Jamaati, AMA

[u/alone_redstone]

Working for & advising 3 parliamentary campaigns (Sunamganj-2, Sunamganj-5, Sylhet-1). Dad used to be the president of Sylhet Osmani Medical College Shibir and a member of BJI's Central Shura Council

Saw a former Shibir member do one of these, so I thought I'd do one too in case anyone has any genuine questions about current BJI-BICS politics

***I'm not a full member of Shibir since I don't study in a Bangladeshi educational institution, but I'm intimately familiar with their organisational structure and politics

[u/fogrampercot]

Okay, my question is broad but I will try to break it down and clarify. The question is why should we support a party like Jamaat? Allow me to elaborate the characteristics.

Anti-democratic and fascist by design

In democracy, people are the ultimate source of power and authority. BJI's principles are different where God is sovereign, not people. Jamaat accepts elections instrumentally, not philosophically. From Maududi's writings: "Democracy is acceptable only if it leads to an Islamic state." Moreover, Jamaat does identity politics, is discriminatory (non-Muslims can't be Rukn, females can't be supreme leaders), and these are all contradictory with modern democratic values (democracy does not mean majority) and resembles a textbook fascist party.

Misogynistic

The Amir openly admitting women can't be topmost leaders, secretary of Jamaat's women wing saying men are managers of women, the Amir refusing to acknowledge a horrible crime, another nice clip showcasing misogyny here by a leader and MP candidate.

Hypocrisy

Being purposefully vague and lying. For instance, not clarifying about the women leader thing upfront. It's not in the constitution, nor does Jamaat say it openly. The Amir only said it after confronting directly. Jamaat not saying clearly what kind of laws they will establish. Their leaders keeps on lying and contradicting each other. There are so many more examples, but we can find a small but cute example here.

Cognitive Dissonance

The party itself and most members suffers from it. Take yourself from instance. I respect how you are unapologetic about Jamaat's roles in 1971 and saying you want to reform. But even after 55 years where almost all war criminals are dead, Jamaat still does not accept it. This should tell you something about the party and its leadership. The Amir blatantly lied in the Al Jazeera interview. And you need to ask the question that if he is lying in such a matter, what else is he lying about? What else are the top leaders lying about? Most importantly, how can you trust such a party and how is that Islamic? As far as I understand, this directly contradicts the religion. Correct me if I am wrong, but even Taqiyyah is not enough to justify it. If it was a different organization, it wouldn't still lie about it or try to justify its position. You should know better than me that there are too many within the party who wouldn't agree with you on this.

So, your answer could be that you accept all these and still you think this is the best party to implement God's plan and you also wish to reform it. But then you must also admit it is irrational and dangerous. You are choosing to ignore the information we have at hand and disregard rationality for faith. By this reasoning, people from your faith but having different interpretations (e.g Hefazot, Taliban, ISIS) can also argue similarly. So can Hindutvas, Zionists, and hundreds of other religions in the past. Now you could say your arguments have more weight, but do they? That's what they will claim too and if anyone's arguments had more weight, then we wouldn't be stuck with so many different religions and interpretations. It is a fact that religions are a matter of faith, at least as of now. Elaborated more here.

So in this bizarre and chaotic mess of a scenario, please explain why someone should trust or support this party?

[u/alone_redstone → u/fogrampercot]

people are the ultimate source of power and authority

BJI believes the political authority to govern comes entirely from the people. A ruler has no legitimacy without the consent of the governed. You'll find discussions related to this under the topic of "Bay'ah" in BJI political literature.

BJI's principles are different where God is sovereign

Yes, BJI believes the ultimate moral and legal framework comes from the Creator. That is not anti-democratic.

If 90% of Bangladeshis voted to legalise ethnically cleansing Chakmas, would rejecting that be 'anti-Democratic' to you? Of course not. You wouldn't see it as anti-Democratic to reject them because those things go against 'Universal Human Rights'.

So, unless you think legalising ethnic cleansing is acceptable just because people voted for it, you admit that there is a sort of 'Higher Law' that supersedes the 'Will of the People'. We are structurally no different in that case. I believe the majority cannot violate Sharia, and you believe the majority cannot violate Human Rights.

Point is, we both believe democracy has 'moral limits' of sorts.

democracy does not mean majority

That literally is what democracy means (***as a political mechanism) in its most widely accepted definition. As John Mearsheimer notes in The Great Delusion (p. 20, good read, by the way):

Second, the terms liberalism and democracy are often used interchangeably, or linked together in the phrase “liberal democracy.” But the two concepts are not the same, and it is important to distinguish between them and explain how they relate to each other. I define democracy as a form of government with a broad franchise in which citizens get to choose their leaders in periodic elections. Those leaders then write and implement the rules that govern the polity. Liberalism, on the other hand, is all about individual rights. A liberal state privileges the rights of its citizens and protects them through its laws. It is possible to have an illiberal democracy in which the elected majority tramples on the rights of the minority. This is sometimes referred to as a tyranny of the majority, and one can certainly point to real-world examples. States that are liberal, however, are almost always democratic as well, because the concept of inalienable rights clearly implies the right to have a voice in one’s own governance through elections. Markus Fischer puts the point well: “The relation between liberalism and democracy is asymmetrical: liberalism implies democratic institutions to a large degree, whereas democracy entails liberal rights only to a minimal extent.”

Jamaat accepts elections instrumentally, not philosophically

The democratic process is literally an instrument. It is a tool for the peaceful transfer of power. What does it even mean to accept elections philosophically?

BJI believes in and accepts Democracy as a mechanism (for peaceful transfer of power and accountability), but rejects it as a moral compass. And if rejecting it as a moral compass is what makes BJI anti-Democratic, then literally no one in the world believes in democracy.

[u/fogrampercot → u/alone_redstone]

Yes, BJI believes the ultimate moral and legal framework comes from the Creator. That is not anti-democratic.

This is what I said. And yes, it can be anti-democratic when it goes against democratic values. If that's the ultimate source and it goes against democratic values, then it is anti-democratic.

And when you define democracy as just a political mechanism that simply means majority, you choose to ignore the modern developments and acceptance of the word democracy in today's world. Thanks for pointing out the technical differences between a liberal and illiberal democracy, you are right there. But that is not the definition of democracy we accept nor does it go with what is defined in our constitution. If democracy is only elections, then any system that allows voting is “democratic”, including the Nazi Germany, present day North Korea, etc. But we don't call them democratic, do we? They are fascist by design. You are also conflating liberalism with liberal democracy. The modern definition and accepted version of democracy means protecting human rights, core democratic values, and civil liberties. These were defined as such for strong and good reasons. Liberalism is much more vast in itself.

If Jamaat wishes for illiberal democracy, then they should make that clear. Why don't they? Another example of Munafiq behavior? Illiberal democracy is quite unstable and dangerous. Because if these basic rights aren't protected, then this means oppositions can be silenced, parties can be banned, dissent can be criminalized, and eventually a fascist state will emerge.

Jamaat accepts elections instrumentally, not philosophically

So your argument actually hurts Jamaat and strengthens the point I made. This is by definition anti-democratic. You seem to neither embrace democracy, nor reject it completely. And this creates a dangerous unstable mess of a situation that leads to total confusion and dishonesty (even if it's not intentional).

And if rejecting it as a moral compass is what makes BJI anti-Democratic, then literally no one in the world believes in democracy.

Again, not a fair comparison. It does make BJI anti-democratic. You can't have your cake and eat it. It's just another way of saying you accept democracy as a means to get power, after which you will modify democracy according to your own divine interpretations and moral compass. This is anti-democratic in itself. What modern democratic parties believes in such things I wonder? There are two layers of hypocrisy here, firstly it's anti-democratic and people who believes in such notions should do a revolution instead of exploiting the democratic system to seize power. Secondly, Jamaat never clarifies about its true intentions like how you are saying here. They would twist their statements and make it seem like "yeah we will do this if most of the people wants it". This is just dishonest. According to your explanation, you will do it regardless assuming it aligns with your moral compass. That's why I said I find the other Islamic parties to be more honest, because at least they admit what they will do.

[u/alone_redstone → u/alone_redstone]

Being purposefully vague and lying. For instance, not clarifying about the women leader thing upfront. It's not in the constitution, nor does Jamaat say it openly. The Amir only said it after confronting directly.

Literally every political party in the world is vague about controversial topics to broaden their appeal. That is definitely not hypocrisy. And he didn't lie, did he?

Jamaat not saying clearly what kind of laws they will establish.

The broad initial outline is in the manifesto. As for the ultimate vision, BJI has published extensive literature on what an Islamic state looks like. Everything in-between isn't set in stone.

There are so many more examples, but we can find a small but cute example here.

They're not lying lol. All the manifesto says is that they'll review the suggestions.

On 1971, I once again reiterate that I accept that BJI's historical and current positions are flawed on 1971, and I disagree on a factual basis with what the Ameer said about how BJI conducted itself in 1971 organisationally. But I don't think his intentions are malicious (i.e. he genuinely believes what he says) because I've known him my entire life since he used to be the Ameer of Sylhet BJI and co-founded Women's Medical College with my dad and he has always said stuff to that effect in every conversation we've had about this (even when I was a secular-ish nationalist). But anyway, it's not cognitive dissonance because I don't think it's a flaw that makes them irredeemable. I'm willing to compromise while I try to change their minds and reform the party's position.

You are choosing to ignore the information we have at hand and disregard rationality for faith.

Not disregarding anything. Simply choosing to act rationally based on a different set of axioms than yours. My beliefs are rational.

Now you could say your arguments have more weight, but do they? That's what they will claim too

Lol let's try this logic on you. Assuming you're a standard center-left secular liberal:

- You believe Secular Liberalism is the most rational and beneficial system.

- Communists, Fascists, Monarchists, etc. all claim that their proposed systems are the rational truth (or generally better or more materially beneficial, let's say)

By your reasoning, that means you're literally the same as them and it's unknowable who's right. Because if any particular argument was actually better, "we wouldn't be stuck here" with so many ideologies, right? How dare you propose anything at all????????"

[u/fogrampercot → u/alone_redstone]

No political party is perfect, nor are they 100% open about everything. But is that a fair comparison again? There is a difference between strategic ambiguity and concealment of core doctrine. If Jamaat views 50% of our population as inferior and conceals such an important detail of their core doctrine, lies about it, that's a strong indication of how trustworthy they are.

Everything in-between isn't set in stone.

And these are important details. Just the views on women alone is vastly important. It seems like women not being able to be top leaders was set in stone, the Amir was confident when he said it. Why does Jamaat not clarify about the things that are set in stone and also clarify what aspects are not set in stone? For the latter part, if they are not set in stone yet, when will they be? Leaving these things vague only creates more possibility to exploit them leading to dangerous interpretations.

They're not lying lol. All the manifesto says is that they'll review the suggestions.

Already explained in my comment there. Yes, it is technically not a direct lie which is also what I said? The video explicitly says they will reject it. But they made it seem like they will review it in the manifesto to appease all voters. Political parties do things like this, but these are important details and core policies. Just goes on and shows the kind of party Jamaat is to be honest. And why should we compare Jamaat with the other political parties? Jamaat preaches that it's a party based on honesty and its core principles are divine. It should have a higher standard. But we see that they are the ones who lies the most. Speak volumes.

As for 1971, please show your conversation and views on this thread to anyone who is not aware of our political context (to minimize bias) and is logically sound. Ask them if they can see cognitive dissonance or not. You are against it yourself because you know how wrong it was. Yet, you are choosing to defend the goodwill of a party that still rejects it. And you are saying it's the rational choice. Makes no sense at all. Would you still be able to trust BAL if they rejected the atrocities of BAL in 2024? Or a Zionist if they reject the crimes Israel did in Palestine? They could have genuine intentions, but it would still be highly irrational to trust them from their actions.

Lol let's try this logic on you. Assuming you're a standard center-left secular liberal

Okay, you don't have to assume. I am irreligious and apolitical. I don't subscribe to any fixed ideology. Yes, I am a secular, but that means I am not advocating for anything. Think of it as a clean slate. This is the default state as I am simply saying religion should not be combined with state governance. When you are claiming your religion is morally superior and as such its rules should be implemented in the state governance, the onus is on you alone to show how this is the case. I am not claiming any superiority or ideals.

What I am simply advocating is to do the best from our existing knowledge and information. This is just rational behavior. You are doing it yourself. You need this to decide that your religion is the best and the correct one from all the religions, otherwise you are just following it from blind indoctrination. In that case your argument is moot.

It's not unknowable that some things are wrong because we can see it clearly from the knowledge we already have. We can't know all things, but we do know some things. If at any point we acquire new knowledge leading us to change these definitions and views, we should and we must. But before that, it's irrational to do so.

You are just arguing from your faith and attempting to justify the points (e.g anti-democracy, misogyny) I made by confirming them. It just becomes a "trust me bro (because I trust my religion)" kind of argument at this point. I am not disregarding your faith as I don't care what the source is, but were you able to provide any sort of rational justification for these positions? I can clearly see these are wrong and harmful. You haven't been able to provide any reasons to show why they are not. Not sure how the views of other radical groups is relevant here.