Tag: islam

Comment: Democratic openings and Islamic nahda

Who is not worried about the recent spike in violence of all forms? Who is not anguished by the madness of senseless killings? And inflation? What explains these issues?

And what explains Adhalaath’s reaction or action? Maybe ‘functionalisation’ of Shari’ah in an effort to enlist more members before the upcoming Adhalaath party elections?

Maaddi was a word that was prominently censured in Sheikh Ilyas’s darus on April 22. Now according to maadi social science, attempts toward ‘shariatisation’ of the state happen under such general socio-political conditions as we now see in the Maldives, and as we witnessed under not very dissimilar conditions but in a different context of post-Suharto Indonesia.

That is, however, another story for another comment.

So is lack of Islam to be blamed for social ills?

History of Islam in the Maldives: a mixed story

Maldivian history is littered with examples of ‘bad’ religious beliefs and practices: from Maloney’s ‘parallel religious system’ of fandita, sihuru-haahooru, astrology, and so on to visiting the dead, maulood, and beliefs in demons of all sorts; from unveiled women to women who would not cover their chests; from a woman ruler (which was noted with ‘strangeness’ by Ibn Battuta) to ex-wives sharing homes with ex-husbands and to people fainting when Ibn Battuta passed hudud punishments, we see a very mixed story in our history. The popular Islam in the Maldives especially prior to late 1970s was a far cry from the ‘puritan’ Islam we now see.

Hence, I argue, it is simply bad maaddi social science to blame the recent social ills on alleged lack of proper Islamic education.

Gayoom’s ‘renewed commitment’ to Islam

Writing in the late 1970s, Clarence Maloney, a maaddi anthropologist who did maaddi ethnography in the Maldives, has this to say: President Gayoom’s government ‘engineered a renewed Islamic commitment’. In fact, since the 1980s we have seen a hitherto unseen effort to Islamise the society.

From Mau’had to Arabiyya to the introduction of Islamic studies at all levels in the education system; from annual Ramadan Ihya darus started by Gayoom at Mulee-aage to darus throughout the year by Gayoom’s government in the islands; from the ‘lot of attention given to Islam, as part of nationalism’ (as the then Minister of State for Presidential Affairs Mohamed Hussein was quoted in Gayoom’s biography) to re-marking of the mythical Maldives’ conversion-to-Islam day in 2000, the Maldivian society we see today is far more conscious of ‘true’ Islam than it had ever been in the past.

Democratic openings and Islamic nahda

If what President Gayoom did was not enough, come 2004’s democratic openings, we saw an unprecedented Islamic nahda in the country. The young public sphere or al-mujtama’ al-madani saw itself largely controlled by Salafi organisations.

From Jamiyyathul Salaf (the first-ever salafist NGO in the country) to quasi-political Adhalaath party to the Islamic Foundation, this rise in the salafi phenomenon has not been matched by all other jamiyyas combined. In terms of organisational capacity, outreach, activeness, and financial capabilities salafis surpass all others.

From rallies addressed by world-class televangelists and da’ees like Zakir Naik, Abdurraheem Green, and Bilal Philips to darus CDs to Facebook groups, blogs, websites like Noorul-slam.com, Dheen.info, Dhiislam.com, MvislamQA.com, and Dharuslive.com to almost daily darus at rallies, in taxis, on television and radio like Radio Atoll; from children’s specialized darus to religious camps like Hijra; from Rihla to I’lmi khazana; from English-language madhaha and nursery rhymes to other innovative outreach programmes such as road-side darus on mega-screens, the country has seen an unprecedented effort to re-Islamise the society.

This is truly an Islamic nahda.

Correlation between Islamic nahda and social ills

Now there is a clear positive correlation between Gayoom’s Islamisation and recent re-Islamisation phenomena and the apparent rise in social ills in the country.

But, no, I will not blame these Islamisation phenomena for the social ills.

Blaming Islamisation phenomena for social ills seems to me as bad an explanation as Sheik Ilyas’s explanation that Islamic studies get a meager three hours weekly in the curriculum, or that Islam teachers are not qualified, or people are not Islamic enough, or there is a harb al-afkar against Muslim Maldivians by adaavaaiythereen (enemies).

If there is one single thing prominently wrong with our education system, it is the utter lack of maaddi social sciences and humanities subjects such as sociology, political sciences, anthropology, philosophy, theology, linguistics, and literature.

Finally, I am not a maaddi sociologist, so I do not know where the explanation for our social ills lies. Disappointingly, we do not have sheiks doing such research in the country, and hence the government’s increasing ‘militarisation’ of the issues.

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: Osama’s ideology thrives despite his death

It is hard to overstate the impact Osama bin Laden has had on the world. Almost all major actions in international relations and warfare in the last decade were implemented either to further or to counter his ideology.

Al Qaeda’s attack on the United Stated on 11 September 2001 was driven by Osama’s belief that imperialist American foreign policies had created a world of injustice and equality for Muslims. He believed it was the duty of every Muslim to wage a holy war to correct those wrongs. His aim was to establish an Islamic Caliphate where Shari’a was the only system of law and Wahhabism or other purist forms of Islam the only forms of belief practised. In such a war, waged across the world to protect Islam and its believers, and to further its cause, Osama believed there were no innocents.

This thinking of Osama’s was what came to inform most Western definitions, policies and actions in the last decade about terrorism, Islam, and what it means to be a Muslim in the twenty first century.

Analysts have in recent years found Al Qaeda to have been virtually destroyed by the War on Terror, its network of secret cells across the world dismantled in ten years of aggressive counter-terrorism policies. It may also be the case that Osama’s death will reduce further the number of violent acts committed in the name of the Islam. It does not, however, mean that the large numbers of his followers across the world have stopped subscribing to his ideology or that they will stop doing so. Osama’s ultimate goal, the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate comprising of Islamic states that practise Shari’a and practise the form of Islam that he followed, remains alive and well. The Maldives is a case in point.

Osama in the Maldives

The Maldivian society has changed beyond all recognition in the last ten years. Some of the changes, like democracy, would have happened in due course – with or without the War on Terror. But it is difficult to accept that the other most fundamental change – manifest in the faith of the people – would not have been possible without the War on Terror and its validation of Osama as the most powerful representation of Islam.

Followers of Wahhabism, and other types of Islam, had existed in the Maldives years before the War on Terror. They had, however, been severely – sometimes violently – oppressed by former President Gayoom. They stayed on the fringes of society, widely seen as ‘odd’, often mocked. In the early 1990s when four women opted to wear the full buruqa, it was rare enough an occurrence to be newsworthy. Ten years later, it is the woman without some sort of a buruga that has become the oddity. The War on Terror, and its focus on Osama’s ideologies as representing Islam, made it possible for such groups to come out of the shadows. Whether the state recognised their beliefs as legitimate or not mattered no longer; their identities were not limited to the national anymore – there was the Ummah.

Emboldened by the mainstream position in Islam bestowed upon Wahhabism in the War on Terror, Maldivians who followed Osama’s ideologies and other strands of thought in Islam such as Salafism and Neo-Salafism began to come out in the open and loudly espouse their views. There were more tangible benefits such as increased funding and other forms of support from Islamic religious networks abroad – even as the War on Terror attacked the financial networks of Al-Qaeda more and more funds became available for Maldivian ‘fringe’ religious groups to increase their presence in society.

Educating minds

One of the most significant forms of such assistance came as educational scholarships. During the last ten years a large number of Maldivians were sent to various places of Islamic learning abroad from Madhrasaas in Pakistan to old bastions of Islamic knowledge such as the Azhar University in Egypt. A large number of them returned in the first half of the War on Terror to found religious organisations and parties. During the chaotic period of Maldivian transition to democracy in 2008, when the ruling government entered into politically opportune alliances with parties formed by such returning graduates, they gained a foothold within the structures of government that had previously been denied them.

This is not to say that every Maldivian who studied in an Islamic institute of learning is a follower of Osama’s ideologies – that would be as incorrect a generalisation as the assumption that every western educated Maldivian is a secularist, a liberal or even a democrat for that matter. What it does mean, however, is that it has put into positions of power a large number of graduates who believe in the superiority of Shari’a above all other systems of law, and are sympathetic to – if not actively engaged in – efforts to establish an Islamic state in the Maldives.

Despite outright denials by Islamic Minister Abdul Bari, evidence suggests that fringe religious movements in the Maldives did receive support from groups abroad – even if they were more organisational than financial. Many of the methods and means by which such movements flourished in the Maldives follow the same rulebook used by Al-Qaeda recruiters across the globe: targeting the most vulnerable, disaffected, and most curious in society. They gathered at mosques, recruiting young people seeking answers to questions of life, existence, and God; opened bookshops filled to the brim with their teachings in strategic locations near large schools; and actively sought out vulnerable young people feeling the most alienated and disaffected.

Winning hearts

In the Maldives, some of the richest such pickings were available in prisons where the shambles that is the criminal justice system locks up young drug addicts, homosexuals and apostates along with murderers and rapists. Maldivian religious movements that began and flourished during this period engaged in a policy that was often more organised and more humane than what the state had to offer such prisoners. Unlike government authorities, religious groups did not abandon their recruits once they left prison.

Reliable reports from ‘defectors’ reveal that recovering addicts recruited into the movement and given jobs within the business interests of the various religious groups were allowed to keep their jobs even if they relapsed and were caught with their hand in the till. In contrast to state policies, which force drug addicts to languish in prison without help, and are released into society without any efforts of re-integration or rehabilitation, the religious movements offered a lifeline that the alienated grabbed with both hands.

One of the most unique ‘opportunities’ available only to Maldivian recruiters is the geographic composition of the Maldives. Recruitment into the cause, research has shown, is less successful when the targeted segment of the population is exposed to other forms of thinking, and when individuals within the targeted community have an existing sense of identity, belonging and nationhood. Lack of education, religious or otherwise, and isolation from much of the rest of world and its many strains of thought and ideologies made it easy for recruiters to persuade whole populations that theirs was the only and the ‘right’ belief system.

From the fringes to the centre of society

The success of Osama’s ideologies in the Maldives and its impact cannot, however, be measured by the number of Maldivians who committed acts of violence in the name of a Holy War. With a population of 300,000, Maldivians are statistically incapable of making a significant contribution to the furthering of Osama’s violent ideals. The success of his ideologies are much clearer when we count the number of Maldivians who have become convinced that minority forms of Islam, like the Wahhabism followed by Osama, are the ‘right’ forms of Islam.

It is also  evident from the number of Maldivian Muslims who follow the same thoughts that now occupy positions of power within the newly democratic government. The Adhaalath Party, which distances itself publicly from the violence advocated by Osama, nonetheless, is pursuing many of the same goals – the establishment of a purist Islamic state in the Maldives that believes in gender inequality, practises Sharia, and contributes to Osama’s world vision of an Islamic Caliphate.

On Friday it galvanised thousands of Maldivians to march for the adoption of Shari’a as its only system of law, propagating death for death as the solution to the country’s burgeoning problem of gang violence. It has also advocated the view that any member of parliament that votes against a decision to implement Shari’a and the death penalty would be deemed apostates. Various prominent members of Adhaalath, and other Islamic parties and groups in the Maldives following the agenda, have displayed the same Anti-Semitism that drove Osama, equating Israel and Zionism with Judaism and placing the blame for the Palestinian situation solely and squarely on the shoulders of every follower of the religion.

‘Winning the hearts and minds of Muslims’ was a strategy employed by both sides of the War on Terror. Globally, despite the death of Osama, there is no clear winner. In the Maldives, the struggle appears more or less over: followers of Osama’s goal of an Islamic Caliphate are winning hands down; and are leading Maldivians, like Pied Piper, towards an Islamic state that would have made Osama proud.

<em>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]</em>

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Shariah not a solution

Yesterday, the Adhaalath party organised a large rally at the tsunami monument in Male’, to demand the implementation of Islamic Shariah in the Maldives.

The party was joined by “hundreds” of pseudo-religious NGOs whi lent their collective voice to the clamour for Shariah, supposedly an antidote to ‘murder, violent assaults, robbery, rape and drug abuse’ in the country.

“The whole nation is threatened and institutions have failed,” the party said in a statement. The ‘only solution’, according to large banners put up across Male’, is Islamic Shariah.

What the Adhaalath Party and its friends fail to mention here is that by ‘Islamic Shariah’, they’re referring to a single interpretation of Shariah suitable to their rigid world-view – a minority opinion among the world’s many Muslim schools of thought that all hold different views of Shariah.

Lady Injustice

One common criticism of clergy-controlled Shariah is the perceived injustice towards women. While these concerns are often met with heated denial, they’re also backed up by cold statistics.

In 2009, then Minivan News Editor, Mariyam Omidi, wrote a damning report highlighting the strong gender discrepancy in the meting out of punishment for ‘fornication’ in the Maldives. According to government statistics cited in the report, out of 184 people sentenced to lashing for ‘fornication’ under Shariah law, 146 were women.

Following his verdict in June 2005, a judge in the criminal court, helpfully offered his opinion that women were ‘deceptive creatures’ according to the scriptures.

Almost exactly two years later, another judge ruled that the gang-rape of a 12 year old girl by four axe-wielding men who’d broken in through her bedroom window, was ‘consensual sex’, because the child didn’t scream audibly enough.

Last week, Mukhtar Mai, a woman who was gang-raped and dragged out naked in front of 200 higher-caste men in her village in Pakistan, had her hopes dashed when the courts upheld a ruling by semi-literate, tribal judges against her.

Given these realities, and a long series of cases where Muslim women have been punished for the crime of getting raped, one awaits an answer from the proponents of Sharia as to why a woman should ever step into their courts expecting justice.

Judge, Jury and Executioner

In Islamic Shariah, there is no jury, no defense lawyers, no prosecutors, no pre-trial discovery process, no courts of appeal, no cross-examination of witnesses, no legal precedents, and perhaps most damaging of all, little room for modern evidence.

Former State Minister of Islamic Affairs, Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, while graciously acknowledging the validity of long established forensic methods of DNA profiling, stated that such evidence could only be used as ‘supplementary’ evidence, presumably while relying primarily on eye-witness testimonies, as practised in Arabia 1400 years ago.

Furthermore, due to the lack of separation of powers in Islamic Shariah, the Mullah is literally the judge, jury and executioner on whose shaky whims the mortal life of the accused rests.

Coupled with the severe lack of capable judges, this is often a recipe for disaster.

Dr. Tarek Al-Suwaidan, a prominent Muslim scholar, blamed the poor quality of modern Islamic jurists on a curriculum that is limited to only subjects related to traditional Islamic jurisprudence.

Highlighting the necessity of familiarity with international law, and current commercial, copyright and cyber-crime laws, he prescribed a minimum requirement of at least a bachelor’s degree in business, law or other specialized field before candidates enrolled for Shariah studies.

Maldivian courts, on the other hand, are plagued by severely under-qualified judges with barely primary level schooling who, according to a February 2011 report by the ICJ (International Commission of Jurists), have also failed to act in an impartial manner.

Political farce

The ‘absolute Shariah’ practised in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan gives credence to Syrian Scholar Muhammad Shahrur’s theory that jurisprudence in the name of God is a farce by those wanting to maintain political power.

Photographs available in the public domain show the former Taliban government in Afghanistan showing off dead bodies of dissenters hung from poles in public, with their severed penises stuffed in their mouths.

In 2007 alone, at least six cases of torture and custodial death were brought against the muttaween, the Saudi Arabian religious police entrusted with enforcing a rigid Shariah state. In one case, a man was beaten to death for being in ‘illegal seclusion’ with an unrelated woman.

In May 2002, the religious police in Mecca prevented school girls from escaping a burning building as they were not wearing the ‘correct Islamic dress’, and to prevent physical contact between the girls and civil firefighters, which they feared might have caused ‘sexual enticement’.

Over forty people suffered severe burns that day, and 14 girls burned to death.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the basij militia brutally cracks down on pro-democracy activists in Universities and streets of Tehran, thereby prolonging the Ayatollah’s political reign in the guise of ‘upholding Islamic Shariah’.

The lack of judicial oversight or accountability, coupled with the promise of absolute power, has made Shariah an irresistible proposition for the Islamist political movement.

The political implications of a ‘Shariah’ legal system was painfully obvious in the original draft of the Maldivian Religious Unity Regulations of 2010, which forbade, among several other things, the criticism of ‘religious scholars’, and airing of any views on religion that contradicted the views of a select few who, very conveniently, happened to be the ones drafting the regulation.

Uncodified Law

When a Maldivian man publicly declared his lack of faith to a visiting preacher last year – he was met with a curious reaction.

On the one hand, the preacher on stage, in a long-winded response, ruled that Islam didn’t demand the death of all apostates. On the other hand, by day break, another set of preachers from a local NGO had issued an outright demand for his state sanctioned murder, failing an immediate repentance and conversion.

The dramatic contrast in judgement between the self-declared experts that – under a Shariah law system –  would’ve literally meant the difference between the man’s life and death, brings to the forefront the problem of Shariah not being a codified system of law.

There have been several attempts within the Islamic community to correct this grievous flaw, by compiling Shariah laws into a standard code. But observers note that since Islam has no central authority to universally  enforce such a codified law, it would depend on compliance, rather than enforcement.

Until such day, the law literally is whatever the Mullah with the gavel says it is.

The deterrence argument

Citing Islamic Shariah, the Maldivian Parliament recently introduced a proposed amendment to the Clemency Act, which would uphold a death sentence passed by the Supreme Court.

The proponents of the death penalty claim that it would act as a deterrent against violent crimes.

As it happens, a New York Times survey in 2000 revealed that American states which practise the death penalty have for decades shown consistently higher homicide rates than states that didn’t. FBI data for 2008 shows that murder rates were up to 101% higher in states that implemented capital punishment than those that didn’t.

According to Amnesty International, evidence shows that the faint threat of a possible future execution does not, in fact, enter the mind of a potential murderer in the throes of violent rage, mental illness, calm cold-bloodedness, or sheer panic.

Human Law

A vast majority of the world’s Muslims live under secular, constitutional law.

Even though laws in Pakistan and Malaysia are influenced by Shariah,  they have regular courts and cede ultimately authority unto the constitution, rather than the clergy.

Many secular countries like Britain, India and the Philippines allow religious discretion in civil and domestic affairs governing marriages, divorce and inheritance, but for criminal cases, they all employ modern law – with constitutional remedies, inviolable rights, principles of equality before law, provisions for appeals and the benefit of forensic evidences that has helped ensured justice for rape and murder victims even several years after a crime is committed.

A new thinking

In a sermon at the American Centre of the National Library last year, Imam Khalid Latif said that even non Muslims and people guilty of various sins felt free to openly speak their minds to the Prophet, without fear or hesitation, and fully expecting a patient hearing.

Times have clearly changed, as Islamist resentment against differing opinions has increasingly expressed itself as violent attacks on intellectuals and liberal reformists, further expanding the shadow of fear and intimidation under which Islamists operate.

Ibn Rushd, the celebrated philosopher from the Islamic Golden Age, also said that revelation and reason are not contradictory, but complementary.

Swiss born intellectual Professor Tariq Ramadan, one of Foreign Policy magazine’s Top 100 Global Thinkers of 2009, argues that the Qur’an should be interpreted in the changed historical context of modern times.

Citing a German law demanding equal treatment of sexes as an example of  proper Shariah, Ramadan asserted that “There are laws coming from non-Muslim minds that are more Islamic than laws coming from Muslim minds in Islamic countries.”

Indeed, those who swear by the immutability of God’s law, ignore the fact that Shariah has been compiled, polished, amended and refined by Islamic jurists for centuries after the Prophet’s death.

Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, Head of Comparative Jurisprudence at Al-Azhar University agrees that with changing times, the traditional classical jurisprudence is no longer sufficient, and a ‘new thinking’ is required to deal with a changing society.

The failure of Islamic Shariah in modern times reflects this failure of the clergy class to adapt to changing times.

As with others before them, politicians in the Maldives are projecting an alluring vision of an idealistic sin free society to a disgruntled public as ‘Shariah’ – ignoring the fact that it has been a staggering, disastrous failure in every other modern nation that has experimented with clergy justice.

While loudly touted by vested interests as ‘the only solution’, Shariah is unfortunately ill-equipped to solve the average modern Muslim’s daily problems, and unlike modern law, has demonstrably failed to ensure justice and security for men and women in every part of the Muslim world.

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)

President meets with Deputy Islamic Minister of Saudi Arabia

President Mohamed Nasheed met yesterday with Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Minister of Islamic Affairs, Dr Abdul Aziz Al-Ammar.

Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, National Security Advisor Ameen Faisal, Advisor on Political Affairs Mohamed Shihab and Minister of Islamic Affairs Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari also attended the meeting.

Nasheed highlighted the close brotherly relations between the Maldives and Saudi Arabia, and thanked the visiting deputy minister for Saudi Arabia’s continued development assistance to the Maldives.

Dr Al-Ammar said Saudi Arabia has a special relationship with the Maldives, and the Saudi government attached a particular importance to enhancing the relations between the Maldives and Saudi Arabia.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Authorities investigate arrival of self-proclaimed ‘Messenger of Allah’

The arrival of a Canadian man in the Maldives claiming to be a messenger of Allah was “a false alarm”, said Police Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam.

”According to information we have received we have been unable to confirm that it is true,” Shiyam said.

Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair said the President’s Office was also informed of the man’s arrival.

”The Islamic Ministry requested police investigate the matter,” he said earlier today.

Local media reported that Hussein Iqbal, a Pakistani national who lives in Canada and claims to be a messenger of God, arrived in the Maldives on the invitation of Maldivians who follow him. A group was reportedly scheduled to leave for Sri Lanka on a pilgrimage.

Ibrahim Fauzy, President of local religious NGO the Islamic Foundation of the Maldives (IFM), told Minivan News that there were “hundreds” of Maldivians who followed Iqbal.

”I met last night with some of his followers in Male’,” Fauzy told Minivan News. “I learned that his call first reached the Maldives seven years ago and since then people have been joining him.”

Fauzy said that he also understood that Iqbal preached against the Sunnah and Hadith and encouraged his followers to believe solely in the Quran.

”Their original call comes from a person called Khaleefa Rashad who dismissed the Hadith and Sunnah,” Fauzy said.

He said Iqbal and his followers used verse 30 and 31 of the Surah Mudhassir to support their argument and try to convince others they were right.

”They use a mathematical formula and subtract some numbers from 19, and claim that the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) was the last Prophet but not last messenger,” he said.

Verse 30 of the Surah Mudhassir reads ”over it are nineteen” and 31 reads ”And We have set none but angels as Guardians of the Fire; and We have fixed their number only as a trial for Unbelievers, in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty, and the Believers may increase in Faith, and that no doubts may be left for the People of the Book and the Believers, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the Unbelievers may say, “What symbol doth Allah intend by this ?” Thus doth Allah leave to stray whom He pleaseth, and guide whom He pleaseth: and none can know the forces of thy Lord, except He and this is no other than a warning to mankind.”

Fauzy said that those following Iqbal were only praying three times a day. He also said that one of Iqbal’s followers  had a divorce case pending in the Family Court, contesting that his wife was a disbeliever, “which raises many complicated legal issues.”

Khalifa Rashad was an Egyptian-born, US-educated biochemist who claimed that the Archangel Gabriel had “most assertively” told him that chapter 36, verse 3, of the Quran referred specifically to him. He was stabbed to death in 1990 at an Islamic school in Arizona and his body drenched in xylol, a flammable printing solvent.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Islamic Foundation holding lecture on “status of women”

The Islamic Foundation of the Maldives (IFM) is organising a public lecture on April 1, 2011 (Friday) “to explain the noble status of women in Islam.”

The lecture will be delivered by Al-Usthaz Ahmed Nizam at the Nalahiya Hotel in Malé, and will be broadcast live on Capital Radio (93.6 FM) at 8.45pm.

The Islamic Foundation stated that in the lecture Usthaz Nizam will clarify “the rights and privileges given to women in Islam long before western democracy came into being.”

In the lecture Usthaz Nizam “will also explain the obligations of Muslim women towards their family and the society in general.”

Usthaz Nizam is a prominent lecturer who completed his higher studies at Al-Azhar University, Egypt, the Islamic Foundation said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Politics and religion

As the heady winds of revolution sweep across the Middle East, a startling moment last week proved to be a sobering eye-opener.

Former IAEA chief and Nobel Laureate Mohamed El-Baradei had to retreat from the polling booth without casting his vote after a crowd of Islamists threw stones at him.

It marks the precise moment when realisation hit global media outlets that the Egyptian revolution, which was fueled almost entirely by educated, liberal and non-ideologically driven youth, has been hijacked by Islamists.

Some might argue that with 77 percent of voters in favour of the referendum, which El-Baradei opposed, democracy has clearly spoken and that the issue merits no further discussion. But in fact, it needs more scrutiny than ever.

Who watches the watchmen?

On the walls of Cairo, posters signed by the Muslim Brotherhood were put up declaring that it was the ‘spiritual obligation’ for all Muslims to vote in favour of the referendum, which many believe gives the Brotherhood – the only organised opposition – a strong edge in short term elections. It is an outcome that many secular Egyptians, and the large Coptic Christian minority in Egypt are loathe to see.

In each of those posters lies one of the most crucial questions of our times – can democracy survive under the shadow of Islamism?

Democracy, by its very nature, relies on the ability of a population to use its free will and judgment to make informed decisions. When the writing on the wall literally ordains the faithful to vote in a particular fashion, upon no less an authority than God himself, whence lies the free will of the people?

There’s an inherent conflict of interest when an Islamist party enjoins upon the people, by invoking the name of God, to vote in a manner most suitable to its own political ambitions.

Nevertheless, Muslim democrats have, time and again, failed to challenge the Mullah on the impropriety of his partaking in politics on the platform of religion.

In what is an affront to both religion and democracy, deep issues of faith and morality, with their strong emotive underpinnings, have ended up as mere political tools for manipulating crowds and gathering votes.

The ramifications of this convenient marriage between politics and religion are not hard to spot.

With the Arab freedom movements engulfing it from all sides – Syria in the north, Yemen in the South, Bahrain in the east, and Egypt, Tunisia and Libya in the west – a frantic Saudi Arabian interior ministry was quick to pull out the preemptive religion card.

The Saudi state media carried the following statement:

“The Council of Senior Clerics affirms that demonstrations are forbidden in this country. The correct way in sharia of realising common interest is by advising, which is what the Prophet Mohammad established… Reform and advice should not be via demonstrations and ways that provoke strife and division, this is what the religious scholars of this country in the past and now have forbidden and warned against.”

It is disingenuous at best for the Wahhabi-monarchy nexus in Saudi Arabia to claim that Islam forbids protests against a ruler, considering the Saudi monarchy itself was established by a series of conquests beginning with a pan-Arab revolt against no less an authority than the Islamic Caliphate.

The enormous utility of religion as a political tool was reaffirmed by the Taliban’s strong run in Afghanistan, imposing one of the harshest theocracies in recent memory.

Democracy is all but lost in Pakistan as well, where at least two senior politicians have recently been murdered in broad daylight for refusing to toe the line of the hard line clergy that wields influence over an increasingly radicalised Pakistani society.

Misuse of religion also remains the predominant political gimmick in the Maldives.

Former President of the Republic, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, had no qualms about asserting himself as guardian of the faith, constantly hammering in the notion that the ‘100% Muslim’ nation’s cultural identity was defined entirely by its religious homogeneity which had to be protected against ever-present, invisible threats – an assertion that has put a paranoid Maldives in the list of top ten countries of the World noted for religious intolerance, according to a study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in 2009.

Outlandish theories brimming with conspiracy have found a mainstream foothold in the Maldives, with self-proclaimed “religious” groups protesting for weeks against a visit by Israeli “Zionist organ-stealing” doctors, displaying a fanatic zeal rarely before seen in public and certainly never exhibited for causes like rampant pedophilia and child abuse.

Highly-charged religious rhetoric permeates issues ranging from education to foreign policy; politicians privately admit to being unable to vote on bills in Parliament on merit, because of the guaranteed backlash from the clergy class.

The already indistinct line between fanatic militants recruiting youth in the islands, and the intolerant ideologues openly preaching on public podiums is increasingly blurred.

In one episode, the Maldivian government website of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs posted an article declaring the Haiti earthquake, where 316,000 people lost their lives and a million were left homeless, as the ‘wrath of God’ showered upon a deserving, wicked people.

The danger with that kind of rhetoric is, of course, that it creates a loophole where any Tom, Dick and Harry can – and will – assume the high seat of arrogance and presumption from which they unravel the divine reasoning behind everything from natural calamities to personal tragedies.

Following a report on the recent tragedy in Male’, where two women lost their lives in a fire that engulfed their home, a commentator was quick to ascribe it to ‘the wrath of God’, insinuating the deceased were deviants who deserved their tragic end, simply because he disagreed with their lifestyle.

Me Tarzan, You infidel

In the heydays of the reform movement in the Maldives, the pro-government media regularly depicted opposition leaders as Christian missionaries bent on destroying Islam.

Similarly, opposition propaganda channels exploited the religious insecurities of the public by presenting the ruling party as depraved alcoholics and homosexuals.

One political party with religious affectations, the Adhaalath Party, even took the former President – a religious scholar – to court on apostasy charges.

There appears to be not a single political party in the Maldives that has not indulged in the cheap political abuse of religion by abandoning discussions of governance and policy in favour of petty fear-mongering and emotive politics.

In this atmosphere of whipped up religious paranoia, a book by former Attorney General Hassan Saeed and Professor Abdullah Saeed of Melbourne University, titled ‘Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam’ was banned in June 2008, amid accusations that Hassan Saeed would introduce freedom of religion if elected to power.

At the time, Hassan Saeed reportedly responded by claiming the ban was a “cowardly Act driven by a 30 year-long leadership that has made Islam as a political tool.”

That moment of lucidity, however, proved to be short-lived. Following a viewer poll on national TV regarding religious freedom in December 2009, Hassan Saeed’s own party repeated, almost verbatim, the exact same allegations against the present government – accusing it of attempting to import “other religions” into the country to “undermine Islam”.

In the first week of March 2011, the opposition-allied political party People’s Alliance (PA) accused the government of following the agenda set by ‘Zionist Jews’, and mentioned ‘irreligious’ people in the government.

The next week, MDP MP Ahmed Rasheed invoked the scriptures when calling for an amendment to the Clemency Act to uphold the death penalty.

The bill was co-sponsored by Independent MP Muttalib who has in the past found time to introduce bills of such national importance as rescinding the right of resident foreigners to worship in the privacy of their bedrooms – while crucial bills like the Evidence Act continue to be delayed.

Another MP further argued that even the country’s requisite Foreign Policy could be gleamed from a single verse in the holy book.

Gag Orders

As with other countries, religion, in the hands of politicians, has transcended its spiritual role, and entered the domain of fear in the Maldives.

The rhetoric of the Mullah has reached a point where the media – the fourth pillar of democracy and defender of free speech – has spinelessly retreated into a shell of self-censorship and servitude.

Articles mildly critical of Islamists have been retracted after being published. Websites critical of Islamist parties have quietly been banned. Lifestyle magazines have been forcibly shut down after relentless harassment and intimidation from pseudo-religious groups, while authorities conveniently turn a blind eye.

The prevailing climate of fear prevents legitimate questions about the involvement of ‘religious’ NGOs in terrorist activities, and their role in promoting violent rhetoric, child abuse and abuse of women from being widely asked.

The few remaining liberals who dare raise these issues are confronted with reactions that range from the bizarre to the comedic.

In May 2010, the Adhaalath Party posted an article on its website with the fantastic claim that Minivan News was promoting ‘lesbianism’ and ‘national sissyness’.

The incredible claim, unfortunately, is symptomatic of a society where discussions are quickly ended by painting feminists as ‘lesbians’ and unilaterally declaring secular opponents as ‘atheists’ and ‘Zionists’ – a society characterised by paranoia, fear-mongering and dysfunction in the name of religion. In other words, a society where democracy cannot survive.

Each of the stones thrown at Mohamed El-Baradei represents an attempt to silence critique, to overwhelm reason with violence, to suppress disagreement with intimidation, an attempt to abort democracy in the womb.

One prays for the sake of Egypt’s rich civilization that their hopes for democracy do not get consumed by the petty fires set by self-appointed representatives of God.

The ancient Nile, after all, bears witness to a long chain of mortals who assumed the mantle of religion, only to end up mistaking themselves for God.

The Indian Ocean doesn’t.

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)

Q&A: Young Muslim Advisory Group

Four young British Muslims from the UK’s Young Muslims Advisory Group (YMAG) visited the Maldives this week to learn about the Maldives and speak about their own experiences growing up as Muslims in a western society. During their visit they met ministers, civil society, school students and numerous community and religious leaders across Male’, Kuludhufushi and Hanimadhoo.

Minivan News spoke to Fahad Khan, YMAG’s chair and a graduate in International Relations from Leeds, Aisha Iqbal, a biochemist with an MSc in toxicology, Saadeya Shamsuddin, a London-based journalist and author, and Waliur Rahman, founder of the Bristol Active Youth Service (BAYS) and Project Manager for the Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations (CEMVO).

JJ Robinson: Can you explain what the Young Muslims Advisory Group does, and the purpose of your visit to the Maldives?

Aisha Iqbal: The organisation was set up in 2008 by the previous UK government to engage young Muslims with the government on issues relating to violent extremism, which has now expanded to other issues including Islamic justice, religious and sex education, and foreign policy.

Waliar Rahman: We have a relationship with the Foreign & Commonwealth Office – therefore this visit – and we also advise other governments, including the US, Syria, Bangladesh and Algeria.

Fahad Khan: We’re not in the Maldives on behalf of the British government. We are here to promote and express our own views, to explain what it is like being a young Muslim in Britain, what Islam is like in Britain, and what the benefits and challenges are.

JJ: How did the group come about?

Saadeya Shamsuddin: Since the [London bombings] of 7/7, and 9/11, the UK’s government has made a whole range of changes in terms of how it gets in touch with Muslims on the ground. YMAG is part of something they created called ‘Prevent’.

FK: After 7/7 the government released a policy document as part of its wider counter terrorism strategy aimed at preventing violent extremism. At the time it was formed it had a strong focus on al-Qaeda. There was quite a large backlash from Muslims in the UK, down to how the document was worded, and its use of rhetoric they found offensive.

What we want to do is engage with the gov to change the policy and make it more positive. Currently the document is under review, and it is looking more likely that the policy will change to focus on all forms of extremism, such as the current surge of right -wing extremism in the UK. It is trying to challenge ideology in a positive way, and bring extremism into the mainstream so it can be challenged.

WR: [YMAG] is not representative of Muslims. We are not elected. But we are a channel between young Muslims and the government, and we are in a unique position because we can see both the government’s strategy and the thinking at a grassroots level.

AI: We are the first group so have had so much access to cabinet ministers and government. ‘Prevent’ was a very top down policy imposed on Muslim communities, with no prior engagement with Muslim communities, which had settled into different parts of the UK and been left alone – there was no interaction [with government].

It addressed Muslims in a very security-focused way. Our role is to make sure the government understands the need for dialogue and consultation, and not just imposed policies.

JJ: What changed with regards to the treatment of Muslim in the UK following the July 2007 bombings?

FK: I’m from Leeds, where three of the bombers came from. The experience in Leeds was very different and exaggerated compared to other parts o the UK – there was a massive influx of the world’s press wanting to speak to locals about the bombers, wanting to know about them, and asking how extremism had taken root.

A lot people walking down street had a microphone put in front of them. It made the Muslim community in Leeds very uncomfortable, because a lot of those speaking were young people aged 14-15, people without confidence or skill to speak clearly. As a result, the community became very insular and closed off. The spotlight was on them, and they were saying “we don’t want this, it’s not fair.”

Five years later the Muslim community has started to open up, and is willing to talk to people and address the issue.

JJ: How did people’s reactions change to you as Muslims living in Britain?

SS: One of the crucial things was that these were so called ‘home-grown’ terrorists. Prior to 7/7 terrorists from different parts of world had attacked America – but now it was British people attacking their own country.

AI: The whole question of identity and ‘Britishness’ came up. People asking who were you loyal to – to your faith first or to the country?

SS: The government made it an issue. it was never an issue for us.

AI: People on the street would wonder. We had huge debates and people were asked to choose [between their faith and their nationality]. It was really unfair – nobody asked Hindis or Jews. They targeted Muslim communities.

WR: In Bristol a young person was arrested on charges of planning to blow up a shopping centre. He was self-radicalised – there wasn’t a terrorist recruiter involved, which was quite unusual. He was vulnerable, disengaged, and that fed it even more. What was different was that the Muslim community stood up and worked with police to prevent this from happening.

After that the Muslim community formed the Muslim Advisory Network, a single point of contact. Because Muslim communities [in the UK] are under the spotlight, they have had to be more proactive in promoting their faith and putting in safety blankets so it doesn’t happen again.

SS: There was a media storm – it was overwhelming after 9/11 and 7/7. I’m from London and the bus bomb in Tavislock square happened a few meters from my university. There was a climate of fear – I use the tube a lot, and you could really feel the sense of fear.

A few days afterwards I was at Finchley Road station and saw two bearded men giving bags to a policemen with a resigned look. I thought it was so sad it has come to this.

AI: A lot of young people felt targeted. Young boys were so disengaged by police and felt targeted just because they were Muslim. Stop and searches went through the roof, and every time I went to the cinema they would look through my bag. A lot of people were feeling targeted and under suveillance.

In Birmingham, with no community consultation, the authorities put up £3 million worth of number-plate cameras ring-fencing the majority Muslim areas, so that anyone coming in or out would be under surveillance. The community was so angry – before that the counter-terrorism unit had great links with Muslim community, but a separate department funded it with counter-terrorism funding and said it was targeting anti-social behaviour.There was huge debate in the community, and eventually police lobbied for the cameras to be taken down.

JJ: Is there a sense that Muslim communities in the UK do isolate themselves because of this kind of reaction from the authorities?

WR: What happened was that after 7/7 people felt targeted and marginalised, especially young people. They were disaffected an disillusioned, and they felt not done anything wrong, and were being targeted because of their faith. Because of that they became increasingly isolated. One of our roles was to be that channel and identify where this disengagement was happening.

FK: In response to the question, very bluntly – yes, Muslim communities did become very insular, and I think generally speaking if your way of life is under the spotlight you will shut off, and you will only speak to people that have same beliefs as you, the same culture, and understand things the same way. That’s what happened.

WR: Let’s remember – it’s not even a percentage of the population that have these terrorist ideologies. But 100% of the faith was tarred with this brush.

FK: I work closely in schools, and one of the messages I hear is segregation in schools of young Muslim males. But that’s not just the case with Muslims – you see that with other ethnic minorites. In the UK we do not want to become isolated. We don’t want to become divided to the point where communities live in different parts of cities and there is no cultural crossover.

AI: I do think that although the majority of communities have withdrawn from politics, we are seeing a lot more young people engaged in politics and civic engagement. It is more visual now – especially at universities. I became much more active, and the events held were interesting and engaging. There is also lots of investment in leadership skills and empowerment of young Muslims.

JJ: Would you say the situation for Muslims in the UK has improved since 7/7?

WR: When Prevent was introduced, there was a large group of people who would not apply for funding – they would not go near it.

AI: It has taken a long time.

WR: The government does seem not sure where taking the strategy. A minister described it as a “fluid process” – which to to me means they have no idea where it is going.

FK: Mosques are now a lot more engaged with statutory authorities. There are programs to go out and train Imans as community leaders, run workshops in mosques, debate and discuss Islam in a way that young people can get involved in the conversation.

AI: Initially, Muslims felt attack and went on the defensive. But people are breaking from the mold and becoming self-critical, and improving governance in the mosque. Often [mosque] council members stay the same for a long time and it is very hard get the change that is needed, but the fact is that Muslim communities are slowly taking on the challenges rather than burying their heads in the ground.

JJ: What is your impression of Islam in the Maldives?

SS: We’ve been learning. We’ve had a crash course over the last week or so, starting with the Maldives High Commissioner in the UK [Dr Farahanaz Faizal] last week.

AI: Some people here are saying the religion is very similar to the culture, other people said they are seeing new influences of conservative Islam from abroad which is concerning them. We need more time to understand it.

JJ: What are some of the things that have struck you so far?

SS: I’m familiar with the culture and lifestyles of countries such as India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and what I really like about the Maldives is the progressive equality of men and women. At all the offices we visited we’ve seen women working alongside men – in many of these other countries women seem few and far between – even the UK has gender imbalance. It is very impressive here – women have freedom to go out, do shopping, and without a chaperone. It was a huge shock, I wasn’t expecting that.

I’m not sure about the economic status of the Maldives, but it’s clean, has nice pavements – and it’s really impressive in terms culture and religion. Even though women are wearing headscarves, they are also out enjoying themselves and being independent.

WR: I think for me it’s been a shock to see the segregation of the tourism and the locals.

AI: It struck me the way people dress here. I thought coming to a Muslim country people might be conservative or there might be a traditional way of dressing, but what I found was that everyone looked Western – skinny jeans and tops. I was really shocked because I thought a conservative country would be covering itself or wearing baggy clothes. But it reminded me a lot of Indonesia and Malaysia, where faith is seen as more internal, and people aren’t judged so much by their image and their exterior.

Even where I’m from in Birmingham, a predominantly Muslim area, you get judged for what you wear. People tend to make judgements on how religious you are by your exterior appearance.

WR: Although there appears to be a rise in that here, judging from the concern of ministers and NGOs.

FK: For me what has been fascinating was to find that divorce for women is not a social taboo. In the UK, particularly for Muslim women, divorce probably means she will find it very difficult to get married again – she is seen as tainted. Whereas over here a divorced woman is not looked at as any less than a single woman.

AI: The High Commissioner told us a very funny joke about it when we were in London: “A tourist comes to the beach and sees a very pretty Maldivian girl. He wants to know who she is so he goes up to three guys and asks them.

The first guy says, ‘She’s my ex-wife.’ The tourist is very embarrassed by this, and says sorry. The guy next to him says ‘Oh, don’t worry about it, she’s my wife.’ The tourist is now really apologising. Then the third guy says, ‘Don’t worry, she’s my future wife.’” And that’s how relaxed marriage is. We were really shocked.

FK: We find this fascinating, because divorce is talked about a lot in Islam – scholars say you should avoid it.

JJ: Some Maldivians who travel overseas meet a lot of criticism back home from people who say they have been exposed to corrupting, decadent Western influences, and that these make you less Islamic, less Muslim than those who live in a 100 percent Muslim society. As young Muslims living in the West, what is your reaction to that?

SS: We visited a school and spoke to a class of 25 teenagers. We asked them to describe what they thought our experiences in the UK were. A lot of answers were quite conflicted: “tough”, “difficult”. We gave our own experiences, and I can understand why Maldivians might have this myth of British Muslim youth being corrupted.

It couldn’t be further from the truth. Actually, because we’re not a 100 percent Muslim country, because we have such a diverse mixture of colours, cultures and races, especially in London, it is a good test of your faith. You have freedom to choose, freedom to wear the headscarf, freedom to fast, freedom to pray five times a day.

Aisha’s family in Pakistan is always asking her: “you must have boyfriends – how many boyfriends do you have?” Then they come over and see the way we live, that we are far more conservative than they are, in terms of what we want to do and don’t want to do. I think it is a complete myth.

AI: I think it is true to some degree that external appearance shows that someone is more religious. But religiousity is different everyone. I’ve seen people who follow a very spiritual Islam, and for them it is about making sure their character is correct. Culture also influences you – when I first went to university nobody wore the hijab. I was one of the few to wear it, but wearing it has become a trend. People wear it in a funky way, and it’s also an identity thing. It can be very trendy.

SS: That said – there are definitely corrupt Muslims in the UK, maybe as much as in the Maldives – but no one’s watching them. Of course we have option of drinking alcohol when our parents aren’t looking, or to go out with friends to nightclubs, or have boyfriends. But it’s a very strong test of your faith to set your boundries yourself.

Because Islam is such a diverse religion, with different thoughts and cultural influences, it’s such a generalisation to think that because we are exposed to corrupting influences that we are therefore by default corrupt ourselves.

JJ: The authorities are strict in policing [unIslamic] things here, and there is antagonism towards questioning these rules, at least publicly.

WR: But then you drive it underground, into secret communities. It gives the authorities even more of a headache in terms of enforcement. What we advised when we spoke to ministers was to let people have a dialogue – people are going to have ideas that don’t conform to what you would want them to think. But let’s have a dialogue and celebrate diversity rather than trying to control it.

JJ: How do you promote debate within Islam? There is a case made here that you are only allowed to participate in a debate if you are a scholar, if you have a particular level of training.

FK: In the UK I do talks on Muslim cultural awareness – I’m not an Imam, I’m not a scholar, and I don’t have as much knowledge as them. But we can comment on Muslim culture in the UK – and certainly Islam does allow you to quote verses, and give information – so long as it is the right information. Of course I think the reason the Maldivians are more conservative about this is because they don’t want the wrong information being given out by the wrong people, which can then cause deviations from the faith, or traditional school of thought.

But in the UK, because we have the freedom to debate, we have different schools of thought. Ultimately we believe there is one God, and that Mohamed (PBUH) is his last messenger. That, and the five pillars, are universal among all schools of thought. We celebrate that.

AI: In response I would say that the first thing the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) commanded was “to read” – to read and find out about religion for yourself. We cannot just expect scholars to teach us about religion, we have to find out and take our own conclusions on the faith – to have a dialogue. Having only lectures is not empowering – it is disempowering. It’s important to learn and engage through dialogue, and if somebody doesn’t agree with you, the fact you have made your point means they have a choice; to reflect on their position, to adjust their position or maintain it.

WR: This is a difference in our cultures regarding education. It’s common in South Asian countries to learn by ‘read, regurgitate, put on paper.’ Whereas in UK we are taught to debate, to analyse, think on our feet and think for ourselves. That’s reflected in the way we practise our religion as well.

SS: I think having scholars commenting and reflecting on passages in Islam is only effective if it is in conjuntion with all these other things, such as young Muslims going out and reading the Quran for themselves, understanding the different interpretations and engaging with that inforamtion on all levels – not just sitting there and being talked to. It should be organic, not stilted.

JJ: What you are talking sounds similar to the human right of freedom of expression, which is stated in the Maldivian constitution as ‘freedom of expression subject to the tenets of Islam’. There is a perception that freedom of expression let fundamentalism out of the bag, as well as the liberal side, but such a caveat gives the moral authority in any debate to the conservative side – the liberal element feels it cannot debate publicly for fear of social ostracism. Can you have the kind of debate you are promoting with such a precondition?

SS: That’s very interesting – I think it’s about tolerance, and tolerance goes both ways. If you are liberal, you should be tolerant of extremist ideas – not accept them but give space to accept them. Freedom of expression is a good thing – but you can’t have it both ways. If you stop that debate, you will only hear the liberal debate and ideas – and that isn’t a democracy, or probably what the Maldives is striving to be.

AI: I would say that under the tenets of Islam you have 73 different groups that are going to be coming out – so I’m sure that both liberalism and conservatism will fit somewhere within those 73 groups. There is room for that debate and dialogue.

WR: I think that in a true democracy you have debate both sides of the argument, and do not control that debate to surpress one side or the other. I think what the Maldives will do is allow this new conservative view and allow people to have these ideologies, but also allow people to have the right information so it doesn’t become an extremist ideology. And to have control measures in place so there is no violent extremism. I think the only way you can empower people is to allow them to come to their own conclusions.

AI: I think the fear in the government here is that this new wave of conservative Islam may be eroding their culture. Any culture for them is integral because of their history. But I think that’s something for the people to decide, not the government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government attempting to implement agenda “of Zionist Jews”, alleges PA

The opposition’s coalition partner, the People’s Alliance (PA), has publicly accused the Maldivian government of trying to implement the agenda of “Zionist Jews”.

In a statement published in Dhivehi on the party’s website, the PA, led by the half brother of the former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Abdulla Yameen, claimed that “the UK, France and the US are selecting individuals from Islamic countries, whom they want to be the ruler, and are training them to implement Jewish policy.”

The PA claimed that “many influential figures in the current government are irreligious people and have shown ideas and actions that prove they were trained in the UK.

“This government commenced the work to pave way for other religions to disrupt religious unity,” alleged the PA. “When the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) came in to administration, they brought in foreign persons previously deported for conducting Christian missionary work, and gave them high positions in government.”

The PA also accused the government of attacking judges, disregarding the judiciary, trying to permit the sale of pork and alcohol on inhabited islands, introduce co-education, teach other religions, and attempting to build a church in the Maldives.

President Mohamed Nasheed’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair condemned the party’s misuse of Islam for political purposes.

“Their remarks suggest that the PA interprets the government’s refrain from Jew-bashing as an agenda of hatred,” he said. “If they see the moderate Islamic policies of this government as anti-Islamic, then I have no further comment.”

He noted that the PA had boycotted the President’s address on the opening of Parliament, “but was then concerned enough about it to issue a statement in response.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)