Bangladesh is secular, not moderate Muslim country: FM

[TopCat]

Foreign Minister Dipu Moni today said Bangladesh is not a moderate Muslim country as dubbed by foreigners but a secular country with a majority population of Muslims.


"The Awami League-led alliance did not believe in the idea of moderate democratic Muslim country," the minister told reporters after a seminar at Bangladesh Enterprise Institute (BEI) in Gulshan.


She said Bangladesh is a non-communal country where majority of the people belong to Islam.


"We achieved our independence through an armed revolution with a dream to establish a non-communal country," Dipu Moni added.


The minister said many countries were termed with different labels but it is not necessary to take other's indication when it contradicts the fundamental values, she said.


"So the concept of moderate Muslim democratic country is not applicable here," the foreign minister added.


On brining home the war criminals living abroad, she said, "The ministry must take initiatives to bring home the killers of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and war criminals both."


She said the government would sign agreements with the countries if necessary on the matter.


The government would also seek evidence of war crime from some countries.


Asked about the extra-judicial killings in the name of 'crossfire,' Dipu Moni said the government would look into the matter.


The issue came forth following the death of listed criminal Nasir in a 'shootout' with Rapid Action Battalion (Rab) in Keraniganj yesterday.


Bangladesh Enterprise Institute President Farooq Sobhan, diplomats from various countries including Norway, Iran, Australia and China were present at the seminar.

 

[idune]

Is Awami league trying to play along Indian line that Bangladesh was communal as a Muslim country? Even Sheikh Mujib did not go against aspiration of people of Bangladesh and went to join OIC as a Muslim country, against heavy resistance from indian govt. So when she said term 'Muslim country' was not acceptable was definitely NOT reflection of people wishes but reflection of her own, Awami league leadership and most importantly indian agenda.

Since, election Awami league is consistencely taking decisions that divides the country than addressing real issues.

I hope Awami league govt has guts to say 'Bangladesh is a secular country' when it comes to renewing Islamic development bank (IDB) over a billion dollars annual loan. And when it comes to diplomacy in middle east where most of Bangladeshi manpower send money from, it will surely harm Bangladesh interest. And that is one of the indian goal.

 

[s90]

"The Awami League-led alliance did not believe in the idea of moderate democratic Muslim country,"

I agree with this statement

 

[Captain03]

Foreign Minister Dipu Moni today said Bangladesh is not a moderate Muslim country as dubbed by foreigners but a secular country with a majority population of Muslims.


"The Awami League-led alliance did not believe in the idea of moderate democratic Muslim country," the minister told reporters after a seminar at Bangladesh Enterprise Institute (BEI) in Gulshan.


She said Bangladesh is a non-communal country where majority of the people belong to Islam.


"We achieved our independence through an armed revolution with a dream to establish a non-communal country," Dipu Moni added.


The minister said many countries were termed with different labels but it is not necessary to take other's indication when it contradicts the fundamental values, she said.


"So the concept of moderate Muslim democratic country is not applicable here," the foreign minister added.


On brining home the war criminals living abroad, she said, "The ministry must take initiatives to bring home the killers of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and war criminals both."


She said the government would sign agreements with the countries if necessary on the matter.


The government would also seek evidence of war crime from some countries.


Asked about the extra-judicial killings in the name of 'crossfire,' Dipu Moni said the government would look into the matter.


The issue came forth following the death of listed criminal Nasir in a 'shootout' with Rapid Action Battalion (Rab) in Keraniganj yesterday.


Bangladesh Enterprise Institute President Farooq Sobhan, diplomats from various countries including Norway, Iran, Australia and China were present at the seminar.

wow now that's what i call self-destruction
they are trying to please the world instead of their own people

 

[Contrarian]

A good sign. Bangladesh should be a secular country.

 

[Al-zakir]

A total BS by BS FM. A true dalal of India. It's nothing but a joke comment to make her masters happy. It's evident that Awami's lost their mind. I think they are heavily dosed with pro-India virus. Fact of the matter is Mujib tried and than died for it. Bangladesh is not secular since 1975 even though what ever this "Dipu" whatever "Moni" bubbling her garbage. Bd constitution was secular from 1972-1975 but General Zia changed it to Islamic constitution. He amend it with inclusion of Bismillah and Allah as the supreme powerful. Every state activity must start with versus from Qur'aan and there can not any law that goes against Islam. General Ershad amend it even further with Islam as state language. There as no way bd is secular as long as Islam is the state religion with constitution that start with bismillah ir rahman ir rahim. I suggest Awami losers and this "dipu" whatever "moni" should shut the hell up and read the current constitution and not the one from 1972 before making another worthless comment.

Awami losers need to read these following important inclusion after 1975 before making any worthless comments......

(1) The principles of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah
(1A). Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions.(Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim)
(3)The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the Republic.

 

[DarkStar]

Is there a difference between the constitution of now and 1972? Please excuse my ignorance.

 

[Al-zakir]

Is there a difference between the constitution of now and 1972? Please excuse my ignorance.

Yes there is big difference. In 1972 constitution didn't have following important sections thus Bd constitution isn't secular.

(1) The principles of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah
(1A). Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions.(Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim)
(3)The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the Republic.

 

[TopCat]

Is there a difference between the constitution of now and 1972? Please excuse my ignorance.

Well our whole constitution revolves around secular concept. But Ziaur Rahman changed few words in the constitution bout the principle. He took away secularism and socialism and replaced them with "Faith on Allah" and "Social justice". He also add Bismillah at the begining of the constitution.
But still the whole constitution is secular, that is why Jamaat and a lot of Political party had hard time registering with the EC and they had to change their party constitution so that those can not conflict with our country constitution.

Another thing that 5th ammendment is declared illegal by the high court and still pending in the supreme court. Judgement may come out any time now.

Thanks

 

[rubyjackass]

Is Awami league trying to play along Indian line that Bangladesh was communal as a Muslim country? Even Sheikh Mujib did not go against aspiration of people of Bangladesh and went to join OIC as a Muslim country, against heavy resistance from indian govt. So when she said term 'Muslim country' was not acceptable was definitely NOT reflection of people wishes but reflection of her own, Awami league leadership and most importantly indian agenda.

Since, election Awami league is consistencely taking decisions that divides the country than addressing real issues.

I hope Awami league govt has guts to say 'Bangladesh is a secular country' when it comes to renewing Islamic development bank (IDB) over a billion dollars annual loan. And when it comes to diplomacy in middle east where most of Bangladeshi manpower send money from, it will surely harm Bangladesh interest. And that is one of the indian goal.

I din't get your point.
Even India tried to become a member state of OIC.
Besides what is the definition of a Muslim country after all?
according to you?
Let me guess "Any country where muslims and solely muslims control everything".

Go get a life. If Bangladesh's laws say it is secular, then it is.
And secularism divides the country??!! You see the irony?

 

[Al-zakir]

Well our whole constitution revolves around secular concept. But Ziaur Rahman changed few words in the constitution bout the principle. He took away secularism and socialism and replaced them with "Faith on Allah" and "Social justice". He also add Bismillah at the begining of the constitution.
But still the whole constitution is secular, that is why Jamaat and a lot of Political party had hard time registering with the EC and they had to change their party constitution so that those can not conflict with our country constitution.

Another thing that 5th ammendment is declared illegal by the high court and still pending in the supreme court. Judgement may come out any time now.

Thanks

Iajdani, As much as we have dissimilarities nonetheless you know it's amaze me how you being a Muslim actually allergic to anything Islamic. One must wonder your submission toward Islam and Allah. Instead of showing gratitude toward general Zia for revived Islam in Bd however sadly enough you rather desire to scrape the man who adore by all true Muslims except of course Awami kind of Muslim. You know this 5th amendment by general Zia reemerged us being a Muslim nation. He must not done anything wrong by adding these important principals to our constitution. A real Muslim can not look down on Zia for giving us our true identity back. He has done so much to bring Bangladesh closer to Islamic nations than any other leaders in past or present in history of Bangladesh. Islam can not or should not even compare to other religions in same level by at least Muslim. I even feel discourage by knowing the fact that you also claim to be Muslim...

(1) The principles of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah
(1A). Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions.(Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim)

What is so great about secular constitution when Islam doesn't have upper hand in 90+ % Muslim nation?

If Muslim doesn't defend Islamic constitution than who will?

May Allah save us from those Muslims who discourage to express themselves as Muslim.........

 

[TopCat]

Iajdani, As much as we have dissimilarities nonetheless you know it's amaze me how you being a Muslim actually allergic to anything Islamic. One must wonder your submission toward Islam and Allah. Instead of showing gratitude toward general Zia for revived Islam in Bd however sadly enough you rather desire to scrape the man who adore by all true Muslims except of course Awami kind of Muslim. You know this 5th amendment by general Zia reemerged us being a Muslim nation. He must not done anything wrong by adding these important principals to our constitution. A real Muslim can not look down on Zia for giving us our true identity back. He has done so much to bring Bangladesh closer to Islamic nations than any other leaders in past or present in history of Bangladesh. Islam can not or should not even compare to other religions in same level by at least Muslim. I even feel discourage by knowing the fact that you also claim to be Muslim...



What is so great about secular constitution when Islam doesn't have upper hand in 90+ % Muslim nation?

If Muslim doesn't defend Islamic constitution than who will?

May Allah save us from those Muslims who discourage to express themselves as Muslim.........

Thanks for your concern about me. I am not alergic to Islam rather concerned about the future of Islam.
You very much know how I view state and religion and their independence. Yes we can make our nation as Muslim as we are majority here. What about those nations where muslims are minority?? If we ourselves, not becoming secular, how we could ask USA govt to be secular where you live. So by becoming secular in a muslim majority country does not harm yourself as a muslim but gives a arsenal to the minority muslim who lives in a majority of other religion. Also you are trying to promote a very harsh Islam where there is no scope for others (you may disagree, but your language does portray that) makes every muslim uncomfortable and hinders the scope for Islam to spread even beyond religious boundary. Islam start as a minority and eventually becomes majority in every nationhood, but it did through benign way, not in a jinguitic way.

Regarding Ziaur Rahman, he had his good and he had his bad. He did nothing to promote Islam but did politics with Islam, sorry to say that.

 

[DarkStar]

Another thing that 5th ammendment is declared illegal by the high court and still pending in the supreme court. Judgement may come out any time now.

I don't understand how any court, even the Supreme Court, claim it has the right to judge which constitutional ammendmeent is legal, and which not.

By the nature of a constitution and its ammendments, everything contained therein is the basis for the legality of everything else.

The court has the duty to interpret the constitution, and may consider any laws to be legal or not, according the the constitution.

But as far as I am aware, only Parliament (Upper and Lower houses) has the power to ammend the constitution, (In Pakistan, this is with a two-thirds majority in both houses). So when an ammendment is passed, courts have no option but to submit to it, and have no right to hear a petition contesting th eir legality.

If there is something wrong with the constitution, it is the duty of the party in power to legislate, and ammend the constitution, if it has enough backing in Parliament.

 

[Al-zakir]

I don't understand how any court, even the Supreme Court, claim it has the right to judge which constitutional ammendmeent is legal, and which not.

A politically motivated verdict that has no basis. If 5th amendment cancel than everything else after that also questionable. Those judge are harm to bd's justices system.

But as far as I am aware, only Parliament (Upper and Lower houses) has the power to ammend the constitution, (In Pakistan, this is with a two-thirds majority in both houses). So when an ammendment is passed, courts have no option but to submit to it, and have no right to hear a petition contesting th eir legality.

If there is something wrong with the constitution, it is the duty of the party in power to legislate, and ammend the constitution, if it has enough backing in Parliament.

This how it supposed to be done in Bangladesh also except the fact that we don't have upper house. We have parliamentary democracy.

 

[TopCat]

I don't understand how any court, even the Supreme Court, claim it has the right to judge which constitutional ammendmeent is legal, and which not.

By the nature of a constitution and its ammendments, everything contained therein is the basis for the legality of everything else.

The court has the duty to interpret the constitution, and may consider any laws to be legal or not, according the the constitution.

But as far as I am aware, only Parliament (Upper and Lower houses) has the power to ammend the constitution, (In Pakistan, this is with a two-thirds majority in both houses). So when an ammendment is passed, courts have no option but to submit to it, and have no right to hear a petition contesting th eir legality.

If there is something wrong with the constitution, it is the duty of the party in power to legislate, and ammend the constitution, if it has enough backing in Parliament.

No no no... You are very wrong. Parliament can not pass any law or change constitution which will curtail any fundamental inherent rights of human being. Parliament can only ammend the constitution by the provision which is given by the constitution itself. These are very complex matter, but there are balance between Executive, legislature and Judiciary. Everybody has to work according to the law, and there are few provisions in constitution which can not be ammended.
Give you an example, no matter how much majority the parliament have, they can not change the citizenship law in a way so that a person by birth will be denied citizenship of this country.

Ohh another nice example. This week parliament just passed a local govt law where MP's were given supervisory provision on those local bodies. This law is going to get challenged in the court and will be nullified for sure, as fundamentals of the constitution said, there must be independent local body in every level of govt. So when govt itself put somebody on top of those body then the very constitution is denied.