A K Ziauddin Ahmed

Let us take a look at the chronology of these events. The interim government issued new recruitment rules for government primary school teachers on 28 August 2025, creating two posts for music and physical education instructors. On 6 September, Hifazat-e-Islam condemned the move, labelling it an “anti-Islamic agenda” and demanding withdrawal of the rules. On 16 September, leaders of several Islamic political parties (including Jamaat-e-Islami, Islami Andolan Bangladesh, Khelafat Majlis, Bangladesh Khelafat Majlis, and Bangladesh Khilafat Andolan) denounced the introduction of music teachers at a seminar. On 2 November, the government issued a revised circular, dropping the new posts for music and physical education teachers. All developed countries include music as part of their formal primary-school curriculum. Music is built on rhythm and melody, present all around us: in the sound of rain, the rush of waterfalls, the songs of birds, the whisper of the wind and the waves of the ocean. God has created this harmony in nature and endowed the human mind with the capacity to perceive and express it. Music nurtures the tender, beautiful, and graceful qualities within us. How could teaching and learning music be anti-Islamic?

Across Muslim-majority countries, music is formally present in most primary-school curricula, although its implementation varies considerably. Nations such as Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan and Indonesia maintain structured music education programmes that include singing, rhythm and engagement with national musical heritage. Recent reforms in Saudi Arabia have also reintroduced music into the primary curriculum as part of cultural modernisation efforts. In contrast, Bangladesh and Pakistan include music only nominally within broader arts or cultural studies frameworks. And the absence of trained teachers, limited resources and periodic religious or cultural objections often prevent meaningful delivery in public schools.

Our religious leaders also object to celebrations of traditional cultural festivals. They are strongly opposed to any kind of statues. Interestingly, statues of scholars, poets and leaders can be found in public places in almost all Middle Eastern countries, such as Turkey, Iran, Egypt and Jordan.

Another area of Islamist sensitivity is women’s rights. On 18 November 2024, the interim government formed the Women’s Affairs Reform Commission to suggest reforms for women’s rights and welfare. On 19 April, the commission submitted its report, containing more than 400 recommendations. Some of the major reform proposals included equal inheritance rights, uniform family laws across religious communities and a ban on polygamy. The report drew immediate criticism from Islamist organisations. In response, Hifazat-e-Islam held a large rally, demanding the abolition of the commission and the withdrawal of its report. A writ petition was filed in the High Court on 4 May 2025, challenging the legality of the recommendations. According to the petition, the proposal for equal inheritance contradicts the Qur’an and its allowance of polygamy. Against this backdrop, what will happen to the reform proposals is anybody’s guess.

Islamist resistance to women’s rights is not unique to Bangladesh. In Pakistan, the Punjab Assembly in 2016 passed the Protection of Women Against Violence Act, designed to address domestic and gender-based violence through specialised support centres and other measures. The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) condemned the law as “un-Islamic”. The CII went so far as to propose a counter-bill, allowing husbands to “lightly beat” their wives, citing Qur’an 4:34.

From ancient times, laws have been framed by rulers to govern their populations. These laws reflected the contexts, customs and culture of the land. Religious laws and rituals were also tools for exercising authority over people in specific places and eras. While the laws made by rulers evolved, adjusting to changes in society and state structures, religious laws remained rigid. This is because the laws were promulgated in the name of God, claiming authority granted by God. Naturally, God’s rules cannot be changed by humans. The Qur’an does not ban slavery; should we then legalise slavery, a practice banned by the British in this region in 1843? Similarly, the Qur’an does not set out a succession mechanism through voting; should we therefore abandon elections today as ‘un-Islamic’?

The religious leaders understand times have changed, and they adopt and enjoy all the benefits of technological advancements like electricity, air conditioners, smartphones, the internet and so on. Yet, they oppose and criticise the very scientific studies and research that made these things possible.

Criticising the actions or pronouncements of religious leaders remains a social taboo. But how long can we allow them to hold us back from attaining contemporary standards of human rights and civilisation? If someone makes claims in the name of God that contradict human rights, morality and ethics, then it is time to break this taboo and stand against them, for God cannot be inhuman, unethical or unjust.

________________________________

The writer is a former corporate professional and academic