The following is the full transcript of Jamaat-e-Islami Ameer Shafiqur Rahman's interview with The Daily Star:

The Daily Star (DS): You are the ameer (chief) of Jamaat-e-Islami amid a shifting political landscape. It is not yet stable. How do you perceive it? Are there reasons for apprehension?

Shafiqur Rahman (SR): You see our society has never really been stable. It was not stable during the Pakistan period. Neither can we say that it was fully stable since it has been Bangladesh. In Pakistan, there were assassinations and changeovers but democracy never really returned to its constitutional form. And eventually of course, Bangladesh was born with hundreds of thousands of people sacrificing themselves. But this lack of stability was always there, even after Bangladesh's freedom.

Then Sheikh Mujib was killed along with his family. His relatives were also assassinated. Those were unstable times. There were several changes of power even before Ziaur Rahman came to power. He did not get much time after formally opening up politics. Those were tumultuous times too. After Ziaur Rahman came Sattar but he too had to go. That was also marked with instability.

Then came Ershad and built his own party. During his tenure there were full-fledged movements one after another. He had to leave power through another uprising actually. Those were also unstable times.

Then the BNP formed a government in 1991 with Khaleda Zia as the prime minister. In that election, no one party secured enough seats to form the government. That was another type of instability. Jamaat was then the balance of power. Awami League wanted our support and so did BNP. We used our judgement and lent our support to BNP without any conditions. We had clarified that they may form the government but [Jamaat] would rather not be part of it and remain in the opposition. The support was only to form government. Nothing more than that.

The election had been held under an interim government — it was not called 'caretaker' yet. This caretaker formula was declared by Abbas Ali Khan in 1984 on behalf of the Jamaat chief of that time, Professor Ghulam Azam. The formula was exactly as Ghulam Azam had proposed. The name was different but the composition was the same.

Everyone participated in that election, including Jatiya Party, which secured 36 seats, because the elections were held under an interim government despite such a huge debacle. I think that was a huge achievement for them. Jamaat participated on its individual capacity, on its own and managed to secure 18 seats.

Then Jamaat sent a six-member delegation led by Abbas Ali Khan to the prime minister who said this was the first time a credible election had taken place in independent Bangladesh where a huge number of people took part. They urged the ruling party to float a proposal to formalise this caretaker government system from the treasury bench. But it was not acceptable.

Then we were compelled to raise this demand from the streets. But later in 1996 the Awami League raised the same demand for a caretaker government. The difference was semantic. That demand gained currency and all parties took part in that movement except BNP.

But the campaign for this demand became so strong that BNP had to relent and accept it in the following parliament which was there for just a limited amount of time. The only law that parliament enacted was the caretaker government bill following which the parliament was dissolved and new elections were held in 1996, in which everyone took part.

Awami League won that election with a slim majority and formed government. They ruled till 2001. But during this time, there were a lot of incidents. There were bodies strewn about in the canals and rivers of Bangladesh. Those were unstable times as well.

Then there was a four-party alliance in 2000 with BNP, Jamaat, Jatiya Party and Islami Oikya Jote. But at one point, Ershad left with his faction of Jatiya party to be replaced by Naziur Rahman Manjur's faction of Jatiya Party. There was a written declaration from this alliance during the anti-government movement which said that the alliance would campaign together, participate in the elections together and if they won, then they would form the government together. That was how we took part in the government.

The Jamaat chief of that time, Motiur Rahman Nizami, was first given agriculture ministry followed by industries ministry. The general secretary of Jamaat, Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujaheed, always had the social welfare ministry. But there was instability during that time too. Awami League had stated from the first day that it would not let the government rest in peace for a single day.

The Awami League general secretary of that time, Abdul Jalil, had mentioned a "trump card" that Awami League would play on 30 April of 2004. They had planned to get all NGO workers of Bangladesh to lay siege to the secretariat and topple the government. That was foiled due to a number of measures by the government.

Then a number of religious outlets reared their head. That created another phase of instability when they set off bombs in almost all the courts of the country. The government of that time took tough measures against them. These elements were arrested. Some even died when they were being arrested. Some were tried and convicted.

The mainstream religious leaders were opposed to these elements and they could not create a space for themselves.

Following that, Sheikh Hasina Wazed began her movement with the 14-party alliance. The transitional period began on October 28. The government was expected to step down the following day and hand over power to the caretaker government. The Awami League caused a day of mayhem on that day killing six of our activists. This was broadcast all over the world. Children could not sleep at night having witnessed that cruel murder. Foreign leaders said they were fearful of what they had witnessed.

A new caretaker government under [then] president Iajuddin was formed, which was unusual that a president himself had become the head of a caretaker government. Although that was within the constitutional stipulations, this had never happened before. However, that government failed due to the instability created by the Awami League. But that was not solely because of Awami League. The government of the day was also responsible. It was followed by another caretaker government. That government, although caretaker governments were supposed to stay for three months only, stretched its tenure to two years and at one point wanted to form its own party. General Moeen U Ahmed, the army chief back then, presented a keynote at the Sonargaon Hotel Ballroom. It was a vision for Bangladeshi democracy. He had wanted to use that opportunity to build support among the people and form his own government. But he failed. When he did not get a warm response, he realised that it would not work.

This military-backed caretaker government, as we called it, headed by Fakhruddin Ahmed conducted elections in 2008. But by then, they had made a number of errors and there were instances of corruption by them as well, although they had committed to a crusade against corruption.

They needed a "safe exit", a term which had gained currency at that time. They had then gone to two leaders. One had said that the parliament would decide while another had said their actions would not be under scrutiny and everything would be endorsed. That was the leader who was favoured and that leader went on to win the election and form government. She had not imagined that she would win with such a margin.

Bangladesh had always been unstable. Soon after that government took over there was the massacre of army officers in Pilkhana which had never happened in independent Bangladesh. Officers' families were killed, women were violated and their bodies were thrown into the drains. This government then went on to completely decimate the opposition. The government then focused its efforts in destroying Jamaat and tried its leaders for war crimes although they had been arrested under other cases. Many were killed, many were injured. Many were disappeared and we still don't know their whereabouts. In the whole time, Jamaat was only allowed to hold events on two occasions — June 30, 2023 and October 28, 2023. We were not allowed to stand on the streets. But even then we did it, knowing full well that there would be several cases against some of us no matter how peaceful we were. We stood on the streets with that foreknowledge. There were thousands of cases, hundreds of thousands were arrested. Many were interned during that time. There had never been such times.

Then there was the changeover on the [August] 5th. But the country has still not become stable. The instability can't go on like this. This has to stop at some point. Despite being repressed for so long we have assured our members and activists that this will not go on and the repression will stop at some point... when people as a whole are repressed, they will rise up and the government will not be able to subdue them. We have to be patient during these trying times when the nation is sort of going through birthing pains. We have told our members not to take the law into their own hands. We will not seek retribution for the injustices done to us. There have been several instances of anarchy immediately following the changeover. There have even been several instances of mob justice. But we have not been accused of any of them.

I have even sought out information confidentially about whether Jamaat members have been involved in any such cases. There have not been any.

We want to perform as a responsible organisation contributing to the stability of the country. That is why we are being patient. If anyone has a right to vengeance then it is us. Many others have suffered a lot more than us in terms of numbers but in terms of the gravity of damage we have been harmed the most. The entire rank and file of the party, including two ameers (chiefs) have been finished. I was no one significant in this party. But since the top leadership had been decimated, we were burdened with the leadership of the party. We have made these sacrifices only to bring back this stability. You could also call it civic duty if you want. We very much desire stability.

Not everyone in this [interim] government will have the same capacity. That is only normal. No two people are the same. That is only to be expected. But if they work sincerely and treat their appointment as a sacred responsibility the nation has entrusted them with, then they will be able to leave behind something good for us.

But if these people fall victim to greed and power, then they will have betrayed their trust but more than that, they will have destroyed our hopes and aspirations. They have a huge responsibility and this is like their acid test.

Some members of the government at times make political statements. The nation does not want to hear that from them. This government is a non-partisan government. It is best that we don't hear anything partisan from a non-partisan government. It would not bode well for them or us if they make such statements. We expect that they will perform their duties with caution and sincerity, bringing stability to the country.

Now you can never really wish away your apprehensions. There was a chance of a judicial coup soon after the changeover. Then there was an incident with the Ansar. The Ansar director general said they were not all from the paramilitary force, then who were all these people dressed up in their uniform. We are seeing strange incidents… these incidents of provocation at different levels.

Then again, and this was perhaps the first time in history that with the changeover many people began guarding the places of worship of the minorities. We were among them too. This has never happened before. But I am not willing to accept that either. I believe every citizen has the same right. If my mosque doesn't need guarding, why should someone's temple? Or pagoda? That means there is a security concern here. It is unfortunate that our society could not ensure that. We must address this concern.

Religion and party, to each his own. But the state belongs to everyone. Everyone has the same right to security. Everyone must converge on this basic point of agreement. Without exception. Otherwise, it will never be beneficial for any society or state.

DS: Jamaat is known for being farsighted and advancing with a plan. But the party had been against public opinion during both turning points of the subcontinent (1947 Partition and 1971 Liberation War). How do you explain that?

SR: It is true that we were against the tide. But none of the Jamaat leaders were ever against Pakistan [in 1947]. We never said we wanted a unified India. The point was that the leaders of Pakistan did not reflect what was supposed to be the spirit of the movement for Pakistan. That the spirit of Islam was not being fully represented by the leadership and we urged for that. It was a principled position. Was that wrong? It was not against Pakistan really.

This is almost similar to the recent news that I had forgiven the Awami League… that I had announced a general amnesty. I had not even named Awami League. I don't have the right to say such a thing, neither did I. But the media publicised it as such, which was very unfortunate. And it was attributed to me. Was it not an injustice to me?

I had said that those who had wronged us, I forgive them and we won't exact revenge for that. But if the victims or the victims' families seek justice, we will assist them. Does that mean general amnesty or forgiveness for Awmai League? And I said there were many, other than Awami League, who had wronged us by turns. We don't want to name anyone. Maybe Awami League had done it the most. But surely there were others. We have stated a common principle for all of them. It is that the politics of revenge and retribution must be put to the grave. It does not matter if no one else says it. Someone has to bell the cat. So why not me?

It was with this intent that we had spoken those words. But simultaneously, I had also said that those who had committed crimes must be punished or this culture of impunity would only increase.

Now about the election of 1970 and then 1971. That you can say was against the popular tide and for a united Pakistan. That is true. But Mujib was also for one Pakistan. He continued the dialogue till the last day only to demand his rightful position as the prime minister of the whole of Pakistan. There was no difference between our vision and his.

Now you will ask me that 'when the Liberation War became unavoidable and when the entire nation turned towards it, why didn't you?'

The Liberation War was mostly conducted from India but not so much within Bangladesh. Many had either withdrawn to India or fled there to seek shelter. People went there for two main purposes. Either to save themselves or to wage war from there. About 10 million people went there. But there were about 1,50,000–2,00,000 freedom fighters. It was about two to three percent of all the refugees. Even Bhashani had gone to India but he could not stay there. Why was that? It was because his name began with "Maulana". He was forced to flee from India to Bangladesh. Now tell me was there an atmosphere for Jamaat-e-Islami or other Islamist parties to go to India? If not, then how would they take part in the war?

And now there will be the question, "Fine, you could not join the war. But you could have kept quiet and not provided support to the injustice."

Now, we had wanted Pakistan to remain undivided and that Awami League be given their rightful due that they had earned through the popular vote.

But that did not happen because of Bhutto's obstinacy. Sheikh Mujib had nothing to do with that, neither did anyone else. Only Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is responsible for that not happening. His demand for two prime ministers in a single country was the reason. He simply would not let Sheikh Mujib have the reins of entire Pakistan. He had wanted to rule over West Pakistan while Sheikh Mujib would have to be satisfied with just East Pakistan. This was an unjust demand… an unconstitutional demand. But the military rulers of Pakistan endorsed that demand. Then began their repression. Jamaat-e-Islami had still wanted a single Pakistan. I am not going into the discussion whether that was vice or virtue.

What we had heard afterwards was that the leadership of that time had an apprehension that if we won our independence with the favour, cooperation and active engagement of India, then the people would not be able to reap the full benefits of that sovereignty. That there would be an undue influence over Bangladesh and because of that we would not be able to emerge and establish ourselves as a truly sovereign nation with full dignity. People have borne witness to what has happened in our 53 years of independence. The media has been the mirror of the society and I leave it up to you. If the Jamaat leadership's apprehension had been wrong then let them come and say it did not happen. But if because of their farsightedness, they had been right, then the people will surely take that into their consideration as well.

If I see that the popular stream is going in a direction that has more ills than good then I must take a stand even if I am alone. I must do what my conscience tells me. Jamaat did just that. Nothing more.

Now there is the question of crimes that our leadership was accused of. There are questions about Al Badr, Al Shams, Razakar. And the crimes they committed and how much they were related to these outfits. There was also the Peace Committee. All these outfits did exist.

There is no denying that, these outfits were all there. The Pakistan government controlled them. They established these outfits and they controlled these outfits. I was little then. I had seen in my village market they would beat drums and motivate people to join the Razakars. But how can Jamaat be held responsible for their crimes. If the Pakistan government had controlled these outfits, then why should Jamaat shoulder the misdeeds of their crimes.

In the 1970 election, Jamaat had secured about 4.5 percent of the votes and rest almost entirely voted for Awami League. How could that Jamaat become so powerful… even more than the Pakistani military?! The military that had weapons at their disposal? I really don't know. I did not see it in my area. I don't know about the rest of the country. I used to live in a small community and Jamaat was a rather small organisation there at that time.

But yes, I agree that if someone has committed a crime then they must be punished. Even if it were I who committed the crime. Now if a Jamaat leader or a Chhatra Shangha leader had committed crimes then they must be punished for their misdeeds.

But I ask you who had the power then? Was it Jamaat-e-Islami or the military or was it Sheikh Mujib's rule? It was Sheikh Mujib who was in power. After the war, they drew up a list of war criminals and charged 24,000 people. Many went to jail. But those who were charged 42 years after the war, why were they not charged back then? Why were there no cases or even a whiff of an allegation back then in any police station at that time?

Then we, the following generations, would understand that yes, since they had done something wrong, hence there were allegations against them. But why were there none? Why did these charges come about after 42 years? [Surendra Kumar] Sinha had written a little about that in his book. I don't want to go deep into that because I am not sure how much he wrote freely at that time. Put together, there is a big question about who the perpetrators were. That people died, there is no way to deny. No one can deny that people were violated, that houses were looted. But who were the actual perpetrators? It should have been unearthed through those 24,000 cases. Why were those not resolved? So, it was not possible to do that in less than three years. But why did that not continue? Sheikh Mujib then declared a general amnesty except for four crimes—murder, rape, loot and arson—and the rest were given amnesty. Those remained then. The legacy remained. But 42 years later everything was bundled on Jamaat's shoulders. How is that justice?

And the trial that was held was a complete kangaroo trial. The whole world expressed their concern about its fairness. First, they labelled these as war crimes, then they said these were crimes against humanity. They called it international crimes tribunal but said that they would try domestic crimes. Everything was muddled.

Guilty or not, they were simply bent on proving us guilty. That was their main focus. I want to say something clearly. Whether I have been a witness of those times or not, it does not matter. If any kind of mistake or crime from that time is proven beyond doubt, then I will personally beg forgiveness from the nation with full responsibility. I have absolutely no reservations about that. But I won't accept trumped up charges as the truth. It has to be clear what is the truth.

Everyone knows how we were treated all over Bangladesh when these trials were going on. People have witnessed how our defence witnesses were kidnapped from the court premises. We were completely insecure. We were not even considered citizens of this country. How would we get justice? It was simply a miscarriage of justice. That is what had been inflicted upon us.

DS: You say that if the crimes were proven beyond doubt, you would not have any reservation to beg for forgiveness.

SR: Yes, I would have no hesitation.

DS: And just to clarify, it is also your contention that the militia forces like Al Badr, Al Shams and Razakar were controlled by the Pakistani government and subsequently the country was controlled by Sheikh Mujib. So then why should Jamaat be burdened with the responsibility of the crimes committed by these outfits.

SR: Yes, everything was controlled by them.

TDS: But, one thing is quite clear from historical documents that Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing Chhatra Shangha had led the formation of these militia outfits, along with other Islamist parties. Does that not put the burden of responsibility on Jamaat?

SR: There is such a saying — history is for the victors — history backs those who emerge victorious. The history that you refer to today as authentic will have become "distorted" in no time. That is quite an established truth the world over. I am not going into that debate now. But let me refer to something that happened during this [Awami League] government's tenure.

They had published a list of Razakars, right? There were 134 from Jamaat-e-Islami and 10,000 from the Awami League, not the other way round. Then tell me which one is the party of Razakars? Which party?

Now, when [Awami League regime] did not like it, they turned around and annulled the list. Then one would have to presume that AKM Mozammel Huq (former minister for the Ministry of Liberation War Affairs) was a rukn or ameer of Jamaat, hence he was misguiding the government. Otherwise, if he was indeed favouring Jamaat, why is he still part of the Awami League? What was he doing in that ministry then?

Just like those news item saying that I had announced general amnesty and that I have forgiven Awami League, it is very easy to create history.

But yes, let me also be clear. Back then there was Jamaat, Chhatra Sangha, Muslim League, NSF, PDP, Nezam-e-Islam party, Awami League, many other parties. I have seen with my own eyes that Awami League members had joined the Razakars. I don't know about other areas of Bangladesh but this was something I saw in my community. Why they went in, whether it was to stand up for a single united Pakistan or to save their families, they would be able to answer. There were instances of one brother fighting in the war while another had joined the Razakars. Even the Awami League government had said that not all Razakars were evil. There were some good ones too. Sheikh Hasina had said it herself.

So which ones were they then? Perhaps the ones in my party (with a chuckle)… but I will not get into that. The point is there were people from all parties. The people of East Pakistan, who thought it appropriate, responded to the government's call. But this cannot be mixed up with a party's responsibility. It is rather an individual's responsibility. But yes, if the East Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami had decided to form such militias through a resolution, and if the Awami League has such a document then the whole nation will accept that. I will too.

But it simply cannot be because you say so.

DS: So, you accept that although individuals could have been members of the militia outfits, since it was not Jamaat-e-Islami's organisational decision, those individual actions do not translate into a responsibility of the party for opposing the liberation.

SR: And not just Jamaat. All parties were among the Razakar. As I said earlier, in my neighbourhood I saw Awami League members join the Razakar which the government's list had proven. The list of Razakars that [former] liberation war affairs minister AKM Mozammel Huq had published, had names of Awami Leaguers the most. Other parties did not even come close to it.

DS: In the same vein then, there are allegations of mass killing against the Awami League as an organisation. But did they have such a resolution?

SR: The leadership of the party had made that announcement.

DS: But you do not consider that as an individual responsibility in this case?

SR: No, no. It was the prime minister who was saying it. It was not just anybody on the street. She was speaking from a position of authority. And she has a command responsibility.

DS: And since the party chief is making this statement, it translates into her party being responsible for the crimes?

SR: Right. She is head of the party as well as the state.

DS: In the same vein then, let us consider the role of chief of East Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami, Ghulam Azam in 1971. There was a fund-raising drive using his name. He had delivered speeches and lectures on a number of occasions, including Razakar gatherings, urging people to stand for a united Pakistan and urged their active involvement in the matter. Does that not constitute a collective organisational responsibility?

SR: I have already said that they were supporting Pakistan. I never said that they were supporting the Liberation War. Since they preferred to have a united Pakistan, they said whatever they thought was necessary for the discipline and peace of the country. They have not denied that they were not behind a united Pakistan.

DS: And it is your contention then that such a stance cannot be linked with the atrocities?

SR: If anyone has committed atrocities, even if it is Ghulam Azam himself, they should be punished. I have no problem with that.

But my question here is that if they were indeed the perpetrators, then why was there nothing against them back then? The incidents were fresh in people's minds, the evidence would have been there and the witnesses were alive too.

How did these cases emerge much later? Where did the witnesses come from?

You must know there was this place called the "safe house" during the [war crimes] trials where they would bring witnesses and coach them. The ones who did not listen were beaten up. The ones who did their bidding were remunerated. These have been reported in mainstream periodicals, in fact. The government did not even protest against that, which is basically an implicit admission.

DS: It is your contention that history is written by victors. But what about the documentation by West Pakistani authorities. Those documents also indicate that Jamaat-e-Islami along with other like-minded Islamist parties led the formation of these militias and that their leadership was also involved. Does that not translate into Jamaat's responsibility at all?

SR: If individuals are involved in atrocities, then it shall by all means render them guilty, as persons. There is no reason why it should not.

But you see what is quite mysterious is that the parties that were in favour of a single Pakistan, almost all of them still exist in Bangladesh in one form or another. But why aren't there questions or allegations against them? Why only Jamaat?

First, you come up with the charges 42 years after it actually happened. But not against any of the other Islamist parties. There were numerous Islamist parties and nationalist parties that had their members join these different government forces. But there are no allegations against any of them. Not a word, not a hoot. I have not seen it in your renowned newspaper either, and I am a reader. But I don't see anything like that.

Is it because Jamaat has been able to reach people's hearts? Now that Jamaat has made a place, it has to be caught out and subdued.

DS: Women's liberty and participation are always important questions when it comes to Jamaat. You have mentioned in previous interviews that Jamaat-e-Islami has about 42 percent women members.

My question to you is, how many women rukns do you have? And how many women are there in Jamaat's mazlish-e-shura (policy making body) or the central working committee?

SR: You should have a fair bit of idea about rukns. We have about 1,00,000 rukns in our party right now. You may presume that of them women constitute about 40–42 percent. We have a few organisational bodies of which, the largest is the majlish-e-shura, a policy making body. There we have about 35 percent women, which is increasing. There is a similar proportion of women in the working committee.

TDS: We have had woman prime ministers running Bangladesh since 1991. When can we expect to see a woman ameer of Jamaat?

SR: The prominent women leaders we see, Khaleda Zia, Sheikh Hasina or even Rawshan Ershad, have all inherited the legacies left behind by their husbands or fathers. None of them climbed up the ranks from the grassroots as an individual political worker. They had to take on the reins of the party under special circumstances, not through the normal process.

Now will you see women at the same level in our party? See, we run a party based on principles. These principles teach us to respect humans. Allah has created men and women and knows best what qualities were given to men and what to women. It is with that foreknowledge of the abilities that Allah has set out distinct roles for men and women. For instance, try as much as they want, 10 men would never be able bear a child. That capacity has been given to women. Men will not be able to suckle their children.

That a mother will bear children, feed them and care for them, and then at work, they will have to perform the same as their male counterparts, is that justice? That is why there are way too many problems in our society. Allah does not desire to see humans in chaos but rather that they live in discipline and harmony. There is a prescription for that from Allah. And that is the Quran. And the best example to emulate is Allah's prophet Mohammad. I will request you to go through the Quran and the answers to a lot of questions will become crystal clear. It will not become Islam just by my saying so or because I reject something.

The basic principles of Islam are only in view of the welfare of humanity and it is with that view that Jamaat-e-Islami decides on its policies and adopts its programmes. We have no right to lessen or limit from whatever has been allotted by Islam. We want to regard humanity with this perspective of respect. We do not want any injustice to our mothers. And it will also become clear from history the kind of respect and social recognition of mothers there was in this world before Islam. We all know that they were hardly deemed has humans. Islam elevated them to be given a position of respect as a mother, sister or daughter. That is the beauty of Islam. It is a divine gift for us. Why must we avoid this gift?

I will request you from the bottom of my heart to read the Quran, and not just recitation, read it with the meaning. Also, the Bible and the Tripitaka.

All the real religions strive for the same sort of welfare, which is why we are respectful to all religions. That is also why we do not distinguish between minority or majority. Whoever is the citizen of this country is a respectable citizen with the same dignity and equal rights. Whatever their party or religion, it is their choice. But one cannot impose something on others. Islam does not allow it. You have no right to any excesses regarding your way of life, is what Allah tells us.

We want to keep [women] in this place of respect. [Women] have fought wars beside the prophet. They have worked as teachers. They are our pride. We need not seek more examples. Mothers hold a place of respect in our hearts.

TDS: The question was when could we see the first woman ameer of Jamaat.

SR: I will answer that once you have read the Quran.

DS: Then you choose to refrain from answering that question now?

SR: I will hold my answer for now, yes. We will have another dialogue together when we can discuss this.

DS: Music, dance and poetry comprise a large part of our culture. But devout Muslims often oppose these things. My question to you is, what role will Jamaat-e-Islami play in conserving these innate cultural elements of music and dance that have issued from this soil?

SR: We all know that Islam is a complete code of life. Will it not have a solution to this as well? Surely it does. When the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) migrated from Mecca to Medina, which we also call the hijrat, little girls of Medina received him with song and dance. The prophet did not mind that at all. Girls, albeit little girls, would sing during wedding celebrations. The prophet did not discourage them. Once Abu Bakr (pbuh) prevented such a celebration of song and dance and was rebuked by the prophet.

If it is to bring about healthy and tasteful culture then I welcome you. But if that culture leads to rifts between a mother and her daughter, if that culture gives cause to disrespect elders, or makes you so desperate that you forget yourself, then it is not desirable for any society.

Islam has always taken initiatives to blossom a healthy culture and it will do so in future too. We are all for the kind of culture that fosters happiness and harmony.

DS: We celebrate the Pohela Boishakh (first day of Bengali calendar) with mongol shobhajatra, there is the probhat feri on Ekushey February (21 February, the language day). But many devout Muslims are strongly opposed to these. What will Jamaat have to say to them? And also, will Jamaat ever join us in these celebrations?

SR: That is a genuine question. You see there are two festivals in Islam — the two Eids. These two festivals have opened the doors for people to celebrate, express joy, exchange greetings and love. There is significant research going on about other celebrations — how do we go about the other festivals in light of the two I mentioned. We hope that something good will come from it and hopefully we, along with the rest, will have no problem in accepting them.

There is perhaps one thing to consider. Humans are "ashraful mukhluqaat" — the best of all creations. It is for this one factor that they humans have a conscience or one might say wisdom, that Allah did not give to any other animal. Humans, the best of all creations, should not don the masks of lions and tigers. One strives to go higher… why should one debase themselves? In this regard, the reservations expressed by Islamic scholars should be taken into consideration, in our opinion.

We have seen that there have been a number of incidents and accidents during this jatra. Especially as regards women's safety… there have been instances of violating their dignity. There are all kinds of days that we observe. These are domestic days, there are so many others that we observe throughout the year. Those days are observed with much more discipline. That needs to happen here too. I don't know if anyone will be able to maintain that discipline here.

But we do not believe that one shobhajatra will bring about good. For that we have to change our characters. If the character and action are well-intentioned, then good will from it. But if one's character and actions are ill-intentioned, then no shobhajatra will be able to bring good hearts and minds.

The nomenclature can be subject to different opinions but the basic theme is celebration of a festival. In this case Pohela Boishakh, which is the Bengali new year. Many nations celebrate their new year. You can do it here too, but within discipline. But that does not happen, which is the point of concern. And, also that some of these elements are not concomitant to human dignity. Now some people might say these are reactionary statements. But if we look at the hard facts, then there is no way of straying from these points.

DS: So, you believe that the reservations regarding mongol shobhajatra are not baseless and should be taken into consideration.

SR: Absolutely. Whatever that is not soothing, what is not beautiful should be corrected.

TDS: But the Pohela Boishakh is not just the first day of the Bengali new year, it is also a symbol of our protest against an autocratic regime. And we remember that day celebrating our culture, which in itself was the protest.

SR: I do admit it, but then are you saying that all these years that the celebration was there it was because there was always an autocrat? Certainly not. If there is no tyranny, then there is no need for the protest either. It would mean there was tyranny during the last 15 and half years and even from before that.

DS: It has turned into a tradition that we remember every year if only to reassert our love for the culture. In the same vein, there is probhat feri of Ekushey February that we remember. It is not that we need to fight for the Bengali language still now.

SR: Of course, our Ghulam Azam was a language warrior. He was among the first to read out a statement in defence of Bengali language. He was the first man.

DS: Jamaat-e-Islami wishes to establish a state governed by Islamic laws. The specific question is in regard to the legal system — the status of non-Muslims. Will the testimony or allegation of, for instance, a Hindu or a Buddhist, hold up against a Muslim's?

SR: Absolutely. If he is telling the truth and the Muslim is lying, yes. If they are not liars then it will be acceptable by all means. But if the Muslim is a liar then their allegation or testimony will not be acceptable either.

DS: And what about men and women, do they have the same weight as witnesses?

SR: It will not be the same for the reason that, as I have already said, Allah has decided upon distinct roles for men and women. There is a provision for two women because let us say on the very day of the testimony the woman is giving birth and won't be able to come to the court. Then the other woman will be her proxy. Allah has also explained it, why there are two women. If one forgets something, meaning if she is unable, then other one will help. The men have no such problems.

DS: So, if a woman's testimony is not equal to that of a man, then how many will suffice in the stead of a man. Is it two or three women?

SR: It has been stipulated that there will be two women. Not three. The requirement is for two men. If two men cannot be found to testify then one man and two women will suffice. And then Allah has also explained that it is because one woman can assist the other.

DS: What about the women of other religions? Would their testimony be acceptable? Or would they have the same distinction?

SR: The religion has no difference in this case. The point of distinction is the gender.

Let me point out something here. Let us say someone has harmed a Buddhist family where there are no Muslims. Now, how would that person demand justice? How will they demand justice if their testimony is not acceptable. Religion cannot be unjust with anyone. There is no question of that happening. It is a divine gift. Why would Allah be unjust to his creations? Allah would never do that. There is no better judge than Allah.

DS: And as for the division of inheritance, you endorse what has been ordained by Islam where women do not get equal shares as men. Am I right in saying that?

SR: Yes. And Islam explains why. The man has been fully responsible for the family. Let's say both the husband and wife have businesses, then the husband does not have any right to the wife's property for his family, not a penny. The full responsibility lies with the husband. Secondly, a man is not entitled to anything from in-laws. But once a woman has been married, she is still entitled to a share of her father's property and assets, while she is entitled to a share of her husband's property. Religious scholars have proved it that a woman does not in any way get less than a man but in fact a little more than a man. Here too, we see proper justice. There is no disparity.

Have you noticed something else? There are some religions where the women are not entitled to any inheritance. Despite being born of the same mother, they have no rights, how is that acceptable? They have a right to justice too. They should also inherit from their parents. This is something to think about, is all I am saying.

Islam is so balanced that there is no lacuna anywhere. No loopholes.

DS: There was a Women's Development Policy of 2011, with provision of equal inheritance for men and women, that had been floated and subsequently withdrawn in the face of protests. Do you oppose that policy then?

SR: We are not opposing anyone. We are merely advocating a certain position in the light of Islam. I don't need to oppose anyone. I am only advocating my principles. And I am convinced that my principles are the best. I am saying it protects everyone's rights.

DS: You presented a number of reform proposals just yesterday. One of them called for sculptures based on the nature of this country and not on living beings like animals. In this regard, my question is, in that case is it your position that sculptures like the Aparajeyo Bangla or Raju Bhashkorjo be demolished? Will you then oppose building any more such sculptures? Would you please elaborate?

SR: Actually, our position is indifferent. But yes, there is this oft-repeated hadith, which says that no one but Allah has the power to give life. Neither to an ant, nor even to a single cell organism. On the day of judgement, Allah will bring those sculptures and the sculptors and ask them to give their creations the kiss of life. The sculptors will surely say that it is not within their capacity. Allah will then ask why they had built it then and tell them that they should not have done it.

During this recent changeover, you will see that our boys and girls have drawn graffiti in many places. They have brought out the beauty of nature in these graffiti. And everyone has liked them. You could even take their slogans as part of our culture. On my way from Mirpur, I saw this one slogan in one or two places — "boiling blood, cool head" — and I thought that was such a big nugget of philosophy in a few words. It is saying that my blood boils against the injustice but I will not lose my temper and let the other side gain an advantage. I become surprised sometimes wondering who taught the kids these things? You can foster culture in different ways you see.

You may feel pleased, or displeased, if you look at a person. But a flower garden will never displease you. It will fill you with peace. The plants and trees of nature will never cause you distress. They will always soothe you.

But there are animals in this world that will frighten you the moment you look at them. Only the almighty Allah knows why they have been created so. I am not qualified to discuss that. Nor do I want to. But Allah guides us with the full belief for our welfare.

But demolition, or pulling it down or disrespecting something is another chapter. We are in principle against disrespecting anything. No matter what you resolve, do it on the basis of consensus, through dialogue. Whatever needs to be done should be done in an orderly fashion.

When these things happen though (demolition or destruction), it is mainly driven by sentimental or some sort of an emotional outburst. More often than not, emotion does not drive people in the right direction. A lot of times, people are misguided because of their emotions. Now whoever has done it, did not ask you or me. That person did not think about the impact of the actions. As if just because I don't like it, it is enough to justify it. It is because our society is intolerant. We must increase our tolerance. There is this mentality of not wanting to give space to each other.

DS: Jamaat-e-Islami wants to establish an Islamist state that is governed by the laws ordained by the almighty. That would contradict the constitution in many ways. How would you deal with that?

SR: The constitution is being changed all the time and not necessarily to accommodate Allah's order. The constitution has many amendments. There have been 16 already. Allah knows best how many more there will be. Why was that? To serve the people.

Now if a party with firm principles comes to power, it will be through elections of course. We won't force our way to power. But if the people choose a certain principle, then certain reformation of the constitution may be needed in light of those principles.

DS: Do you have any tension going on with the BNP? They have stated that there is no alliance between the parties any more.

SR: True. We are saying that too. There is no alliance. And there is no tension either. However, we see a lot of tension between us in the media. Driven by their warmth and sympathy for us, the media brings out very interesting stories about us on the talk shows just so that we remain active in a sort of tug of war. We (meaning BNP and Jamaat) are not at war, the media is though. But we see it played out in the media.

DS: Many are advocating for banning Awami League from the election. Where do you stand on this issue?

SR: I have said the other day, haven't I? Awami League has failed to prove that it believes in election. They have held three elections. In 2014, they took 154 seats unopposed. As if there was a drought of aspiring candidates in Bangladesh. In 2018, they could not even wait till the day of the election, it was all over the night before. And in 2024 they created such a plot that would be no election at all. Now when did Awami League ever want an election? Never! Let Awami League prove through its activities that they want an election and believe in people's mandate.

DS: There is a general trend among Islamist groups and parties of using Arabic, Persian or Urdu words instead of Bengali. For instance, you have mentioned "mazlum" or "khalaas", there are bodies like majlish-e-shura and so forth. But there are Bengali synonyms for these words too. Why do you not use the Bengali words?

SR: Sure, there are synonyms. Bengali has become enriched with so many other languages. This language is a rather generous one. We have words from Sanskrit, Arabic, Urdu or even English.

Take Awami League for instance. Awam is Urdu and League is English. There is no Bengali at all. Our name is fully Arabic. Take BNP… it's all English. We do not see it in that way. Neither does the nation. The people will accept whatever word they understand easily. You might say this is the beauty and generosity of the Bengali language.