Author: Minivan News

Dear Editor,
If wearing veils is compulsory this would be the most radical society since the TALIBAN. I know you are not Mullah Omar, so please please veto this straight away, tie a rope around Islamic Ministry (Bari and Shaheem), and make sure our society is not radicalised more than it already is.
Adhaalath party and people at Islamic Ministry have no understanding of Maldivian culture and Heritage.
I look to President Nasheed to save us from this evil!
Regards,
Anonymous

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
It seems rather ridiculous to me that the President has called for a ‘religious ruling’ over the proposal to ban places of religious worship for non-Muslims.
While the constitution refuses to recognise non-Muslim Maldivians, so it rather obvious that any places of worship would only cater to foreigners residing in our country. (Just like they let us worship in their countries)
The petty, narrow-minded and rigid stance adopted by our parliamentarians in denying others the rights that they covet for themselves is going to set a very bad example indeed.
What will be the ramifications when word goes out to foreigners that they will not be respected or treated with dignity in our country?
What does it do to the reputation of the country among well wishers in other countries? And what indeed will such a petty move do to the image of Islam as a tolerant religion?
Similarly, the move to deny non-Muslim workers the Ramzan benefits and bonuses.
Will such a move raise the image of Islam, or demolish it among non-Muslims? It seems our leaders are bent on promoting the negative stereotype of intolerant fanaticism, rather than showing the better aspects of our religion, civilization and culture.
Our parliamentarians need to get their priorities right, and stop fooling the people. These are just loud debates they start to hide their overall incompetence in doing anything in the interests of our people.
Regards,
Anonymous

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
I find it silly and uninformed that the authorities are trying to allay fears about H1N1 that are unfounded. So far the swine flu appears to be even milder than the seasonal flu and less people are expected to die from it than the seasonal flu.
Furthermore, WHO estimates two billion people will be infected. That is one of every three people in the world. There is no way it can be contained by isolating a few people in Ungoofaaru or anywhere else.
Authorities please stop spreading the uninformed hysteria and news agencies please stop fanning it by publishing these stories.
Regards,
Anonymous

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
President Mohammed Nasheed has asked about the position of the Shariah on freedom of religion. I do sincerely hope he will consider the opinions of many scholars but here is one perspective.
The Qur’an says:
[“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. ” (Qur’an 2:256)]
Literalists, mainly the Hanbali school of thought, argue that the above verse was replaced and abrogated (naskh) by verses commanding the Muslims to force others to submit to Islam.
Contextualists argue that forcing others to convert referred only to those who were attacking Muslims and so it was necessary to bring them into the fold only for STRICTLY self defence purposes and to prevent them from tyrannizing, exploiting the Muslims as well as their own children whom the pagans were killing. For contextualists, freedom can only be overridden when it is in the interests of human security.In this sense to impose religious restrictions on one who sacrifices their children as part of their religion is justifiable. Such could be forced into Islam, for example. However, if one is not a threat, or is not killing their children, contextualists would argue, it is against the liberating essence of Islam to force conversion.
From this point of view, it is against Islam to restrict freedom of worship for either foreigners or for non-Maldivian Muslims (though constitutionally there is no such thing as non-Maldivian Muslim’s the reality is different.)
Prophet Muhammad (SAW) extended rights to religious minorities (JEWS and Christians) in the Charter of Madinah, giving the non-Muslims the right of choosing a legal system they wished their affairs be governed by, be it Islamic or Jewish law or pre-Islamic Arab tribal traditions.
Under the Sharia law as determied by the four commonly adknowledged ‘Sunni Madhab’s’ (schools of thought) non-Muslims must pay a tax called Jizya if they want to be protected by the Muslims.
Those who’ve analyzed the Qur’an, Sunnah and Islamic historical context have argued that Jizyah tax was only due because the non-Muslim generally did not participate in Jihad for defence of the Islamic State, and therefore were paying for services. In this light, if a Muslim state is not at war, a non-Muslim citizen should not have to pay Jizyah.
The ijma (consenus) of the traditional Madhab’s is that an unrepentant apostate should receive the death penalty. There are different points of view on what exactly constitutes apostasy and how long the Muslim should be given to return to Islam, but this was the generally understood law in Muslim societies, a perpetually unrepentant apostate was to be killed.
Contextualists argue that the death penalty was only applied by Qur’an and by Sunnah for apostasy to save life because, the pagan religion was very inhumane in killing children – in murder and the non-Muslims were at war with the Muslims. This meant that by definition an apostate was a murderer or wanted to kill the Muslims.
In this line of thinking, to kill or repress an apostate who is not a threat is a brutal violation of the liberty promoting essence of Islam.
Regards,
Abdul-Rahman

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
Considering banning non-Islamic worship places is truly shameful on the part of Muslims, who claim to be peaceful and tolerant human beings. Have we forgotten the time when the second Caliph of Islam, Hadhrat Omar (ra) refused to offer his afternoon prayers in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem? His refusal was not out of disrespect for the Christian faith but actually for its own protection; he feared that the Muslims would later stake a claim at the Church owing to his having offered his prayers there.
Indeed, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed later, by a Fatimid caliph, but while it was under the control of Caliph Omar (ra) and early Muslim rulers, it enjoyed the protection it was promised.
By citing this example, I ask, are we to follow the actions of “mad” people who claim to be defenders of Islam, or the footsteps of the Commanders of the Faithful?
Communities can not assimilate if no tolerance is shown. We have so often read that the Holy Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion”, (2:257). If we have no right to force a person to change his beliefs, it means that all aspects of his faith remain personal to him. Again the Qur’an says, ” For you your religion and for me my religion”, (109:7), making it so obvious for a believer to stay within his own boundaries.
If a mosque is what a Muslim needs for congregational prayers, there is no reason why another faith would not want a worship place of their own.
Regards,
Anonymous

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor
It is shocking to see some readers bash Islam and Islamic scholars on the child marriage issue. One may wonder why such writers are not criticising the Parliamentarians who passed that law and the President who ratified it. On the other hand, it is seen as an opportunity to scream out against Islamic scholars.
Apparently they have also failed to take note of the fact that the age of consent for sex in various western countries is much lower than 18. Countries which we proudly claim as “best practicising” nations.
However, these “modernist” writers to Minivan News are blind to such facts. They would still continue to bash Islamic scholars! Would they scream child abuse when tourists of 13 or 16 years old from such western countries arrive Maldives and have sex with their partners who may be of same age or more and outside of marriage?
Would it be considered child abuse by the Maldivian Government???
Age of consent for sex (even if outside of marriage!):
Vatican – 12 years
Spain – 13 years
Germany, Hungary – 14 years
Denmark, France, Greece, Sweden – 15 years
Australia, Belgium, Canada – 16 years
Brazil – 14 years
Regards,
Farish

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor
An article written by Aminath Shifleen (19 November 2009) on Haveeru daily news, praising Taylors College in Malaysia has stated that Taylors College in Malaysia one of the oldest and most successful university colleges in Malaysia, which is totally wrong. I feel that these reporters and editorial board who write in papers never analyze facts and figures on this kind of misleading information.
Taylors college is “a University College” not even a university. In Malaysia, the oldest and most advanced in research is University Malaya. I wonder whether Haveeru writer (Shifleen) knows the difference between a university and a university college.
It is surprising when Aminath Shifleen mentioned that Tailors University College (a small private university college) in Malaysia is the oldest and most successful university in Malaysia.
Regards,
Anonymous

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
For a moment, I thought they would do it right.
I watched as a “child abuse hotline” was opened to public use, and tie-wearing politicians made their little speeches on how we needed to “work together” to prevent it.
Then, this new “amendment” to the laws of Maldives comes to my attention.
Disgust does not even begin to describe my reaction to these new Mullah-pushed laws.
“A man who has married a child, and if the marriage is recognised by Islamic law, and after the marriage; the man who has has performed sexual acts with the ‘married’ girl will not be found guilty.”
I have nothing to say to people who would blithely stand by and watch this high treason unfold. This is a betrayal against every child of Maldives – no… the very racial bloodline of the Maldives. A mockery of these little “Child Abuse Prevention” events.
If “Islamic law” commands that we sacrifice our children to appease these filthy pedophiles; our Nation’s future mothers and fathers; then damn then to hell.
President Anni, show your vaunted ruthlessness and tear the parasitic leech of the so-called “clergy” off the Nation. No child deserves this state-sponsored child abuse. Crush the interloping Arab-wannabes, and consign them to what they deserve; a stay in a solitary confinement cell – so that they can experience the helplessness and despair they sow upon the citizens of Maldives.
Regards,
Anonymous

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
I salute the UNICEF Representative Mansoor Ali for commenting about the reservations in the article 14 of the new child abuse law. This reservation is based solely on a corrupt interpretation of Islamic texts which, I believe, many of the fundamentalist ‘scholars’ (Adhaalath, Jamiyyatussalaf, Islamic Foundation etc) support. It is the same idea that Sheikh Abu Ameena Bilal Phillips expressed at “The Call” lectures; that a child who has reached puberty is ready to get married.
While I agree that children do not grow up all of the sudden on their 18th birthday, we should understand that laws cannot be made for individual cases, it would be general. Since we have made 18 years the age of consent, any form of sex between an adult and a minor (below 18) should be considered as sexual abuse. The special reservation is approval of child abuse, decriminalising a crime just because it is committed in the name of Islam. It is a shame to our nation and to all Muslims that disapprove of such evils.
I believe child marriage should be a more serious crime than child abuse outside of such a ‘marriage’, since the child will be under a lot of pressure as their community and parents support the abuse. The child may even have to give birth, do household work inappropriate for their age, or take care of a family at such young ages. They would be continuously abused by their ‘husbands’. The beliefs of most extremists give no excuse for women (or girls) to deny it when their husbands ‘need’ them. So the law should consider this to be continuous and systematic statutory rape of an innocent child!
I’m surprised to see that the concubine issue is so troubling to many people while child marriages in these extremist communities have been going on for a long time without anyone noticing it. Children as young as 13 have been given away in marriage to men as old as 50! But what sort of sentences do these people get? In one case it was just banishment under the ‘religious unity act’. The reason was that the extremists have produced all the documents proving the ‘marriage’ was carried out as Islamic Shariah requires (the child having reached puberty too). They just did it at home, with their gang members as hakim and witnesses instead of going to a court. So the Judges at court were obliged to consider this a valid marriage in accordance to Islamic Shariah. When he drafted the bill MP Mohamed Nasheed warned us about this issue, but I was hopeful that it would be solved by the time it become a law.
When Shariah overrides law, and this Shariah is the word of any bearded Sheikh; I don’t think this is a very democratic picture. We all need to uphold the law and respect it. But for this to happen, the laws should treat everyone equally, it should be clear and understood by all, it should not be too vague, it should not be overridden by anything (including the words of random Sheikhs). Since the constitution does not define ‘Islam’ or ‘Islamic’ Shariah, it is left for the gang of Mullahs who are in bed with the ruling government to define it as they wish.
Such unquestionable and absolute power held by one small group of people will never yield any good results. It is a door to corruption and absolutism. This is exactly why I support secularism, a state where religion cannot be used against people and for political gains. This is not the un-Islamic thing, but rather the only islamic thing to do. The Quran clearly forbids such worship of Sheikhs (9:31). it also tells that individuals are responsible for their OWN actions and that God gave us free will and intellect to test if we do the right thing. All the three estates of the state and the personal lives of individuals need not be policed by a bunch of Sheikhs who claims to be men of God. May Allah save us from his followers that have gone astray. Amen.
Regards,
Anonymous

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)