Author: Ben Abdul-Rahman Plewright

Comment: To Flog or not to Flog

A few months ago, a protest took place in the Maldives in defense of the Islamic Huddud (punishment) after a UN delegate spoke out against whipping for adultery from the Maldivian Parliament.

A few years ago, I had heard it argued that it was not Islamic to literally apply the Huddud in this day and age. I wanted to know for sure who was correct about this issue from an Islamic point of view, the fundamentalists or the liberal Islamic scholars.

Seeking answers, I dug out and read a few of my old volumes of Sahih Muslim, as rendered into English by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi. The experience I had wading through those pages rekindled that warm flame within me of the Islamic spirit of Mercy, the Mercy of Allah for all humanity.

This Mercy is understood by all Islamic scholars to be the supreme attribute of Allah. I came to believe that it is perfectly justifiable within a Sunni Islamic context to have the opinion that it is against this Merciful Essence of Islam to literally apply the Huddud in our day and age.

The Huddud (punishment) of flogging for Zina (adultery) is prescribed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Also in the Quran, however, in Surah four 15 – 16, it is stated that those who commit crimes such as Zina are to be extended forgiveness and Mercy if the perpetrators repent. As we well know, the view of many fundamentalist Sunni scholars is that these verses prescribing Forgiveness for Zina were abrogated and replaced by the verse prescribing whipping for zina. Many modern Islamic scholars have argued that this is an example of a misunderstanding and misuse of the idea of abrogation.

Let’s look closer at this concept of Naskh, abrogation.

It is one of the fundamental points of Sunni Islam that the Qur’an is the unwritten, eternal Kalam. As an attribute of Allah (Kalam or Speech) it has always existed. Is it possible then, that a ruling of vengeance which has always existed, (as part of the Uncreated Qur’an) could suddenly come into being in the lifetime of our Beloved Prophet (SAW) to replace a ruling of Mercy and Forgiveness which has also always existed.

That is not reasonable. So another perspective is that the Huddud are not so much laws to be applied to all circumstances but are in fact uncreated representations of eternal principles. The highest principle, and the overriding principle in all decision making, is the principle of Mercy, so richly expressed as compassion and forgiveness in the Qur’an and in the Sunnah so very many times.

It is said, in many Sahih Ahadith, for example, that one would be admitted to Jannah (paradise) for having a grain of faith as small as a mustard seed, no matter what his sins were. The practical application of this Mercy comes through the Islamic principle of Maslahah, doing what is best for the community.

In depth study of the Qur’an and Sunnah makes it apparent that the reason the Huddud exist are to make us aware of the immeasurable gravity of the sanctity of life and family, and of the importance of the protection of private property for furthering the development of all the Ummah. The preference for forgiveness is further demonstrated by the near impossibility of applying the Huddud due to the almost impossible to provide demands for proof required by Shariah law (four witnesses to prove fornication for example).

The Prophet’s own preference of the application of forgiveness and Mercy, even when perpetrators confess their sins and demand to be punished, is beautifully demonstrated by a Hadith which recounts an occasion that a female perpetrator of Zina demanded she be punished. The Prophet ignored her, preferring that she accept Allah’s Mercy. She evidently understood the lesson of the sanctity of family which the prescribed punishment for Zinah was meant to teach, and for the Prophet (SAW) that was enough.

As the story goes, this woman persisted in demanding punishment to the point the Prophet could not refuse, and even when she was punished, the Prophet forbade a spirit of vengeance or hate toward her. Sorrowfully, the Prophet demanded reverence, silence; he said he sensed Jannah (heaven) around her as she died. Again, I must emphasise, He did not want to punish her. Such application of punishment was not compatible with the Merciful Intent of the Wahi (the Revelation.)

Unlike some of our present day Muslims, the Prophet was not into protests demanding vengeance and punishment for Zinah, he hated to apply the Huddud and certainly would never have pushed to do so. For he who was sent as a Mercy to the Worlds, it would have been beneath his dignity to make a loud noise about wanting to hurt anybody.

Given our modern understanding and technology, it is possible to promote the gravity of the sanctity of the family and of marriage (the reason for the Revelation of the Huddud) through means such as counseling and education. So it would be most un-Islamic, seems the Islamic preference is Mercy, to literally apply the Huddud for Zinah in our day and age. Of course, those texts will always be there, as they always have, to remind us of the sanctity of family.

There are many great Islamic scholars from the Maldives who agree with the general thrust of this point of view who could actually argue this point a billion times better than I could. Yet since it would be politically damaging for them to share their much needed genius with us right now, I certainly hope that my humble opinion could at least generate some debate about this issue. Eventually I hope to hear from our brave, noble geniuses.

One final thought on this matter.

The Prophet said, and he was not the first Prophet to say it, that he who refuses to show Mercy to others will not receive Mercy from Allah. I wonder what Allah may think of those who’s Zinah and alcohol use had been concealed by Allah’s Mercy, who then demand that that same mercy be denied to others.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Manufacturing slavery

According to psychology research undertaken in the USA, people express being happy when they experience what is called an ‘internal locus of control,’ a sense of being in charge of one’s own destiny.

One of the fundamental doctrines of Sunni Islam is that Everything happens acording to the Will of Almighty Allah, hence, a very strict Muslim will say ‘Insh’allah’ whenever they say that they will do something or expect something to happen. It is called Taqdir, the Doctrine of Qadar, or, the Doctrine of Power. If understood correctly, this doctrine can give great hope and power in times of loss and struggle. Yet the way that this doctrine has traditionally been used in the Maldives was to render the masses completely impotent, dependant on the power brokers of society in a fashion which sapped the Dhivehin of any sense of control or capacity for resistance.

Life swung from depressed helplessness, to explosive rage, the type of rage one experiences when one is frustrated deeply, dehumanised, humiliated.

The power brokers controlled the Dhivehin like Gods, and the Dhivehin were at their Mercy, degrading and debasing themselves in front of these ‘Befulhu’ Gods for every little favour. The experience was one of slavery. It was cruel, and deeply painful for the poor.

Attempts to break this power down in the name of the liberation of the Dhivehin through the creation of a republic, ultimately failed to break this system down. Once in power, the ‘Republican Presidents’ were possessed by the same culture of power, that all consuming ‘beast’ of narcisistic bliss bestowed by the general cultural understanding of any institution of leadership. One with even the greatest, the noblest sentiments, could not contain the beast,, its irepressible hunger for the bliss of being Worshipped, could overcome the greatest, most selfless heart.

This monster, now starved of its insatiable, ferocious lust for power for over two years is now rising through the possessed opposition.

This is why the opposition do not want democracy to succeed. This is why they wish to strangle the cultural development of personal autonomy and move of democracy. They wish the Dhivehin to beg at their feet, worshipping them, powerless before them like slaves, debased. This is the only motive that they have for their lack of co-operation in Parliament. They wish for Maldivian people to believe that they are not ready for democracy, to prove themselves correct, so that the masses look to them as the ones who were correct and therefore, who should be followed.

According to Ludwig Feurbach, humanities experience of God is in fact the experience of the power in ones society, the anthropomorphic projection of the will to power of a King or tribal leader, for example.

Maumoon, having tasted the complete control of power, wishes to once again immerse you in his power, to render you completely powerless in your own right. He wishes to do it by projecting his will as the all Powerful Will of God. He wishes you to remain a helpless beggar before the God that he presents, as it is ultimately, as Ludwig explained, worship of Maumoon himself.

Freud observed that one who is deeply religious to the point of anxious self debasement is in fact psychologically undeveloped, development being the experience of relative capacity for self determination, or, as Maslow would express it, ‘self realisation.’ Maumoon wishes to use religion to deprive the Dhivehin of the development of personal and social autonomy. He wants you to remain infantile, ‘his children’, forever.

On the other hand, if Durkheim was correct, and ‘God’ is the personified projection of our own society, then the concept of God can be utlised to inspire, motivate an oppressed society to struggle for freedom. God can be an expression of ones own force for personal and social, yet ‘non-violent’ resistance. When we magnify our own thrust for liberty by making it Divine, we can universalise, magnify the power, elevate the level of emotional energy fuelling our own struggle. We see this quite strongly in the moderate side of what we call Islamic Revival. The teaching in the Mosques of the struggle, the ‘non-violent’ Jihad, and those who embrace this Islamic Jihad (in a non-violent manner) as the essence of their dignity are examples of this expression.

Ones understanding of God will depend on who one is in society, and how much agency one has. We see the battle over the ownership of the true nature of God being played out in the Maldives.

Nietzche also argued the experience of God is the experience of power. He said that the will to power, for the elite, is called “Love and Benevolence,” for the middle classes it is called “equality” and for the oppressed, the will to power is called “Justice.” The Arabic equivalent of all these words are part of the ’99 attributes of God…’

Indeed, we see that the God of Maumoon and of the affluent middle classes is Compassionate, Benevolent, and the God of many of the islanders and the poor, is angry, hungry for Justice.

These anthropomorphic expressions of the will to power will remain in competition with each other, unless one particular class of people become so psychologically smashed that that their social will dies. For the class whose will dies, this is the beginning of depression, anxiety, helplesness, dependancy disorder and consequentially, physical sickness. For the class who wins the struggle, this is the beginning of bliss, of absolute power, of the complete appropriation of God and everything God is into themselves.

The death of political and religious pluralism is the death of a particular class of people. Religious and political pluralism is the sign of a healthy people, of a healthy society. To destroy political or religious pluralism in the name of creating unity, order, and love between all, is to create pain, disorder. This is because, to control a society completely and to control the religious thought of a people in the name of Benevolence, which Maumoon wishes to do, and done so for 30 years, is to take absolute power. It is to rob the masses of any will of their own.

In this scenario, rendered powerless, the defeated class must be kept poor to stay dependant on the leaders. They must be dehumanised by institutional protocol.

For they who feel so helpless, so controlled, so powerless, the only hope for freedom, for dignity, is belief in an afterlife.

The will of this class of people, which the opposition wish to create in the name of restoring order and humanity, can be awakened by the presentation of a kind of a Deity I have not yet described, a Deity of Death, the Deity of the radical suicide bomber.

In the name of restoring religious unity which they think will restore social order, the opposition are, without even knowing that they are doing it, working hard to awaken a suicide bomber mentality.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Letter on religious unity

Dear all,

I write this letter in response to the Presidential Press Secretary Mr Mohamed Zuhair’s seeming need to justify his position on medicinal drugs using religion.

I feel that when Zuhair needs to bring religion into the picture to justify his position on something, the MDP are going backwards.

I once saw a heavy religious question fired at President Nasheed. ‘Anni’ humbly responded by acknowledging he was not an Alim and therefore did not feel adequate to comment. It was apparent that he would have had an opinion, and that he knows more about Islam than what most people know he does. But as an intelligent thinker, I think, he can see the danger when a President takes the role of religious authority, and chooses to feign ignorance in this area unless he has to offer an opinion.

When a politician must appear to be religious to win respect because the Constitution demands he or she be of a particular religion, religion becomes shallow, meaningful only as a way to win respect.

The competition to appear the most religious in religious-political societies has always involved lies, blackmail, bribery, torture.

Just stating all Maldivians must be Sunni Muslim does not mean the constitution protects Maldives’ religious unity, as was claimed.

Social repression of such nature creates resistance, tyranny, disunity.

Islam itself can be used as a force for disunity just as easily.

If a group wanted to break away from the mainstream government, they could say their separatist cause is an Islamic Jihad. An example? Maumoon was accused of not being a Muslim, therefore, according to very radical militant Hanbali style Zahiri, he and the NSS, if they defended him, were legitimate targets for Jihad.

For Islam to be imposed for unity, it must be controlled and defined by an elite so that contradictory understandings are oppressed. This amounts to putting a mental straitjacket on society, which will provoke a violent resistance from those who have a different understanding of Islam.

I have met Maldivians who detest preachers of Islam because they had been sexually abused by clerics as children. They associate the Qur’an with hypocrisy, oppression and sexual abuse.

Imposing religion via the Constitution and having Islam controlled by headstrong literalists is sure to provoke a sense of violent betrayal and anger against Nasheed’s government.

Imposing religion will divide Maldives, not unify it, as many will rebel, if not openly at least in their hearts. The only way to invite back such people to Islam is to demonstrate that Allah is gentle, Allah is not into forcing himself on people via the Constitution.

This aggressive controlling of human minds and hearts creates frustration, hate, resentment and militant Islam.

Allah is locked in a perpetual, raging power struggle against false representations of himself.

All Maldivians are deeply grateful for the sacrifice of the martyr. But some see their sacrifice as being for the freedom of Maldivians from oppression.

At that time the will to freedom, the strength for dignity was expressed through Islam. But to use Islam now as a force for oppression is against the reason the martyr died.

The dignity and sovereignty of the Dhivehin, for which Thakurufaanu died, has as much to do with pre-Islamic Fanditha type culture as it does Islam. Fanditha culture is as Maldivian as fishing and family, yet “orthodox” Islam is opposed to Fanditha culture.

Nearly 50 per cent of Maldivian tradition, which most Maldivians call “Islamic”, would be considered unorthodox or bida’ (innovation) by the Adhaalaath brothers i.e. Islamic fundamentalism is against Dhivehi culture.

This may seem paradoxical, but freedom of religion improves morality in a society. Religious freedom was fought for in Europe by those who wanted to improve morality, not abandon it.

On the surface the USA looks like the most immoral society on Earth, but dig deeper into Al Mamlaka Al Arabiyya Al Sauddiya and the other religious societies (Vatican, Taliban-led Afghanistan etc…) and you will see these places are morally much worse than America.

I studied Saudi history and I tremble to even think of the activity that goes on there regarding child prostitution amongst the Sheikhs.

When religion does not depend on the state for funding and is not controlled by the state, the religious are free to act as a check and balance against government corruption without fear of retribution or without being silenced.

Majid may be less obliged to remain silent about certain more serious issues than discos and graveyards if he had not climbed to power through the support of some questionable figures.

Religion should not compromise its own values for power.

When religion is not imposed through a constitution, the religious have to work harder to win people over through inspiration rather than through intimidation, as a consequence, their moral standards are elevated and they inspire others moral standards.

I knew a guy who used to refuse to come to discos as he loved the closeness to Allah he felt in the Mosques and this eventually inspired me to follow him.

If he had tried to threaten me into following him, I would have partied at the disco ten times longer.

Furthermore, to get power, even if it’s power to do good, as politicians will begrudgingly concede during rare moments of honesty, a compromise of moral values occurs.

Politicians often think that the few lies and crooked deals will be worth all the good they’ll do once in power, but if a religious leader does it, this sets a bad example.

It says the end justifies the means. People don’t strive to be as moral as possible as a consequence of the ‘amorality’ of their role models.

Ben ‘Abdul-Rahman’ Plewright

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Letter on corruption

Bismillahirahmani Raheem

Assalaamu Alaikum wa Rahmathullahiwa Barakhatu.

My name is Ben Abdul-Rahman Plewright. I am a graduate of political sciences from the University of Western Australia.

Though I am not a Maldivian, I feel compelled to refute the claim that the MDP are the ones who have suspended the newly founded Maldivian constitution. The truth of the matter, I here assert, is that it is the other way around.

Oh, and, what is my business interfering in your internal affairs, you may ask? Well, first of all, I am a Muslim, and I take seriously the Hadith that the Ummah is as one body, and the pain of one Muslim should be felt and alleviated by all other Muslims.

Second of all, I believe in what Martin Luther King said,:”Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere…”

We are all profoundly interconnected. This is especially demonstrated in my situation since I am married to a beautiful Maldivian woman and I have two half Maldivian children and perhaps a third one on the way.

It was the since arrested parliamentarians and the corrupt judges who suspended the constitution initially by ignoring the separation of powers which must exist between the parliament and the judiciary.

The opposition broke the constitution down, Anni (President Mohammed Nasheed), the MNDF and the MDP Cabinet are struggling to mend the constitution within whatever means they can. He cannot do so strictly within the constitutional framwork as the opposition broke the constitutional framework down.

This move by the MDP and MNDF to eradicate those who disregard the constitution is necessary for the salvation of the long term effectiveness and sovereignty of the constitution. It is the salvation of liberal democracy in the Maldives.

One of the main aspects of the constitution is the independance of the judiciary. When a parliamentarian (Yamin or Nazim or any power-brokers within the parliament) control the judiciary, it is absolutely necessary that the judiciary and that any controlling parliamentarian be removed from power to preserve and restore the separation of power between the parliament and the judiciary (the legislature and the judiciary).

MDP are fighting for the integrity of the constitution, they are not suspending or violating the constitution, the constitution was already destroyed by the parliamentarians and judges who violated it, Anni is fixing it!

This move by MDP and MNDF is necessary for the salvation of the constitution and for the long term realization of democracy in the Maldives.

Please, Dr Shaheed, and anyone else who can, please deliver this truth to the international community so that they will support your struggle to save liberal democracy in the Maldives.

Long live the constitution, thank you MDP for fighting to save the constitution!

Ben Abdul-Rahman Plewright

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)