London, 30th September 2010 - Hundreds of women from across the UK will gather at a seminar on Saturday October 2^nd 2010 to express their anger at the failure of the Zardari and successive Pakistani governments to secure the needs of the country's women and children.

London, UK, September 14^th 2010 - According to a recent statement by the Tunisian Human Rights group Committee for Defense of Veiled Women in Tunisia, the Tunisian government is continuing with vigor its harassment of Muslim women wearing the Islamic headscarf.

      On 26^th September, 2010, Bangladesh foreign ministry issued a news release stating that the United States has urged Bangladesh to send combat troops to Afghanistan to help the multinational effort to bring stability to the war-torn country of Afghanistan. The call was made during a meeting in New York between Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dr Dipu Moni and the United States special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, who is popularly known as the ‘American Viceroy' in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to the news release, Holbrooke said the US needed the "help of friends like Bangladesh" to ensure security in Afghanistan. It added that, "He sought for any kind of help like deploying combat troops, providing economic and development assistance or giving training among the law enforcement agencies,". In response to the US request, the foreign minister of Bangladesh assured the American side that the government is interested in this issue for further discussion and might consider the request. Foreign ministry sources confirmed that, there is serious diplomatic pressure and maneuvers undergoing on the issue. 

Historically, since South Asia was not at the heart of American foreign policy priorities during the period of 70s, and 80s America's maneuver with Bangladeshi Army was limited to gaining control over Bangladeshi political establishments. However, since 1989, after the fall of communism America embarked on a different model of military maneuver called peace keeping forces. This is a different version of NATO. This form of military maneuver was due to American limitation on her military capabilities especially regarding personnel and finance as global superpower. Countries like Bangladesh became very lucrative sources of cheap ‘military outsourcing' to manage American left out ‘wastage' in various wars and international disputes. Bangladeshi army became a ‘payroll military' at the hand of America due to the insincerity of the political leaderships in Bangladesh. Since then Bangladesh has contributed military in Namibia, Cambodia, Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, Mozambique, former Yugoslavia, Liberia, Haiti, Tajikistan, Western Sahara, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Georgia, East Timor, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire and Ethiopia.

At the beginning of this 21^st century American strategic partnership with India has made America to force the Bangladeshi Army to change its historical anti-Indian mentality using different means. The most lethal amongst them is the stick strategy, whereby USA remained in complete silence while she allowed India with the collaboration of Sheikh Hasina to administer the massacre of 57 top Bangladeshi army officials in 2009 in so called BDR mutiny. With this India has destroyed the morale of the Bangladeshi army, and forced the Bangladeshi army's to change its anti-Indian stance and thereby removing any security concern for her. On the other hand USA has taught Bangladeshi army what it means to oppose USA at any point of time. Beside this stick policy USA ever since the resumption of power by current Hasina government has tried to motivate and align Bangladeshi army's morale along with the morale shared by US army. Therefore we observe that, a number of joint military exercises called ‘tiger shark' I, II, III, and IV has been conducted in the Bay of Bengal between Bangladeshi and USA army.

It is at this point while Bangladeshi army has been prepared with carrot and stick policy that the Bangladeshi leadership has been ordered to contribute troops to American war on Islam. Interestingly American demand has come in a situation when the mujahideen of Afghanistan has given them a lesson and they are now on the verge of defeat. Realizing American defeat fast forwarding her NATO partners are withdrawing troops one by one. The Afghan surge strategy has failed. In fact General David Petraeus has been quoted as saying in a book titled ‘Obama's War' that, "I don't think you win this war. I think you keep fighting....this is the kind of fight we're in for the rest of our life and probably for our kid's life". Moreover the former general, McChrystal has openly criticized Obama, Biden and US's top military advisors before he was pulled out from the Afghan operation and ultimately forced to resign.

To the Muslims of Bangladesh, it is of utter disbelief and shock that foreign minister Dr. Dipu Moni has said that, her government is willing to discuss the matter further. She has graciously accepted American proposal and the developments in Dhaka for last one week is intense diplomatic maneuvering in this regard. Moreover, it seems that, the government is pretty happy that, America has called Bangladesh as ‘a friend in need'. However, being fortunate to become rulers due to the absence of Khilafah "Caliphate" state, like Shah Md. Quraishi of Pakistan, Dr Dipu Moni (and the other leaders the of Muslim world) must know that by committing in this ‘War on Islam' the Gaddars (traitors) Pervez Musharaf and Zardari have already sacrificed the life of 30,000 innocent Muslims and more than 3000 Muslim soldiers, severely wounded more than 6,000 soldiers, displaced more than several millions, suffered $45 billion loss to bankrupt Pakistani economy and above all with ‘Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act 2009' ultimately surrendered the control over 7^th largest army to USA. Yet, yes yet! all of this acts of slavery (so called friendship!!) could not satisfy the American vulture! How naive Hasina's government can be that she is now trying to quench the thirst of the US for more Muslim blood!

Muhammad al-Mamun

Dhaka, Bangladesh

    On October 17th 2010, Angela Merkel the German Chancellor unequivocally declared: "The approach of saying, 'Well, let's just go for a multicultural society, let's coexist and enjoy each other,' this very approach has failed, absolutely failed." Merkel is not alone amongst Germany's elite to disparage multiculturalism. In August 2010, Thilo Sarrazin then a board member of Germany's central bank condemned multiculturalism and claimed Germany's intelligence was in decline because of Muslim immigrants. Elsewhere in Europe, boisterous voices are reverberating in the corridors of power warning about dangers of multiculturalism. And all too often Muslim adherences to Islamic values in Western societies are cited as demonstrative examples of the failure of multiculturalism. In 2008, the now Prime Minister of Britain, David Cameron said, "State multiculturalism is a wrong-headed doctrine that has had disastrous results. It has fostered difference between communities. It would provide succor to the separatists who want to isolate and divide communities from the mainstream."

The rallying cry against the concept of multicultural societies is not limited to Europe. On September 28th 2010, Australia's former Prime Minister John Howard said, "This is a time not to apologize for our particular identity but rather to firmly and respectfully and robustly reassert it. I think one of the errors that some sections of the English-speaking world have made in the last few decades has been to confuse multiracialism and multiculturalism." He further added that some sections of society have gone too far in accommodating Muslim minorities. In America, the daily assault on multiculturalism by conservatives and other right wing politicians is polarizing American communities and is accentuating tension between Americans and Muslims. The plan to build a Masjid close to ground-zero is just the latest manifestation of this struggle. Clearly then, multiculturalism as envisaged by its proponents has failed to deliver what it was suppose to do i.e. protect groups or communities against intolerance and discrimination perpetrated by society or dominant groups.

Concepts like multiculturalism and diversity signify that in liberal democracies coexistence can be fostered between different groups without the erosion of their respective identities or cultural norms.  However, these concepts although widely employed in the lexicon of modern political philosophy are not new. Rather they are derived from one of the main pillars of Western liberal political thought called pluralism.  Like other Western concepts, the origin of pluralism is firmly rooted in birth of secularism. Back then some philosophers were incensed at the manner by which various Christian denominations were forced to assimilate and conform to the standards and virtues mandated by the papacy. They endeavored to safeguard the religious practices of such groups by campaigning for greater tolerance and leniency to be shown to them by the rest of society and other dominant groups. Initially, this meant that such groups were spared physical punishment and financial penalties. However, they were barely tolerated, and were subject to torrents of racial abuse, extreme discrimination and forced exclusion from different facets of society. For instance, they were denied employment, precluded from educational institutions, restrictions on travel movements etc. But as time passed, other thinkers sought to extend the boundaries of pluralism and pressed for weaker groups to be granted greater opportunities to express their religious and cultural identity in all aspects of societal life, besides the designated areas of worship. In some cases the thinkers managed to convince the state to extend protection against persecution of a group's cultural identity and race, and remove impediments to employment previously barred. Hence over the centuries, the concept of pluralism underwent progressive elaboration by Western philosophers and thinkers, as well as selective application by Western States. Despite numerous revisions and reviews, divergent views over pluralisms meaning, its applicability and value to society still persist. Some advocate that pluralism should be limited to a mere tolerance of a group's cultural identity and nothing more. Others equate pluralism with the right for diverse groups to freely express and celebrate their cultural identity without fear and restrictions imposed by society or dominant groups.

Towards the middle of the last century, the labor crisis in Europe spurred an influx of immigrants to European shores.  Attempts by Europe to absorb people from numerous diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds posed a number of challenges to the cohesiveness of their respective societies-chief amongst them were housing, marriage, education, health care, welfare benefits and employment. Tensions frequently surfaced between the indigenous populations and the immigrants, as both competed for limited resources. During this period, several thinkers and a handful of politicians criticized the inability of Western governments to assimilate immigrants. They suggested alternative solutions to preserve social cohesion based on pluralism, and advocated cultural diversity under the guise of integration. In 1966, Roy Jenkins a British politician presented a new pluralistic vision for Britain. He said, " I do not think we need in this country a ‘melting pot' which will turn everybody out in a common mould, as one of a series of carbon copies of someone's misplaced vision of the stereotyped Englishman... I define integration therefore, not as a flattening process of assimilation but as equal opportunity, coupled with cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance." This became known as Jenkins formula and was widely employed by policy makers to establish guidelines and laws for multiculturalism. In the next 40 years, pluralism or multiculturalism- as it came to be widely known- was introduced in almost every aspect of life, so much so, that indigenous populations perceived immigrants and other minority groups to enjoy greater benefits then themselves. Subsequently, relations between the host and immigrant communities rapidly deteriorated, many questioned the wisdom behind multiculturalism, and some even went as far as calling for its abolition. Therefore, even before the events of September 11, 2001, multiculturalism which was coveted as a panacea for social cohesion was an abject failure.

Multiculturalism or pluralism is whimsical idea that is conceptually flawed and unworkable in practice. This is because pluralism encourages groups to promote their cultural identity irrespective of their political influence or financial strength. Naturally the strongest group uses its political prowess and financial muscle to persuade politicians to define legislation, which vigorously defends and endorses its culture and values at the expense of other groups. Additionally, the most powerful group manipulates the media and the educational establishments to actively promote its culture, this leads to wide spread acceptance amongst the indigenous population. In this way, the strongest group's culture becomes indistinguishable from the state's culture. Weaker groups find themselves culturally squeezed, discriminated against and in conflict with the state. Such groups are coerced by both the state and society to dilute their cultural identity to fit in. Those groups that refuse to temper with their cultural identity are ostracized and consigned to live in ghettos. In extreme cases they are expelled from the host nation like what happened to the Roma gypsies in France.

Islam does not subscribe to west's notion of pluralism where the strongest group decides which culture is legally beyond reproach, and which groups cultural identity is to be singled out and subject to unfettered criticism. Islam stipulates that life, honor, blood, property, belief, race and the mind are to be protected by the Islamic State. Islam does not distinguish between individuals or groups in such matters. All are treated as the citizens of the Caliphate and are guaranteed these rights, irrespective of their political influence, financial strength or whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims. Islam also protects the rights of non-Muslims groups to retain and assert their cultural identity within limits, and without any fear of retribution or vilification of their identity. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: "One who hurts a thimmi (non-Muslim citizen of the Caliphate), he hurts me and the one who hurts me hurts Allah". Islamic history is unrivalled in its capacity to protect the rights of non-Muslim minorities and immigrants under the shade of the Caliphate.