Is Getting Into Controversy Over Religious Beliefs a Habit for the Law Minister?

One wave of controversy has not settled before another has arrived, the report states. Two controversies have emerged within the same week, and controversy seems to keep following Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Advocate Mr. Md. Asaduzzaman.

The National Parliament passed the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 2026 by voice vote on September 8. After the law was gazetted, the country’s Islamic scholars raised serious objections to it. The opposition alliance in parliament, along with various Islamic parties, organizations, and scholars outside parliament, strongly criticized the bill.

These groups expressed deep concern, protest, and condemnation, the report says, arguing that lawmakers passed the bill without properly considering the clear provisions of Islamic Shariah and the country’s family and social realities. Separately, some of them acknowledged the law’s stated aim of securing lifetime protection and rights of use for elderly parents as seemingly humane and praiseworthy, even while criticizing it strongly.

However, they maintained that solving a humanitarian problem should never create uncertainty around the clear provisions of Islamic Shariah or the rights of future heirs. They argued that any property transfer law is unacceptable without a guarantee that it will not disturb the rules of Heba and Farayez, the Islamic provisions on gifts and inheritance, and that amendments made without input from Shariah experts are also unacceptable.

According to these scholars, the report continues, the application of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Bill 2026 must not create unwanted complications in the Shariah based inheritance and property ownership system for Muslims. They argued that lawmakers should not bypass the rules of Heba and Miras to build a legal framework that could open the door to family disputes or property distribution that conflicts with Shariah in the future. They called for a review of whether the new law conflicts with Shariah based law.

Khelafat Majlish Ameer Maulana Mr. Abdul Bashit Azad and Secretary General Dr. Mr. Ahmad Abdul Kader stated that the ruling party’s passage of the bill in parliament, without deeper review and open consultation with Islamic Shariah experts, cannot be considered acceptable. They explained that the new provisions, added as sections 122A and 122B to the Transfer of Property Act 1882, let parents transfer property to children as a gift while retaining lifetime rights of use, with the property reverting to the recipient’s heirs if the recipient dies before the donor.

In response to this reaction from Islamic parties, organizations and scholars, Law Minister Mr. Md. Asaduzzaman had been offering explanations at various meetings and seminars, the report notes. He said people were spreading confusion about the law. He rejected claims that the recent amendment to the property transfer law violates Heba law, stating that no worldly authority has the power to touch Heba law, and that the amendment to the 1882 Transfer of Property Act exists only to protect elderly parents.

Clarifying the matter further, the minister said the amendment creates no obstacle to transferring property through gift, will, or any other method under Heba law or any other law. He alleged that some people were trying to stir controversy without having read this part of the amendment.

Before the concern and protest from Islamic parties and scholars over the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act 2026 had even settled, the minister delivered a fresh set of remarks about the Holy Quran, the report states, describing an event from September 18.

At a book launch event in the capital, the minister recalled a memory from his student days. He described a viva board experience in his first year, where a teacher asked him whether he considered the slogan “the Quran is our constitution” a perfect slogan. He recalled that he answered no, explaining his reasoning to his teacher.

He said he believed a constitution could be written in light of the Quran, but that the Quran itself should not be treated as a constitution, because its content cannot be changed, whereas a constitution needs to evolve with a society’s changing needs and remain open to amendment. He noted this was the answer he gave as a first year student in a Government and Politics subject that law students studied.

He said he later encountered a very similar reflection in a book by the late Barrister Mr. Abdur Razzaq, a former assistant secretary general of Jamaat e Islami who had resigned from that position. According to the minister’s account of the book, imposing Islamic rule from above is a flawed approach, a fallacy, and true Islamic governance instead grows from a society shaped by Islamic values, with the state built and run in that light. He said he found the book’s argument matched what he had said almost exactly.

The minister made these remarks as chief guest at the launch of a book titled “Bangladesh Jamaat e Islami: Its History and Politics,” held at a hotel in the capital on September 18, the report notes.

Since these remarks spread on social media, the report states, criticism has grown sharply, with calls for the law minister to clarify his position on the Holy Quran before the nation. Critics have demanded that if the remarks were as reported, the minister should withdraw them and repent.

Maulana Mr. Mohiuddin Rabbani, Secretary General of the International Majlis Tahaffuz e Khatme Nabuwat Bangladesh, said the minister’s remarks conflict with the fundamental faith and creed of Muslims. He argued that the Holy Quran is not a human authored constitution to be accepted or rejected based on state convenience, but the word of Allah, and that a Muslim’s faith in the Quran is not a matter of political preference but an inseparable part of faith itself.

He said a man made constitution can change and be amended, but the rulings of the Quran, revealed by Allah, cannot be shaped by human will or political convenience. He said any statement denying or dismissing the Quran’s rulings conflicts with Muslim religious belief, and that no ambiguity, disrespect, or misleading statement about the Quran’s status and rulings can be acceptable.

Maulana Rabbani said he expects more responsible statements on this subject from someone holding an important state position. He called for the minister to immediately clarify his position before the nation, and said the minister should withdraw the remarks and repent if they were not accurate. He also called for proper respect toward the religious beliefs of the Muslim population, saying no compromise or confusion on this matter would be accepted.

The report goes on to argue that the minister may again label these reactions as the spreading of confusion, but adds that he cannot deny that he serves as law minister of a Muslim majority country. It cites the 2022 census figure showing Muslims make up 91.04 percent of the population, and notes that the majority Muslim voters who elected the minister’s party and enabled his appointment are the very people he represents.

The piece argues that making comments seen as conflicting with the rulings of the Holy Quran and with people’s religious beliefs, and later calling the backlash mere confusion, sends the religious public a different message. It states that the minister’s position on two separate issues in a row has raised public questions about whether getting into controversy over the majority’s religious beliefs, the Holy Quran, and Shariah has become a habit for him.

The writer acknowledges that a learned law minister may hold his own beliefs and personal philosophy. However, the piece argues that repeatedly raising issues around the majority population’s faith, creed, Shariah, and religious customs can create public doubt about his personal beliefs too, which the writer connects to the government’s own religious values and image.

The piece concludes that anyone may analyze the constitution through a personal viewpoint, since it is a human creation, but argues that expressing a personal viewpoint about the Holy Quran amounts to nothing but disrespect toward Islam and overreach. It closes by stating that the law minister must surely be aware of how the Islamic values held by the majority population would receive such statements and examples.