The Supreme Court of Bangladesh lifted a stay on a four year old High Court verdict that had declared illegal and unconstitutional the fifth amendment of the Constitution of Bangladesh. The fifth amendment had legitimized all successive governments after the assassination of President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from 1975 until April 1979. This ban now makes illegal President Ziaur Rahman’s ascension to the presidency from his status as the Chief Marshal Law Administrator.
The denunciation of the fifth amendment implies that one of the most consequential moments of the founding of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has now been declared illegitimate. Thus, the Awami League now has the constitutional argument that at least some of the founding history of the BNP is now an morally illegitimate left turn in the history of the nation.
Interestingly, though the verdict has been upheld, the BNP has at least two outstanding petitions that require that the fifth amendment remain in the books, until those petitions are resolved. Moreover certain pieces of language will remain as they are, though the amendment that accedes them into the law has been deemed illegal. Hence still in play is the argument on the secular nature of the constitution of the country. This is so because Ziaur Rahman declared the words “Bismillahir rahmanir rahim” the opening salvo of the constitutuion, thereby rejecting secularism as a founding principle of Bangladesh. Indeed, the Attorney General of Bangladesh, Mahbubey Alam, has declared that the passage, which translates to “In the name of God, most gracious and most compassionate” will remain in the preamble of the constitution.
These are interesting times. However, perhaps the times are too far removed from any imagined history of secularism that some in Bangladesh might entertain.
.
8 Comments So Far»
The word “SECULARISM” is frequently misapplied to sound like the synonym of words like Godless, anti-God, anti-religion and atheistic. These usages, apart from being incorrect, are grossly misleading too. Secularism simply means to separate religion from the business of the state. By mixing Religion and Politics, we either politicize religion or we end up with theocratizing politics. Thus we do a disservice to religion and politics both.
Bangla Desh has, in doing away with its 5th amendment, set a worthy example for other countries of the world. Congratulations, Bangla Desh !!
Hi Nusrat,
I agree with everything you’ve written. Though I might disagree with the impact of the repeal of the 5th amendment on secularism in Bangladesh. In my view, secularism is compatible with religion in one’s everyday, practiced life. The only prohibition that secularism requires is that public law cannot be founded and interpreted according to some specified religious tenet.
This is a normative precept, I suppose. Religion is run through in the politics of every country. A strictly empirical reading of that fact might imply that this is to endear one’s party to a voting bloc that subscribes to some or other religion. I’d argue that it is for this functional reason religion and politics will continue to run together in Bangladesh. As you know “Bismillah…” will remain in the preamble of the Constitution and through the 8th amendment Islam will remain the state religion.
I suspect that religion is here to stay, even though politicians in Bangladesh might do disservice to both policy and religion in maintaining the confused and problematic relationship.
The very concept of a State Religion appears to be a fallacy. While State is defined by physical and geographical boundaries, Religion has spiritual and doctrinal dimensions. So essentially, State and Religion are two distinctly separate spheres which coexist, but do not overlap.
If what the advocates of State Religion genuinely seek, is a source of morality, even then a specific state religion is not required because the basic moral essentials of all revealed religions are common. If the constitution of a state is capable of ensuring Justice and Benevolence to the citizens, the constitution fulfills the state-relevant moral requirements of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Buddhism alike. Therefore a secular constitution that offers Justice and Benevolence to all citizens equally is the ultimate solution.
Dear Faheem Haider ,
The Secular form of government is the most Islamic form of government. The basic and most essential principle laid down by the Holy Quran is : “LAA IKRAAHA FIDDEEN” meaning ‘there is no compulsion in Religion’. With a State Religion in place, compulsion becomes a probability. Members of the clergy, representing that particular religion are aroused into decision-making and fatwa-issuing. These clergy members begin to play an active role and all other citizens automatically assume the passive role. Citizens who do not subscribe to the State Religion are compelled to take an even more passive role in society.
Therefore, it is only a Secular system that can truly guarantee an atmosphere in which there is no religious compulsion for any citizen, regardless of his religious affiliations. Only a truly secular state can fulfill the requirements of “LAA IKRAAHA FIDDEEN”. Therefore the Secular form of government is the most Islamic form of government.
Best Regards
Nusrat Pasha.
Hi Nusrat,
I agree with the normative content of your comment. I’m not quite sure whether your syllogism works however, since even the Prophet in and out of the Koran compels the vanquished to renounce their kafir beliefs on pain of death.
I think the only reasonable requirement on a state is the requirement of impartiality. This can work in one of 2 ways. The first way is to prohibit any religion at all in public spaces. This is, I admit, a draconian and coerced form of impartiality. The other is to allow all religions in public spaces. Without maintaining a strict line between private and public religion, as long as the state remains impartial to the ways and means of conduct of any religion or religious leaders, the state can mimic secularism. It seems to me, the first is the means that Communist politburos chose to dominate the influence of religious beliefs on public action and to that degree, it seems to be a method we should disavow. The second means strikes me as the way we’ve gone about incorporating religion in our public lives in the U.S. This strikes me as a more fundamentally successful operation.
I would think that members of the clergy can issue fatwas irrespective of their status in the state. Unless I am mistaken, the clergy’s authority stems from their role as overseer of private morality. The state cannot suppress this role irrespective of the public legislation it condones to measure and employ morality for the sake of collective welfare.
Regards,
F.
Dear Faheem Haider
1: This is how my syllogism, if you choose to call it so, goes: In a state that has a State Religion, that particular religion will have an upper hand. Legislation will remain susceptible to influences from the clergy representing that religion thus expanding the likelihood of religious coercion. It would require nothing short of Divine intervention to keep the clergy confined to private morality. The Quran states unequivocally that there is no room for coercion in matters of faith, neither at state level nor at private level. This demand can be met only by a secular state. Therefore by nature, a secular state is Islamic.
2: I disagree that the Holy Prophet ever exercised coercion in religious matters. This is an impression projected either by orientalists who seek to vilify him or by Muslim scholars in search of justifications for religious coercion.
3: I agree that the state should be impartial. The religion of a citizen should mean nothing to the state. The right to adopt, profess and preach one’s beliefs should be accepted as a fundamental right.
4: The U.S formula, in this regard, is indeed a good one, but I suppose the Canadian one is better.
Regards
Nusrat Pasha
Hi again,
I understand you to mean that a secular state falls within the injunctions for impartiality in the realm of private and public morality as you argue is claimed in the Koran. I just happen to think that the only claim of secularism IS strict, formal impartiality; public and private morality can be controlled by religious authorities without state sanction. What’s more religion can seep into public action legislation without state consent. To assume impartiality is to suggest only that the government isn’t coercing individuals into any form of belief. Coercion can and does come in sideways.
Frank Peters at NYU was a former teacher of mine. He lead a class that studied the history of the people of the Koran when that history was being recorded in the Koran and the Hadith. The Prophet’s military conquests were not simply military victories but also social victories. I do think his gift to the people of the region was a humanist world-view where social welfare was a collective endeavor centered on the Ulema for the benefit of the umma. Nevertheless, one wonders whether if the Prophet’s military killed prisoners and war and conscientious objectors to conversion, whether that would be a blasphemous proposition. I don’t think it should. All three monotheistic sets of beliefs claim that God sanctions spiritual and physical struggle against the enemies of Elohim, Yahweh or Allah.
I agree with you about Canada’s approach to impartiality. But I think that the U.S founding position on religion is a deeply humane one. I just happen to think that the U.S. institutions have allowed religion to be more of a wedge issue than U.S founding documents might suggest.
Dear Faheem Haider
1: True, “coercion can and does come in sideways”, but at least if it’s not state-sponsored, the victims can realistically look forwards to getting justice. The good thing about NOT having a State Religion is that the state is less tempted to use religion as an umbrella against justice.
2: As I mentioned earlier, orientalists and those ulema who need justifications for religious coercion, both tend to rely on accounts compiled during the latter periods. They prefer to avoid sources such as Bukhari and Muslim, because the objective for them is not projecting the true character of the Holy Prophet but to paint a picture of a pro-violence person, an image that for some reason suits them.
At the occasion of the fall of Mecca the Prophet avenged atrocity with amnesty, while he had the power to avenge as he chose. It is fact that after the battle of Badr the companions of the Prophet let the prisoners of war have their bread and food while they took dates and water only. Orientalists do not particularly fancy facts like these, do they.
3: Now for the Quran, the following references need to be examined as well:” there is no coercion in matters of religion”(2:256 ), ” whoever chooses to believe let him believe and whoever chooses to disbelieve let him disbelieve “(18:29) and ” those who believe and then disbelieve, then again believe and then again disbelieve, and then advance in disbelief, Allah will not grant them forgiveness nor will He guide them to the Path “(4:137). So even for repeated apostasy there is no penalty awarded in this life to be executed through human hands. Regarding Elohim and Yahweh their scriptures may depict them as they like, but Allah as introduced to us by the Quran sanctions physical struggle against His enemies, solely on the condition that physical aggression has been initiated by the aggressor. We read
” Permission to fight is given ONLY to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged ” (32:39).
Regards
Nusrat Pasha
2 Pingback & Trackback
Leave Comments Below»