understands how much Bengalis value their secular system. You and your colleagues do a disservice to the truth and to Bangladesh when you propagate misinformation about the nature of Bangladeshi society and its institutions.

I look forward to your continued visits to my blog. I also encourage you to comment on the posts and continue to engage me and my readers on this and other topics.

Respectfully yours,

Mashuqur Rahman