M A Hossain,
The debate over the role of political Islamist parties in the Indian subcontinent is far from new. For centuries, calls for the establishment of a Sharia-based state system have echoed through the Muslim communities of this region. Yet in practice, this demand has remained vague, undefined, and often manipulated. The core reason is that political Islamist parties operating in the name of Islam have repeatedly failed—or deliberately avoided—presenting a clear structure for implementing Sharia. As a result, in today’s subcontinent, Sharia has been reduced to a slogan: a tool for swaying public opinion during elections rather than a genuine blueprint for governance.
In essence, Sharia is not a narrow legal system designed only for Muslims. It is a comprehensive framework derived from the Qur’an and the prophetic guidance of Muhammad (SW), encompassing personal, family, social, state, international, and religious affairs for all citizens. Historically, under an Islamic state, non-Muslims enjoyed full religious freedom; security for life, property, and honor. The Prophet (SW) himself said: “Whoever wrongs a non-Muslim under covenant, violates his rights, burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes from him without his consent—I will oppose him on the Day of Judgment.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3052).
Yet many today equate Sharia governance with authoritarianism. This is a misconception. Sharia is not tyranny; it is a system of justice and accountability where the ruler remains answerable to the people directly, without bureaucratic barriers. In the time of the Prophet (SW) and the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, even an ordinary Bedouin could challenge the ruler publicly. Compare this with modern democracies or others governance system: can an ordinary citizen directly hold the head of state accountable today? Never.
At its core, Sharia limits the source of power to divine law. Majority opinion or the whims of a ruler have no legitimacy if they contradict divine injunctions. The state’s responsibility is to ensure the welfare of all—Muslim and non-Muslim alike—according to Sharia principles. The citizens are not about forming a government on the majority votes but about obedience to the divine command. If a ruler violates Islamic law, the people are not obliged to follow him; rather, members of the shura—those well-versed in Sharia—are empowered to take steps against him.
Unlike democratic parliaments, a shura does not legislate; it advises the ruler based on Sharia. The ruler himself must be a qualified jurist (faqih), capable of interpreting Islamic law. If necessary, he may appoint expertise members in the shura. Sura members are the representatives of a revolutionary Muslim society. When the ruler dies, becomes incapacitated, or is removed by judicial ruling, a new appointment is made. In this way, justice, welfare, and accountability are ensured under a Sharia-based system.
Why, then, have Muslim-majority states deviated from Sharia? History holds the answer. After the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the caliphate declined due to greed for power, hereditary rule, and deviation from Islamic ideology. Later, colonialism and imperialism weakened the Muslim world not only economically but also ideologically. In the sixteenth century, European Christian imperialism weakened the Caliphate, and in the nineteenth century, under the influence of socialism and democracy, Muslim rulers who were unqualified under Sharia law took a stance against it. Although there were some individual efforts to establish Sharia during the anti-British movements, the British later divided the Muslims and lured them into democratic politics, diverting that movement onto a different path. The current misconceptions of Islamist political parties are a repetition of that same history.
Consider the subcontinent today. Those who speak of establishing Sharia often adopt methods contrary to Islamic principles. Participating in democratic elections while promising Sharia implementation is, from an Islamic perspective, a deeply flawed approach. In Islam, sovereignty and legislation is solely the prerogative of Almighty—not of majorities. Hence, equating a democratic parliament with a shura is incorrect. The Qur’an makes this explicit: “Whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, it is they who are disbelievers” (Surah Ma’idah, 44). And further: “It is not for a believing man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, to have any choice in their affair” (Surah Ahzab, 36).
Look at the example of Bangladesh’s Jamaat-e-Islami. Until 1988, the party had strict requirements even for its minimum leadership posts: anyone involved in interest-based transactions, banking loans, democratic legal practices, shaving the beard, wearing clothes below the ankles, or coming from a family without proper veiling—even owning a television—was disqualified. Today, the same party has abandoned such Islamic rigor and morphed into a conventional democratic organization. Ironically, many of its members now thrive in the legal profession within a democratic framework, contradicting their earlier stance.
The same applies to other so-called Islamist parties in Bangladesh. In India, the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and the Indian Union Muslim League, and in Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami or Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, all follow the same path—operating within democratic systems while claiming to establish Islamic Shariah. They exploit Islamic sentiment to gather votes, only to remain trapped in democratic power games.
History has proven that an Islamic state cannot emerge through ballots—it requires ideological revolution. The Prophet (SW) spent 13 years in Mecca building an ideological foundation before establishing a new societal order in Medina. Caliph Abu Bakr (RA) made a unilateral decision for selecting Caliph Umar (RA) and Usman (RA) came to power through the consensus of the Shura, not through any democratic voting. A practical example from the Indian subcontinent is Pakistan, which in 1947 sought to establish a Sharia-based state without a revolution, but it failed and did not reflect the Sunnah either.
Moreover, Islamic leadership demands scholarship. A ruler must be a faqih—deeply knowledgeable in Islamic law. But how many genuine jurists or scholars of Islamic jurisprudence lead today’s political Islamist parties? Hardly any. Their organizational structures mimic Western democratic parties: central committees, regional bodies, election campaigns—all imported mechanisms incompatible with Sharia governance. Even if they gain power, they lack the capacity to implement genuine Shariah rule.
On the other hand, groups that advocate revolutionary change often lack sufficient manpower, ideological preparation, or organizational strength. The Prophet spent over a decade nurturing a dedicated, principled generation. Are today’s movements investing in such groundwork? No. Instead, they remain entangled in vote-bank politics.
Among the subcontinent’s nations, Pakistan has the highest potential—albeit partial—for implementing Sharia in certain regions, especially near the Afghan frontier. Attempts to form Sharia-based administrative structures exist there, but lack of unity has prevented their expansion. Bangladesh and India face even greater challenges. Despite Muslim majorities, ideological fragmentation and political realities render the possibility remote.
So what is the realistic outlook for the Indian subcontinent? Sharia implementation in the subcontinent is not impossible, but for now, it remains unattainable. The Muslim masses lack ideological preparation; leadership lacks scholarly legitimacy; and major parties lack the revolutionary guidance rooted in the Sunnah. Movements genuinely aligned with prophetic methods face shortages of qualified personnel. Yet if sustained efforts continue, a new generation of revolutionary leadership may emerge, perhaps starting from partial regions in Pakistan and gradually expanding.
One thing remains clear: establishing Sharia through democratic means is an illusion. Until Muslims achieve ideological clarity, nurture capable scholars, and embrace a prophetic model of change, Sharia will remain nothing more than a political slogan. Parties exploiting Islam within democratic frameworks may mislead the masses, but they can never establish the governance exemplified by the Prophet (SW). Sharia is not a game of party politics. It is a divinely mandated system of justice and welfare. Its realization requires ideological revolution, principled leadership, and a prepared Muslim community—conditions still absent in today’s Indian subcontinent.
M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com
This article published at :
1. The Asian Age, BD : 23 July, 25
No comments:
Post a Comment