Supreme Court of Bangladesh, Secularism & Quran
Supreme Court of Bangladesh in his decision (3 Jan 2010) declared the fifth amendment of the constitution of Bangladesh illegal. (Click here for detailed news). Along with others, one consequence of this decision is that the secular status of Bangladesh is restored.
Secularism is Kufr (disbelief in God) according to clear injunctions of Quran. Quran declares:
I agree that no one should be allowed to use religion as political instrument. But, similarly no one should use the name of humanity, nationalism, progress, human rights etc. as political instrument. And how can it be decided that if a party is using the religion for achieving political ends or it is using politics for achieving religious ends. As there is no harm in using politics for humanity, progress and human rights etc. what is the harm in using politics for meeting religious ends?
Here I want to pay tribute to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which in his famous decision against NRO validated Objectives Resolution (Article 2-A of Constitution). This resolution passed by the founders of Pakistan ensures supremacy of Quran in principle and democracy as working code of the country.
“…and whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.” (5: 44)The religion-based political parties functioning in the country stands to be outlawed in the light of this judgment. Law Minister Barrister Shafique Ahmed said since the High Court judgment invalidating Fifth Amendment stands operational through reviving the fundamentals of the 1972 Constitution, "None would in any way be allowed to use religion as political instrument".
“…And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” (5:45)
“…And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” (5:47)
I agree that no one should be allowed to use religion as political instrument. But, similarly no one should use the name of humanity, nationalism, progress, human rights etc. as political instrument. And how can it be decided that if a party is using the religion for achieving political ends or it is using politics for achieving religious ends. As there is no harm in using politics for humanity, progress and human rights etc. what is the harm in using politics for meeting religious ends?
We are sure that nothing is going to change but do we give up that easily on ourselves or on children when they are under performing? If not than why have we given up on our mother land? Please reply by adding comments to the post!
ReplyDeleteWe (the Pakistanis) are no ideal Muslims but what i have understood about Bangladesh is tragic and unbelievable as dominant population in the country is Muslim. Apparently Bangladesh is trying to achieve what the Turks are up to since Tansu cheller declared Turkey as secular.
Though I could not clearly understand what you communicated, I try to express my views regarding what I comprehended.
ReplyDeleteI am sure things are going to change and they are changing. But changes do not occur in months or years. It was a voyage of centuries in Europe from monarchy to democracy. And be assured, things are not perfect in Britain and US. It is not about achieving a specific target. It is about keep on travelling in correct direction.
But the point of greatest concern for me, and about which I frequently allude to in my blogs is, that while we are going in correct direction as far as democracy etc. is concerned, these positive changes are unfortunately linked with extremely negative changes. We are going to be secular and Westernised. Due to the inferiority complex about our culture, we are not concerned about the progress and evolution of our culture. Every living and vital culture always grows and goes through a process of evolution. But our culture is not going through evolution. What we are doing is abandoning our culture and replacing it with Westernism.
It was not Tansu Ciller who secularised Turkey. Kamal Ataturk secularised Turkey. He changed Islamic penal code with Italian code. He himself declared that he is not a Muslim. He said, “I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men.”
At another occasion he said about Bible and Quran, “We do not consider our principles as dogmas contained in books that are said to come from heaven. We derive our inspiration, not from heaven, or from an unseen world, but directly from life.”
We must be aware of these Ataturks in our ranks that pretend to be Muslims and servants of Muslims but they are hypocrites and their purpose is to wipe out Islam from the face of globe.
The purpose of my blog “Supreme Court of Bangladesh, Secularism & Quran” is to warn Muslims that Bangladesh seems to follow the footprints of Ataturk. It must be resisted.
Please keep in mind that by the word resistance in the above comment I mean resistance by producing awareness in the people and by educating them. I am a staunch believer in non-violence. Only those means of agitation may be used which are allowed by the laws of modern states.
ReplyDelete