From: gt7242a@prism.gatech.EDU (KHAN,RAHEEL)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re:Mulsim nation (a reply to Harsh Verma's article on  Bosnia)
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:44:16 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In response to Javed Ahmed Khan's article on Bosnia, Harsh Verma writes:

     key:    >> = Javed Ahmed Khan
             >  = Harsh Verma

   
>>The conflict in Bosnia however is not one of righting a historical wrong. It is
>>one of territorial greed and fascist tendencies afflicting the Serbs fighting
>>in Bosnia with wholehearted support from the leadership in Serbia. 
> 
>>Citing the rule of the Ottomans or the events of WWII is a feeble attempt by
>>many muslim-antagonists in Serbia and in the west to play down the crass human
>>greed for territory and the atrocities being commited by the Serbs in Bosnia.
>> 
>>The Serbs have now gobbled up 95% of the land in Serbia with another 2-3%
>>attached by Croatia leaving in their wake a refugee crisis with people (an
>>overwhelming majority of them muslims) dispossesed of their homeland.     

>Comparing Muslims to Serbs is like comparing apples and oranges.
>Religion and ethnicity are not the same.
     
     Perhaps  you need to reexamine the Bosnian crisis.  Many Muslims in 
     Bosnia claim that they are a seperate "Ethnic Group".  In fact, they
     have always been identified as a seperate ethic group in the region.
     Why did the communist government of former Yugosalavia consider Muslims
     as "an Ethnic minority"?  

     The fact of the matter is that many of the Muslims in Bosnia are not 
     "practicing Muslims".  They do, however, pride themselves with a culture
      and a history distinct from both the Croatians and the Serbians.  

>Muslims in Bosnia are Serbs who were converted during the Ottoman rule
>over Serbia. The were Orthodox Serbian Christians before conversion.

      No!  None of these statements are true!  Muslims in Bosnian have 
      Croatian, Serbian and Turkish blood.  It is true that there are
      Muslims who are racially indistinguishable from Serbians, and 
      there are Muslims who are ethnically Croatian, the claim that 
      Bosnian Muslims are ethnic Serbs is far-fetched and baseless.
   
      It is not true that Muslims in ex-Yugosalavia were Orthodox 
      Christians before they converted.  In fact, most of those who
      converted to Islam were Bogomiles, or "God-lovers", and practiced
      a pure-monothestic form of Christianity.  Even before their conversion,
      the Bogomiles, who lived primarily in tribes in the region that now 
      comprises Bosnia-Hercegovina,  were branded as Heretics and persecuted
      by the Serbs (and the Croats).  

      A considerable number of Bogomile tribes had accepted Islam because of 
      the efforts of Sufis of the Qadriyya order even before the Ottommon 
      conquest of the region.  It is, therefore, misleading to suggest that 
      people accepted Islam in the region during the Ottomon rule.
      
      
      
>Historically, that land has always been Serbian (not Christian or
                             ^^^^^^
      How far back in History do you want to go?  

>Muslim because the Christian Serbs do not confuse between religion
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and politics), and now when the Serbs have failed to forge a Slav
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
      But I have heard Serbs (from the Serbian-American Media Center) 
      claim that it is a religious war as well!  Why do the Serbians
      like to brand crosses on the bodies of Muslim women that they
      rape?  Why do they like to carve crosses on the chests of Imams
      of Masjids?  I don't think that the issue in ex-Yugosalavia is
      nationalism versus a stubborn religious minority.  At least it 
      does not seem so from the pictures of victims from the area.

>nation, they want to be Serbia again. The internal borders in the
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      As if that is a good enough reason to stoop to the level of 
      inhumanity that Serbs have stooped to!  It is obvious that neither
      the Croats nor the Muslims in the Balkans want to be part of a 
      greater Serbia.  

>former Yugoslavia (South Slavs) was neither drawn on basis of any
>general consensus, nor does it have a historical basis. It was drawn

      The area that now comprises Bosnia was once a province of the 
      Astria-Hungry (after they wrested it from the hands of the 
      Ottomon Empire).  I don't see the point.  What gives any division
      of land any ligitimacy?   Just because this area was controlled by
      the King of Serbia over Six Centuries ago, does not grant legitimacy
      to the claims frowarded by Milichovic and his hoard of magnomanics! 
      Nor does it justify genocide going on in Bosnia even at this moment!
      
      
>by Tito, a Croat, to deny the Serbs any political advantage they could
>have by virtue of being the largest ethnic group in Yugoslavia. This
>is clearly reflected by the fact that only 70% of the Serbs lived in
>the Serbian state of Yugoslavia. Another 25% live in Bosnia and
>Croatia, whereas Croatia and Slovania had almost all of Croats and
>Slovanians.

>Muslims in Bosnia do not have a majority, they are about 44% of the
>population. The Non-Muslim Serbs are 35%. Another 18% is Croat (mostly
>Catholic), When Bosnia voted on independence from Yugoslavia, the
>Croats and Muslim Serbs voted together. The popular vote was for
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>independence. 


     It is true that the Muslims comprise of a plurality in Bosnia according
     to some surveys.  However, Bosnians, Muslims and Christians, claim that
     Bosnia has its own heritage, one that is independent from both Serbia 
     and Croatia.  It is true that many Bosnian Serbs did not vote in favor
     of independence, but the fact that many Serbs did vote for seperation 
     can not be ignored.

     The assertion that all Serbs want believe in "Greater Serbia" is a 
     false one.  Bosnian Authorities report that 20% of the Bosnian Defense
     forces deployed in Sarejavo are ethnic Serbs!  For example, see the picture
     of a the Serbian mother who was mourning besides the grave of her son, 
     who had died defending Sarejavo, which was published by New York 
     Times about three months ago.
  

>This situation was unacceptable to the non-Muslim Serbs because
>historically that land had been a part of Serbia. Just because some
>people converted did not mean that they could claim a part of Serbia.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     Wake up! We are talking about Bosnia not India, remember?  Once again,
     Muslims in Bosnia are not Serbs who converted during the Ottomon rule on
     the Balkans.   They are ethnically of diverse origins and over the  
     centuries they have developped their own culture, which is marked by 
     tolerance towards other relgions.  For example, the Jews living in 
     Sarejavo are survivors of the Spanish Inquisisition, who were given 
     refuge by the Muslims in the area that now comprises Bosnia.


>Bosnia had been conveniently carved out of Serbia in the former
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     By whom?  Was Tito a Muslim agent or something?

>Yugoslavia so that it gave the Muslim Serbs a numerical advantage
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     Why the Muslims (not Muslim Serbs)  ?
>there and the non-Muslims Serbs were aware of that fact. That border
>has no historical significance but was only artificial.

     So what even if this is true?   How many historically significant 
     borders do you see in the world anyway??? 

>Also, in Bosnia, the Muslims were concentrated in cities. The rural
>Bosnia was predominantly non-Muslim Serb. The non-Muslim Serbs in fact
>were in majority in over 70% of the area of former Bosnia. 

     Is that right?  Well 90% of the Muslims living in Kosovo, which is
     a province of Serbia, are Muslim (primarily of Albanian and Turkish
     descent)!  If the issue was merely self government, then we would 
     hear about autonomy in Kosovo as well.   Why is self-rule not important
     in Kosovo but it is in Bosnia?  The fact of the matter is that all this
     talk about "self-rule", that Serb propogandists have used to 
     confuse the issue (a line that you seem to have picked up pretty well!),
     is nothing more than a mask for the naked agression by Serbian 
     extremists.

>If the Muslim Serbs claim that since Muslim population in Bosnia is
>the largest, and therefore Bosnia should be not a part of non-Muslim
>Serbia, by the same argument the 70% rural non-Muslim dominated
>Bosnia should not be a part of Muslim Bosnia. However, logic has thus
>far been successful to elude the Bosnian Muslim.

    But if you talk about ethnic cantonements in Bosnia than why not 
    divide Serbia and Montenegro into ethnic cantonemnets as well?  
    Macedonia and Kosovo are two places that I know have significant
    numbers of Muslims;  why not grant them autonomy in exchange for 
    the autonomy of those (few) districts of Bosnia which had a Serbian
    majority?

    Then the question is how small must the ethnic cantonements be, and 
    can they really solve the problem?   History tells us that a similar 
    "solution" proposed by the U.N. for the Palestenian-Israeli crisis 
     failed.  The truth of the matter is that self-rule must be limited in 
     practice, or else total anarchy will result.  

     The real question is not weather there aught to be ethnic cantonements
     in Bosnia or not, the real question is should Bosnia to exist or not?  
     Those who voted against the independece of Bosnia are a minority by any
     standards.  Those who actively fight to destroy Bosnia are even a 
     smaller majority.  Should the life, property and freedom of a people 
     (in the case of the Muslims) be taken away if a some Serb chauvanists 
     believe that they sould be a part of the "Fatherland" which is
     being desecrated by the presense of infidels (Muslims and Catholics)?
    
      If your claim that the fighting in Bosnia is because of self-rule than
      why did Serbia fight a war with Croatia?  Croatia and Slovenia don't 
      have a significant proportion of Serbs!  I'm sorry but the argument that
      the-King-of-Serbia-once-ruled-these-areas-so-they-are-Serbian doesn't 
      make any sense.   It is just like saying the king of France once ruled
      England so Britian is a part of France!

>This blatant double standard is the cause of misery to Muslim
>Bosnians and the rest of the world. 

      You see, the double standard is being applied by the Serbs and by the
      U.N., not the Muslims.  The Muslims have suffered tremendously in this
      war, 100,000 are dead, 1.5 million are homeless, over 50,000 are missing,
      30,000 women have been raped by Chetniks and countless Bosnians are 
      living in Serbian concentration camps.  And all of this
      because of the expansionist desires of Serbian extremists!   

      How could anyone propose that Muslims accept being a part of 
      a greater Serbia after this kind of a treatment?  In the beginnig it was
      friend against friend, neighbor against neighbor when some Bosnian Serbs
      helped hoards of Chetnik warriors in carrying out "ethnic cleansing" of
      the area.  So, the aggrieved party is being unreasonable and thus, by 
      your "logic" they deserve every bit of it.  I'm sorry, but there are 
      few causes worthy enough to kill or be killed, and there is none worthy
      enough to gang-rape a woman and tell her to go and have a Serbian (pure-
      blood) child!  Defense of your family and your home justifies violence,
      but no dream of a "united fatherland" (or motherland) ever can!

      So, the Bosnians (Muslims, Croats, and Serbs) who are resisting an
      illegitimate (as viewed by every-one execpt Serbophils) invasion of 
      their homes are the cause of their own misery and that of the rest of 
      the world?!!?  How illogical!  How disgusting!
 
      
>> So the Muslims have been left to fend for themselves. They are being denied the
>> right to defend themselves by the UN in spite of the abject inability of the UN
>> to prevent the Serbs from arming themselves. 

>This is not totally true. The Islamic nations are helping the Muslim
>Serbs in Bosnia. NYT, for example, has reported armed Muslims from Saudi
>Arabia and Pakistan in Bosnia.

      Why should the Muslim countries not help Bonsians.  The Bosnians should
      be helped by all the countries of the world, according to the "spirit of
      international cooperation" that the West boasts.  They should be helped by
      all countries because they have been aggressed against and wronged, in 
      flagrant disregard of "international law" by an expansionistic regime.
      They should be helped by all because the U.N. charter guarantees every 
      one the right of self-defense. Indeed they should be helped because
      to stand by and watch the grossest disregard of human life and dignity is
      a crime itself!

      And Muslims have a special reason to help the Bosnians:  80% of the 
      casualties in this war have been Muslim, the overwhelming majority of 
      whom were civilians.  How can a Muslim not at least try to help
      his brother in such trying times and still call himself Muslim?  This
      is what our religion enjoins.  We are ordered by our Master to fight the
      agressors and drive them out of the places they drove us out from, till
      persecution is no more, for indeed, persecution is worse than slaughter!

      However, in spite of the fact that there is a lot of talk about Iran and
      Pakistan trying to help the Bosnians, the fact is that Bosnians are 
      poorly armed and are living under terrible living conditions.   The 
      Bosnian defense forces have 2 tanks, the Serbs have more than 350!
      The Serbians have aircrafts which routinely bombard Sarejavo and other
      cities in Bosnia, defying U.N.'s toothless "no-fly zone", while the
      Bosnians have no aircraft.  There are hundreds of thousands of men in 
      Bosnian who would like to fight but who don't even have hunting rifles 
      to protect themselves.  The fact is that the Serbians have a whole 
      stockpiles of artillery and other weapons left over  from the olf 
      Yugoslav Army while the Bosnians are poorly armed.

      Where are the arms that you are reproting?  Are the Bosnians hiding them
      to gain world sympathy?  

>Serbs are more than willing for a cease fire: they have all the land
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
       The issue is not cease-fire.  The issue is justice.  The issue is
      punishment for the guilty and recompnesation for the agrieved.  The 
      issue is to end persecution, for ever. 

>they wanted. At the moment, it is the Muslim Serbs who wish to
>continue fighting so that they can have a bigger Islamic Republic of
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Bosnia. Lives are being lost for a petty political game being played,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

       But the Bosnians are not "fundamentalist", by any standard!  Most
       Bosnian Muslims don't want an "Islamic Republic of Bosnia" 
       (although, that is misfortunate and I wish that they did) !
       And how do you suppose that lives are being lost if the Bosnians
       want to fight.  To allow the Serbs to usurp a part of a country
       which is internationally recognized, would be tantamount to admitting
       that might is right!  And who is playing this political game?  Is it
       Bosnia or the U.N.?  It is shameful to see the U.N. fail to protect
       the life, the honor and the property of Bosnians even after   all 
       this talk of international cooperation and the New World Order!
       
       So what do you propose that the Bosnians should do?  Accept beign 
       vanquished by the very people who killed their men and raped their
       women?  What about the 1.5 million refugees?  What should they do?
       What about the Muslims of Macedonia and Kosovo?  What should they do?
       Should all the Muslims pack their baggages and leave because you 
       think that it would save their lives?  Where would they go?  And I
       suppose that it is perfectly legitimate and humane to offer a 
       people the option between a suite-case and a bullet?!?

       Is it your hate of Muslims that prompts you to suggest a solution as
       vile as this, or is it your dream of a "Greater Motherland" of India
       that makes you support the barbarianism of the Serbians?  Do you 
       hate Muslims so much that you are not moved by the plight of the 
       Bosnian Muslims?  My religion teaches me to oppose injustice even if
       it is being carried out by a Muslim against a nonmuslim;  does your
       religion teach you to hate Muslims weather you have reason to hate
       them or not? 

>once again behind the garb of Islam. Perhaps, if the founders of the
>religion had known, they would have decided otherwise.
-- 
>Harsh Varma
>Department of Computer Science
>Rutgers University



>Disclaimer: None. Please, everyone adopt my opinion, I am right!
  

Raheel Ahmed Khan

Postscript: Please dont flame me, and I get very scared by death
            threats.


-- 
KHAN,RAHEEL
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt7242a
Internet: gt7242a@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian