From the Beginning of Mankind:
Since the dawn of humanity—spanning thousands, perhaps millions of years—human life has been governed primarily by religious directives. In our Indian subcontinent as well, kings ruled their kingdoms based on scriptural guidance from ancient times.
Even despotic rulers like Pharaoh and Nimrod had to use religion as a justification to rule, placing priests and religious clerics in significant positions due to the social loyalty people held toward religion—regardless of whether the religion was pure or corrupted.
But today, the political ideology we’ve imported from Western civilization gives religion virtually no place in public life. This ideology is known as secularism, which means that religious principles will not influence political life, nor will religion interfere with the state.
Religion is to be confined to private belief and personal values. The history of excluding religion from public and state affairs is very rare across humanity’s long past.
The History of Political Party Formation
In 1534, King Henry VIII of England took a historic step to free himself from the dominance of the Church. During his reign, the Act of Supremacy declared the king—not the Pope—as the head of the Church of England. Later, ideologies like democracy, nationalism, socialism, capitalism, liberalism, fascism, and anarchism emerged in Europe, particularly in England and France. Based on these ideologies, various political parties began forming during the late 18th and 19th centuries.
As the Industrial Revolution progressed, European countries began expanding into Africa, Asia, and the Muslim world to create markets and extend their empires. In the 18th and 19th centuries, they colonized key Muslim regions including the Indian subcontinent, Egypt, parts of the Ottoman Empire, and North Africa. They introduced Western laws and education systems, while also bringing cultural and religious shifts.
The colonial powers had no intention of improving the lives of the people; their goal was to extract resources. Over 450 years (1500–1950), they looted wealth from others and became today’s richest nations. The Indian subcontinent was not a savage or uncivilized place like the then-primitive Australia or America; rather, it was a cradle of one of the world’s oldest civilizations.
When the British East India Company arrived in 1600, the Mughal Empire was in power. The Mughal administration was advanced and well-organized. Contrary to the expression “came, saw, conquered,” the British faced formidable challenges. Initially, they maintained trade relations with Indian rulers.
However, after Emperor Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, the empire weakened, and regions became fragmented. The British took advantage of this to strengthen their economic and military foothold. Armed resistance grew, culminating in the 1857 Sepoy Rebellion—the largest armed resistance against British rule.
Realizing that Hindu-Muslim unity posed a major threat to their rule, the British intentionally sowed discord. They encouraged the formation of political parties, modeled after those in their homeland.
In 1885, Indian National Congress was formed by British politician Allan Octavian Hume. Though it claimed to represent all, it increasingly became dominated by upper-caste Hindus. Consequently, in 1906, influential Muslim leaders established the Muslim League to safeguard Muslim interests.
This strategic redirection of focus toward party politics derailed the independence movement, isolating revolutionary forces. It prolonged British rule by 50 years and intensified Hindu-Muslim distrust, leading to riots and eventually the Partition.
Bangladesh and Multiparty Democracy
When the British left, they handed power to their loyal political parties: Congress in India and Muslim League in Pakistan. In East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), the Awami Muslim League broke away from the Muslim League in 1949, later dropping “Muslim” in 1955 to become a fully secular party: the Awami League.
Bangladesh’s first leftist party, the Communist Party of Bangladesh, was formed in 1948 under the influence of Mao Zedong and Karl Marx. Other socialist parties followed. The Jamaat-e-Islami, founded in Lahore in 1941, continued its activities in East Pakistan post-Partition.
Bangladesh gained independence in 1971 under the Awami League’s leadership. In 1978, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) was formed with nationalist ideals. During President Ziaur Rahman’s tenure in the 1980s, multiparty democracy flourished. The Jatiya Party was formed in 1986. Today, although 48 political parties are registered in Bangladesh, power alternates mainly between Awami League and BNP.
These parties have become institutionalized, revolving around public expectations, political agendas, and power struggles. According to the Bangladesh Constitution (Article 39) and the UN Human Rights Declaration (Article 21[1]), political participation is a fundamental right.
However, abuse of power, partisanship, violent conflict, nepotism, election rigging, and corruption have made parties widely controversial. Most follow the Congress or Muslim League model and have failed to meet the public’s aspirations.
Even the leftist parties are not exception. Political parties are not essential components of the state, as per political science definitions. In Bangladesh, parties often revolve around family dynasties, blind loyalty, and nomination-trading. Thuggery, election violence, and manipulation are normalized.
Power struggles within parties often trigger instability. Politics has become a lucrative business: leaders who once lived modestly become billionaires within five years. The public, confined to five-year election cycles, is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Hezbut Tawheed’s Political Vision
If a modern, peaceful system of governance is to be established, political parties cannot be given a blank check. Many past political movements have damaged society. No one should be allowed to harm the nation under the guise of political rights.
In Islam’s system of governance, there’s no room for parties based on conflicting ideologies. The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his Companions never formed such parties. Rather, through the Constitution of Medina, he united Muslims, the Aws and Khazraj tribes, and multiple Jewish tribes (Banu Quraizah, Banu Nadir, Banu Qaynuqa) into one nation.
Islam seeks to break down all barriers—religious, racial, linguistic, economic, ideological—and unite humanity under a single identity.
Misinterpretation of Islamic Politics
Due to centuries of treating Islam as merely a personal religion, its distinct political system has largely disappeared. The roadmap of multiparty democracy doesn’t align with Islam’s model. Yet some Islamic scholars have forcefully tried to reconcile Islam with Western democracy.
They promote “democratic Islamic parties,” claim that elections are the modern form of jihad, and ballots are “tickets to paradise.” They even argue that early Islamic governance had democratic features, citing consultation (shura) under Umar (RA) and Abu Bakr’s (RA) nomination. But this analogy is deeply flawed.
Democracy entails:
1. Free and fair elections
2 .Rule of law
3. Civil rights and freedoms
4. Checks and balances
5. Government accountability
6. Minority rights
7. Gender equality
8. Free judiciary
9. Economic equity
These ideals remain largely theoretical. Hezbut Tawheed proposes a new system that ensures all these values without allowing political parties that divide and destabilize society. Constructive criticism will be allowed within loyalty to the state’s core principles, but issue-based movements that cause disunity won’t be tolerated. Otherwise, “the cow will remain in the book, not in the barn”—meaning theory will never become reality.
Islamic governance, rooted in divine guidance, can truly uphold these principles—something no other system has achieved. Humanity keeps shifting from monarchy to capitalism, to communism, to fascism, back to democracy and so on—yet real change remains elusive. Politics today is simply jumping from one burning pan into another fire.
Ban on Political Factionalism
The hallmark of modern politics is multiparty conflict, often turning violent. This politics is about self-interest, not public welfare. Realizing this truth, Hezbut Tawheed proposes that to establish national unity, all political factionalism must cease. No religious or ideological group will be allowed to organize if it undermines unity. Multiparty politics is antithetical to Islam’s vision of unity.
Islam aims to unite people by tearing down all divisive walls. Allah commands believers to build an unbroken wall like molten lead (Surah Saff 61:4), and to hold fast together to the rope of Allah (Surah Al-Imran 3:103).
Thus, no space will be given to any group or movement that undermines national cohesion.
Social Responsibility and Prohibition of Disruption
Organizations will be allowed to raise public issues as long as they uphold national unity and respect the state’s foundational ideals. But no group will be allowed to spread misinformation, incite chaos, or create division.
Programs that cause public hardship—hartals, blockades, strikes, road closures, etc.—will be strictly banned. Under the guise of political or democratic rights, no one will be allowed to jeopardize national harmony or cause public suffering.