Tag: islam

Comment: When we just can’t agree

This article originally appeared on the website of Idris Tawfiq. Republished with permission.

Some time back, the Russian foreign minister was interviewed by a British journalist on television. The journalist gave him a hard time, but the minister seemed able to give back as good as he was getting! He was asked if he thought relations between the United States and Russia had worsened over the last few years, especially since both countries seemed to be criticising each other a lot at the moment.

The foreign minister’s reply was very clever. He said that because of these criticisms, he thought relations between the two countries were actually better rather than worse because only real friends can offer constructive criticisms of each other.

It isn’t our aim here to talk politics or about relations between the world’s powers, but this incident is a good starting point for us to talk about relationships and about how we fit into the whole scheme of things. There are times in our lives when we don’t agree with others. We might disagree with members of our family. We might disagree with close friends. We might even find ourselves in disagreement with some teaching at the mosque or with the society in which we live.

This needn’t mean the end of the world. It just means that at times we just can’t agree, for a variety of reasons. It could be that we are just digging our heels in and being awkward — it does happen!

It could be that we are not really getting our own point across well and so we are being misunderstood. It could be that we don’t fully understand the other. The important thing is that disagreements need not signal the end of a relationship or a breakdown in communication. In fact, disagreements can often, in a strange way, strengthen relationships.

Take the first years of marriage, for example. After the rosy period of first settling down together, little things start to happen that can annoy us. We begin to realize that we haven’t married Mr Perfect or Miss World, and we begin to get annoyed and find ourselves arguing over things that really aren’t that important at all. This doesn’t mean the end of the marriage. It just means we are realising that there are two people involved here and we need a bit of give-and-take for the marriage to work.

If you want to paint the living room red and your spouse wants it white, the marriage need not break up. You have to come to a compromise. At other times, though, there are things you won’t agree on. You support one political party, for example, and your spouse supports another. You will have to learn to disagree, respecting what the other one wants. We don’t need to make our loved ones agree with us in everything for us to carry on loving them.

A real friend is someone in life who can disagree with you and yet still be your friend. A real friend respects who you are and loves you for who you are, but can still tell you things you might not want to hear.

Only a real friend can tell you how stupid you look in that particular outfit. Only a real friend can tell you what a fool you are being by behaving in a certain way. Only a real friend can tell you that you should be praying when you are not. We listen to what friends have to say because we know that when they criticise something we do, it is not an attack on us but a criticism of our behavior. Real friends are often the ones who can tell us what is staring us in the face. We don’t need to reject them if they disagree with us or hold a different point of view.

There are many occasions, then, when we have to admit that we don’t agree. After having tried everything, we need to accept that there are times when we just can’t agree all the time. This will happen in the family, with parents, or with brothers and sisters. It will happen with the broader issues of what is going on in society.

Sometimes we need to speak out against what we believe is wrong in our society, but we still need to respect the right of others not to agree with us. It may be that after a while our opinions begin to converge, either at home or in the broader community, and we realise that there isn’t such a big difference after all. The important word is respect. Our opinions deserve the respect of others, and we should give to others the same respect we are looking for.

As Muslims we should be the most caring nation. Six years after leaving Makkah, our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) signed a peace treaty, the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, with his enemies. This didn’t mean that he agreed with the idol worshipers or with what they believed, but that for the sake of Islam he was prepared to disagree with them for the time being. The treaty didn’t mean he became their friends, either. It just meant that it was wise to make peace despite their disagreements. In the Qur’an, Almighty Allah describes this peace treaty in the following terms:

“Verily We have granted thee a manifest victory. ” (Al-Fath 48:1)

The victory was peace. The Muslims didn’t set aside their differences with the Makkans. They didn’t pretend that all was well between them. They just admitted that there were big differences and they would leave them on hold for the moment, allowing Almighty Allah to solve them. This peace treaty, broken very soon by the Makkans, led the way to the conquest of Makkah.

So in our own lives there are times when we just can’t agree. We need to use these occasions to grow. We need them to become sure of what we really believe. We need them to develop relationships and to understand where we stand in the scheme of things. We are always attentive, as Muslims, to what our community is saying, and we take examples from the life of our beloved Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

Disagreeing with others does not make us odd. It is quite normal and quite healthy, and it will lead us to be better people and better Muslims. Almighty Allah knows what is best for us. By trusting in Him we can’t go wrong.

Idris Tawfiq is a British Muslim writer and broadcaster.

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(1)Dislikes(0)

Comment: HRCM and Islamic Sharia

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]

Likes(0)Dislikes(1)

Domestic violence accepted and justified in the Maldives, says report

The proposed Domestic Violence Bill will nullify some “God given rights” that no man-made law should be allowed to take away, according to some of the objections raised by MPs when it was debated in the Majlis last week.

“Do not to call upon us to make haraam (forbidden) something that God’s law has permitted us to do. It is when we try to forbid things that God allows us to do that problems begin”, Thimarafushi MP Mohamed Musthafa said, according records of the debate.

Several MPs said various parts of the Bill were against the teachings of Islam, and criticised it for “unduly favouring” women while at the same time making life “extremely difficult” for men, who they said, were wronged by women.

A Ministry of Gender and Family study, the first comprehensive nationwide survey of domestic violence in the Maldives, showed that one in every three women between the ages of 15-49 has been a victim of domestic violence.

It also showed there is general acceptance of domestic violence across the country and among both sexes, as ‘normal’ or ‘justified’.

Seventy percent of Maldivian women believe, for example, that there are circumstances under which a man is justified in beating his wife. Infidelity and disobedience, most women accept, are valid reasons for taking a good beating from the husband.

A majority of women also accept that women have a subordinate role to men, according to the report.

One in every three Maldivian men who commit acts of domestic violence against women do so for ‘no reason’. One in four does it to punish the woman for disobedience, and one in five does it because he is jealous.

One in every ten man beats up his partner because she refused him sex, and the rest of them do it for any number of reasons  – lack of food at home, family problems, because they are broke or unemployed, because they are having problems at work, or because the woman is pregnant.

Seven per cent of the men do it when they are drunk or on drugs.

Continuing his objections to the Bill on religious grounds, MP Musthafa said the Bill would allow the legalisation of abortion, and something that would pave the way for ‘Satanist laws’ to replace the law of God, which the Maldives should be following.

“We are being swayed by non-Islamic people and their beliefs”, he said. He also told the Majlis that Maldivians are allowing the contamination of the society by marrying ‘foreigners from all sorts of places across the world,” he said.

“It is”, he said, “destroying our culture, our Islamic way of life, bringing in all sorts of poisons and viruses into society.”

Islam, he said, recognises the importance that women should be given in society, as is evident from the fact that “it forbids men to wear any jewellery at all while encouraging them to adorn their women with gold and silver”.

Other objections to the Bill were raised on similar religious grounds. MPs Ibrahim Muththalib was concerned that it would become an impediment to the Muslim practise of polygamy. “This is a right accorded to every man by Islam,”
MP Muththalib said.

MPs also expressed concern over what they described as the “unduly harsh” punishments proposed in the Bill.

MP Muththalib said that such punishments would mean the criminalisation of a man’s rightful actions against his wife’s infidelity.

Agreeing with Muththalib on the harshness of the penalties proposed in the Bill, Vilufushi MP Riyaz Rasheed said he feared being locked out of his own home for the day due to his objections to Bill.

“The Bill criminalises too much – the way it is, the particular way a man enters his house may be judged a crime. There are some situations where wives take other men as lovers. In such situations they may make false reports about their husbands – these are things that have happened in this society”, he said.

Hoarafushi MP Ahmed Rasheed, who also voiced strong objections to the Bill, said some of the injuries suffered by women were the result of accidents caused by cramped living conditions rather than the result of violence by men.

“A woman walks down a narrow alley. She trips over pots and pans. In reality, it is not that some one deliberately tripped her…The reality is the circumstances – how can a fat person walk on a two feet alleyway without tripping?” MP Rasheed said.

According to the Gender Ministry report, one in every three Maldivian women are subjected to violence – sometimes physical, sometimes sexual or, more often than not, both. Most of the violence is committed by the man they are married to, or are in a relationship with.

Much of the physical violence to which they are subjected is ‘severe’ rather than ‘moderate’ – they are punched, kicked, choked, or burnt. Most of the violence is also long term, some times life-long.  Many are often beaten into consciousness, and most victims never receive medical treatment for their injuries.

Several are brutally beaten up while pregnant, causing miscarriages or still births. Women who suffer domestic violence are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies than those who are not. Their children are also more likely to suffer long term psychological damage due to the violent environment to which they are exposed.

Women who have suffered domestic violence are twice as likely to have suicidal thoughts than women have not. 14 percent of women who had experienced such violence have attempted to take their own lives. The prohibition of suicide in Islam, the Gender Ministry report says, is one the reasons why the suicide rate among such victims is not higher.

The violence is more common in long term, cohabiting relationships than in short-term or non-cohabiting relationships.  Almost half the women who are abused have never been to school or only have a primary level education.

Women who are divorced or separated are more likely to have suffered at the hands of their partners, suggesting that violence is an important cause of the large number of divorces in the Maldives.

Most women never complain, because there are no mechanisms available for them to do so. Or they feel that complaining would stigmatise them socially. Or they fear retaliation by the husbands if they do so.

Over ninety percent of the women who were abused had never gone to the police and almost fifty percent of the women said no one had ever helped them.

The Gender Ministry study also found that women only find the strength to escape, to leave the house and to leave the abusive relationship they are in when they felt they could not endure any more.

It is when they feel that they are in mortal danger that they manage to start the long drawn out process of finding a life outside of the home in which they had suffered for so long.

In the Majlis debate over the Bill, many MPs objected to what they perceived as a bias against men in the Bill.

“We accept that some husbands do beat their wives. But there are women who commit more extraordinary, bigger acts of violence against men. Violence is not always a physical fight. One woman wants to marry a younger man after she has had 10 or 12 children”, Vilufushi MP Rasheed said. “This is also violence”.

Despite the objections, MPs actively promoting the Bill, introduced by Opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Rozaina Adam, told Minivan last week they were optimistic it will be passed after it is sent to a special committee to refine the particulars.

The Parliament is currently deadlocked after the Supreme Court granted the government a temporary injunction on Monday, blocking the endorsing of cabinet ministers until a ruling on the process can be issued.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: The NGO sector should protect human rights, not promote its abuse

In present day Maldives, the NGOs are organised in a more professional manner than in the past. Though it is not to say that the NGO sector in the Maldives is weak and requires strengthening, however the question today we all deliberate is what the NGOs can do in the democratising process of the Maldives.

Political pressure on NGOs

It is an indisputable reality that in any political environment, NGOs will be pressured by various political parties to take political positions. Nonetheless, the role of NGOs should be to work in the best interests of the Maldivian citizens. NGOs should be the voice of the people. NGOs should act neutral, be accountable and act as watchdogs. If there are critical issues to be raised against the government or political parties, the NGOs should have the credible evidence to situate their positions.

NGO coalitions

Nowadays, we see the NGOs join hands to work on various issues. NGOs realise the strength in standing together to pressure the government, people and the political parties. We have successful ventures of NGO partnerships such as campaigns like ‘JUST’, ‘I choose to Vote’ and others.

Unfortunately, we also see a trend where the names of NGOs are used to disadvantage or in the name of religion. I don’t believe that religious activities should be allowed to be conducted under the banner of NGOs.

In majority Islamic countries, religious groups conduct religious activities under a religious placard so that the two can be distinct. Hence, religious groups with the intention of grabbing power by targeting vulnerable groups  can be monitored and watched.

NGO coalitions

At present we see the movements of two types of NGO coalitions. One movement is mobilised to work for the cause of humanity and development, while the other interest group is mobilized to conduct religious activities.

The just cause of humanity and development is transparent and identified for a specific purpose. Dissimilar to this, the NGO coalitions mobilised for religious activities are dangerous and leave question marks.

The concern is that these types of coalitions are NOT moved to strengthen the understanding of Islam that we love in our country. But the secrecy in which they empower conservative Islamic scholars, brainwash people to isolate themselves from the normal course of life, lobby for the removal of girls from schools, isolate and intimidate girls and women and prevent vaccinations being given to children and so on in the name of Islam. These conservative coalitions are dangerous and need to be watched and monitored.

Conservative radical NGO coalition

The names of Adhaalath and Salaf come to our minds when we think about conservative movements. Adhaalath is a political party but lobbies for conventional Islamic way of life similar to Salaf. Salaf is an NGO that has hijacked Atoll radio.

We saw how Salaf managed to take control of Atoll Radio. Initially, there were speeches by Salaf scholars; slowly the radio channel management taken over by Salaf. Salaf was devious in promoting its way of life through Atoll Radio. Now, the Salaf group promotes their conservative ways of life and underline points by stating that Salaf scholar says this or that.

Salaf and Adhaalath sponsors conservative Islam through different mediums and strategies. The earliest recruitment came in the form of the NGO coalition movement against the policies on liquor, then the movement to raise funds for Pakistan Relief.

The latest exploitation of this radical movement is to fight against coeducation in education system. Why haven’t they come out strongly or protested an outcry against the abuse of children and abuse of women that is happening almost every day? How can we as Muslims tolerate such inhumane acts towards our children and women? MP Muthalib promotes the Salaf and Adhaalath agenda stating that if a law comes into force that protects violence against women, than it would prevent men having multiple wives? This is the level of their thinking when they talk about Islam, and it demeans our much-loved religion.

If you investigate closely you can see their motives in exploiting the NGO sector by mobilising the majority island based NGOs and counting them as their partners, reaching 172, but actual decision makers on behalf this conservative NGO coalition is the majority Male’ based NGOs Salaf, and political party Adhaalath, and the Teachers’ Association that seems to have lost the cause of founding their NGO in the first place.

The decision-making process in the so-called NGO coalition is undemocratic and controlled by only a few people. Do you really think that within such a large NGO coalition it would be easy to make decisions and mobilise unless the island based NGOs are not controlled?

We do not want what happened to Afghanistan to take place in Maldives. The Taliban controlled and turned Afghanistan to a conservative country in the name of Islam so that Taliban could have total control of Afghan people.

NGOs should work according to their mandates

All the registered formal NGO institutions should only work for the people of the Maldivians and closely try to fulfill and achieve their mandates and objectives. It’s vital to NGO sector to be responsible and accountable to people with their mandates, money they get and also create a peaceful environment during the political transition. The NGO sector should learn to be neutral, non-partisan and be watch dogs for human rights violations in the Maldives.

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)

Qur’an teacher on child sex abuse charges moved to house arrest

Former Qari Hussein Thaufeeq, arrested last month on multiple charges of child sex abuse, has been transferred to house arrest, reports Haveeru.

Renowned Qari Thaufeeq, Maafannu Dreamy Light, was arrested on 17 August this year and faces up to 18 years imprisonment if found guilty.

He was transferred to house arrest on Friday, as confirmed by the Criminal Court and the police.

The penalty for child sex abuse, according to the Child Sex Abuse (Special Provisions) Act, is 10-14 years but can be extended to 15-18 years if the accused was in a position of trust with the childrenhe allegedly abused.

Thaufeeq was a resource person at the Centre for Holy Quran in Male’ when the allegations were made against him.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: What happens if we leave Afghanistan?

This article was originally published on the website of the Islamic Foundation of the Maldives. Republished with permission.

A month ago I was shocked to hear the news of an 18-year-old woman from Afghanistan who was punished by slicing her ears and nose, for running away from her abusive husband’s house.

The news was carried around the world by the leading news agencies for many days, especially the western media. A few days later, I was shopping at Ashrafee Bookshop – one of the largest bookstores in Male’ – and happened to see the mind-disturbing image of the abused woman named Aisha.

The image was published on the cover page of the TIME magazine. I did not have the courage to gaze at the horrifying picture for long, because the beautiful girl’s nose was missing. A maroon coloured shawl partially covered her head while her ears were covered with the beautifully combed black hair.

The image would certainly create hatred against the Taliban, the previous rulers of Afghanistan, before the US forces occupied the country to hunt Osama Bin Laden. Like any other reader, the bold letters on the image also caught my attention. It read: “What happens if we leave Afghanistan?”.

The message was very clear.

What I understood from it was that if US forces withdrew from Afghanistan, the country’s condition would worsen as seen in the picture. Every woman would be abused likewise, as we see Aisha in the image.

The article was written by the famous writer Aryn Baker. I read the whole article twice. My conclusion is that the purpose of publishing the article was to criticise Islamic Sharia and to blame the Taliban because they are gaining victory over the US forces in many of the districts in Afghanistan.

One line in the article read: “Under the Taliban, women accused of adultery were stoned to death; those who flashed a bare ankle were whipped”.

The whole article was in favour of Islamaphobia, and creating abhorrence against Islamic customs, principles and jurisprudence. The article was very much in support of the occupied forces while failing to bring all the sides of the story.

Although I am not a professional journalist, I had the opportunity to report from Pakistan and Indian controlled Kashmir. To my knowledge all the parties involved in a sensitive story should be given a fair chance to respond.

But the writer has failed to bring the comments of Aisha’s husband and in-laws, and Taliban. The whole article was single sourced, breaking journalism ethics. It may be hard or impossible to get an interview from the victim’s husband and in-laws. But if the writer wished, she could have got a comment from Taliban.

The writer also could have mentioned Taliban’s denial statement made through internet. The whole story is totally a biased one. Aisha’s case may be true, or it is possible that the story was created. There is no way to prove the accusations made by Aisha.

She might have been abused by her family or by muggers. Who knows what is behind the picture? Aisha might have blamed the Taliban by posing for the cover image of TIME, as it may be her only chance for reconstructive surgery.

In the editorial, Managing Editor Richard Stengel wrote: “Aisha will head to the US for reconstructive surgery sponsored by the Grossman Burn Foundation, a humanitarian organisation in California. We are supporting the effort.”

This statement proves that TIME has bought the story by funding for the surgery to some extent.

Since US and its allies invaded Afghanistan in 2001, hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed and many were made disabled by ‘accidental’ attacks. But these incidents have failed to catch the attention of the international news media.

On 19 September, the Washington Post reported that the US military was investigating a case where three civilians were killed for fun by a group of US soldiers. The newspaper also reported that the culprits even posed for pictures with the amputated body parts of the dead Afghans.

I want to question the western media as to why stories involving abusive acts of US military are not covered in the same manner as the story of Aisha? Like Afghanistan, the unlawful invasion by the US has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq. A report published by Iraq Body Count Project (IBC), an independent UK-US group reveals that nearly 1,989 civilians have been killed in Iraq only in 2010 by coalition military action, Iraqi insurgency and excess crimes.

According to IBC, 106,072 civilians have been killed since Iraq was invaded in 2003. This is also an under estimated figure as the information was based only on those reported by media organisations. IBC project’s director John Sloboda has said earlier “We’ve always said our work is an undercount, you can’t possibly expect that a media-based analysis will get all the death.”

As witnessed in other countries, the US Embassy is investing money on lots of projects in the Maldives under the banner of promoting democracy, human rights and free media. But the reality is that there is a hidden agenda behind these investments.

The purpose is to influence and control the country through modern methods of colonialism. My answer to the messy writer is, if you (US and other coalition forces) leave Afghanistan, tens of thousands of lives would be saved, so leave Afghanistan and other Muslim countries.

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)

Indian teacher tied up after islanders mistake compass for crucifix

An Indian teacher on Foakaidhoo in Shaviyani Atoll has been rescued by authorities after islanders tied her up and attempted to throw her off the island for allegedly drawing a crucifix.

Haveeru reported that senior teacher at the island’s school Ibrahim Rasheed attempted to explain to the “devout Muslim” parents that the design drawn was a plus symbol marking north, south, east, and west directions on a map.

Following a joint investigation by the Parent-Teacher Association and school management, “they refused to accept the facts when their claim that the teacher had drawn a [crucifix] was explained,” Rasheed told Haveeru.

Students and parents protested outside the school on Wednesday evening, he said.

Meanwhile the teacher, who has worked at the school for three years, has been moved to Funadhoo.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Revelations of a former apostate: Mohamed Nazim speaks to Minivan

Many Maldivians are depressed and “collapsing inside” under the weight of the silence enforced on their questions of belief in Islam, Mohamed Nazim has said.

Nazim, now often referred to as ‘The Apostate’ by many, openly expressed doubts over his belief in Islam at a public lecture given by Dr Zakir Naik, an Indian religious speaker, towards the end of May this year.

Days later Nazim re-embraced Islam, equally publicly, having received counselling from religious scholars while on remand at Dhoonidhoo. Both events – Nazim’s renouncing of belief in Islam and the rapid reversal that followed -elicited a strong response from both liberals and conservatives both within the country and overseas.

Whatever the opinion on either side, Nazim told Minivan News, the issue of faith – or lack thereof – was not going to go away “simply because it is ignored.”

“Both the state and non-state agencies need to, at the very least, acknowledge that there are a substantial number of Maldivians who think about their faith and, sometimes, question it,” he said.

Nazim said that acknowledgement of their existence was not tantamount to calling for a secular state, as many seem to assume, but rather the first step towards addressing the problems that inevitably accompany any serious questions regarding faith.

Nazim’s repentance and return to Islam after his public proclamation that he was ‘not a Muslim’ happened within days. Reports said the change had been the result of counselling which Nazim had received while on remand. Details of what followed after his proclamation of ‘apostasy’, until now, have been vague.

‘I am not a Muslim’

“I do not believe in Islam”, were Nazim’s exact words to Dr Naik. He asked Dr Naik whether being born to practising Muslim parents made him a Muslim. If so, he asked, what would his status – and penalty – be in Islam?

‘That means you are not a Muslim”, replied Dr Naik, a medical doctor who owns ‘Peace TV’, a religious television channel based in India. During a meandering reply to Nazim’s question, Dr Naik told Nazim that the State was in a better position to advise him than a religious scholar like himself.

However, he added, the death sentence was not mandatory for apostates in Islam. It is only if the State itself is Islamic that the death sentence could be the ultimate penalty: “The Maldives is a Muslim state, not a Islamic State”, Dr Naik said.

Nazim said he sensed the hostility of the audience from the moment he asked his question. Intermittent jeering and calls for violence against him interrupted the rest of his dialogue with Dr Naik. Once Dr Naik’s answer was over, Nazim chose to return to an aisle seat near the exit.

Despite the strategic decision, a man wearing a long knee-length shirt over baggy trousers – a type of dress relatively new to the Maldives but long favoured by Afghans and Pakistani Muslims – punched Nazim in the neck before he ran towards police seeking protection.

After apparently suspecting initially that Nazim was running at them with hostile intent, the police took him into protection and escorted him to Iskandhar Koshi, a police barracks not too far from the lecture venue.

Some people followed him as he ran to Iskandhar Koshi, flanked by policemen. While waiting for the police to decide what was to be done with him, Nazim said, a policeman in plainclothes approached him.

“I know what you guys are up to. It will never happen in this country,” he said ominously, before leaving.

Nazim said his decision to publicly announce his doubts about Islam was one that he had made his own. He had neither discussed the matter with anyone else nor sought anybody’s advice on the matter. He had simply expressed doubts “that I sincerely entertained.”

“I felt as if I was suffocating. The extremism that was taking hold in the Maldives was increasing so rapidly. I could not travel in any vehicle anywhere without having to listen to extremist material,” he said. “I needed to speak about it.”

‘Protective custody’ or protected by default while in custody?

Although officially under police protection, Nazim was taken to Dhoonidhoo, the remand prison, and processed as any other accused. He was first put into what he described as ‘a cage’ – named ‘Arrival’ – while the necessary paperwork was done. An investigation by four officers, who Nazim describes as ‘invariably pleasant men’, lasted around two hours until 2:30am in the morning.

Nazim said he could see the reasons why an investigation was necessary. As the police noted, his actions had become a national issue. Some of the public reaction also implied that it could threaten public order or even national security.

The unprecedented nature of his actions also meant that the police were unsure whether he had committed an offence as defined in Maldivian law. He was told he would be held in Dhoonidhoo until the investigation was completed. He was there for four nights.

Nazim spent the first night sitting on a swing. He had been offered a bed, but he was sleepless and did not need one. The following day he was allocated a cell.

“It was disgusting”, he said. Everything was as left as used by the previous ‘tenant’. In the cells both to his right and to the left were people accused of murder. The cell was cleaned the following day, after his protestations.

He was able to talk to his lawyer the following day, when he was brought to court to be officially remanded in Dhoonidhoo. His lawyer also told him that the Human Rights Commission of the Maldivian (HRCM) would be unlikely to be able to intervene on his behalf as a case of apostasy would not fall within their remit.

The two scholars visit

The Ministry of Islamic Affairs appointed two scholars to counsel Nazim while in custody. They arrived on the third day of his detention. Inside half an hour of talking to them, Nazim said, he told them he was ready to accept Islam as his faith.

The discussion, he said, was honest. He expressed his doubts openly, and agreed that embracing Islam was the best thing for him.

In a discussion with his lawyer, who had visited him ahead of the scholars, they had both agreed that Nazim’s interests would be best served by “living as all other Maldivians do”. He would be a Maldivian, abide by the laws of the country, and live according to its Constitution.

An hour after meeting him, a brief counselling session and a prayer performed together, the two religious scholars who had visited Nazim as an apostate left him a Muslim.

The decision to read the Shahaadhath on national television, he said, was his own. His proclamation of apostasy was made in front of an audience, broadcast on national television, and played out across the Internet. He needed a public forum to demonstrate his return to the folds of Islam, he said, for his own safety.

It was only after he agreed to ‘revert to Islam’, as Dr Naik had referred to the process, that Nazim was allowed a pen and paper, which had requested numerous times during the time he was held in Dhoonidhoo. He had wanted to write to President Mohamed Nasheed as well as international NGOs to highlight his plight.

Once a ‘born-again Muslim’, he had pen and paper and a new cell that was far cleaner than the one he had before. He was also allowed to walk and leave the cell at times.

He was returned to court in Male’ on the fifth day of being held in Dhoonidhoo. Once he recited the Shahaadhath in front of the sitting judge, he was told he was a free man. There was no case against him.

The legal black hole

Nazim said he was not aware of a pending legal case against him, as has been reported by the media. A report of the investigation of his actions had been sent as a matter of routine to the Prosecutor General. The case, as it were, was closed as far as Nazim was aware.

Did Nazim commit a crime? Article 9a (3) of the Constitution states that anyone who was a Maldivian citizen at the commencement of the 2008 Constitution is a citizen of the Maldives. Article 9c states that despite the provisions in Article 9a, a non-Muslim cannot become a Maldivian.

In between however, is Article 9b, which is unequivocal and unambiguous in its statement that ‘No citizen of the Maldives maybe deprived of citizenship’. It does not stipulate any circumstance whatsoever in which a person, once a citizen, can be deprived of their citizenship. The wording of Article 9a, which states that ‘a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives’, understood in common parlance, suggests that it applies to those who wish to become a Maldivian.

How does this apply to Nazim? Had he not been ‘born a Muslim’, according to Dr Naik’s opinion on the matter? Was there then a need for him to become one? If he could not be deprived of his citizenship under any circumstance, why would he have had to ‘become a Muslim’ in order to ‘become a Maldivian’?

“When I did what I did,” Nazim said, “legally I was absolutely convinced that there was no way I could not be a Maldivian.”

There is no statutory law covering the issue of apostasy, which means, as stipulated in the Constitution, it is an offence ‘on which the law is silent’, to be considered according to Islamic Shar’ia. If he remained a non-Muslim and, therefore, a non-Maldivian, would Shari’a still have applied to him?

A silence similar to the one that Nazim describes as forcing Maldivians to keep quiet about questions over their faith appears to hold forte over public and official discourse on the subject of Islam.

Life as the only post-apostate Maldivian

Nazim is an affable, dignified and unassuming 38-year-old. He is heavily involved in community development projects, volunteers with many such projects, and is engaged in the development of social policy.

The reaction to his declaration of non-belief in Islam, he said, has been mixed – angry and supportive, superficial and profound. He lost 65 friends on Facebook, the social networking site to which almost every computer literate Maldivian subscribes. He did, however, gain 246 new ‘friends’.

His own friends and colleagues, he said, are uneasy talking about it. Very few have actually discussed it with him. He can feel its presence however, unspoken yet potent, in his every social interaction with another person.

Among the general public, apart from a few threatening text messages and threats left on his ‘wall’ on Facebook, the reaction has been muted since his public recitation of the Shahaadhath.

He does not regret what he did, he said: “Somebody had to do it, it needed to be spoken about. The repression of thought, the lack of debate and a lack of a proper public sphere in which such discussion can take place, is dangerous.”

He recalled Ismail Mohamed Didi, the 25 year-old air traffic controller who hung himself from the control tower of Male International Airport in July after he was ostracised by colleagues, friends and family when he expressed his doubts about his belief in Islam.

One of the two men who publicly expressed their doubts over faith decided to re-embrace Islam and live life as the Constitution says a Maldivian should. The other decided life was not worth living.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Spreading hate, one prejudice at a time

No country or religon has a monopoly on religious nutcases, writes Vir Sanghvi in the Hindustan Times.

So much was read into the announcement by Pastor Terry Jones that he would burn the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 that this formerly obscure preacher must be delighted. His Koran-burning announcement set off a global debate about Islamophobia. Editorials were written about the clash of civilisations.

And the world’s politicians — starting with Barack Obama — lined up to persuade the old boy to throw his match-box away on that day.

Jones wants us to notice. That’s why he announced his intentions well in advance. And that’s why he has gone on TV denouncing Islam. In the process, he has converted himself from a previously obscure figure to the lead item on news broadcasts all over the world. We have elevated him from small-town weirdo to global champion of redneck ignorance — and he didn’t even have to burn the Koran. All he had to do was threaten to burn it.

In that sense, he is no different from Osama bin Laden who kills people and then puts out videotapes bragging about the murder. No religion and no country has any monopoly on religious nutcases. And sadly, hatred always finds a market.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)