The term “strategic ambiguity” is widely used in the field of international relations. When a state considers it to be in its interest not to clarify its position on a particular issue, it may choose either to remain silent or to issue differing statements at different levels.
The United States’ strategic ambiguity over whether it would militarily support Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attempt to seize the island by force is a well-known example. Since the fall of Sheikh Hasina, a similar discussion has been underway regarding Jamaat-e-Islami: if it comes to power, will it establish Islamic Shariah law or not?
As the election draws nearer, this question has grown more pressing. Recently, it has gained renewed attention following a report published by The Washington Post, which was based on an audio recording of conversations between a US embassy official in Bangladesh and journalists.
Some time earlier, the issue resurfaced after a delegation from the Christian community met with the Jamaat ameer. Upon leaving that meeting, one of the delegation members stated that the Jamaat ameer had assured them that Jamaat would not introduce Shariah law if it came to power. Citing this very stance, Islami Andolan later withdrew from its alliance with Jamaat, explaining that Jamaat’s reluctance to implement Shariah was the reason for its departure.
To date, we have not heard a clear, unequivocal statement from two or three of Jamaat’s top leaders as to whether the party would implement Shariah law if it assumed power. However, the party’s second-most senior leader was seen offering reassurances to India on this matter (despite Jamaat’s routine accusations that its rival, the BNP, engages in pro-India appeasement).
In a BBC Bangla report titled “How Delhi is currently thinking about Bangladesh’s upcoming election”, reference is made to a meeting with Jamaat-e-Islami’s nayeb-e-ameer, Syed Abdullah Mohammad Taher, during a recent visit to Dhaka. According to Dr Sreeradha Datta, she asked him, “Suppose you obtain enough seats to form a government—would you then seek to introduce Shariah law in the country?” He reportedly replied: “Where did you hear that? When and where have we ever said that, if we win, we will introduce Shariah law in Bangladesh?” (18 September 2025)
Anyone who reads Jamaat’s constitution will find such statements astonishing. It bears little resemblance to the constitution of a political party; rather, it reads like that of a purely religious organisation. A brief look at a few provisions makes this clear.
The first principle of Jamaat’s permanent policy states that, in making any decision or adopting any course of action, Jamaat shall give priority solely to the commands and injunctions of Allah Almighty and His Messenger (peace be upon him). The first condition for becoming a full member (rukn) is the observance of obligatory and essential religious duties in personal life and abstention from major sins.
The foremost duty of the Jamaat ameer is to prioritise obedience and allegiance to Allah Almighty and His Messenger (peace be upon him) above all else. The first clause of the oath taken by a rukn declares that the ultimate goal of the member’s life is to attain Allah’s pleasure and success in the hereafter by striving wholeheartedly to establish the religion, prescribed by Allah and demonstrated by His Messenger, for the sake of comprehensive peace in the world and the welfare of humanity—and that, with pure intent, the individual joins Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami to pursue this objective.
We are therefore speaking of a political party whose central membership requires one to be a practising Muslim. That means, a non-Muslim can never qualify. Jamaat attempts to create the impression of inclusivity by offering non-Muslims the status of “associate members”, but the constitution makes it clear that all substantive activities are conducted by rukns. Consequently, a non-Muslim can never become the ameer of the party.
While Jamaat seeks, when expedient, to convey the message in certain quarters that it will not implement Shariah if it comes to power, its leaders, including MP candidates, openly speak about establishing Shariah law on television talk shows. Not only this, at the grassroots level, mid- and lower-tier leaders and activists are presenting voting for the “daripalla” (balance scale) symbol as a religious obligation, while some even portray it as a “ticket to paradise”.
This raises an obvious question: if Jamaat is signalling that it will not implement Shariah, why is the Shariah narrative simultaneously being sustained on the ground?
Politically, Jamaat-e-Islami finds itself in a profound dilemma. Because the word “Islam” is embedded in its name, and because it has long campaigned under the slogan “We want Allah’s law”, a section of its core supporters votes for Jamaat precisely in the hope of establishing Islamic Shariah. At the same time, Jamaat appears to understand that pursuing state power makes the politics of Shariah implementation counterproductive to that objective.
This explains why, in student union elections, Islami Chhatra Shibir has removed the word “Islam” from its manifestos and replaced it with the language of “welfare”. Moreover, the potential international reaction to the introduction of Shariah after an electoral victory is made clear in the remarks of the US diplomat cited in The Washington Post report.
This is precisely the “strategic ambiguity” referred to at the beginning of this article, an approach Jamaat has adopted as the election approaches. Rather than offering clarity, it seeks to keep both narratives alive simultaneously. This, however, should not be acceptable.
Voting for Jamaat instead of the BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) is not the same as voting for the BNP instead of the Awami League, or vice versa. There are fundamental ideological differences at stake. Jamaat’s ameer must publicly and unequivocally state whether Jamaat-e-Islami will implement Islamic Shariah if it comes to power. If so, he must also present a clear framework for what that Shariah would entail.
This is particularly important because many prominent Islamic scholars, including the current ameer of Hefazat-e-Islam, do not recognise Jamaat’s interpretation as authentic Islam. We will not enter into that theological debate here, but Jamaat must nevertheless clarify its position.
If Jamaat or any other “Islamic” party declares its intention to establish Shariah, the question inevitably arises as to whether it retains the right to engage in politics under Bangladesh’s existing constitution. Conversely, if Jamaat insists it will not implement Shariah, then another question follows: by using the word “Islam” in its name, is it misleading the public? Indeed, does its constitution itself remain compatible with political participation under the country’s constitutional framework?
With the election approaching, Jamaat must urgently clarify its stance on Shariah and enable voters to make an “informed decision” when exercising their franchise. Jamaat’s top leadership should recognise that its strategic ambiguity on this issue directly contradicts its much-publicised slogan, “We want the rule of honest people”, and amounts, quite plainly, to duplicity (munafiqi, in religious terms).
* Zahed Ur Rahman is a teacher and political analyst.
* This opinion reflects the author’s personal views.