Khandaker Abdullah Jahangir

"Never think that Allah will not listen to a sinner like me. Then faith will be destroyed. Allah listens to sinners too. Never think that if Allah did not grant my request, then He will not grant it again. It is mentioned in the Hadith that when a servant becomes disappointed or impatient, Allah no longer accepts that prayer!"

"The Jamaat-e-Islami is the oldest Islamist political party in the sub continent. The party has carried out several positive works. These include: (i) they have demonstrated that Islam is a complete code of life, it is a prac tical system, and it is the best way of life; (ii) they have enabled themselves in making the youths and the educated people understand these facts about Islam; (iii) they have largely motivated people for Islamic economy, educa tion, and so on; (iv) they have succeeded in building awareness amongst the people on the existing superstitions in the society, such as worshipping persons, pirs, and grave. Side by side, Jahangir continues, Several errors can be traced all along in the politics of the Jamaat-c-Islami: (i) they have designated politics as jihad. This was first done by Maulana Mawdudi; (ii) they have made a serious error by reducing the meaning of the concept of ckamat-e-deen (establishment of religion) to the establish ment of an Islamic state; (iii) the party has compromised its ideology and concentrated more on power-politics and made alliances with the secular parties and people for power; and (iv) during the liberation war the Jamaat supported and took arms for what it had earlier termed a "non-Muslim tagudi [tyrant] government." This was their biggest mistake.... Yes, the ulama also supported Pakistan because they loved Pakistan. They were obsessed with the spirit of the creation of Pakistan in 1947. In 1971, still they remembered this glorious event. However, [during the liberation war] they did not organize people for Pakistan and actively take part in the military effort to preserve the integrity of the country. They just gave passive support.... The lust for power demonstrated by the Jamaat proves that they have deviated from their original ideological stance that the secularists will not promote Islam; instead, a group of highly Islamized people should attain power to properly serve the cause of Islam. But the party became the part of power by the help of the secularists. This is their ideological deviation. This trend still continues. What Jamaat considers development; it is, in fact, underdevelopment. In our society, merely 10-15% people are namazi-deendar [practicing Muslims). But, the Jamaat, having shared power with the BNP, gives the world a message that the Islamists take over and Bangladesh is on the verge of becoming a Taliban state. So, at any cost, Jamaat will have to be crushed. For example, you have power of 10kgs, you showed 100kgs. Your opponent hit you with 60kgs, but you have only 10kgs. You will be definitely crushed. Because of this, it is better for the Islamists to influence and pressurize the secularists in power at least so long as they do not attain power unilaterally. Jamaat did not raise voice against the alleged corruption during the four-party alliance government (2001-2006), rather they silently supported it. This is a clear deviation from their ideological standpoint. Those who do politics in the name of Islam, they have to take Islamic ideology into full consideration. Islamic politics is ideological politics. Islamic politics is not just a passport to power."

"Sovereignty means ownership. It is simple that sovereign means owner. Like I am the owner of this land which is true. I can build, demolish, partition, sell here. I own this. Again this land belongs to God. This is also true. And the fact is, according to Islam, I can do many things with this land, but I cannot build a brothel here. Human ownership is limited; God's ownership is supreme over all other sovereignty. My ownership is worldly, and if I place it on the ownership of Allah, I will be guilty before Allah. At the same time, the people own the country, it is a simple matter. I do not agree with those who say that it is anti-Islamic to call the people sovereign and they are the source of all power. Power here does not mean storm-rain or disease power, it means ministerial, prime ministerial and above all state power. This power is actually human. In Islam, power will be gained by the consent of the people. In a society if the heads of the people agree and the people agree, that's fine, that's democracy. People's participation and participation is mandatory in democracy Islam. So the people own the state and the people are the source of power is not inconsistent with Islam. But if one thinks that this ownership means that anyone can do anything; If the haram (forbidden) is halal (lawful), and the halal is haram, then it is clearly anti-Islamic."

"A variation of lying in the name of hadith is to add or omit something from the translation without doing a literal translation. Or making the interpretation of what the Prophet (ﷺ) said a part of the hadith. Almost all of us in our society are involved in this crime. For self-purification, Pir-Muridi, Dawat-Tabligh, politics, etc., we provide evidence from Quran and Hadith to people of every group and opinion. Providing such evidence is a very natural act and demand of faith. But usually we run this explanation in the name of Rasulullah (ﷺ). For example, Rasulullah (ﷺ) governed the state, but did not do 'party politics' in the traditional sense, i.e. did not do anything like change of power through voting. Currently many scholars are doing democratic 'politics'. It is accepted as a new method of enjoining justice, forbidding injustice or Iqamat Deen. But if we say, 'Rasulullah (ﷺ) did politics', then the listener or reader will understand the conventional meaning of 'politics', i.e. seizure of power through voting. And he did not do this politics. As a result, lies will be told in his name. That is why we should tell separately what he did and said and what we are interpreting."