Lately, a fresh debate has been stoked surrounding our secularism and the broader ideology of secularism. I note with great disappointment that many of our fellow comrades and ordinary citizens are falling prey to well-orchestrated propaganda from right-wing factions. Owing to a lack of proper theoretical knowledge, many are finding themselves unable to counter their arguments and are becoming confused.
It must be remembered that if one wishes to practice progressive politics, there is absolutely no alternative to having a crystal-clear understanding of these fundamental matters. I have previously written many short, scattered pieces on this topic on a regular basis. However, in light of the current backdrop, I have written a comprehensive and exhaustive essay this time.
Table of Contents
Our Secularism
I hope this piece will clarify to the reader what secularism as a principle and secularism as an ideology truly are. Where lie their historical roots? What is their relationship with Islamic philosophy? How necessary is it within the context of our national politics, and where does its connection lie with the lifelong, non-communal principles cherished by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman?
I would particularly urge the younger generation involved in our politics to read this text several times with deep concentration. If you wish to resist the intellectual and communal onslaught of your opponents on the political field, this theoretical clarity will be your greatest strength.
What is Secularism?
The late theologian Dr Abdullah Jahangir, in his analysis of secularism, stated:
“Secularism has two aspects. Firstly, ensuring the religious freedom and non-discriminatory civic rights of people of all faiths. Secondly, separating religion from all state activities and believing that religious laws concerning justice, administration, finance and the state are repealed, obsolete or inapplicable. The first aspect is directed by Islam and is a core principle of the Islamic state system, while the second aspect conflicts with Islamic belief and constitutes Kufr (disbelief).” (Jihadism in the Name of Islam)
A major limitation of the first “aspect” mentioned by Dr Abdullah Jahangir is defining the boundary of “religious freedom”. That is to say, whether or not you can cross the boundaries of prevailing social customs and laws by citing references from the Quran and Hadith. Let us look at a few examples to understand this:
Social and Legal Examples
-
Our social courtesy dictates that if we invite someone from the Sanatan (Hindu) faith, we do not serve beef. Similarly, when a non-Muslim invites their Muslim friend, they avoid pork. Here, as a Muslim, your “halal freedom” has to be slightly curtailed for the sake of social harmony. The question remains: which boundary will be defined legally or by the state?
-
The majority of adult Muslims in Bangladesh do not follow every tenet of Sharia in their personal lives. Some gamble, consume alcohol, or engage in fornication (Zina). Under state permission, gambling can be legal, alcohol can be consumed with a licence, and the state does not intervene in fornication unless there is a specific complaint from an aggrieved party. However, if you attempt to actively seek out and halt these activities under the guise of practicing “Amr bil-Ma’ruf wa Nahy ‘an al-Munkar” (enjoining good and forbidding evil), state laws and social order will be disrupted. Conversely, by being unable to stop them, you might complain that your religious rights are being infringed upon. Which boundary will be defined here?
Extreme Examples
Upon hearing someone speak, you may feel they are insulting the status of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Even if someone quotes a Hadith without knowing its proper context, it may sound like an insult to you. In such cases, there is an explicit Hadith: “Man sabba Nabiyyan faqtuluh” (Whoever insults a Prophet, kill him). Now, if you cannot ensure the execution of that person, you may claim that you lack religious freedom. On the other hand, if you or anyone else acts upon this based on your words, the law and order of the state will collapse. Which boundary will be defined here?
Therefore, even to implement Dr Abdullah Jahangir’s first option, it becomes imperative to define the limits of “religious freedom” using a neutral or secular law.
The Belief of the State versus the Social Contract
The limitation of Dr Abdullah Jahangir’s second viewpoint is that he assumes it is necessary for a state to hold a ‘belief’. The reality, however, is that the state is an institution built upon a contract. A state has no life, no Nafs (ego), and no soul. The state is fundamentally a Social Contract.
If necessary, the terms of that contract can be altered; it is even possible to dissolve the contract and forge a new one (as we did with Pakistan in 1971). A state possesses no inherent belief of its own, nor does it need to. The duty of the state is to peacefully accommodate everyone’s beliefs, not to become a believer in someone’s faith itself.
What Must Be Done?
To run a state effectively, its primary responsibility must be to devise an effective system that defines the boundaries of belief and disbelief for people of every faith or opinion (whether majority or minority) to ensure peaceful co-existence. The state must not grant special privileges or inflict deprivation on anyone based on their faith. To ensure this, the state cannot remain within the framework of any specific belief system. If the character of the state aligns with the faith of a specific group, its conduct can never be ‘judicious’ or fair. To be acceptable to all from the seat of justice, the state must remain neutral. And to me, true secularism is precisely this.
Our Secularism: The Distinctive Form and Differences from the Western Concept
Differences in Origin and Discovery
The source, context and meaning of Western ‘secularism’ and our ‘secularism’ (Dharmanirapekshata) are not identical. In Western democracies, secularism does not equate to godlessness. However, certain factions maliciously seek to propagate it as the ‘godlessness’ of Communism, which is a clear act of intellectual fraud. While our secularism shares some similarities with Western secularism, it has absolutely no connection to irreligion. Fundamentally, those who champion faith-based politics deliberately plot to make the common people believe that secularism means the destruction of religion.
Western Secularism: Born out of Conflict
In the Western world, this concept emerged out of a bloody and rational necessity. For a long period, widespread injustice occurred due to conflicts between state power and the Church (the religious institution). Europe witnessed how religious priests fused with power and turned religion into a tool for self-interest. This not only ruined the sanctity of religion but also created opportunities to commit unjust acts in the name of the Almighty.
From the bitter experience of those past religious wars and conflicts between State and Church, they put forward the theory of completely separating institutional religion from social and state life. In dictionary terms, it means: ‘The belief that religion should not be involved in the organisation of society, education, etc.’ Because oppression in the name of religion was rampant in the West, they are far more rigid and conscious about the separation of state and religion than we are.
The Subcontinental Context: A Natural Way of Life
In our Indian subcontinent, ‘secularism’ is not an imported theory; rather, it is a natural social fabric spanning thousands of years. Our society has been pluralistic and tolerant since time immemorial, which is why it never needed to be defined separately. For thousands of years, people of various religions, castes and creeds have lived here together. People persecuted for religious reasons in different corners of the world found refuge in this very land.
It is likely due to this effortless and natural co-existence that no native terminology was initially coined to express this concept. In modern times, though we use the word ‘Dharmanirapekshata’ as an English translation, its core spirit is intertwined with our heritage. We are not as rigid as Westerners regarding the relationship between state and religion, because here, religion has played a greater role in providing solidarity to society than in consuming the state.
Confusion versus Reality
Our secularism has no link with the ‘godlessness’ (Atheism/Irreligion) of Communism. Even the communist parties in our country are politically ‘secular’, not personally or socially ‘irreligious’.
Where Western secularism ensures the Separation of state and religion, our secularism ensures the Co-existence of all religions. The state here will not take the side of any specific religion, but it will respect the rights of citizens to practice their respective faiths. Understanding this fundamental difference can bring an end to many existing political conspiracies and confusions surrounding secularism.
Is a Non-Communal State Essential Only for Minorities?
A Misconception and Its Reality
Many believe that a non-communal or secular state structure serves only as a protective shield for minorities like Hindus, Buddhists or Christians. But the truth is, it is even more vital for protecting the lives, property and religious sanctity of Muslims. History bears witness that whenever the political or communal dominance of religion became absolute in any state and people of other faiths were wiped out, Muslims divided into various sects or factions among themselves and engaged in fratricidal wars.
The Example of Pakistan and Internal Conflict
Pakistan is an wretched example of this. In the obsession with establishing the so-called ‘Islam of one’s own sect’, Muslims there are turning upon Muslims of other sects. In the name of Jihad, they do not hesitate to detonate bombs even inside mosques. To those who believe that we do not have sectarian issues in our country, I would request them to read the books written by scholars of various Islamic schools of thought. Looking into them makes several terrifying scenarios clear:
- Declaring One Another Infidels: In the books of almost every sect, other sects have been declared as ‘Kafir’ (infidels) or ‘Batil’ (deviant). It is now merely a matter of time before these hatreds spill out into the public on a grand scale.
- Cheap Capital for Politics: Communal politics is the most low-capital and highly profitable political business. Those who have fallen into the temptation of this business will not sit quietly. They will continuously create a toxic ‘sense of community’ or factional consciousness within you, through which you will learn which group is yours and who your ‘enemies’ are.
- Rapid Polarisation: It does not take much time to incite ordinary people on the basis of sects or sub-sects. A few targeted killings, attacks on mosques and madrasahs, or a few rumours are quite sufficient. Before you know it, you will find yourself out on the field with a stick in hand, fighting for your faction.
State versus the Hereafter: A Warning
Dear brothers and sisters, remember—the state will not take you to heaven, nor will it even guide you along that path. In Surah Luqman of the Holy Quran, the Almighty Allah states very clearly:
“Your creation and your resurrection are only as a single soul. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower.” (31:28)
In the hereafter, you will be judged as an individual, based on your own sins, virtues and deeds. No ‘discount’ or special exemption will be granted there for being a citizen of a so-called ‘Islamic State’. However, a meticulous account will be demanded for the bloodshed or sins you commit while engrossed in religious frenzy.
There is no rule that just because something feels ‘Islamic-Islamic’ to you, it must be a part of Islam. Often, Satan’s ‘Waswasah’ (evil whisperings) can operate under the guise of religious emotion. If you step forward under the sway of this illusion, there is a grave risk of losing both this world and the hereafter. Therefore, only a just and neutral state structure can save us from this self-destructive conflict.
Is the ‘Islamic State’ Truly Islamic?
Many use the phrase ‘Islamic State’ out of pure emotion, but your questions regarding its scriptural and historical foundations are highly pertinent.
1. The Lack of Direct Commandment and Evidence from Allah
The Quran contains explicit directives for each of the fundamental pillars of Islam (Prayer, Fasting, Pilgrimage, Almsgiving). The Almighty Allah has even revealed detailed verses for social matters like inheritance laws or resolving family disputes.
Surprisingly, nowhere in the entire Quran is there a direct command or specific framework given for the formation of a ‘State’ or ‘Government’. The Almighty Allah has nowhere said, “Establish a state and select a leader using such-and-such a method.”
The ‘Ulil Amr’ Debate
In most cases, Islamic scholars attempt to explain the necessity of a state using verses related to ‘Ulil Amr’ (those in authority) or verses demanding justice. However, a rigorous analysis reveals that these verses are fundamentally principles of social justice; they are by no means a direct command for state-building or a technical methodology for running a government in the modern sense.
Why Are These Not Governance Blueprints?
Running a government is an administrative and technical process that evolves with time. On the other hand, the commandments of the Quran are eternal moral values. For instance, ‘keeping trusts’ or ‘dispensing justice’ are moral qualities applicable to people at all levels of society. A ruler is commanded to establish justice in the exact same manner an ordinary citizen is expected to deal justly with his neighbour. This is a benchmark for an individual’s character, not a blueprint for a state structure.
Absence of Clear Outlines and the Position of Religion
If forming a state or establishing a specific system of governance were an integral part of religion, the Almighty Allah would surely have granted a clear outline, boundaries and a specific method for choosing a leader in the Quran. Since the Quran remains silent on these administrative matters and speaks only of human virtues like ‘justice’ (Adl) and ‘consultation’ (Shura), it is understood that state-building is a worldly and evolutionary process that humans devise according to their needs. Passing this off as a ‘divine directive’ is, conversely, tantamount to imposing political ambitions upon religion.
2. ‘Islamisation’ Without Divine Directives and the Limits of Religion
A fundamental principle (Usul) of Islamic Sharia is that in matters of worship (Ibadah), whatever is not explicitly permitted is forbidden or an innovation (Bid’ah), whereas in worldly matters (Muamalat), everything that is not explicitly forbidden is permissible. Judging by this standard, a state is fundamentally a human evolution and an administrative necessity, not a spiritual act of worship. Unlike prayer (Salah) or pilgrimage (Hajj), which are commanded to be performed in precise ways, the Almighty Allah has provided no single ‘divine blueprint’ for a state.
Therefore, propagating an administrative structure—which stems primarily from human need and experiential knowledge—as a ‘direct command from Allah’ is not merely a theoretical error, but a profound violation of religious integrity. While the Holy Quran places immense emphasis on justice and equity, no specific constitutional model or state mechanism has been made mandatory to achieve that equity.
The greatest historical proof of this claim is found right from the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphate (Khilafah ar-Rashidah). If one observes the selection process of the first four Caliphs of Islam following the passing of the Prophet (PBUH), it was different and diverse every single time. The first Caliph was elected on the basis of mutual discussion at Saqifah; the second Caliph was nominated; the third Caliph was chosen through a specific committee; and the fourth Caliph was elected directly in the face of public demand. These four distinct methods conclusively prove that state-building or choosing a leader is not an immutable religious decree; rather, it is an entirely worldly and administrative process. If state-building were a specific religious order, the Companions (Sahaba) would have surely followed a single, divine method. Hence, claiming the state as an inseparable part of religion to satisfy modern political ambitions is nothing short of imposing one’s own interpretation upon the commands of the Almighty Allah.
3. The Absence of an ‘Islamic State’ in the Modern World: A Real Observation
When I look at my fellow believers who are eager to manufacture an ‘Islamic State’, this question naturally and practically crosses my mind: despite there being 57 Muslim-majority countries in the world today, why has not a single one managed to become an ideal example? If forming an ‘Islamic State’ were an integral part of religion, we would have seen its successful and just reflection in at least one land. The reality, however, is quite the opposite.
Absence of the Quranic Model
It is difficult to find a single country on today’s map where 100 percent Quranic justice or equity is established. Most Muslim-majority nations are ruled either by hereditary monarchies, autocratic dictatorships, or token Sharia laws. This so-called Sharia or Islamic label is often seen being used merely for political expediency or to suppress opponents. Where the core essence of the Holy Quran is ‘Adl’ (justice), the fundamental rights of individuals, freedom of speech, and the equitable distribution of wealth are routinely ignored in these states. Consequently, these countries bearing the name of an ‘Islamic State’ have failed miserably to reflect true Islamic values.
Sectarian Division and the Security Crisis
The greatest failure of these contemporary states is their inability to provide the bare minimum of security for the lives, property and religious freedom of people belonging to different sub-sects or factions of the same religion. It breaks one’s heart to look at countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan. When one sect or group is in power there, Muslims of other sects face extreme persecution. Attacks on mosques or madrasahs of differing ideologies, and even suicide bombings targeting ordinary worshippers, have become daily occurrences. This sectarian polarisation demonstrates to me that when a state binds itself to a specific religious interpretation, it can no longer remain a fair judge for everyone. As a result, these countries claiming to be ‘Islamic States’ have turned into graveyard-like zones for a large section of Muslims themselves.
Therefore, on what logic should I call a system ‘Islamic’ when it cannot even provide security to Muslims themselves, and where factionalism has become greater than Quranic justice? These so-called Islamic states are actually using religion more as a ladder to power than as a service to faith.
4. Was Medina Even a ‘State’? An Anatomy of History
To those who repeatedly invoke the name of Medina while giving examples of an Islamic state, I would say—this comparison is pure political indulgence and a form of historical deception. The concept of a modern ‘Nation-state’ emerged on Earth only about 200 years ago. Before that, what was understood as a state was as non-existent as today’s aeroplanes.
Medina was a ‘Confederation’ or a ‘Social Contract’
The Medina of the Prophet (PBUH) was not a ‘state’ in the modern sense; rather, it was a confederation or a coalition of various tribes. The ‘Constitution of Medina’ (Mithaq al-Medina) was a written treaty or covenant of that confederation. To those who wish to pass it off as an ‘Islamic state’, let me remind them—the Constitution of Medina was characteristically quite ‘secular’ in the modern sense. This is because, according to this covenant, each tribe of Medina (whether Muslim, Jewish or pagan) administered justice according to their own religious laws and customs. A singular ‘Islamic law’ was not imposed upon everyone there. Instead, Medina was a pluralistic society where the chief custodians of law were the individuals and tribes, not a state. Thus, casting that pre-modern confederation into the model of today’s border-enclosed modern state and claiming it as an ‘Islamic state’ is nothing short of denying history.
Before concluding this segment, I must say—there is no rule that just because a system or political framework gives you a bit of an ‘Islamic-Islamic’ feeling, it must be an inseparable part of Islam. Often, this emotion of ours is nothing but Satan’s ‘Waswasah’ (evil whispering). As a consequence, it may produce the opposite of the desired effect—resulting in the loss of both this world and the hereafter.
Western Secularism versus Bangabandhu’s Secularism
1. The Character of Propaganda and Conspiracy
A reactionary, self-serving clique of religious traders in Bangladesh has been very artfully interpreting the word ‘secularism’ from Western dictionaries as ‘godlessness’. Their central objective is to confuse the simple, devoutly religious people of this country and to assault one of the primary pillars of the Bangladeshi state. In the continuation of this assault, they have repeatedly slandered Bangabandhu and his party, the Awami League, as ‘anti-religious’, despite his role as the leader of our independence and the architect of our first constitution.
This conspiracy is not merely a matter of the past; it continues with equal vigour today. Its aim is to weaken the moral foundation of the present government and the Bangladesh Awami League. Until a clear understanding of this indigenous and humane blueprint of secularism is forged among the people of Bangladesh, these conspirators will continue to exploit the religious sentiments of the public’s subconscious mind.
2. Western Secularism versus Bangabandhu’s Blueprint
The conspirators know, but will not publicly admit, that Bangabandhu did not blindly adopt the mechanical ideology of Western ‘secularism’. Western secularism arose from the experience of a bloody power struggle between the State and the Church, where separating the state from religion was an urgent necessity. There, the state consciously avoids or discourages any matters related to religion.
However, the new meaning and blueprint of secularism that Bangabandhu crafted for us is not like the Western definition. Bangabandhu’s secularism means—‘the protection and equal freedom of all religions’. He wanted to ensure that no human being, by virtue of their personal religious belief, should be deprived of any rights from the state. Where the state washes its hands of religion in the Western model by calling it a private matter, the state acts as a guardian of religious people in Bangabandhu’s model. The state here will not only refrain from creating obstacles but will also extend the necessary support so that every citizen can practice their respective religion without fear, hesitation and with full vigour. This philosophy is an unparalleled protective shield for the entire Indian subcontinent today. The Nobel laureate economist Dr Amartya Sen correctly observed that this blueprint of Bangabandhu is particularly essential in today’s global context.
3. The Historical Journey of Non-Communalism
An absolute falsehood and propaganda is peddled claiming that before independence, Bangabandhu or the Awami League did not speak of secularism. Yet history bears witness that long before the liberation war, in 1955, Bangabandhu dropped the word ‘Muslim’ from the ‘Awami Muslim League’ to give the organisation a non-communal form. This was not a sudden decision. Having studied the hearts of the people of Bengal over a long period, he understood that politics in the name of religion is nothing but a tool for exploitation. In response to a colleague’s question on this matter, he had said, “The time has not yet come; it will be made universal at the appropriate time.” Every movement of Bangabandhu was a beacon of non-communal consciousness.
He knew that communalism and religious hatred in this land were primarily imported by Western colonisers. To prolong their rule and exploitation, they applied the policy of ‘divide and rule’. While departing, the British institutionalised that communal poison by partitioning the country on the basis of religion. Because Bangabandhu was a dedicated student of this historical truth, he thought of an alternative ever since the creation of Pakistan.
4. The Pakistan Experience and the Political Use of Religion
Bangabandhu observed that in the newly formed Pakistan, instead of implementing the ideals or justice of Islam, extreme deception and exploitation were being carried out against the masses by using Islam. Whenever the ruling class committed an injustice, they sought to silence the public by invoking Islam. As a far-sighted politician, he realised that for the peace and security of the people, communalism had to be identified as the chief enemy of the state.
Since the influence of religion on the people of this country is profound, he did not take the Western route of separating religion from the state, but instead took the path of preventing the misuse of religion. He wanted the state not to act as a henchman for any specific sect or opinion. It was from this thought that he incorporated secularism as one of the pillars of the new Constitution of Bangladesh.
5. The Indispensability of Secularism for the Protection of Muslims
Conspirators spread a dangerous piece of propaganda stating that secularism is only needed for the rights of minority Hindus, Buddhists and Christians. This is fundamentally a massive ploy to mislead Muslims. The reality is that in this country of a Muslim majority, secularism is required more for protecting the lives and property of Muslims than non-Muslims. Bangabandhu had witnessed up close the division among Muslims into various sects and factions, as well as their mutual intolerance.
If we look at history, we will see that the scholars of one sect have issued decrees of ‘Kafir’ (infidel) against the scholars of another sect. Decrees have even been propagated declaring each other as ‘Qabil-e-Gardanzeni’—meaning worthy of decapitation. Under such circumstances, if the state adopts the belief of a specific sect as the ‘state belief’, the remaining Muslims will turn into second-class citizens in that state. Attacks on mosques and madrasahs and the issuing of arbitrary fatwas will then gain legal legitimacy. Pakistan stands today as a living and wretched proof of this. Therefore, to ensure that the majority Muslims do not engage in bloodshed among themselves and can worship in peace according to their respective sects, Bangabandhu’s secular policy is of the utmost necessity.
6. The Golden Age of Islam and the Lessons of Its Fall
Bangabandhu had observed with deep absorption in the history of Muslim empires that the root of the golden age of the Caliphate lay in liberality and absolute tolerance towards dissenting views. Particularly, when the early and middle periods of the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258 AD) are called the ‘Golden Age of Islam’, the state structure was not trapped within any narrow communal matrix.
In the high administrative posts of that Caliphate, there were not only Muslims; rather, non-Muslim Christian, Jewish and Persian scholars were entrusted with highly critical responsibilities. ‘Bayt al-Hikmah’ (The House of Wisdom), established during the times of Caliph al-Mansur and al-Mamun, was the finest center of knowledge in the world, where Greek, Indian and Persian knowledge was translated into Arabic. It was precisely due to this liberality that an unprecedented surge in science, mathematics and philosophy occurred.
At a certain turning point in history, when the influence of the hyper-conservative ‘Asharite’ (Ash’arism) school began to grow at the expense of free-thinking and rationalist theology (such as the Mu’tazila school), an attempt began to state-impose a specific, narrow interpretation upon everyone. When Al-Ghazali and those after him positioned logic and science as adversaries of religion, the creativity of the Muslim world began to stifle. This narrow communalism and bigotry fundamentally accelerated the fall of that vast empire. Bangabandhu knew this historical truth: when a state takes the side of a specific dogmatic belief, it loses both its creativity and its capacity to dispense justice.
Bangabandhu knew that passing off something as ‘Allah’s command’ which the Almighty Allah has not directed (such as state formation or a specific method of governance) is a major sin (Kabirah). In the hereafter, judgment will be based on individual deeds; no one will receive a discount by presenting an identity as a citizen of an ‘Islamic State’. The state is fundamentally an administrative contract, a Social Contract; it can possess no ‘Nafs’ (ego) or ‘belief’. The duty of the state is to dispense equity and ensure equal opportunities for all.
7. Our Defensive Wall
Bangabandhu’s secularism is not merely a political slogan; it is the protective shield of our national existence. For Bangladesh to survive as a state and reach the ranks of the developed world, there is no alternative to embracing this humane and justice-based ideal of Bangabandhu. If this is compromised, we will become embroiled in a civil war, our development will stall, and we will lose ourselves in the labyrinth of a dark, sectarian conflict. Bangabandhu’s ideology is our true defensive wall, which ensures the dignity and security of every religious person.
Sufi Faruq Ibne Abubakar Information Technologist, Skills Entrepreneur, Moderate Muslim, Centre-Left Political Activist, Author of the ISP Setup Manual, and Founder of Gurukul.
See more: