When it comes to Islamic reform probably Bangladesh is the leader

Submitted by Prashant, Sep 22, 2018 at 14:00

Dear Dr Pipes,

If we take Quran as a constitutional document it will be as far from secular thinking as anything can be. It is not a surprise that all of today's Muslims have lived in or have come from overwhelmingly Muslim-majority societies (like 98%) and in which respect for other religions is hardly a matter of concern. Islamic ethnocentrism and supremacy is so ingrained in the thought process of modern day Muslims that it is hardly ever questioned. Countries like Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and most other Islamic countries have been so for centuries. It is not much of a surprise that no Islamic-reformist movement of any significance has come out of any Islamic nation/society. And the non-Muslim world has been all too happy to oblige giving all privileges bestowed by democracy to the very nations who have no respect for secular democracy. In 2015 you hoped that el-Sisi the President of Egypt could be the Islamic reformer that we all have been waiting for.

I think a political reformer of a religion cannot be. A religion has to be reformed by a religious leader. Jesus, Martin Luther, Gautam Buddha, Guru Nanak, Dayanand Saraswati (who was a reformer of Hinduism as late as in the 19th century), were all religious figures first and politicians later (if at all). So a politicians will not reform a religion ever. Politicians can, however, help create circumstances in which thought processes that eventually lead to religious reforms can take place and a religious reformer can work freely for many years without his life and well being be threatened.

In this respect I have deep respect for the power of the written constitution. Words written in the constitution of a nation become guiding principles for her citizens for centuries to come. ('We the people' may or may not have been the guiding philosophy of people of the united states in 18th century but just look how far these words have brought us.).

From this point of view, Bangladesh --for all the Islamism prevalent in its society-- may be the most reformist of the Islamic nations. Bangladesh was formed in 1971 when it won independence from Islamic Pakistan. Immediately after that it declared itself a secular republic and adopted a secular constitution (Bangladeshi constitution mentions Islam at only two places). Article 12 of Bangladeshi constitution (pasted at the bottom of this message) is exactly what we will wish should be added to the constitutions of all Islamic theocracies. Since 1971 Bangladesh has dabbled between being an Islamic or a secular nation (depending on who is in power) but that is exactly the kind of debate we will like to see in all free societies. I believe currently Bangladesh is a secular nation and does not call itself an Islamic nation.

I am writing this message because I want the world to pay attention to the reformist policies of Bangladesh. Just imagine how much better our world will become if Palestinian and Kashmiri terrorists change the focus of their fight from religious to political and economic. If --the so called- Palestine were to become a freedom loving secular nation, it will not be very much objectionable. Same is true for Kashmir.

I will go to the extent of saying that non-Muslim people and governments should insist that Islamic theocracies and societies adopt freedom and secularism as their guiding principles. Not making a distinction between the church and state makes a nation inferior. We should tell this to all Muslims and all Muslim nations.

If political reforms enter Islamic nations, only them circumstances for religious reform can be created and sustained.

Article 12 of the Constitution of Bangladesh (http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/sections_detail.php?id=367§ions_id=24560):

1[ 12. The principle of secularism shall be realised by the elimination of -
(a) communalism in all its forms ;
(b) the granting by the State of political status in favour of any religion ;
(c) the abuse of religion for political purposes ;
(d) any discrimination against, or persecution of, persons practicing a particular religion.]

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".