Sufi Sagar Psalms:
Debates about democracy in contemporary Bangladesh often centre on whether pluralism, equal citizenship, and the right to dissent are compatible with Islamic political thought. A closer reading of Islamic history suggests that they are. The Constitution of Medina (Ṣaḥīfat al-Madīna), drafted under the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in 622 CE, offers a historical precedent for inclusive and participatory governance. By contrast, political movements in Bangladesh that seek to revive authoritarian and exclusionary models — such as those resembling the Umayyad Caliphate — stand at odds with this foundational legacy.
The Constitution of Medina is often regarded as the first written political charter in Islamic history. The document established a civic community (ummah) that included Muslims, Jews, and other groups in Medina, recognising their autonomy while binding them together under a shared political framework. The Prophet Muhammad was accepted as the political leader through a form of communal consensus — sometimes described as an early referendum — and the charter guaranteed equal dignity and legal recognition to various tribes and religious groups. This arrangement bears strong affinities with later notions of “social contract theory” in Western political thought, emphasising the reciprocal rights and duties of ruler and ruled.
By contrast, the Umayyad dynasty (661–750 CE) represented a significant departure from these pluralistic foundations. Emerging from the Quraysh elite, the Umayyads transformed the caliphate into a dynastic and centralised monarchy, consolidating power within a single clan. Political historians have described this shift as one from an early consultative and communal system to an imperial structure where legitimacy was grounded in coercion, hereditary succession, and suppression of dissent. In this framework, citizenship was stratified, and the principle of equal participation gave way to aristocratic dominance.
This historical contrast is instructive for Bangladesh today. The so-called Political Islam cherished by some political parties in the name of Islam has tended to echo elements of Umayyad-style monopolistic politics — prioritising ideological conformity and political exclusivity over pluralism and democratic consensus. Rejection of participatory democracy is not only a challenge to modern political institutions but also a distortion of Islamic political heritage itself.
In political theory terms, the Medina Charter embodies a model of “deliberative democracy,” in which diverse groups participate in a negotiated social contract. It resonates with the idea of an “overlapping consensus,” where individuals of different worldviews agree on shared political principles while retaining their distinct identities. In Islamic terms, this is reflected in the Qur’anic principle of lā ikrāha fī al-dīn (“there is no compulsion in religion”) and in the Prophet’s own practice of recognising minority rights.
By contrast, authoritarian models of political Islam that draw inspiration from dynastic rule undermine this pluralistic heritage. Their vision of a homogenous polity runs counter to both the principles of the Medina Charter and to the democratic aspirations of the Bangladeshi people as articulated both in the Liberation War of 1971 and the Mass Uprising of July 2024. These people’s struggles were fought on the basis of equal citizenship for all, regardless of religion or caste, which parallels the Prophet’s recognition of Jews, Christians, and pagans as equal members of the Medinan polity.
The task for democratic forces in Bangladesh is therefore twofold: first, to defend pluralism and equal citizenship as constitutional principles, and second, to reclaim the Prophet’s political legacy from those who instrumentalise Islam for authoritarian ends. The Medina Charter demonstrates that democracy and Islam are not antithetical; rather, democratic values of consultation (shūrā), equality, and pluralism are deeply embedded within Islamic tradition.
The future stability of Bangladesh depends on affirming the pluralistic democratic ideals that are both consistent with its own liberation struggle and rooted in the earliest model of Islamic governance. To embrace the Medina Charter’s legacy is to embrace a vision of citizenship that transcends sectarianism and authoritarianism — one where the dignity of every individual is safeguarded, and where governance is understood as a trust (amānah) in service of the people.
(The writer is Acting Chairman, Bangladesh Humanist Party-BHP)
