On October 26, 2010, I came across one of those unforgettable headlines in a local news source, that has left me thinking about it ever since.
The headline on Miadhu read: “Human rights protection can be successfully achieved adhering to the principles of Islam – HRCM President.”
I read it over and over again before I came across a quote under the headline. It was from Mariyam Azra Ahmed – the President of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives. She said: “Human rights or its key principles could be incorporated into all our works and our day to day activities; if we don’t go against the tenets of Islam in doing so”.
For a moment, I could not understand what she was trying to say. Her words suggested that HRCM – the highest authority to safeguard human rights in the country has joined the religious narrative that poses a clear threat to human rights, social justice and economic sustainability of the country.
I am aware of the first objective of HRCM as outlined in the Human Rights Commission Act 6/2006. It says: “to protect, promote and sustain human rights in the Maldives in accordance with Islamic Shari’ah and the Constitution of the Maldives”. But I am quite assured that if HRCM engages within the confines of Islamic Sharia, as it is understood now, we could be a long way from protecting and sustaining human rights in the Maldives.
I take the words of HRCM President very seriously for three specific reasons.
Firstly, in Maldives, what is “Islamic” and what is “not Islamic” is widely dictated by the likes of the Adhalaath Party, a few religious NGOs, and certain Parliamentarians who use religion for public appeal.
Secondly, if the Ministry of Islamic Affairs – dominated by the Adhalaath party – defines Islam, by default they are also determining human rights for HRCM, thereby creating a conflict of interest.
Thirdly, despite the first objective of HRCM, it has not taken any steps to examine Islamic Sharia or create alternative religious interpretations that differ from the existing religious narrative in human rights related issues.
On October 10 I was slightly alarmed when I heard the State Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed speaking on a local TV channel, saying that Islamic Sharia is a “divine revelation” from Allah. More mainstream Islamic scholars clearly take a different thread of interpretation.
For example, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im – an internationally recognised leading expert on religion and law and a human rights activist – does not seem to believe Islamic Sharia is divine. An-Nai’m is a prominent authority on Islamic law and theology and on diverse Islamic societies in Africa and Asia.
“Sharia developed through the consensus of believers over many centuries and not by the spontaneous decree of a ruler or will of a single group of scholars,” An Nai’m said in his paper: Secularism from an Islamic Perspective: Theoretical reflections on the realities of Islamic societies in the 21st century.
He said, “The first several generations of Muslims did not know and apply Sharia in the sense this term came to be accepted by the majority of Muslims”.
An-Nai’m said the primary sources of Islamic Sharia are the Quran and Sunnah as well as the general traditions of the first Muslim community of Medina (622 CE). Islamic Sharia, he said, also includes consensus (ijma), reasoning by analogy (qiyas) and juridical reasoning if there is no applicable text of Quran or Sunnah (ijthihad).
“But these were matters of juridical methodology for developing principles of Sharia rather than substantive sources as such,” An-Nai’m continues saying, “That process was entirely based on the understanding of individual scholars of these sources, and the willingness of specific communities to seek and follow the advice of those scholars.”
An-Naim further said that the more systematic development of Sharia began with the early Abbasy era (after 750 CE) and came with three major developments – the emergence of the major school of thought (madhhab), the systematic collection of Sunnah as the second and more detailed source of Sharia, and the development of Juridical Methodology (Usul al-fiqh). These developments, he said, took place 150 to 250 years after the Prophet’s death.
He also said “while the Quran and Sunnah are the divine sources of Islam according to Muslim belief, the meaning and implementation of these sources for everyday life is always the product of human interpretation and action in specific historical context.” He said it is impossible to know and apply Sharia in this life except through the “agency of human beings”.
According to An-Nai’m there has not been any change in the basic structure and methodology of Sharia since the tenth century. But in the Maldives, in this 21st century, the Adalaath Party and the religious NGOs are actively engaged in a “bottom up” approach to create a culture to enforce Islamic Sharia and convert the Maldives into an Islamic Caliphate.
An-Naim suggests that an Islamic State that imposes Sharia is not conducive to protect human rights as it contains the features of a dictatorship.
“Political activists who call for the establishment of an Islamic state to enforce Sharia through legislation and official policies are in fact calling for a European Marxist view of the state,” he said, “that is, they seek to enforce Sharia principles through the coercive power of the state, not the moral authority of the religious doctrine, and to control the state in order to transform society on their own terms, instead of accepting the free choices of persons and communities.”
While the state is a political institution that cannot have a religious faith, whatever is enforced as Islamic policy and law will necessarily reflect the views and interests of the ruling elite according to An Nai’m. “It will force the people to live by the ideological vision or narrow self-interest of the ruling elite”.
Furthermore, if traditional interpretations of Sharia are maintained, it is impossible for Islamic societies to invest in the rule of law and protection of human rights in their domestic policies and international relations, he said.
As we can see, there is a lot more we can learn about Islamic Sharia and the related wider debate, by examining studies such as that of An Nai’m.
Meanwhile, if the HRCM feels their sole duty is to guarantee the 53 fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in Chapter 2 of the Constitution they are far from fulfilling their national obligations. If HRCM is serious about protecting human rights, it is time for them to face the fundamental questions of interpretation and debate, as it is what has led to the emergence of Islamic Sharia in the first place.
“Freedom of dissent and debate were always essential for the development of Sharia itself because it enabled consensus to emerge and evolve around certain views that matured into established principles through acceptance and practice by generations of Muslim in a wide variety of settings,” An-Nai’m said.
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]
(0)Dislikes
(1)Related Posts
Human rights and wrongs – The Weekly Review- Comment: The politics of the death penalty in the Maldives
- Pro-government MPs hit out at UN’s “biased” and “political” calls for religious freedom
- Comment: Sun, sand and intolerance
- Comment: That evil democracy thing
- Human rights NGOs criticise spread of “perverse thinking and ignorant practices”
Another Aniya Article.
She should not expect to live in Maldives peacefully if she is going against Islam. Fortunately nobody in Maldives listens to this woman except those already think they are "too smart" to follow Allah & 'His' Messenger...
There are a couple things here that I cannot accept.
Firstly, what is "Islamic" and "not Islamic" is not dictated by the Islamic Ministry, nor Adhaalath, nor Jamiyathul Salaf. Yes, they do try to dictate as much, but no matter how much they try, they will not be the guardians of religion in this country. We cannot allow them to do so when they subscribe to ultra-conservative ideologies that threaten the way of life for most Maldivains. We cannot allow them this claim when they openly abuse moderation, tolerance, and peace which is at the very foundation of Islamic values and tents.
You use the arguments about the enforcement of Shari'a while allowing it to continually be defined by conservative groups when Shari'a itself is more dynamic than that. An Na'im's argument recognizes Shari'a as interpretations of religious ideals and values but is so narrow a definition as to now allow for the truly dynamic nature of Islamic Law.
The problem with how people interpret, define, create Shari'a is based on outdated modules and a system of jurisprudence that is based in a Medival ethos. However, this does not mean that all scholars use the same values in the creation of shari'a. More and more scholars around the world understand that shari'a is supposed to reflect the true spirit of Islam, its true values and not merely one line of the Qur'an without regard to the overall meanings and the overarching spirit of it.
My point is that i believe Islamic Shari'a is compatible with human rights. In fact, i believe that Shari'a requires it. My point is that we need to stop allowing conservative groups to set the tone of dialog, and we need to create our own conversation about justice and peace.
In the last few paragraphs you propose this view. Freedom, dissent, and debate supported by Shair'a. Not excluding it completely. That is the line i think we should follow.
fe_rk: going against Islam? where in the article? and whose version of Islam? yours? is Abdullahi an-Na'im also going against Islam? could you please provide us with a list of people who are against Islam?
As Salim Waheed clearly pointed out Aniya's thoughts are screwed and erroneous. She should stop spreading her islamophobic views to us.
Why does the Dhivehi translation of the UDHR (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/div.pdf) begin with a page (page 2, last sentence) that tells you, "But from the rights granted in this declaration, the only ones that DO NOT conflict with Tenets of Islam"? This means ISLAMIC TENETS CONFLICT WITH UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Otherwise, we would not see that sentence at all.
To dismiss or deny the present and real danger of extreme religious elements actively engaged on home ground is to be naive and irresponsible.
And to top it, some of us sadly ignore the growing evidence of more and more young women appearing in black veils and seemingly choosing to remain enslaved to hate-mongering and narrow-minded immature males.
The peaceful practice of Islam in its simplest form did once exist in these islands, at a time when tolerance was a practice and not a catchphrase. Then came the Arabisation drive of the Mullahs. The tide turned I believe in the early 70s, when the influence of the three graduates from Egypt (ex-President Gayoom, and his 2 friends former Foreign Minister Fathulla Jameel and Dr. Zahir Hussein, the founder of Haveeru Daily) began promoting a totally alien religious and social culture that immediately threatened to disrupt the then existing peaceful island culture.
The likes of Sheikh Mohamed Ibrahim and his followers destroyed the harmonious fabric of an ancient island civilization, with its long history of association with other religions and cultural practices in their rich past.
Fast forward to the 21st C, and we now observe with concern the growing influence of Sunni Wahhabis, the Taliban and Al'Qaida in the Maldives. These alien elements are using our peaceful islands as a staging post to promote intolerance and extremism towards the West in general and create their hub in the Indian Ocean.
Proxies like the Adaalath and the Salafis are fiercely resisting the economic empowerment of women in particular and are totally against the philosophy of the individual searching for happiness and prosperity.Democracy is their enemy. The mere concept of human rights as it is understood by most developed and developing countries is alien to these clerics.
Religion is packaged and shoved down our throats in the name of purification and enlightenment, in the guise of saving us from eternal fire of Hell.
If you think this is not real, I believe you are dreaming and being very unresponsive to the reality on the ground.
I am with you on this, Aniya.
The constitution fails to provide basic guarantees of rights and freedoms in the country for Maldivians or non Maldivians and also violates internationally accepted human rights standards and norms.
Why we speak of international human rights is because it encompasses all regardless of race, religion, culture, sex, ability, age etc. There is no such thing as rights limited by or limited to or provided within...as limited in the Maldivian Constitution which is tied to Islamic Shariah.
The constitution favors Sunni Islam over other forms of Islam, and controls thought which are contrary to a tenet of Islam.” This give Adhalath party a lot of leverage to act from their pedestal position from an institute of authority in the Government and to dominate the Country with their interpretation of Shariah.
The Constitution creates confusion in the State Administration because there are disagreements on what is Shariah.
If HRMC is going to function within this Constitution we do not need a commission. We do not need another institute that endorses the Constitution or justifies violation on the basis of religion based on a particular school of thought
Aniya,
Firstly, I feel sorry for your ignorance in Islamic Shariah.
Secondly, I advise you to seek Islamic knowledge before writing articles on topics like Human Rights & Islamic Shariah
We know you only for your ignorance on such topics & issues...so please kindly get equipped with Islamic knowledge first and start writing...Do you know Aniya, you cannot treat patients with surgical problems if you are not a professional surgeon...And if you try to do, it's DANGEROUS!
Aniya,
I fully agree with the necessity of debate to curve out a proper place for religion.
I believe Islam, like Catholicism did in the 1960s and 1970s, can fully endorse human rights if we give way for Islam's broad goals of justice, tolerance, and compassion. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nai'm also wrote in his book, Toward and Islamic Reformation, that while Qur'an does not speak of constitutional democracy, human experience has shown that such a system can only realise God-intended goal of justice in Qur'an.
But, as was argued in this article, http://minivannewsarchive.com/politics/comment-democratic-bargaining-over-religion-4651 , I think it is the civil society that is best placed to do this re-interpretation. HRCM and generally government constrained by power/politics-driven factors, are not the best institutions for such debate and values-making and norms-setting.
We need equivalents of Sisters in Islam in Malaysia to engage with people like Salaf and Adalat.
Mr Saleem was reportedly rejected by Majlis because of his stance on religion vis-a-vis human rights. It would be naive for us to assume that there will be many Saleems. Of course civil society itself has constraints as you know this full well after your article on veil.
But with a generally non-oppressive government at the moment, this is the best time for a democratic civil society to claim its place.
Clearly Aniya has done good research and merely has pointed out a view on how Islamic Sharia and Law evolved and came to be. Any view point contradicting yours, cannot be labeled as anti Islamic.!
Dear Aniya,
First of all I have to say I admire you for your courage in writing articles like this, because they put you and your family in perpetual danger in the islamic fanatic cummunity that Maldives has become. Also I thank you so much for writing and enlitening us on the perils of human rights in Maldives.
Aniya and a few people like her in the Maldives speak the truth about "how islam can never really coexist with human rights or democracy for that matter (in the way islam is practiced and interpreted in by the majority of muslims in the world today).
But I do like to point out something that most liberal minded muslims in the Maldives have not really observed or seen "ie what i call a degree of islamic religious or mazhab freedom that the current constitution and to a lesser extent current religious authorities and society have grated to them" .
I this "narrow window of freedom" people have been given the right voice differing opinions on religious issues from different mazham or islamic schools. So this is where I feel liberal muslims in the Maldives, if they are smart could play the game hardliners play as well as they do !
Currently in islam, especially certian schools of islam like Ismailis, Sufis, Ahmadhiyas and are very liberal shcools of thought in islam that are oficially recognised schools of islam in places like India, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon or Turkey (hence giving it legitimacy to the wider islamic world).
These schools of islam are very liberal minded in thier outlook on issues of human rights (rights such as religious freedom, gender equality, glbtq rights etc). Then there are people like Irshad Manji who are also muslims who are advocating for a more liberal form of islam.
I guess my wisdom in pointing this out is to say "he guys there is a loophole in the Maldives constituition as also religious hutzpa of today that allows people to express islam in many different ways....some of which are as liberal and open minded as western democracies" I guess food for thought for any one who would want to think "outside the box" .
Good luck to Aniya and other courageous people like her in Maldives.
If I am marking this assignment, I would give very low marks for
- lack of research (read only one paper)
- using too much verbatim
- inability to understand the essence of the read (An-Naim's) paper
Hence I Recommend the following
- Read more than one article on the topic essentially on both ends of the spectrum of the argument. hint use Worldcat (http://www.worldcat.org/)
- It seems that you went off-track writing on this topic so I suggest to select an easier topic within your field of knowledge or experience :- eg marriage and parenting
Final comment
Spend more time on researching the topic, perhaps correspond with some relevant people and write the article with an open mind rather than impulsively write an essay to prove a point with poor references.
Good article Aniya,
In my point of view, HR in Maldives and Sharia are not compatible, because Sharia rules out the right of freedom to chose belief, which is a basic human right.
Even though we learned from Zakir Naik that the death penalty does not apply to apostates automatically, practically we have seen, this year!, that so-called Muslims do call for the head of an apostate and that it was not so sure whether the death penalty had to be applied to Nazim, or not.
I think there should be a choice for people whether they want to follow Sharia, or not. Then, I guess particularly men would like to follow it rather than women (see youtube for "Wafa Sultan" who has lived under pure Sharia), because Sharia was made by men to control a large group of people to maintain their faith and suppress those who did/do not want to.
By the way, sad to see that the author gets - kind of - threatened for expressing her view here (by kaalhu "Do you know Aniya, you cannot treat patients with surgical problems if you are not a professional surgeon…And if you try to do, it’s DANGEROUS!").
May our president free us from suppression and let us enjoy all our human rights, without reservations.
I am sure that Islam would thrive if people follow it out of love and not out of fear for being prosecuted if they don't.
Those who say they feel sorry for Aniya because she does not understand Islamic Sharia must be really delusional. Human rights mean not only men's rights. It's every body's rights. According to Islamic Sharia a muslim head of state cannot be held responsible for any crimes he (yes a HE because no woman is allowed to lead a country) had committed while he was in power. A woman can prove a rape only if she can produce 4 witnesses. citizens who are of Christian or Jewish faiths have to pay a special tax. In a court of law word of a non muslim against a muslim cannot be accepted. A non muslim's life is not equal to that of a muslim. There are many more such things in Sharia. Fortunately most muslim countries do not go strictly by Islamic Sharia. HRCM is trying to do the impossible. It's called HUMAN RIGHTS not RIGHTS ACCORDING TO WHICH FAITH A PERSON BELONGS.
Is there any country on earth which has proven that Islamic Sharia guaranteed them with human rights?
With the Maldivian society in constant transformation, it is not surprising that public figures such as HRCM President Azra touches the religious issue.
Today's humans are litigious species in need of universal laws to ensure the protection for everyone.
I say universal law because of the fact that parts of Islamic Sharia are contestable based on its own features.
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im!!!
is he a prophet? never heard of him all my life?! do u know anything devine??? if not , no need to talk bout it. first learn... ( p.s. even if u cry with burning anger u cant bring a book like Quran.
funny thing is we can spend a life time debating what is d correct bible to read for "an" information...
Well done Aniya. This is something that needs to be said in a country which is now among a very few, that shamelessly deny human rights. Your relentless contribution towards building a better society in the world is much appreciated.
as long as we get ourselves embroiled in the religious debate, this society will not progress. History proves that those who despised organized religions shed more blood on than those who believed. So let's try to live in harmony and peace together? Let's not force secularism or liberalism on this country? We have more pressing concerns like, unemployment, corruption, inept politicians and a battered public image thanks to the secularist camp.
It seems as if by parroting the islamophobia line, every local feminist hopes to get the award Condoleeza Rice gave to Maria.
@ maldives resortwokers:
"History proves that those who despised organized religions shed more blood on than those who believed."..
Really?? And what are your sources for that?
"It seems as if by parroting the islamophobia line, every local feminist hopes to get the award Condoleeza Rice gave to Maria."
Again, really?? You think her article is islamophobic... It's so common these days that anyone with a different view on Islam than the twisted Salafist version it regarded as non-Muslim and continuously harrased and threatened..
Today I was watching the news.. Appears that the Pope is visiting Spain.. there were groups protesting about his visit and making fun of him with "fake pope" appearances.. I have not seen believers going on the streets, calling for death penalty or biblical fatwa's against those who protested...
Christianity was once on as intolerant as is today's SALAFISTs.. But they've atleast taken many baby-setps towards reform.. isn't it time for them to do so?
I keep saying: Islamic Democracy is an OXYMORON. By extrapolation, Islamic Human Rights is also an OXYMORON
Good one Aniya. Keep up the good work.
I feel sorry for Salafis on this forum.
Imran, is Abdul Majeed Abdul Baaree a prophet? If anybody speaks against wahhabism (which according to you is the "true" islam) then is it going against islam?
And to maldives resort workers, this is a funny comment coming from the guy who thought what went down at Vilu fushi resort was a "harmless prank". Your website has been hijacked by Wahhabis, and has lost all its credibility ever since 😀
As for the article, I agree with Salim Waheed. Shariah CAN co-exist with human rights, but only if the right interpretation is used. Just stay away from the extreme ones, like what wahhabis use.
Very good article that clearly shows how some people misuse power and religion for their own agendas. I agree that Human Rights can be achieved through Islam however I believe that unless open dialogue is created to discuss different schools of thoughts of Islamic scholars, this is not possible. Why is it some fear the subject of open dialogue to talk about Islam or other religions. Its only a few write about such issues and as usual they are publicly condoned so that they will not speak out. Well done Aniya, you deserve an award for being brave to write this article.
The confinement to one source is a bit limiting. However, good point made. The underlying socio-economic factors could be pointed out here. Such as disenchantment with the system of governance (the disillusionment that has resulted from an emerging middle class and political awareness that has clashed with increasingly dictatorial governments), widening income gaps between the working class and the politically favored, high unemployment, few avenues of venting stress, the breakdown of traditional family values and the fact that this is a period of redefinement of such and a culture of hypocrisy, hollow outward declarations of faith and vengeful moral policing.
So Aniya found a paper by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im to which only she can only agree upon and bases that as the 'true' word on Islami Sharia? And she expects us to take her word for it? I'm sorry to tell her that we know more on Islam and Islami Sharia. What it is , how it began and how to practice it rather than take assumptions made by someone from the 21st century. If Aniya knew Islam well, she would be practicing it.
@maldivesresortworkers
... and how would you 'enjoy' a self-denial life?
Good article based on facts. I just don't know why some people refuse to accept facts and are scared of truth.
Dr. An-Naim cannot account for the fact that the companions of the Prophet (saw), the Khulafaa Rashidoon, the four eponomyous imams of the classical Sunni schools of law, and basically all major scholars in the Islamic tradition did not see it as wrong for the govenrment authority to institute Shari’ah as state policy, but instead all understood it to be required. And although undoubtedly the reality of government authority and the concept of a “state” was not the same 1000 years ago as it is generally today, it surely cannot be argued that the classical scholars did not understand and in fact experience the potential for government power to be abused greatly in the name of the religion.
He can not, as far as I can tell, account for this problem. This is where I see essentially a modernist argument being made. He makes some motions to try to argue on the basis of tradition, but when matters come to a head, he says we must have secularism for these reasons (and they may be good: human rights, women’s rights, etc.) and even if we find the tradition unanimously disagreeing with us this will not lead us to rethink and renegotiate our understanding of what is needed, but we will in essence simply declare our predecessors to have been wrong and we are now going to be right.
This is not acceptable for a Muslim to claim that the earliest generations of Muslims and the great classical scholars did not truly understand Islam but we, the people of today, are going to be able to come and correct them. If someone is going to, at the end of the day, adopt that view, I cannot see any way to engage in ‘negotiation’ with each other philosophically, because we are just speaking past each other.
Now, is there room to ‘negotiate’ across such lines when one takes the discussion down from the realm of the philosophical to the practical or the pragmatic?
Allah knows best.
Whats the bloody point in relating religion and development. You Lucifer worshippers have already brought drugs and other shits to our young cool dudes. So called freedom ehy……… as I will say if u want to go naked on the road go to a place where they have nude beaches … I think we may have a few of them in some resorts ……not a problem… just don’t bring you r bull shit human rights agenda and try to feed our brains u soo called educated rotten heads. We know the human rights u are talking about
@adam
Your suggestion is indeed a light from the far end of the tube, and I hope that people in that end does see it and claim for their righteous atmosphere in the religion market.
In the same note, what shouldn't be in dim-light is the fact that all Maldivian judges (and MPs and Government ministers) are from sunni by statutory requirement. And the law is enacted under Sunni based Shari'a Law as I see it. How then is someone expected to break this statutory taboo???
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im is an orientalist and not a muslim at all, shame on aniya to quote such a person.
its funny to hear people who dont pray & fast lecturing us abt islam.
to the author i just want to ask: what right are you exactly seeking? the "right" for women to marry women, i guess. we wont b surprised if u answer yes. but for those kind of rights its better to emmigrate to a contry where islam & muslims (which u hate so much) are not presnt or atleast in the minority.
I think people cant stop talking about islam. No other religion seems worthy of thought these days. Islam is indeed a great religion
You cannot be a Muslim, and say that you deny Sharia, it's a simple equation.
Besides, when you call human rights 'universal' remember that they were designed by humans on one side of the world (Westerners) as a way of expanding their colonial agenda. If you cannot accept this; can you explain why NO Eastern scholars were involved in the creation of the so-called 'UDHR'? And why they want the UDHR to override all other laws related to it?
I already knew before I scrolled down to the comments that there'd be a constant stream of knee-jerk ad-hominem attacks on the author.
Denial is expressed in many forms.
a) Is An-naim a prophet?! (Is Shaheem?)
b) The author should "learn more about Islamic shari'ah" (This is common. Nobody is learned enough until they repeat the Adhaalath/Salaf ultra-conservative tosh verbatim)
c) An-Naim is not a Muslim! The Author is not a Muslim! (Of course not! No one is, until they have surrendered their thinking and free will to Almighty Adhaalath)
d) Finally, the straight out attacks by outraged fanatics who don't like their delusions questioned... "YOU LUCIFER WORSHIPPERS!", they scream-(Unfortunately, this kind of trash doesn't even deserve a comment)
The problem with the west is they try see us from there own mirror. Having and Islamic name, doesnt make him more holier. The best is not to comment on Islamic Shariaiy if you are not good at it. Fear Allah, and refrain commenting things that you are know.
Aniya can find citizenship in many of the West but appreciate she leave us alone. May we learn and understand more of Islam and its pious teachings.
sorry: refrain commeting things that you dont know. Having an Islamic name, doesnt make him/her more holier.
The current practice of Islam will the downfall of any society.
It may very well be that the intended message is the true Islam, but i ask you,
a) If the intended message is so misinterpreted by the practitioners, that followers go wildly off the mark, what is the reason for the message, especially as a FINAL one? If the basic premise is right, God would know the message as it is now, would lead to current pathetic state, and since it is deteriorating, He would have to rethink the message and reasons for them. Unless of course He knows/expects that people are doomed and will always fail. In which case, Islamic revelation as the last message via the last messenger, does not make logical sense, and He would have to send the message again to align deviates and hope that would salvage humanity.
b) For a second, well that may be a bit too much, say for a half-second, consider, contemplate this. "Could religion be a made-up story by some scared men, to try and find solace of things not known?"
Aniya...you're a sick arrogant terrible woman who always find faults of others. Shame on you! Can't you remember your father was the among the first to ban Qunooth in morning prayers?
Yamyn, there you go. The difference between you and the mullahs are that you are on the other end. But both of you have extreme views.
Muslim 11:23, true. Islam is always in the spotlight. It always will. The haters will hate. But it will prevail till end of times. And that is a promise god has made.
Human rights in an islamic country? Are you kidding? The more fundamental a country (all 'Islamic Republics' included here) the more human rights are eroded. Look at Pakistan today.....where you don't just have to be muslim, you have to be the right sort of muslim. Pity the poor shias, ahmadis, sufi, bohras in Pakistan.....not to mention the hindus, sikhs and christians. Maybe we happy infidels in India can teach you something about human rights. India is a free secular democracy today because the majority of its people are hindus.
ATTEMPTING TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE WITH KNIVES IS BECOMING VERY COMMON HERE.
YESTERDAY (NOV 6TH) A STUDENT WHO CAME OUT FROM VILLA COLLEGE AROUND 2:30 AFTERNOON WAS STABBED ON HIS BACK.
SOME GUYS CAME & ASKED HIM, ARE U LIVING AT BANDEYRI KOSHI? THE STUDENT REPLIED YES. THE GUYS ASKED SECOND QUESTION, ARE U LIVING IN THIS AREA? THE STUDENT REPLIED YES.
Does this student has the right to live in this beautiful capital of Maldives?
In February 2009, An-Na`im received an Honorary Doctorate from the Universite catholique de Louvain (UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve). we cant beleive and accept he is a islamic scholar because he was graduated from catholic university.. Aniya please respect your father.. its more important... where is your guardians right they crying,,, if your the best why your harming to your guardians ,.,, we dont like people like you..
Ever Heard of the word WUM? These people use comment pages to cause mass public response in order to get attention and waste a discussion time with useless topics...Aniya is a WUM...thats why i advise all maldivians to give the least care about this woman.
Better to leave this woman alone. Her views will have no affect on HRCM. But if we get too emotional and go after her, she would become a celebrity.
Adam Smith, the 18th century founding father of the modern capitalism, explains the impact of Islamic Sharia,
“The ruin of the empire of the Romans, and, along with it the subversion of all law and order, which happened a few centuries afterwards, produced the entire neglect of that study of the connecting principles of nature, to which leisure and security can alone give occasion. After the fall of those great conquerors and the civilizers of mankind, the empire of the Caliphs seems to have been the first state under which the world enjoyed that degree of tranquility which the cultivation of the sciences requires. It was under the protection of those generous and magnificent princes, that the ancient philosophy and astronomy of the Greeks were restored and established in the East; that tranquility, which their mild, just and religious government diffused over their vast empire, revived the curiosity of mankind, to inquire into the connecting principles of nature.”
Good job brave brave Aniya. Keep it up, lets drive all the Mullahs out of MDP and claim it back as the progressive democratic party it once was.
islam is great allah akbar.these hypocrites does nothing but mock islam .but its spreading faster than ever , what a miracle.dailymail uk says that mohammed has become the most common name in uk.... learn islam before u talk ... cause what u talk comes back at you . youve been warned
Good points made!
Aniya, I salute you. You are a brave woman. Keep it up!
@warned
It is not a miracle that Islam is spreading faster than ever. First of all, its glorious times are over, unfortunately.
However, it is indeed said to be the currently fastest spreading religion, even though it is not the biggest.
Have you ever wondered why?
Every Muslim has to marry a Muslim. A Muslim woman automatically converts her non-muslim husband to a muslim. On the other hand, even though muslim men are allowed to marry "people of the book", the reality is different, and almost no ghazee will marry two people of different faiths. Well, they do it - for money. Thus, practically, the non-muslim woman has to convert to Islam too.
I am not counting this as "forced" conversions, still he/she could refuse it, but this is how Islam is spreading. The child of such parents has to be Muslim too, according to the rules.
So, where is there choice, if a couple really wants to get married in a non-secular country (secular countries don't ask for the bride's and groom's religion).
I have to laugh when I hear that you call it a "miracle" that Islam is spreading faster than other religions. Because there is compulsion! It is an organized thing, my dear.