Tag: pillay

MPs ban Israel flights, but withdraw resolutions against Pillay, GMR, SAARC monuments

MPs passed a resolution on Wednesday preventing Israeli national airline El Al from operating scheduled flights to the Maldives until Majlis’ National Security Committee completes further investigation into the matter.

El Al had applied to the Ministry of Civil Aviation in May 2011 requesting permission to fly to the Maldives starting in December 2011.

The demand to ban Israeli flights was a key issue that united opposition parties and was used to spark protests against Nasheed’s administration in the last weeks of his presidency. Nasheed resigned from office on February 7, but later claimed he had been deposed through a coup d’état.

The opposition also called for the eviction of Indian infrastructure giant GMR, granted a contract by Nasheed’s administration to manage and develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA). Further demands included a call to condemn UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay for her suggestion that flogging be abolished in the Maldives as a punishment for extra-marital sex, and the removal of “idolatrous” SAARC monuments from Addu City

However Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Abdul Azeez Jamal Abu Bakr on Wednesday withdrew the Majlis petition against Pillay.

On April 2, Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed also withdrew a resolution calling on the Majlis to prevent GMR from taking over the management of duty free shops and bonded warehouse from local businesses.

Riyaz also withdrew a resolution calling on the government to remove SAARC monuments from Addu City on the same day. Addu City Council had removed the monuments in January after a public furor.

Ousted Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) spokesperson and MP Hamid Abdul Gafoor said he was “at a total loss” since then-opposition “had picked such a fight with us over these matters.”

“They made these issues out to be a threat to national security, and now these issues have disappeared without a trace. This is just cheap and dirty politics,” Ghafoor said.

December 23 demands

Speaking to MDP supporters at a rally on Wednesday evening, Nasheed observed that the then-opposition’s rallying cries had died once they took power.

“I will always remember, at the last moment of the coup, a police man was shouting out, ‘My father built that airport at Hulhule,’ [complaining] that I had sold that airport to outsiders, that the police were there [protesting] to retake that airport,” he said.

Nasheed said his policies had been for the benefit of the ordinary citizen and “no one can take the airport away, whether it’s GMR or India or another country.”

“I want to tell that policeman and other police officers who brought about the coup, when the current administration eventually decides to allow Israel flights to land at the airport, it is for the benefit of the economy. Even though they polluted your hearts for political gain, you are now seeing all of their poems turning to mere lullabies,” he said.

The PPM, DQP, Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Jumhooree Party (JP) and Madhanee Ithihad (Civil Society Coalition) organised a well attended ‘Defend Islam’ rally on December 23 demanding that Nasheed prevent Israeli airlines from operating flights into the Maldives, remove “idolatrous” SAARC monuments and apologise for Pillay’s comments.

The ‘December 23 coalition’ accused Nasjeed of being “non- Islamic”, and said the decision to handover airport to GMR undermined Maldives’ sovereignty.

When Nasheed arrested Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012, the coalition called on the police and military not to obey Nasheed’s orders and pledged allegiance to Nasheed’s VP Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan.

On February 7, Nasheed publicly resigned from office after elements of the police and military staged a mutiny, and Waheed was sworn in as president on the same day.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: To Flog or not to Flog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One final thought on this matter.

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)