Rabi' al-Awwal 3, 1428/ March 23, 2007 #24
SOMALIA: New Islamic Uprising
March 21: Heavy fighting erupted when Ethiopian troops and U.S. funded
Somalis entered the Islamic stronghold of south Mogadishu. The people
fought back with weapons and drove out the invaders killing 9 Ethiopian
troops and 7 Somali mercenaries and wounding 34. Islamic women helped
[Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, 3.22, p.A8]
SUDAN: Censorship of Islamic Viewpoint on Darfur
During its huge gathering in Detroit, Michigan, the Nation of Islam
brought in the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, to talk to the
audience by TV link. The audience, African American, were enabled to
question the president of Sudan. Al-Bashir debunked the Zionist
propaganda that "genocide" is going on in Darfur. Thousands watched
and saw directly that Al-Bashir is not an "Arab" but a Black African.
[Dr. Akbar Muhammad emceed the appearance.]
Here is the shocker: The corporate-zionist media completely blocked the
reporting on the TV link appearance of the Sudanese President.
PALESTINE: Mufti Warns: Al-Aqsa in Danger
The Mufti of Palestine, Ikrima Sabri, has warned that Israel is
continuing to dig adjacent to the al-Aqsa masjid. The digging is
now being done at night and away from media coverage. The Mufti warned
the Muslim world: He said the time for talk is over. The Muslims must
take action to stop Israel before it is too late. [March 16]
AFGHANISTAN: Taliban Advance into Badghis Province
March 19: Kabul: A martyrdom operator hit a U.S. embassy convoy only 2
miles from the U.S. embassy. All three cars in the convoy were destroyed.
Karzai troops cordoned off the area and kept out the media. Casualties
were not revealed. A taliban spokesman told Pakistani media that the
martyr was from Khost province.
Also on 3.19, in a totally new development, an estimated 500 Taliban
advanced into Badghis province on the Turkmenistan border, northeast
The Taliban are holding on to Helmand province. NATO advance has stopped.
PAKISTAN: Backlash on Suspension of Chief Justice:
+Jamaat ad-Da'wa Rallies in 53 Cities
General Musharraf's attempt to destroy Pakistan's judiciary seems to
have backfired. For a whole week, lawyers have been demonstrating
against the suspension of the Chief Justice. In Lahore things became
serious when police beat up demonstrating lawyers wounding more than
100. Jamaate Islami is supporting the rule of law and holding rallies
in support of the judiciary. Pakistan Peoples Party is preparing to
step in if Musharraf is removed but till now the U.S. [including the
Zionist media] have not shown signs of abandoning Musharraf.
On March 23, the anniversary of the Pakistan movement, Jamaate ad-Da'wa,
which works for the liberation of Kashmir, held rallies in 53 cities.
The biggest rally was in Karachi in which Hafiz Saeed said that
defense of Pakistan's ideological frontiers is as important as defense
of its physical frontiers.
USA's moves against Muslims have backfired. Remember that a Dubai
shipping company lost big business in America when the Zionists
identified it as "Arab" [and therefore Muslim]. USA says NO MUSLIMS
IN SENSITIVE POSITIONS. Now in PAKISTAN, in Lahore, speaking to a huge
Friday prayer crowd, Jamaate ad-Da'wa leader Hafiz al-Makki said that
the appointment of Bhagwan Das [a Hindu judge] to replace Justice
Choudhury, removed by Musharraf, would not be ideologically valid
because Pakistan is an Islamic state. Non-Muslims, he said, can
hold all positions, but not the top most sensitive positions.
[Bhagwan Das was in Lucknow, India, when Musharraf removed Choudhury.]
[March 23, from Abdullah Muntazer.]
In Southern Waziristan, [Kelosha area] Pakistani military in
civilian clothes, with local tribesmen, successfully attacked Islamic
fighters from Uzbekistan and their Pakistani supporters, The Pakistanis
used artillery to kill the Uzbeks of whom many were killed, some say as
high as 100. The local people later came out in support of the Islamic
fighters and blocked the highway. The Pakistani military is trying to
find and kill Tahir Yuldashev, a famous Islamic fighter from
Uzbekistan, who is said to have taken refuge in the area.
Shaikh Omar Buried alive by Zionists & their Muslim Allies
Siraj Wahhaj Refuses to Reply:
His buddy Imam Talib Issues Long Winded Defense.
Also, the role of Dr. Cheema, Al-Amoudi and Al-Haggag
By Kaukab Siddique, Ph.D
Associate Professor of English
Several times in New Trend, Siraj Wahhaj has been advised to apologize
to the Muslim Ummah for helping the Zionists sentence
Dr. Omar 'Abdel Rahman to life and 65 years. Siraj Wahhaj did not
apologize. Now on March 18, I again asked him to do tawba, ask for
Allah's forgiveness and apologize for helping to send one of the
greatest Islamic scholars of our time to prison.
Again Siraj has not replied. This time, a well known Islamic da'i,
Br. Shamim Siddiqi, who also lives in New York, wrote to Siraj and
urged him to respond to New Trend. Again, no reply from Siraj. One
wonders what Islamic reason Siraj can have for non-reply to a serious
matter in which he helped the Zionists to convict the leader of the
Islamic movement in Egypt and the philosopher of Jihad in our times.
Instead of Siraj, his long time friend, Imam Talib has issued a long
email, most of which consists of praise for Siraj as an Islamic leader
and for himself [Talib] also as an Islamic leader. It amounts to
saying: How dare you question Siraj Wahhaj!
I wish to address the arguments Talib has used because it looks like
we are not going to get a response from Siraj. Here are Talib's main
points along with my rebuttal:
1. Talib quotes from the Qur'an to claim that criticism of Siraj Wahhaj
is suspicion, backbiting and slander which are strictly forbidden in
"Avoid suspicion as much (as possible), for suspicion in some cases is
a sin, and spy not on each other, nor speak ill of each other behind
their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother?
Nay, you would abhor it".
Talib is completely off the mark. This verse has nothing to do with
investigation and questioning of public personalities. Abul 'Ala
Maudoodi points out the restriction on the application of this verse:
"The prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, said that the
worst transgression is to attack a Muslim's honor UNJUSTLY."
[Hadith, Sunan of Abu Dawood.]
Maudoodi emphasizes "unjustly" [baghair-e-haq in Arabic]
and states: "the qualifying phrase 'unjustly' indicates that
criticism in the way of justice is permitted." see Maudoodi's
Tafhim-ul-Qur'an vol.5, p. 91, Sept. 1971 edition.
My own research shows that criticism of persons who misbehave and lie
in public is not only permitted in Islam but is required. It comes
under the Qur'anic command to "Command the good and reject the bad."
[9:71.] Hadith has spelled it out in great detail. Two texts here
Abu Huraira, r.a., narrates that the messenger of Allah, pbuh, said:
It is enough for a man to be deemed a liar that he narrates
uncritically whatever he has heard." [Hadith, Sahih Muslim.]
Umar ibn al-Khattab, r.a., narrates: Narrating anything, uncritically,
just because one has heard it is enough for anyone to be a liar.
Imam Malik makes it clear that a person who narrates something just
because he has heard it somewhere disqualifies him from being an Imam:
" Ibn Wahb says that Malik said to me: Understand this well: One who
narrates, uncritically, whatever he hears, cannot escape [error] and
he can never be an imam.' [Sahih Muslim]
I have noticed that the translators of Sahih Muslim into English have
somehow omitted the entire preface to the book, muqaddamatul kitab,
in which Imam Muslim himself, the eminent compiler of the second most
important book of Hadith indicates that expression of suspicion and
outright criticism of the public behavior of personalities claiming
to be Islamic is not only theoretically permitted in Islam but was
vigorously carried out to separate the false purveyors of religion
from the authentic ones. Here are a couple of examples Imam Muslim gives:
"Ibn 'Awn narrates that Ibrahim [a scholar of Hadith] told us: Be
careful of Mughira ibn Saeed and Abdur Raheem because both of them
are great liars." [#50 in Sahih Muslim.]
"Abu Dawood al-'Amma came to us and said: Bara' bin Azib, r.a., and
Zaid ibn Arqam, r.a., narrated to me. [both were companions of the
Prophet, pbuh.] Qatada [who knew him] said: Abu Dawood is a liar. He
never heard anything from them. He used to be a beggar when the plague
of Jarif came." [#63 in Sahih Muslim.]
"Mughira says that Harith 'Awr narrated Hadith to me but Sh'abi swore
to me that Harith Awr is one of the liars." [#45 in Sahih Muslim.]
Imam Muslim would not be including these personal comments in his great
book of authentic Hadith if all criticism were considered backbiting.
Obviously Talib has misunderstood or misused 49:12.
1. Now let us come to the discussion of the specific issue at hand. In
his defense of Siraj Wahhaj, Talib ADMITS that Siraj did claim that
the Shaikh taught the robbing of banks (!) but Talib makes excuses
for Siraj. Talib says that the Shaikh did teach the robbing of banks.
Siraj heard him say so; therefore he had to say so in court because
he was under oath. Talib's LIE is caught when he claims that Siraj
was surprised by the defense attorney's question and simply blurted
out the truth. These are Talib's words:
"Undoubtedly that day in court, Imam Siraj was caught off-guard, even
shocked, when he was questioned under oath by the defense lawyer of
Shaikh Omar (May Allah preserve him), about the Shaikh's comments
at Masjid At-Taqwa. Not knowing whether or not the prosecution was
also aware of what took place that day (e.g. was Emad Salem the
informant and agent provocateur there at that moment at Taqwa, with
the tape running?), Imam Siraj chose to be truthful rather than
perjure himself (which is not to say that he would do so anyway),
or to give a more vague answer (as someone else might have done under
similar circumstances). In fact, Imam Siraj told me that the lawyer
said to him beforehand, "be truthful". He was. So what's the beef?"
Talib's statement shows that either he has not studied the case or
his friend Siraj Wahhaj has mislead him. The story that the great
scholar of Islam Shaikh Omar taught people to rob banks was started
by an Egyptian named Abdo Haggag, who received in excess of $60,000
and a reducation of charges by the U.S. government. According to the
Shaikh's attorney, Lynne Stewart, Haggag said "He heard the sheik on
about 15 occasions and how he said at Farooq mosque, go blow some
military bases or steal some bank. We asked ten people who have heard
the sheik speak all over the metropolitan area if they ever heard him
say such a thing. Never." (Stewart's summation of Abdel Rahman case,
p. 18995). According to Stewart, "This man [Haggag] hated Sheik Omar."
The defense, wanting to put the bank robbing tale to rest, called
Siraj Wahhaj to the stand to stop the falsehood being spread against
To the consternation of Abdeen Jabara, the defense attorney, who had
called Siraj as a friendly witness, Siraj repeated the slander
initiated by the government agent Haggag.
Let us consider:
1) Could the Shaikh have taught the robbing of banks?
2) Could Siraj Wahhaj have known what the Shaikh was teaching.
1) Note that the Shaikh is:
Faqih and expert in Islamic Law.
Ph.D. from al-Azhar university
He is very strict in matters of law. For instance, he does not permit
Muslims to eat meat, even while living in America, which has not been
sacrificed in a Zabiha way. He has never in his life taken anything
unlawfully or taught anyone to do so. Before his arrival in the U.S.,
he was repeatedly arrested and tried by the corrupt Egyptian government
but was acquitted each time.
2) Could Siraj Wahhaj have known anything about the Shaikh's teachings?
Siraj admitted in court that he knew very little about the Shaikh's
teachings. He did not interview the Shaikh, he did not travel with
the Shaikh, he did not live with the Shaikh. How could he have known
anything? If on one occasion, let us suppose, as Siraj claims
[according to Talib] that he heard the Shaikh saying something about
robbing banks, it had to be through a translator. The Shaikh spoke
Arabic and Siraj only understood him through a translator. On the
basis of the Shaikh's life long record as a purist and strict follower
of Sunnah, Siraj should have given him the benefit of the doubt.
3) What are the chances that Siraj deliberately lied to hand over the
Shaikh to the government? The chances are very high. Why? Because
Siraj has for a very LONG time been a central leader of the Shoora
[central committee] of ISNA [Islamic Society of North America, so
called]. Anyone who has seen the publications of ISNA or been to
ISNA's Conventions would know that ISNA is a bootlicker of the Bush
administration. ISNA organized a BLOC vote of the Muslims of America
in support of Bush. Before that ISNA supported Clinton and its leaders
repeatedly visited the White House. ISNA-CAIR have close relationship
with the FBI. At the ISNA Convention Muslims were shocked to see that
the FBI had a booth. At CAIR's conferences FBI are routinely invited
as honored guests. Is it possible that as the leader of ISNA and
member of its central body, Siraj would not be involved with or
assenting to the government's oppression of the Muslims of America?
How much access did Siraj have to the power structure? He boasted to
the Wall Street Journal after a paper referred to his name being placed
on a list of "un-indicted co-conspirators": " I had dinner with
Secretary of State Albright after the list" was published.
[Wall Street Journal October 24, 2003] This is the same Madeleine
Albright who was involved in the death of a million Iraqi children
In March 2001, Siraj Wahhaj helped the government convict "four Muslim
extremists" in the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa. Siraj
Wahhaj was not in Africa when the two bombings took place. He took
the trouble to help the U.S. government. How did he know that the
government version was correct? In any case, he testified against
the bombers. [page 8, interview with WSJ] HAS HE TESTIFIED AGAINST
THE U.S. BOMBING of MUSLIMS in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? Of course not.
After Imam Warith Deen Umar gave a juma' khutba at Siraj Wahhaj's
Masjid Taqwa, the tape of the khutba reached the FBI and Imam Umar was
questioned about it when he was arrested in a blatantly illegal manner.
Talib tries to justify the tape thus: "In a recent e-mail, brother
Kaukab inquired as to how a copy of a taped khutba given by brother
Warith Deem Umar at Masjid At-Taqwa "got out" and into the hands of
the police or government. When one understands the reality of COINTELPRO
21st CENTURY,the answer to such a question becomes obvious. "
I would say that Siraj is answerable for the tape. He knew that Imam
Umar would give a powerful khutba but he took no steps to stop the
taping or to control its distribution. Siraj's friends say he is very
security conscious, then why the easy access given to the FBI?
Laughably, Talib goes to the extent of claiming that Siraj does not
take funds for his Islamic services. Here is what Talib says: "Oh yes,
here's another false accusation - that Imam Siraj gets a percentage,
or has consistently gotten a percentage of the vast monies he has
raised over the years for Islamic causes. Again, this can only be
thought by someone who doesn't really know the Imam. He has been so
self-less in this regard that he has been criticized by some of his
peers for not looking out for himself. All have come to see his
self-lessness as his own unique contribution of personal gifts and
talent, to the work we commonly hold dear."
But here is what Siraj told the Wall Street Journal when he was
interviewed [and has never retracted it]: "The mosque operates on
an annual budget of about $200,000, the imam says..." "His own $44,000
salary comes out of that budget." It is supplemented by "$1,000 or
$2,000 for giving speeches." So Br. Talib, go talk to your friend
who takes $44,000 for leading prayers and giving khutbas. I know many
Muslims who have never taken a cent for giving khutbas. I never have.
If Siraj has to have the money, at least don't lie about it!
Finally a word about Imam Talib. There is something bogus about this man.
After talking all all that Islam, he is SUPPORTING THE ZIONIST POSITION
on DARFUR and condemning Sudan [He is very active in opposition to
Sudan.] He has stabbed the Muslim community in the back on the
One point of agreement: Yes, Talib is right. Siraj Wahhaj is not the
only one who betrayed the great scholar of Islam. The Majlis-e-Shura
of New York, to whom the Shaikh's supporters and friends cried out
for support, refused point blank to support him, allowing the Zionists
to do their worst in destroying the servant of Allah. Talib is right
that a Sudanese named Siddig Ali joined the government and plea
bargained on February 6, 1995. Emad, the key FBI witness, too, was
The biggest blow was struck by the AMC led by Abdur Rahman Alamoudi
and Dr. Mohammed Cheema. On January 18, 1994, the defense made a
motion to remove Judge Mukasey from the Shaikh's case, owing to
his pro-Zionist bias. On January 28, 1994, the American Muslim
Council (AMC) of Cheema and Alamoudi joined hands with the American
Jewish Congress (AJC) to file a JOINT amicus curiae brief in support
of retaining Mukasey as presiding judge. Although the AMC later
retracted their name from the amicus brief, claiming they had
signed it by mistake, the deadline for recusal of the zionist
judge had elapsed, and the damage was done. Today Alamoudi is in
prison on unrelated charges, but Dr. Cheema retains high standing
within ISNA-CAIR circles.
Obama: US Should Never Dictate What's Best for Israel
Ynet News (Israel)
In a speech delivered before AIPAC lobbyists in Chicago, US Democratic
presidential candidate Barack Obama reveals strongly pro-Israel
platform: US must preserve 'total commitment to unique defense
relationship with Israel', work to stop Iran's nuclear program
even if military action is necessary. "But in the end," he added,
"we also know that we should never seek to dictate what is best for
the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister
should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by
the United States."
David Irving Speaks: The Lion has NOT Lost his Teeth!
An extremely abusive article appeared in the Hungarian media, reporting
on the first trip by world famous historian David Irving after his
release from an Austrian prison. Unable to face his massive
documentation of unpalatable facts about the war, International
Jewry tried to silence him by imprisoning him.
[ We have removed all the abusive commentary and kept only the news aspect.]
Budapest Times, March 19 [excerpted]
Irving, who will be 69 on 24 March, was in Hungary to promote his
latest Hungarian-language publication, which deals with the 1945-1946
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. He was also a guest of
the nationalist Hungarian Justice and Life Party (MI╔P).
At the Szabˇ Dezs§ Theatre, he began with a joke about the similarities
between his own country and Hungary, as both are being run by liars.
This was enthusiastically received, as were all of his comments and
gags. The English interpreter failed to turn up, so Irving spoke
chiefly in fluent German. He said that while in prison, he wrote
2,000 pages for a book on Himmler, and 2,000 pages of his memoir.
"I can recommend prison to writers," he quipped.
The audience consisted mostly of middle-aged men and women, with
some pensioners and twenty-somethings mixed in. There were no
stereotypical extreme right supporters: no skinheads, no swastikas.
In Hungary, the far right parties, especially MI╔P, tend to draw
crowds of moustachioed men in leather jerkins and stern-looking
After admitting that he has been in Hungary, where he has a number
of "good, special friends", for the past month - "and no one knew I
was here, I'm glad to say" - he went on to rail against what he sees
as a growing curtailment of freedom of speech in Europe. "I have to
behave myself," he said, bitterly. He added that the war was fought
for freedom but now "some are more free than others".
He told his audience how the criticism of his work started when "things
I uncovered during my research did not conform" to the opinions of
conventional historians. He has no formal training as a historian,
and used to hanker after acceptance from the academic community. He
reportedly said during the Lipstadt libel case that drove the last
nails into the coffin of his reputation that he has "no academic
Irving campaigns for what he calls "Real History" and is in demand as
a speaker. Having no serious publishing deal, he has put his works on
line for free download. His connection with Hungary goes back to
the 1970s, when he was researching his 1981 book Uprising! about
the 1956 revolution. That book has been criticised for implying that
rebels were chiefly motivated by anti-Semitism and for ignoring
events that took place in the years immediately preceding the 1956
Irving said Austrian authorities would only allow him to see his
twelve-year-old daughter for 15 minutes through a reinforced glass
screen while in prison. The Hungarian audience applauded him warmly
in sympathy. Many warned that imprisoning him would only heighten
his importance to those sympathetic to his marginal, extremist views.
To the small audience that came to hear him talk in a subterranean
theatre in Budapest, people who like to think of themselves as victims
living in a police state, David Irving was, at least for one night,
America Senses Danger of Rising Islamic Tide in Bangladesh.
Read it carefully: This is from a rabidly anti-Islam Bangladeshi
paper called Blitz.
Position to fight back radical Islamism
Sunita Paul writes for Blitz
Policy-makers in the US are increasingly worried about "the secular
underpinnings of moderate Bangladesh being undermined by a culture
of political violence and the rise of Islamic extremists".
With bilateral aid during the next fiscal up for discussion on the
Hill, the Congressional Research Service has circulated a report for
members of the House and Senate on 'Islamist Extremism in Bangladesh'.
The report comes at a time when the scheduled January 21 General
Election in Bangladesh has been postponed indefinitely and Emergency
imposed. The interim Government, now headed by economist Fakhruddin
Ahmed, has begun to crack down on graft and Islamic extremism, which
are often interlinked in Bangladesh, with the help of the newly-set
up Anti-Corruption Commission headed by a former Army officer, Lt
Gen Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury.
Both Ahmed and Chowdhury command greater credibility with the US and
its European allies than the squabbling contenders for power - Sheikh
Hasina Wajed of the Awami League and Begum Khaleda Zia of the
Bangladesh Nationalist Party. The countrywide swoop on close associates
of the two leaders and seizure of their property, cheered by
Bangladeshis, is believed to have the blessings of the US.
The US and its allies, which were increasingly alarmed by the rise of
Islamism in Bangladesh during Begum Zia's rule, had pinned their hopes
on the Awami League to check extremism if it won the scheduled poll.
At the last minute, that hope gave way to despair when Sheikh Hasina
signed a 'memorandum of understanding' with the stridently
fundamentalist Khelaphat-e-Majlish, promising rapid Islamisation
of state policy if voted to power.
Sheikh Hasina's decision to nominate Majlish's Maulana Habibur
Rehman, an ardent advocate of "Taliban-style rule in Bangladesh",
and pro-Al Qaeda Mufti Shahidul Islam, an Afghan war veteran, sent
alarm bells ringing in Dhaka's diplomatic circles and hastened the
cancellation of election and imposition of Emergency. Rehman and Islam
are intimately involved with the activities of the terrorist
organization, Harkat-ul-Jihad Islami. The mufti has been
arrested by the interim Government.
With Washington and its allies in European capitals showing little or
no interest in pushing for an early election, Sheikh Hasina and Begum
Zia have begun to panic. Recent clippings from Bangladeshi newspapers
reported that Sheikh Hasina is now willing to give up some of her key
demands -including mandatory voter ID cards -to settle for an early
poll. The ongoing crackdown on corruption and Islamism, unless checked,
could severely denude the support base of both leaders.
The Congressional report, underscoring the concern of "the US and
Britain over the rise of Islamist influence and militancy in
Bangladesh", points out that "the roughly even political split
between the BNP and the AL has given small Islamist parties a
political voice disproportionate with their overall electoral
Rather than allow Islamists to play a decisive role, the West seems to
be interested in promoting apolitical individuals during the
interregnum before election is held. This could explain Nobel
peace laureate and Grameen Bank founder Muhammad Yunus' sudden decision
to float a political party, Nagarik Shakti (Citizens Power)
While US Ambassador to Bangladesh Patricia A Butenis, according to
Bangladeshi media reports, is believed to have expressed her "position
favoring an early election during meetings with the top two rival
political leaders and with the advisers to the caretaker Government",
there is no palpable 'push factor' at play. The lack of urgency to
push for an early poll is partly explained by the perception, which
is gaining ground in Washington, that the main contenders for power
are in no position to fight back radical Islamism.
"Bangladesh's form of moderate Islam is increasingly under threat by
radical elements while its political and economic development
continues to be hampered by the forces of corruption, radicalism
and partisan fighting," the report says in a clear indictment of
both Sheikh Hasina and Begum Zia.
The report suggests that the US and its allies have begun to veer
round to the view of security experts in India that Bangladesh has
the potential to become a "centre of extremist Wahabi-oriented
terrorism". It refers to former US State Department Coordinator
for Counter-terrorism Cofer Black's assessment that Bangladesh has
the potential to become a "platform for international terrorism".
It says, "There is concern that Bangladesh might serve as a base
of support to various militant groups."
At the same time, the US and its allies are not keen on a military
takeover in Bangladesh, which has been ruled by the Army for 15 of
the past 35 years. "Given its past use of Islam for legitimacy, a
return to power by the military could create further opportunities
for Islamists in Bangladesh," the report says. But, according to
South Asian political analysts, generally Bangladesh Army is a
secular force promoting peaceful co-existence of people from every
religious belief. Moreover, in recent years, the armed forces have
attained highest appreciation abroad by having prominent contributions
in the US Peace corps. On the other hand, recent remarks by the Chief
of Armed Forces in the country quite evidently shows that, the army
has no intention in capturing power.
With both early poll and military takeover ruled out, the options
narrow down to allowing the interim Government, supported by the Army,
to stay in power for some time and work in tandem with apolitical
civil society groups like the one headed by Yunus to strengthen them
while the Anti-Corruption Commission cuts the Awami League and BNP
to size. Huge dollops of Western aid, it is believed, will help
this neutralizing process along.
Bangladesh, it seems, is set to become the new center point for yet
another Western experiment at promoting secular democracy.
2007-03-23 Fri 19:18:05 cst