Dr Ko Ko Gyi asked various AIs this question: “Hi, can you answer with INTERNATIONAL LAWS? If Five Islamic Organizations are THREATENED with serious bodily harm e.g. the whole country riots by Ma Ba Tha extremist racist organization against ALL the Muslims, by the Myanmar Military Junta, are their support letter under duress any value or implication on the ICC or ICJ?”

ChatGPT answered.

Short answer: No. A support letter signed under threat or duress has no legal value before the ICC or the ICJ—and it can actually strengthen the case against the perpetrators.

Below is the international law–based explanation, point by point.

1. Duress invalidates consent under international law

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)

While this convention governs state consent, its principles are widely applied across international law.

Article 51:

The expression of a State’s consent is invalid if procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats.

By analogy and legal reasoning:

If organizations or community leaders issue statements under threat of violence,

That expression cannot be treated as free, genuine, or probative consent.

2. ICC: Evidence obtained under duress has no probative value

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Article 69(7) – Exclusion of evidence

Evidence shall not be admissible if:

Obtained by means of coercion, or

Its admission would be antithetical to the integrity of the proceedings.

Support letters signed under threat of riots, killings, or mass violence:

Are legally tainted

Are inadmissible or given negligible weight

May be treated as evidence of intimidation and persecution

3. ICJ: Such letters do not negate state responsibility

The ICJ deals with State responsibility, not individual criminal guilt. However:

Statements from civil society do not override objective facts

The Court relies on:

Patterns of conduct

State policy

Official acts

Independent UN reports

If letters are:

Issued while Muslims face threats of nationwide riots

Under pressure from Ma Ba Tha with military backing

The ICJ may infer:

Failure of the State to protect minorities

Complicity or acquiescence

Coercive environment amounting to persecution

4. Threatening riots = persecution under international law

Rome Statute – Article 7 (Crimes Against Humanity)

Persecution includes:

Severe deprivation of fundamental rights

Targeting an identifiable group (religion)

Through threats, intimidation, or violence

If the junta or Ma Ba Tha:

Threaten mass riots against all Muslims

Force Islamic organizations to issue “support” statements

This constitutes persecution, not legitimacy.

5. Such letters can backfire legally

Instead of helping the junta, these letters can be used as:

Proof of duress

Proof of systematic intimidation

Evidence of a climate of fear

Evidence of collective punishment

UN fact-finding bodies and international courts are very familiar with:

Forced endorsements

Orchestrated “community support”

Authoritarian coercion tactics

They discount them immediately.

6. Precedent logic (Bosnia, Rwanda, Myanmar)

In genocide and crimes-against-humanity cases:

Courts never rely on statements extracted from threatened communities

Silence or forced praise from victims does not negate crimes

Fear itself is often cited as proof of criminal context

Bottom line (in legal terms)

Support letters issued under duress have NO exculpatory value

They do not protect Myanmar at the ICC or ICJ

They may strengthen findings of persecution and coercion

Threats of nationwide riots against Muslims are themselves international crimes

********************************************************

Claude AI answered:

International Law Analysis of Support Letters Under Duress

Under international law, support letters obtained through threats of serious bodily harm or under conditions of duress have significant legal implications and limited to no value as genuine consent or endorsement. Here’s the relevant framework:

1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)

Article 52 addresses coercion:

Treaties procured by the threat or use of force are void ab initio (invalid from the beginning)

Coercion vitiates consent under customary international law

This principle extends to statements, declarations, and support letters obtained under duress

2. ICC (International Criminal Court) Implications

The ICC would likely view such letters as:

a) Evidence of Crimes Against Humanity (Rome Statute, Article 7)

Persecution against an identifiable group (Muslims)

Acts committed as part of widespread or systematic attack

The coerced letters themselves could be evidence of the persecution

b) Vitiated Evidence

Support letters obtained through threats would carry no evidentiary weight as genuine consent

Could actually strengthen the prosecution’s case by demonstrating the coercive environment

May constitute evidence of the crime of persecution itself

c) Contextual Evidence

The duress demonstrates the systematic nature of persecution

Shows deliberate targeting of religious/ethnic groups

3. ICJ (International Court of Justice) Implications

For cases involving state responsibility (e.g., Genocide Convention cases):

a) Lack of Valid Consent

The ICJ would not recognize coerced statements as genuine consent or waiver of rights

Follows general principles that consent vitiated by coercion is invalid

b) Evidence of State Responsibility

If the Myanmar military junta coerced these letters, it could establish:

State-sponsored persecution

Systematic discrimination

Potential genocide (if intent to destroy the group can be shown)

c) Duty to Protect

States have obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent and punish genocide

Coercion against religious organizations could trigger R2P (Responsibility to Protect) principles

4. Customary International Law Principles

Free Consent Requirement:

International law requires free, informed, and voluntary consent

Duress vitiates consent across all areas of law (jus cogens principle)

Good Faith (Bona Fides):

Coerced statements violate the fundamental principle of good faith in international relations

5. Specific Application to Your Scenario

If five Islamic organizations were threatened with:

Country-wide riots by Ma Ba Tha (extremist organization)

Violence by Myanmar military junta

Serious bodily harm to members

Their “support letters” would:

Have NO legal value as genuine consent or endorsement

Cannot be used to legitimize actions or policies

May constitute evidence AGAINST the perpetrators of:

Crimes against humanity

Persecution

Potentially genocide (depending on broader context)

Could trigger international jurisdiction at ICC for individual criminal responsibility

Could support ICJ case for state responsibility under Genocide Convention or other treaties

6. Relevant Precedents

Nuremberg Principles: Established that coercion vitiates consent

Bosnia v. Serbia (ICJ, 2007): Examined systematic persecution and state responsibility

Rohingya cases: Myanmar already faces ICC prosecution and ICJ proceedings for treatment of Muslims

Conclusion

Under international law, support letters obtained under duress through threats of serious bodily harm are legally worthless as genuine consent and may actually incriminate the perpetrators rather than legitimize their actions. Both the ICC and ICJ would recognize these letters as evidence of persecution, not as valid endorsements.

***************************************************

Copilot AI answered:

This is a very important and complex question, so let’s break it down carefully under international law:

International Law Principles

1. Duress and Consent

Under international law, consent obtained under duress or threat of violence is invalid.

This principle is recognized in:

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 52: A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force.

General principles of law: Contracts, agreements, or declarations made under coercion lack legal validity.

So, if Islamic organizations in Myanmar issue a “support letter” while under threat of bodily harm or mass violence, that letter would have no binding legal value internationally.

2. International Criminal Court (ICC)

The ICC prosecutes individuals for crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

A coerced support letter would not shield perpetrators (e.g., extremist groups or the military junta) from liability.

In fact, the existence of such a letter could demonstrate evidence of coercion, persecution, or crimes against humanity (e.g., targeting Muslims as a group).

3. International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The ICJ deals with disputes between states, not individuals.

If Myanmar tried to use coerced letters as “proof” of Muslim organizations’ support, other states could challenge this at the ICJ.

Because consent under duress is invalid, the ICJ would likely disregard such documents. Instead, the ICJ could view them as evidence of systemic persecution.

4. Human Rights Law

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and customary international law prohibit persecution and protect freedom of religion and association.

Threatening organizations into issuing letters violates these protections.

Such actions could be classified as state-sponsored persecution under international human rights law.

Implications

No legal validity: The coerced support letters would carry no weight under international law.

Evidence of persecution: They could instead be used as evidence of crimes against humanity or genocide.

Responsibility of perpetrators: The Myanmar military junta and extremist groups could face accountability before the ICC.

State responsibility: Myanmar could be held responsible at the ICJ for violating international conventions (e.g., Genocide Convention).

Conclusion:

Under international law, coerced support letters issued under threat of violence have no legal value. Instead, they strengthen the case against the perpetrators at the ICC (individual criminal responsibility) and potentially at the ICJ (state responsibility), as they demonstrate persecution and coercion rather than genuine consent.

Coerced consent has consistently been rejected by international courts: both the ICJ and ICC have ruled that documents or agreements obtained under duress have no legal validity, and instead serve as evidence of persecution or crimes against humanity.

⚖️ Key Precedents in International Law

1. ICJ – Bosnia v. Serbia (2007)

• Case: Application of the Genocide Convention (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro).
• Ruling: The ICJ confirmed that states can be held responsible under the Genocide Convention, even if they deny liability.
• Relevance to duress: The Court emphasized that consent or agreements obtained under coercion cannot shield a state from responsibility. Evidence of forced compliance or coerced declarations was treated as proof of persecution rather than valid consent.

2. ICC – Al Hassan Case (2024)

• Case: Prosecutor v. Al Hassan (Mali).
• Ruling: The ICC delivered its first judgment on gender-based persecution, recognizing forced marriage, sexual violence, and coerced compliance with extremist rules as crimes against humanity.
• Relevance to duress: The Court treated coerced statements and forced participation as evidence of persecution, not as legitimate acts of consent.

3. ICC – Taliban Leaders (2025 Arrest Warrants)

• Case: Situation in Afghanistan.
• Ruling: The ICC issued arrest warrants against Taliban leaders for persecution as a crime against humanity, including coercion of women and girls.
• Relevance to duress: Coerced declarations or forced compliance were recognized as criminal acts of persecution, not valid defenses.

4. General Principle – Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)

• Article 52: Any treaty or agreement procured by threat or use of force is void.
• This principle applies broadly to international law: coerced letters, agreements, or declarations have no binding effect.

📌 Implications for Myanmar Scenario

• Support letters under duress from Islamic organizations would be legally void.
• At the ICC, they could be used as evidence of persecution and crimes against humanity by the junta and extremist groups.
• At the ICJ, they would not shield Myanmar from state responsibility under conventions like the Genocide Convention.
• Instead of legitimizing the junta’s actions, coerced documents would strengthen the case against them.

✅ Conclusion: International law is clear—consent obtained under duress is invalid. Coerced support letters would carry no legal weight at the ICC or ICJ, and would instead serve as evidence of persecution and coercion, reinforcing accountability for crimes against humanity and genocide.

*********************************

FB AI’s answer-which is sadly the shortest!

(When I asked FB whether the rumours of a hundred ex-IDF are working as AI leaders in FB never answered. May be they are scared that after Myanmar Junta their country will follow.)

You’re looking for an analysis based on international laws.

In international law, the issue of support letters under duress can be complex. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), a treaty or agreement procured by coercion is void under Article 52.

However, the specific scenario you described would require a detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding the support letters, including the level of coercion, the role of the organizations involved, and the jurisdiction of the ICC or ICJ.

The ICC and ICJ have jurisdiction over specific crimes and disputes, and their decisions are based on the Rome Statute and the ICJ’s statute, respectively.

Ultimately, the value and implication of the support letters would depend on the specific facts of the case and the applicable laws.

Myanmar Muslims News Network

မြန်မာနိုင်ငံလုံးဆိုင်ရာ အစ္စလမ်ဘာသာရေးအဖွဲ့ကြီး ရဲ့ လုပ်ရပ်အပေါ် ရှုတ်ချခြင်း

ငါးဖွဲ့ ပေါင်းထားတဲ့ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံလုံးဆိုင်ရာ အစ္စလမ်ဘာသာရေးအဖွဲ့ကြီး ကနေ ရိုဟင်ဂျာတွေအပေါ် ကျူးလွန်ခဲ့တဲ့ လူမျိုးတုံးသတ်ဖြတ်မှု (Genocide) ကို ငြင်းဆိုတဲ့ စစ်ကောင်စီ ဖက်ကနေ အားပေးထောက်ခံခဲ့တာဟာ လုံးဝကို ရုပ်ဆိုးအကျည်းတန်လွန်းပါတယ်။ ရိုဟင်ဂျာတွေဟာ ကျွန်တော်တို့နဲ့ လူမျိုးမတူပေမဲ့ အစ္စလမ်ဘာသာဝင် အီမာန်ရှင်ချင်း အတူတူဖြစ်ပါတယ်။ သူတို့ရဲ့ ရွာတွေ မီးရှို့ခံရတာ၊ မတရားပြုကျင့်ခံရတာနဲ့ သိန်းနဲ့ချီပြီး ထွက်ပြေးခဲ့ရတာတွေဟာ ခိုင်လုံတဲ့ ပုံတွေ အထောက်အထားတွေနဲ့ တစ်ကမ္ဘာလုံးရော မြန်မာမွတ်စလင်တွေပါ သိနေတဲ့ကိစ္စပါ။ ဒါကိုမှ မျက်စိစုံမှိတ်ပြီး ICJ မှာ စစ်တပ်ဘက်ကနေ Genocide မဟုတ်ပါဖူး စွပ်စွဲ တာပါလို့ လိုက်ထောက်ခံပေးတာဟာ မြန်မာ အစ္စလမ်ထုကို ကိုယ်စားပြုတဲ့ ဘာသာရေးအဖွဲ့အစည်းကြီး တစ်ခုအနေနဲ့ မလုပ်သင့်ဆုံးအလုပ်ပါ။ အစ္စလမ် ဘာသာဝင် မှန်သမျှ second class citizenship အဆင့်ထားတဲ့ မြန်မာအစိုးရ ပေါ်လစီနဲ့ တသားထည်း ရပ်တည်ပါတယ် ဆိုထည်းက ခင်ဗျားတို့ဟာ သွေးရိုးသားရိုး မဟုတ်တာတော့ သေခြာနေပါတယ်။

ဒီအဖွဲ့ကြီးတွေကို လူ ၂ ယောက်၊ ၃ ယောက်လောက်ကပဲ အဓိက ခြယ်လှယ်နေကြတာပါ အဖွဲ့အားလုံးပေါင်းမှ လူ ၇ ယောက်လောက်ရဲ့ ဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်နဲ့ လုပ်ချင်ရာလုပ်နေကြတာဟာ မြန်မာ အစ္စလမ်ထုတရပ်လုံးရဲ့ ဆန္ဒ အစစ်အမှန်မဟုတ်ပါဘူး။

ပြည်တွင်းမွတ်စလင်တွေကို စစ်ကောင်စီက မဘသနဲ့ တေ့ပေးပြီးပြဿနာရှာမယ် ခြိမ်းခြောက်

လို့ လုပ်ရပါတယ် ပဲဖြစ်ဖြစ်၊ စစ်တပ်ရဲ့ ဖိအားကြောင့်ပဲ ဆိုဆို ဒါမှမဟုတ် ခင်ဗျားတို့ ကိုယ်ပိုင်အကျိုးစီးပွားအတွက်ပဲဖြစ်ဖြစ် အခုလို လုပ်ရပ်တွေဟာ မြန်မာပြည်တွင်းက အစ္စလမ်ထုတစ်ရပ်လုံးရဲ့ ဆုံးဖြတ်ချက် မဟုတ်ပါဘူး။

မမှန်တာကို “မမှန်ဘူး” လို့တောင် ရဲရဲမပြောရဲတဲ့ ဒီအဖွဲ့တွေကို အစ္စလမ်ထုက ဘယ်လို မှာ ယုံကြည်ဖို့ မဖြစ်နှိင်ပါဖူး။

အီမာန်ရှင်ချင်း ဖြစ်တဲ့ ရိုဟင်ဂျာတွေကလည်း ပြည်တွင်းက မွတ်စလင်မ် တွေကို အထင်မှားလာသလို မွတ်စလင်ထုအားလုံးကြားမှာလည်း စည်းလုံးညီညွတ်မှုတွေပါ ပျက်စေပါတယ်။

ဒီအဖွဲ့တွေဟာ အစ္စလမ်ထုအတွက် ဘာကာကွယ်မှုမှ မပေးနိုင်တဲ့အပြင် စစ်အစိုးရ ကျွေးတာစား၊ ခိုင်းတာလုပ်ရတဲ့ “ကွန်ဒုံး” အဆင့်လောက်ပဲ ရှိတယ်ဆိုတာ ပိုပြီး ပေါ်လွင်လာပါတယ်။

ရှက်စရာ အကောင်းဆုံးကတော့ ကမ္ဘာက မြန်မာပြည်မှာ မွတ်စလင်တွေ အစုလိုက်အပြုံလိုက် အသတ်ခံနေရတာကို မြန်မာဘာသာရေးအဖွဲ့ကြီးတွေကိုယ်တိုင်က အားပေးနေပါတယ်ဆိုတဲ့ အချက်ပါပဲ။ ဘယ်လောက်ပဲ အကျပ်ကိုင်ခံရတယ်လို့ ပဲ အကြောင်းပြပါစေ၊ ခင်ဗျားတို့မှာ ခေါင်းဆောင်တွေမှာ ရှိသင့်တဲ့ မာန် ၊ မာနနဲ့ သတ္တိ လုံးဝမရှိတာတော့သေခြာပါတယ်။

အစ္စလမ်ထုအတွက် ဘာအကျိုးကျေးဇူးမှ မပေးနိုင်တဲ့အပြင် အတွင်းရော အပြင်မှာပါ ပြဿနာပေါင်းစုံနဲ့ သိက္ခာကျနေကြမဲ့ အတူတူ ခင်ဗျတို့ အဖွဲ့တွေကို ဖျက်လိုက်ကြပါ။ မကျေနပ်တာကို မကျေနပ်ဘူးလို့ ပြောရဲတဲ့ ခေါင်းဆောင်တစ်ယောက် နဲ့ အဖွဲ့တစ်ဖွဲ့ပဲ ထားပါ။ တစ်ပြည်လုံးမှာ အဲ့လိုပြောရဲတဲ့သူ တစ်ယောက်မှ မရှိဘူးဆိုရင်လည်း ဘာအဖွဲ့မှ မဖွဲ့ပါနဲ့တော့။ လင်ကွဲမယားကွဲနဲ့ အမွေကိစ္စတွေအတွက်တော့ ” နိုင်ငံတော်” တို့ “တစ်ပြည်လုံးဆိုင်ရာ” တို့ မပါတဲ့ သာမန်အဖွဲ့တွေကပဲ လုပ်ကြပါစေ။

ဟိုးအရင် ဂါဇီဟာရှင်၊ ဆရာချယ်၊ ဗိုလ်မှူးဘရှင် တို့ခေတ်က သမ္မတနဲ့ တိုက်ရိုက်စကားပြောနိုင်ကြ တဲ့ အဆင့် ဂုဏ်သိက္ခာ ရှိခဲ့ကြတယ်။ ခုတော့ ခင်ဗျားတို့အဆင့်က တိုင်းဒေသကြီး အစိုးရနား ကပ်ဖို့တောင် ဆီပုလင်ခါးချိတ်ပြီး မျက်နှာငယ်လေးနဲ့ ဝင်ရတဲ့အဆင့် ဖြစ်နေပါပြီ။ ဒါကြောင့် ရှိနေလည်း တွာလပ်ဗ် ကိစ္စနဲ့ ပြက္ခဒိန် ထုတ်တာကလွဲရင် ဘာမှအကျိုးမရှိမဲ့ အတူတူ ဒီအဖွဲ့တွေကို ဖျက်လိုက်တာ အကောင်းဆုံးပါပဲ။

အောင်ဆန်းဦး – MMNN

Myanmar Muslims News Network

It is a duty upon every Muslim to call others away from sinful behavior, and to do so with wisdom, within the limits of our various abilities.

Our Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

1. Whoever sees something wrong should change it with his hands.
2. If he is unable to do so, then he should do so with his tongue.
3. If he is unable to do so, then he should do so in his heart and that is the weakest of faith.” [Sahîh Muslim]

“အသင်တို့အနက် မည်သူမဆို

စက်ဆုပ်ရွံရှာဖွယ်အမှုကို ပြုသည်ကို မြင်ရလျှင်
ထိုအမှုကို မိမိ၏ လက်ဖြင့် ပြုပြင်လော့။
ထိုသို့ လက်ဖြင့် မပြုပြင်နိုင်လျှင် မိမိ၏ နှုတ်လျှာဖြင့် ပြုပြင်လော့။
ထိုသို့ နှုတ်လျှာဖြင့် မပြုပြင်နိုင်ပါလျှင် နှလုံးသားဖြင့် ပြုပြင်လော့။

ဤသည် ယုံကြည်မှု၏ အားအနည်းဆုံးအချက်ပင်ဖြစ်သည်။”
(မွတ်စ်လင်မ်ကျမ်း)

Enjoin what is good and forbid what is wrong is an often quoted phrase, used in the Qur’an. This expression is the base of the Islamic institution of hisbah and sometimes referred to by this word. Hisbah forms a central part of Islamic doctrine, and is explicitly referred to in the two of the Shi’a Branches of Religion, Commanding what is Just and Forbidding what is Evil.

Quranic examples

• Sura 3.110 ^{translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali}

Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

• Sura 3.104 ^{translated by George Sale}

Let there be people among you, who invite to the best [in religion]; and command that which is just, and forbid that which is evil; and they shall be happy.Transliteration:Waltakun minkum ommatun yadAAoona ila alkhayri waya/muroona bilmaAAroofi wayanhawna AAani almunkari waola-ika humu almuflihoon

• Sura 7.157 ^{translated by Sale}

“Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures), – in the law and the Gospel; – for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him, – it is they who will prosper.”Transliteration:Allatheena yattabiAAoona alrrasoola alnnabiyya al-ommiyya allathee yajidoonahu maktooban AAindahum fee alttawrati waal-injeeli ya/muruhum bialmaAAroofi wayanhahum AAani almunkari wayuhillu lahumu alttayyibati wayuharrimu AAalayhimu alkhaba-itha wayadaAAu AAanhum israhum waal-aghlala allatee kanat AAalayhim faallatheena amanoo bihi waAAazzaroohu wanasaroohu waittabaAAoo alnnoora allathee onzila maAAahu ola-ika humu almuflihoona

• Sura 9.71 ^{translated by Sale}

And the faithful men, and the faithful women are friends one to another: They command that which is just, and they forbid that which is evil; and they are constant at prayer, and pay their appointed alms; and they obey God, and his apostle: Unto these will God be Merciful; for He [is] Mighty [and] Wise.Transliteration:Waalmu/minoona waalmu/minatu baAAduhum awliyao baAAdin ya/muroona bialmaAAroofi wayanhawna AAani almunkari wayuqeemoona alssalata wayu/toona alzzakata wayuteeAAoona Allaha warasoolahu ola-ika sayarhamuhumu Allahu inna Allaha AAazeezun hakeemun

1. It may be quite difficult for weak women, children, very poor and normal average persons who are not regarded as religiously well educated who have no much authority, ability or influence on others.
2. How about the youngers or children to forbid or reprimand, rebuke, criticise or censure the elders and their own parents.
3. How about the religious scholars?
4. Could we criticize the authorities, government or rulers?
5. Prying or spying or inquiring too inquisitively into a person’s private affairs is wrong and private rebuke is to be preferred to public shaming.
6. How about Moral Police or Relagious Enforcing Officers or Religious policing?
7. Is is better for the normal public to generally restrict this duty to include only prevention, reserving punishment to the state authorities.
8. Another option is the avoidance of the duty, by emigrating or otherwise avoiding situations likely to bring one into contact with wrongdoing.

Anyway, calling people away from wrongdoing is a religious duty in and of itself, and remains a duty upon a Muslim.

A man will be brought forward on the Day of Resurrection and thrown into the Fire. His entrails will come forth from his throat and he will hang from them going around like a donkey goes around a mill.

The inhabitants of the Fire will gather around him and ask: “What is the matter with you? Didn’t you used to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong?”

He will reply: “Yes, I used to enjoin what is right but not do those things myself, and I used to forbid what is wrong but not refrain from them myself.”

[Sahîh Muslim (2989)]

Qur’an which reads: “Do you enjoin right conduct on others and forget to practice it yourselves and yet you recite the Scripture? Do you not have any sense?” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 44]

In this verse, Allah rebukes these people and punishes them because they turn away from the truth though they know it full well. This makes them different from those who are ignorant of the truth, who if the come to know it would most likely follow it. They are not being punished because they called others to right conduct while being sinful. The point this verse is making is that they know full well what is right – the proof for that being their calling others to what is right – but did what is wrong in spite of their knowledge. This is why the verse concluded with the rebuke “Do you not have any sense?”

Enjoin what is good and forbid what is wrong is part of Fard al-kifaya (Sufficiency duty)

 Fard al Kifaya is a duty which is imposed on the whole ummah. One is not required to perform it as long as a sufficient number of community members fulfil it. 

When this Fard al Kifaya is combine with Fard al-ayn (Individual duty) which is the group of tasks that are every Muslim is required to perform individually as a duty, such as daily prayer salah, hijab or the hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca at least once in a lifetime etc. we called it Fard (الفرض).

Fard is what the Lawgiver strictly requires to be done, and whose obligatory character is proved by definitive evidence.

Fard is what the Lawgiver strictly requires to be done, and whose obligatory character is proved by definitive evidence. Someone who denies the fard is considered a disbeliever (kafir), as he or she is denying what has been ordained by clear-cut and decisive texts. (Quite dangerous now!)

Sithu Maung 

ICJ ကိစ္စရပ်အပေါ် တရားခံ စစ်အာဏာရှင်များ အလိုကျ ကြေငြာချက်ထုတ်ပြန်ပေးခဲ့တဲ့ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံလုံးဆိုင်ရာ အစ္စလာမ်ဘာသာရေး အဖွဲ့ကြီး မှာ ဘယ်အဖွဲ့တွေပါသလဲ ?

၁ ။ အစ္စလာမ်သာသနာရေးရာကောင်စီ

၂ ။ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံလုံးဆိုင်ရာ မြန်မာမွတ်စလင်လူငယ်များ (ဘာသာရေး) အဖွဲ့

၃ ။ အိုလမာ အစ္စလာမ့်သာသနာ့ပညာရှင်များ အဖွဲ့ချုပ်

၄ ။ မြန်မာမွတ်စလင် အမျိုးသားရေးရာအဖွဲ့ ချုပ်

၅ ။ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံလုံးဆိုင်ရာ မော်လ၀ီအဖွဲ့ချုပ် ဗဟို

ဒီ ၅ ဖွဲ့လုံးက ခေတ်အဆက်ဆက် စစ်အစိုးရ န၀တ / နအဖ / နစက / မအလ အထိ တက်လာသမျှ အာဏာဆုပ်ကိုင်ထားသူတွေအပေါ်ပဲ အမိန့်နာခံရတယ် ညွန်ကြားတဲ့ အတိုင်းလုပ်ကြရတယ် ခိုင်းသမျှစာထုတ်ရတယ် ။ ဒါကိုနားလည်ပေးနိုင်တယ် ။

ဆိုတော့ အထက်ပါအဖွဲ့ ၅ ဖွဲ့ သည် မြန်မာ နိုင်ငံသား အစ္စလာမ်ဘာသာ၀င် များနဲ့ တိုင်ပင်ဆွေးနွေး သဘောထားရယူပီး ကြေငြာချက်ထုတ်ပြန်တာ မဟုတ်တဲ့အတွက် သူတို့ကိုယ်စားပြုတာ စစ်ဗိုလ်ချုပ်များ နဲ့ သူတို့ တစ်ဖွဲ့ချင်း တစ်ဦးချင်းရဲ့ ပုဂ္ဂိုလ်ရေး အကျိုးစီးပွားတွေ အကြောက်တရား တွေအပေါ် ကိုယ်စားပြုတယ် ဆိုတာ ရှင်းနေပါတယ် ။

မြန်မာနိုင်ငံသား အစ္စလာမ်ဘာသာ၀င်များရဲ့ စိတ်ဆန္ဒများကို ထပ်ဟပ်နိုင်ခြင်း ကိုယ်စားပြုနိုင်ခြင်း မရှိတဲ့အတွက် နောက်နောင်ကို ထုတ်ပြန်ချက်တွေထုတ်တဲ့အခါ အရှက်တရားကင်းမဲ့စွာ သိက္ခာမဲ့စွာ ခပ်တည်တည် ထုတ်ပြန်နေတာတွေ ဆင်ခြင် သတိပြုဖို့ လိုအပ်လာပါပီ ။

ဒီလိုစာထုတ်လိုက်လို့ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံသား အစ္စလာမ် ဘာသာ၀င်တွေကို သွေးနှောလို့ ခွဲခြားဆက်ဆံတာမရှိတော့ဘဲ လ၀က ရုံးတွေမှာ မှတ်ပုံတင် လွယ်ကူစွာ ထုတ်ပေးပီလား ?

နိုင်ငံကူးလက်မှတ် Passport ထုတ်ပေးရေးရုံးမှာ သွေးနှောတွေ သီးသန့် တန်းစီရတာ မရှိတော့ဘူးလား ?

ငလျှင်ဒဏ်ခံရတဲ့ ဒေသ တွေက အစ္စလာမ်ဘာသာ၀င် ဗလီ၀တ်ကျောင်းတော်တွေကို အခုထိ တည်ဆောက်ခွင့် ပြုပြင်ခွင့် မရသေးတာတွေ ကို ဖြေလျော့ပေးပီလား ?

လူမျိုး ဘာသာအရ ခွဲခြားဆက်ဆံတာ နှိမ်ချဆော်ကားခံရတာတွေ ပပျောက်သွားပီလား ?

အထက်ပါ အဖွဲ့ ၅ဖွဲ့ ရဲ့ ICJ အမှုနဲ့ပတ်သက်လို့ စစ်အာဏာရှင်တွေဖက်က ရပ်တည်ထုတ်ပြန်မှု စာသားတွေဟာ သမိုင်း မှတ်တမ်းဖြစ်ခဲ့ပါပီ ။

လွတ်လပ်ပွင့်လင်း သွားတဲ့ ခေတ်တခေတ်ကျရင် အကြောက်တရား စိုးရိမ်သောကတွေ မရှိတော့တဲ့ နေ့တနေ့ကျရင် ဒီလုပ်ရပ်တွေအပေါ် သက်ဆိုင်သူတွေ တာ၀န်ခံကြရပါလိမ့်မယ် ။

ကျနော့် အနေနဲ့ သဘောထား ပြောပါဆို အဲ့ ၅ ဖွဲ့လုံးက တာ၀န်ရှိသူတွေအပေါ်မှာရော သက်ဆိုင်ရာအဖွဲ့အသီးသီးက အစ္စလာမ်ဘာသာ၀င်တွေ ကိုယ်စား ခေါင်းဆောင်ဖြစ်ချင်နေသူတွေ ပြောရေးဆိုခွင့်ရှိချင်သူတွေရဲ့ ခေါင်းဆောင် မပီသတဲ့ ဆုံးဖြတ်ချက် တွေအပေါ် အတော်အံ့သြသင့် ခဲ့ရသလို စိတ်ထဲ အတော်ရွံရှာမိတယ် ။

နိုင်ငံရေးအရ အမြင်သဘောထား ကွဲလွဲလို့ရတယ် ။ ဒါပေမဲ့ မှန်ခြင်းမှားခြင်း တရားခြင်း မတရားခြင်း အပေါ်မှာတော့ ကျမ်းတော်မြတ် ကုရ်အန် နဲ့ တမန်တော်မြတ်ကြီးရဲ့ သွန်သင်ဟောကြားမှုတွေ အစ္စလာမ်သာသနာ ရဲ့ အဆုံးအမ လမ်းညွန်ချက် အခြေခံတွေအပေါ် ဘယ်လောက်အထိ ကိုက်ညီခဲ့လဲ သွေဖီခဲ့သလဲဆိုတာ ကို ခု ဘာသာရေး အမည်ခံထားတဲ့ ယခု အဖွဲ့ ၅ ဖွဲ့အနေနဲ့ လေ့လာဆန်းစစ်ခဲ့သလား ဆိုတာ မေးခွန်းထုတ်စရာဖြစ်သွားခဲ့ရပါပီ ။

စည်သူမောင်

၂၅.၁.၂၀၂၆