Islamist Pledge Against Sharia: Naturalist Delusion Masks Apostasy
The Catholic News Agency portal (January 22, 2026) reports that Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami leader Shafiqur Rahman promised Christian minorities his party would not impose Sharia law if elected in Bangladesh’s February 12 general election. The article describes Christian leaders cautiously welcoming these assurances while acknowledging they do not support the Islamist party, framing the interaction as pragmatic pre-election dialogue. Analysts quoted question whether the pledge represents genuine ideological moderation or mere electoral strategy, noting contradictions with Jamaat’s historical positions. The report exemplifies the neo-church’s embrace of naturalist politics, reducing the Church’s mission to negotiating with false religions for temporal security while abandoning the divine mandate for Christ’s social reign.
Naturalistic Bargaining Replaces Christ’s Kingship
The article’s central premise—that Christians should seek political assurances from Islamists rather than proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King (Pius XI, Quas Primas)—reveals the conciliar sect’s apostasy. By treating Islam as a legitimate political interlocutor, the neo-church betrays its rejection of the extra Ecclesiam nulla salus dogma (Council of Florence, Session 11). The Christian delegation’s focus on “safety and social security” under a hypothetical Islamist regime ignores the supernatural end of man, reducing religion to a social contract between false creeds.
Pius IX condemned this naturalist error in the Syllabus of Errors, rejecting the notion that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Proposition 55). Yet the “Christian leaders” cited parrot this heresy by framing their dialogue as seeking “safeguards for our future” through secular guarantees rather than demanding conversion to the One True Faith. Their willingness to “record the assurances” of a party historically hostile to Christianity mirrors the conciliar obsession with “dialogue”—a modernist construct condemned by St. Pius X as “the summing up and conclusion of all heresies” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 39).
False Ecumenism as Cover for Apostasy
The unnamed “senior Catholic priest” who “cautiously welcomed the statement” embodies the neo-church’s betrayal. His suggestion that Jamaat’s pledge might represent “genuine commitment” ignores Islam’s inherent rejection of Christ’s divinity—a blasphemy no Catholic can tolerate. The priest’s focus on whether the pledge constitutes “political strategy” or seeks “international acceptance” demonstrates the conciliar sect’s immersion in naturalist pragmatism, treating theological truths as variables in geopolitical calculations.
This aligns with Vatican II’s heretical declaration that Muslims “adore the one God” (Nostra Aetate 3), which St. Pius V’s Quo Primum anathematized by reaffirming the Council of Trent’s teaching that “those who deny the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be saved” (Session 14, Chapter 4). The true Church teaches that pax Christi in regno Christi—peace is only possible under Christ’s kingship (Pius XI, Quas Primas), not through appeasing false religions.
“We recorded the assurances. […] We never support the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami party.”
This statement by Christian leaders exposes the conciliar schizophrenia: feigning opposition to Islamism while legitimizing it through dialogue. The “recording” of promises not to impose Sharia implies Islamists hold legitimate authority to make such concessions—a de facto acceptance of Islamic political ontology. True Catholics recognize no authority but Christ’s, as Pius IX taught: “The obligation by which Catholic princes are bound strictly to preserve the rights of the Church is the same as that by which they are bound to preserve the rights of their own sovereignty” (Syllabus, Proposition 42).
Sharia’s Theological Impossibility and Modernist Complicity
The very notion that Sharia could be “imposed” or “not imposed” by electoral politics masks Islam’s heresy. Sharia—purportedly divine law—cannot be subject to human vote, making Rahman’s promise either theological incoherence or deliberate deception. That Christian leaders entertain this farce reveals their complicity in the modernist project to reduce all religions to mutable human constructs.
Lamentabili Sane Exitu condemned this error: “Revelation was merely man’s self-awareness of his relationship to God” (Proposition 20). By negotiating with Islamists as equals, the conciliar sect embraces this condemned proposition, denying that Catholicism alone possesses divinely revealed truth. The article’s description of Jamaat’s internal critics—who accuse it of abandoning Sharia for power—further illustrates Islam’s incompatibility with Catholic polity: either Islam submits to Christ’s Church or wages war against it. There exists no neutral “coexistence.”
Symptom of Conciliar Apostasy
This episode flows inevitably from the neo-church’s rejection of Quas Primas, which instituted the Feast of Christ the King precisely to combat secularism and false religions. The conciliar sect’s embrace of religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) has reduced Christians to beggars seeking crumbs from Islamist tables rather than heralds demanding submission to Christ.
Pius XI warned that when nations “renounce and do not wish to recognize the reign of our Savior, […] the entire human society had to be shaken, because it lacked a stable and strong foundation” (Encyclical Ubi Arcano). Bangladesh’s descent into Islamist political bargaining proves this prophecy, as does the conciliar clergy’s silence on the only solution: the conversion of all nations to the Catholic Faith. Until this occurs, no electoral promise can secure peace—only the triumph of the Immaculate Heart through the restoration of Christ’s Social Reign.
Source:
Top Islamist leader promises Christians no Sharia ahead of Bangladesh election (catholicnewsagency.com)
Date: 22.01.2026