Tag: religion

“I cannot speak against music. I cannot stand against cheerfulness”: President Nasheed

The following is a translation of a speech given by President Mohamed Nasheed on December 17.

“When I spoke in Maafannu [on December 15], I said that we have been somewhat contemplating on what everyone is talking about in the Maldives today. This party or the government is, in no way, worried about the instigation of a mega protest [on December 23].

However, if any of the citizens spread fatwa, or talk about beheading or killing other citizens, I see it as a severe disruption of our social stature.

We all have been accustomed and have accepted moderate policies for our daily lives. I see that it is time for all those who support our traditional methods and believe that those methods are not wrong, to come out for its defense.

Lately some people, including political parties and NGOs, have been very vocal about the implementation of specific verdicts. Those that they identify include harsh religious verdicts which we don’t practice today, such as half-buried stoning, beheading and killing.

From the beginning, this government has been seeking and following the advice of religious scholars.

Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari is the Minister of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, the institution responsible for disclosing and implementing the government’s religious policies. Dr Majeed would agree that the government has always respected their decisions on religious matters, and has in no way attempted any reservations or objections on such decisions, even in my own capacity.

And Dr Majeed clearly knows that, quite often, I accept his word as the final word on certain type of matters, even at Cabinet discussions.

We have been able to hold our religious identity and its values at a par, for hundreds and hundreds of years. I don’t see a reason for us to get ourselves drenched arguing over different sectarian perspectives and intricate religious vocabulary today. Since ancient times we have been living in a harmonious Islamic culture, unlike those Islamic nations who are known for defending specific religious perspectives. I would rather stand up and show Maldives’ Islam as an example for them to follow.

We Maldivians are a nice lot. And we love Islam. Not this government, nor the people, nor myself, would allow room for the spread of another religion in the Maldives.

We or the government have never – never – endorsed for such. If some are of the view that the current religious situation is not better than before, I wonder where are all the scholars who were in the cells that surrounded mine?

They are here: because they pray; because they preach; because they clarify religious matters. Today, our people have the blessings of God, for all scholars to speak their will, and guide the public, within the rightful boundaries of religion.

Using [religion] to deceive as such, I believe, could be very perilous to the people. It could be very perilous to the Maldives.

While harsh religious policies are being defended; in reality, they can only be implemented through the Constitution.

To conduct half-buried stoning, cutting off limbs, beheading, flogging or to implement any other such verdict, it can only be done when it is deemed so in the Penal Code. Those responsible for doing this are the parliament members.

I always prefer to seek religious advice from religious scholars. They need to clarify it plainly to the public. What is it that they are so vocal about? What is it that they are seeking? Is it the same as what we have been practicing so far? I feel that we need to speak about these matters very clearly. All political parties need to spell out clearly what they prefer to include in the Penal Code.

What verdicts do they want to include? We also have many other not-so-clear matters in addition to these verdicts. And many other matters of dispute among the people. One such dispute would be about music. Many of us has a passion for music. Many of us Maldivians listen to music and like to play too. When some start to preach against it, we the people, need to know what the actual truth is.

Traditionally, Maldivian women have strongly participated equally both at work and at home, similar to its male counterpart, in raising children, in social and economic activities. We need to know what the social role of women is. Are we asking to change what we have been practicing for so long? Or are we only hearing from the loudest? Is this from the opposition’s TV and radio channels, trying all that they can to promote anti-government sentiment, in the heated political atmosphere? I believe that the public needs to have clarity.

We are the leaders of the people. We are elected by the people. According to this political system embedded in our constitution, we cannot part away from the people. We brought in this system, because we wanted to execute it. By God’s virtue, we are doing it. While we are at this, most political leaders would be swindling to comment or not to comment on my words here tonight, basically without expressing their perspectives at all, and remain deceitful to the public. They need to express, to the public, very clearly and specifically their views and perspectives on relevant matters. If the public don’t agree, it is their right to seek other leaders. We will continue to conduct free and fair elections.

I will say, I have been raised by my parents on the principles of Islam since childhood. I dearly believe the principles of Islam. I shall not let my conscience be affected by the worldly waves, or breach my own ways: the ways my teachers and my parents taught me.

I don’t see why some people should disapprove me for this reason. We all should be able to live together. We have spelt out the constitution for different circumstances.

Some people raised concern about the monuments placed by the SAARC countries in the city and the atoll, when Addu transferred into a city. We find a lot of commemorative monuments in Maldives. Male also has such monuments. This time, when it was requested to send in their country’s monument, the specifics had probably been subject to miscommunication.

I don’t think, under any circumstances, any of us intended to place an idol of worship, when it was placed there. It was only a commemorative monument sent in by the leaders of SAARC countries, placed by the mayor with the workmen from the islands. I only saw it when I was told that it had been vandalised.

This is not a government who will try to do anything that hasn’t been done before as far as religion goes. What we are trying to change are the social standards, economic policies and political philosophies.

We shall never denounce the religious policies and standards accepted by the people. We shall neither provide space for such a spirit to infiltrate into Maldives. But I shall repeat, I cannot speak against music. I cannot stand against cheerfulness. We require them as part of our daily needs, to sooth and calm our souls. I am sure; our youth population is not tiny. We cannot let them be demoralised or leave them to become useless. We need to provide them with modes of entertainment and other activities to fill their time, for if not, the outcome would be devastating.

When we rolled over in 2008, I myself was witness to the youth in street corners, being victims of strong addictive drugs. Some would say that I don’t see them now because I am not out there on the streets. I am actually looking for them now. We are implementing and managing different activities. We are taking care of them. When we took over the government, not a single month passed when there had not been a fire attack in a jail or vandalising of property. However, today they know they have the opportunity to come out on parole with an effort on their side. They know that this government is working on it. That is the society we want to establish. To find a way to bring them back in to their families and the society as productive good citizens.

We need shelter. We all know the obstacles we face in the Maldives. We know them now. I still remember around one and half years ago, what someone had told after some calculations. That if we were to build the number of flats that we promised, we were to erect a specific number of flats per minute. And that is exactly what we do: we erect a number of flats per minute. The waiting time, planning time, designing time is sometimes not considered as part of the project implementation time. During my visits some would ask when the physical implementation work would start. Physical work is considered only that from which you sweat. Or which can be physically seen on site. With God’s grace, we shall deliver our ‘shelter’ campaign pledge. We shall deliver our ‘health’ pledge. We shall deliver our ‘anti-drugs’ pledge.

The only one we would question would be the ‘price’ pledge, understanding exactly how much we can reduce the prices. Prices will reduce somewhat on January 1. However, we should consider giving serious thought as to whether it is possible to reduce the prices to match the levels that we initially wanted.

We shall not stop. We shall try all possible methods. We shall twist and tweak all possible economic options to find a balance. With God’s blessing, we are trying to achieve our goals of a ‘neater’ life, beautiful and happy: without serious worries; not having to beg for medical assistance or text books for school children; not having to worry about red notices. We are seeking to get beyond these. All the same, I would like to tell you, I shall not let go of any of these beliefs for any political reasons, and I will not keep quiet about them.

I believe that our citizens are very much aware. Misconceptions shall dissolve. And they know how things are moving ahead. What is being spoken about on a regular basis would be clear to all. However, some of us are concerned, that there are those citizens who only believe what they are made to hear and see by specific radio and TV stations. Not me. I know they are not misguided. I am leading a people that I know about. They are not strangers to me.

Most time, I would know. Those issues that aren’t rectified for you, are not unknown and not left without attendance. It is the current situation that is not allowing us to get in it on the right track. I believe we have achieved several objectives during the past three years.

Before I end my words, I would like to stress that, on December 23, as many of citizens as possible should come out to express themselves and to take a stand. This is the purpose of rallies under a democracy. To express your view and to show which views you stand by.

Some keep asking me why we should stand up.

We have to. Let me tell you this. On that day, when you happen to see a group of people on Male’ streets, who keeps a certain look, dresses in a certain way, and calls for certain calling, you will ask me where I was, if I wouldn’t be there. By God’s grace, I shan’t be lost. I shall be there where I should be.

My prayer is that we are blessed with a better tomorrow.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Salaf rejects President’s invitation to “peacefully resolve” rising religious tension

Religious NGO Jamiyathul Salaf has rejected an invitation extended by the President Mohamed Nasheed, to discuss and peacefully resolve the rising religious tensions in the Maldives.

The President’s Office said that the invitation was sent to the President of Salaf, Sheikh Abdullah bin Mohamed Ibrahim, requesting he attend a meeting scheduled for Sunday.

However, according to the local media, Sheikh Abdullah rejected the offer in a letter he sent to the President Office, claiming the President Nasheed wants to meet and “defend” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay’s call for a moratorium and debate on the practice of flogging for extramarital sex.

Minivan News could not get his comment at the time of press.

Abdullah bin Mohamed Ibrahim was quoted in local news paper Haveeru, saying that he “does not want to debate Islamic penalties” clearly stated in Quran and revealed by Prophet’s Sunnah.

He also reportedly urged the President to end his “calls for religious debate on Islamic penalties.”

Following the explosive reaction against Pillay, President Nasheed argued that “our scholars lost the chance to showcase Sharia’s compatibility with human rights, by reacting in a provocative and ‘Jihadi’ manner.”

Speaking on the same issue in last week’s radio address, President claimed that in the name of protecting Islam, the real call of religious protesters was to initiate the implementation of Islamic penalties such as stoning, hand-cutting and execution in the Maldives.

He noted that in consideration of all its actions to date, it is evident that the state has a tradition of pardoning strict punishments for criminal offences committed against Islamic Law – however, he said that in the exercise of penal flagellation, the government has not exempted any convicts charged with adultery from punishment.

President also reaffirmed that all actions taken by the Government in matters involving Islamic jurisprudence, the Government will base its course of action only on the “consensus and counsel of Islamic scholars”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police summon protest organiser, Adhaalath Party President, for questioning

Police have questioned President of the Adhaalath Party, Sheikh Imran Abdullah, and Abdullah Mohamed, head of the NGO coalition  organising a religious rally on December 23, regarding slogans calling for the murder of “anyone against Islam”.

The slogans published on the website, 23December.com, were subsequently removed by the organisers who attributed them to “a mistake on the technical teams’ side.”

Sub-Inspector of Police Ahmed Shiyam told Minivan New that Abdullah and Sheikh Imran were summoned to the police headquarters at 1:00pm on Tuesday concerning a case under investigation. He did not reveal any further information.

However speaking to the press after police questioning, Abdullah and Sheikh Imran’s lawyer, former State Minister of Islamic Ministry Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, confirmed that police asked them about the slogans published on the website.

Shaheem said that slogans calling for murder were not on the website when it was launched, adding that the “content were manipulated by some people spying on the website”.

Abdullah who is the lead organiser of the the protest, also told Minivan News on Tuesday that they had not seen the slogans calling for murder until the day after the launch. “We corrected the mistake as soon as it was brought to our notice,” Abdullah said.

He said the slogans were earlier attributed as a “mistake on technical team’s side” after they identified some loop holes in the website security, adding that their “suspicions were confirmed” when the website was hacked on Tuesday morning.

The hackers replaced the website with green skulls and a statement reading “We’ll come out against you with machetes if you protest.”

Abdullah restated that the protest will be a “peaceful gathering” and they would ensure “no violence takes place from their side”.

However, he raised concerns over the attacks on their website and groups opposing the protest noting that “they might create violence during the gathering”.

Speaking at a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally last night Mohamed President Nasheed has promised that should the protests target Maldivians, “The government and MDP will come out in defence of the people. We’ll not come out on the streets with the defence forces but with bare hands. No one can confront us on these streets,” Nasheed was reported as saying.

MDP national council has meanwhile passed a resolution today, to stand against the religious rally.

The resolution was passed with 45 votes out of 52 members who participated in the council meeting.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Sun, sand and intolerance

Saturday’s attack on a group of people silently protesting against religious intolerance is just the latest in a series of orchestrated, well-choreographed acts of violence, hatred and intolerance sweeping across the nation in recent months.

Independent journalist and blogger, Ismail ‘Hilath’ Rasheed, whose personal blog was censored by the Maldivian government last month, was among those attacked, sustaining serious injuries to the head. Others who attempted to intervene also suffered minor injuries.

Ahmed Hassan, one of the protesters, said, “We planned a silent sit down protest in order to make a statement over the lack of religious freedom for minorities, especially those who aren’t Sunni Muslims.”

“We are entering the fourth year of democracy but unfortunately, many basic freedoms and rights have yet to be achieved for all Maldivians. It is unacceptable in this day and age that non-Muslim Maldivians are discriminated against in their own country,” he said. “This is their country as much as ours.”

He further added “I would like to say to those that attacked us today that violence is not a part of Islam. Islam is a religion of love, peace and shura (consultation). The unprovoked attack is clearly an act of intimidation. We realize that as our movement grows, we could face many more such attacks, but we will not be backing out. We will not be intimidated into silence.”

Local writer and blogger, Aminath Sulthona, who was also among the protesters said, “These are not people worthy of being termed ‘religious’, but they are misguided thugs spreading terror and violence in the name of religion.”

Sulthona complained that the police at the scene failed to carry out their duties. “I was being openly threatened and verbally abused in the presence of a police officer who paid no heed to the man… I managed to take pictures of the attackers, but as soon as I got home I started receiving calls saying I would be attacked on the streets if the pictures were leaked.”

The injured protester, Hilath, has also previously faced death-threats over his vocal criticism of Islamic radicalism on his personal blog.

Million-Man March of bigotry

As the rest of the world celebrates the International Human Rights day to commemorate the adoption of the UDHR, a network of NGOs in the Maldives and seven political parties are preparing to conduct a large protest on December 23 – with organisers vowing to assemble a rather ambitious 100,000 protesters, including mothers and their newborns, in order to ‘protect Islam’.

The protests were announced in the aftermath of a speech delivered in parliament by Navi Pillay, the visiting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, after she sought the removal of discriminatory clauses in the Constitution towards non-Muslims, as well as an open debate on the subject of degrading punishments like public flogging that are still practised in the Maldives.

Pillay argued that flogging as a form of punishment was “cruel and demeaning to women”, while pointing out that apart from just one other Islamic country, the practise wasn’t condoned even among Muslim nations.

Available statistics appear to support the claim that women are disproportionately affected by punishments such as flogging. Mariyam Omidi, then Editor of Minivan News, reported in a 2009 article that according to government statistics, out of 184 people sentenced to flogging for ‘fornication’, 146 were women.

However, the report was met with outrage from conservative sections of the public who gathered with placards at the same venue where the protesters were attacked yesterday, and demanded that the journalist be deported.

There was simply no room for intelligent discussion on the subject and the offending statistic mysteriously disappeared from government websites not long afterwards.

Similarly, the response to the UN Human Rights Commissioner’s recommendations has been a brutish all-out war on the very idea of having a debate on the subject.

One gimmick to rule them all

One might wonder how in a country where Islam is safeguarded by the Constitution, and where there is overwhelming support among both leaders and the general public for mandating Islam’s role in state affairs, and where educating the public on other religions is not only taboo, but also illegal by law – could there still exist such insecurity among citizens that they need to rally in order to ‘protect Islam’.

The explanation is simple.

For 30 years, former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom carefully consolidated the state’s authority over personal beliefs by successfully selling the idea of a ‘100 percent Sunni Muslim’ nation, and making the Dhivehi Identity virtually synonymous with Sunni Islam, which needed to be fiercely protected at all times from ever-present, invisible threats.

One of Gayoom’s most damaging legacies is that a paranoid Maldives found itself among the top ten countries in the world noted for religious intolerance, according to a study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life published in 2009.

Employing religion to keep his citizens in check was a master stroke that ensured him a long reign, but Gayoom’s chickens came home to roost in the dying days of his regime when the democratic uprising threw up a medley of ultra-conservative mullahs who would take over the religious mantle from Gayoom.

Following the first democratic Presidential elections, the ultra-conservative Adhaalath Party assumed control of the newly created Ministry of Islamic Affairs, and took upon themselves the onerous responsibility of deciding who were the ‘true Muslims’ and what constituted ‘true Islam’.

It didn’t help matters that despite the freedom of speech granted by the constitution, the mainstream Maldivian media continues to exercise strict self-censorship when it comes to issues of religion and human rights.

The subject remains taboo among other public institutions and agencies as well, as evidenced by the statement released by the Maldivian Human Rights Commission yesterday on the occasion of Human Rights day, which glaringly omits any mention of minority rights or non-Muslim Dhivehin.

Speaking at a National Awards ceremony last month, President Nasheed gently rebuked his citizens for reacting ‘in a jihadi manner’ over the Navi Pillay controversy.

Instead, he exhorted the citizens to “have the courage to be able to listen to and digest what people tell us, what we hear and what we see”

President Nasheed would have done well to foster this spirit in his own government which, in the first few months after coming to power, shut down several websites that were allegedly critical of his then coalition partner, the Adhaalath Party.

Less than two weeks before he implored his citizens to have the courage to digest others’ opinions, President Nasheed’s government banned the blog of independent journalist Hilath who had been critical of Islamists in the government.

Even more startling was the reaction of his foreign Minister, Ahmed Naseem, to the controversy over Navi Pillay’s recommendations for doing away with degrading punishments.

“You cannot argue with God”, he said, in what was a clear surrender to the politics of bigotry.

The President would also do well to convey his ideas to his erudite Islamic Minister, Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Baree whose response to the call for open discussion on the subject was merely, “No Muslim has the right to advocate against flogging for fornication.”

The Islamic Minister had also previously condemned the presence of commemorative monuments presented by participating nations in the recently concluded 17th SAARC summit in Addu.

Burning Bridges

The destructive outcome of emotive politics of hatred, strife and fear was clearly demonstrated by the hyper-paranoid religious vandals who burnt, damaged and stole multiple SAARC monuments because they allegedly depicted ‘idols of worship’.

One police officer on duty guarding the monument recollected being approached by hostile members of the general public asking why they were guarding “temples”.

The opposition parties, seeing political expediency even in the most unfortunate acts of xenophobic vandalism, quickly hailed the vandals as “national heroes”.

In a related incident, some MPs of the Progressive Party, including MP Ahmed Mahloof apparently hijacked a ferry in a valiant effort to save Islam from a banner hung at the International Airport, before they were intercepted by the Police and diverted to another island.

The offending banner at the airport depicted an image of Jesus Christ, a Buddhist chakra, and other religious motifs symbolising the religious diversity of South Asia, which the design consultants who came up with the concept said was in keeping with this year’s SAARC summit’s theme of ‘Building bridges’.

Notably, none of these MPs had anything to say on the young non-Muslim Maldivian man who hung himself from a tower at that very airport in July 2010, following immense pressure from family and state religious authorities after he, in his own words, “foolishly admitted (his) non-religious stance” to friends and colleagues.

If the 17th SAARC Summit proved anything, it is that building bridges is impossible when there are greedy political trolls ready to pounce on anyone willing to cross it.

Uphill struggle

It also appears that the Mullah and the MPs seem to be firm in their understanding that Islam has no room for thinking, no room for debate, no room for tolerance and no room for intelligence.

The seemingly endless series of ugly incidents and violence carried out in the Maldives in the name of Islam only reinforces the reputation of Islam as an intolerant, backward religion fit for narrow minded thugs who are incapable of dealing with 21st century realities or co-existing peacefully with the international community.

According to a March 2011 Universal Periodic Review Report for the Maldives, the Maldivian government had pledged to raise awareness and public debate around the issue of freedom of religion and religious tolerance.

The report states that “The Maldives commits to begin domestic awareness-raising and an open public debate on religious issues. Moreover… the Maldives requests international support to host, in 2012, a major international conference on modern Sharia jurisprudence and human rights.”

However, this may be a difficult task given the sense of over-entitlement prevalent among sections of the Maldivian public that, though it demands – nay depends – on foreign aid, income and expertise to keep their families clothed and fed, nevertheless scoffs at the very thought of having to fulfil any obligations to the international community at large.

When confronted by the UN Committee on the the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in August 2011 on the constitutional clause depriving non-Muslims of citizenship, the Maldivian delegation reportedly had this to say:

“It was not true that under the new Constitution existing citizens could be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality if they were to stop practicing Islam… The Muslim-only clause under the citizenship article of the Constitution only applied to non-Maldivians wishing to become naturalised.”

However, just one month later, the government published new Regulations under the Religious Unity Act of 1994, making it illegal to propagate any other religion than Islam, or to be in possession of any material or literature that contradicts Islam. Any violations of the regulations would carry a 2 to 5 year prison sentence.

In other words, as the silent protesters attacked in broad daylight yesterday learned, the struggle to achieve universal human rights in the Maldives is a seemingly impossible and uphill task that only keeps getting harder, thanks to the cesspool of paranoia, hatred and violence generated by a band of short-sighted politicians who are happy to abuse religion and opportunistic religious clerics who dabble in politics.

As with last year, where a motorcade of fundamentalists rode around the capital yelling loud anti-Semitic slogans about visiting Israelis, this year too the Human Rights Day has been marred by gloomy incidents of intolerance that only remind us of how the idea of mutual respect and civility still eludes us as a nation.

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)

Protesters calling for religious tolerance attacked with stones, threatened with death

Police are investigating a violent attack on a ‘silent protest’ calling for religious tolerance, held at the Artificial Beach to mark Human Rights Day.

Witnesses said a group of men threw rocks at the 15-30 demonstrators, calling out threats and vowing to kill them.

One witness who took photos of the attacked said he was “threatened with death if these pictures were leaked. He said we should never been seen in the streets or we will be sorry.”

Among those injured in the attack was Ismail ‘Khilath’ Rasheed, a controverisal blogger whose website was recently blocked by the Communications Authority of the Maldives (CAM) on the order of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

Rasheed suffered a head injury and was rushed to Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH).

“They started hitting us with bricks. They were aiming at our heads – we could tell they were serious and wanted to kill us,” Rasheed told Minivan News from hospital. “I was taken on a motorcycle to IGMH, but I could see them behind me still hitting my friends.”

Police Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam said police attended the scene after the attackers had departed, and were currently investigating the cause of the violence. No arrests had yet been made, he added.

The protesters, calling themselves ‘Silent Solidarity’, had earlier issued a press release stating that their intention was to “make the Maldives and the international community aware of the rising religious intolerance in the Maldives, and to condemn the Constitutionally endorsed suppression of religious freedom. We also denounce the increasing use being made of Islam as a tool of political power.”

“Silent Solidarity will be protesting against discrimination of all races, gender, sexual preferences and religious beliefs and supporting freedom of thought and expression. In our silence, we speak volumes,” the group’s statement said.

The Maldives has come under increasing international scrutiny following an apparent rise in religious intolerance.

Several monuments gifted to the Maldives by other SAARC countries during the recent summit in Addu have been defaced or stolen on the grounds that they are idolatrous. Islamic Minister Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari has condemned the monuments while the opposition has hailed the vandals as “national heroes”.

Protests also erupted last month after UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay spoke in parliament calling for the government and the judiciary to issue a moratorium and debate on flogging as a punishment for extra-marital sex.

“This practice constitutes one of the most inhumane and degrading forms of violence against women and should have no place in the legal framework of a democratic country,” Pillay said.

“The issue needs to be examined, and therefore I called for a countrywide discussion. It is much better if the issue is transparent and debated.”

Pillay also stated that requirement under the Maldivian constitution that all Maldivians be Muslim ”is discriminatory, and does not comply with international standards. I would urge a debate again on the issue to open up entrance of the constitution to all.”

Challenged by a local journalist that the Maldives was both obliged to protect the religion of Islam, she replied: “You have a constitution which conforms in many respects to universal human rights. Let me assure you that these human rights conform with Islam.”

She added that the Maldives had signed international treaties that are legally-binding obligations, “and such a practice conflicts with these obligations undertaken by the Maldives.”

The following day protesters gathered outside the UN building, carrying placards stating “Islam is not a toy”, “Ban UN” and “Flog Pillay”, and called on authorities to arrest the UN High Commissioner.

MPs roundly condemned Pillay’s statements.

‘”What we should be worried about holding discussions against the fundamentals of Islam in a 100 percent Muslim country such as the Maldives is that we may start questioning about worshipping God Almighty tomorrow,” said opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Afrashim Ali.

Ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed said the Maldives “will never ever open doors for religions other than Islam in the Maldives. We’ll not give the opportunity to speak against the fundamentals and principles of Islam in the parliament.”

MP Riyaz Rasheed, from the opposition-aligen Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) condemned the Speaker Abdulla Shahid from allowing Pillay to complete her address.

“There is a good chance for us to directly say that Abdulla Shahid has made a good deal with this government to wipe out the religion of Islam from this country,” MP Rasheed said.

President Mohamed Nasheed has meanwhile said that Maldivians “should have the self-belief and resolve not to have our faith shaken by listening to statements or opinions expressed by others.”

“That the punishments and rulings of Islamic Sharia are not inhumane is very clear to us,” Nasheed said. “We have the opportunity to show the whole world how noble and civilised Sharia is. That is because we are the only Islamic nation with a democratically-elected government.

“Wasting that opportunity in a Jihadi spirit” with the claim of “defending Islam” was unacceptable, Nasheed said. “Opposition parties will always attack us by using religion as a weapon. [But] I believe that this country is the only Islamic nation where Islamic Sharia has been practiced uninterrupted for 700 years.”

Religious sentiment in the Maldives can often be vocal and heated, but has rarely led to physical violence.

In late May 2010, well-known Islamic preacher Dr Zakir Naik visited the Maldives and delivered a sermon in the capital Male’. During a question-and-answer session 37 year-old Mohamed Nazim stood up and declared himself “Maldivian and not a Muslim”.

Nazim’s declaration angered the 11,000 strong crowd, and he was escorted from the venue by police and officials from the Ministry of Islamic Affairs amid calls for his execution.

After two days of religious counselling in police custody, Nazim appeared before television cameras at an Islamic Ministry press conference and gave Shahada – the Muslim testimony of belief – and apologised for causing “agony for the Maldivian people” and requested that the community accept him back into society.

In July 2010, 25 year-old air traffic controller Ismail Mohamed Didi was found hanged from the control tower of Male’ International Airport in an apparent suicide, after seeking asylum in the UK for fear of persecution over his stated lack of religious belief.

“Maldivians are proud of their religious homogeneity and I am learning the hard way that there is no place for non-Muslim Maldivians in this society,” Didi wrote in a letter to an international humanitarian organisation, prior to his death.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Speak now, or forever hold your tongues

The Maldivian government’s reaction to the fallout from the UN Human Rights Commissioner’s address to the Majlis is deeply disappointing. It largely confirms what many increasingly allege: the change President Nasheed and MDP promised was limited to regime change and does not include a genuine commitment to democratic reform.

Navi Pillay called on Maldivians to consider putting a moratorium on the practice of flogging. She did not say Maldivians who believe in Islam should abandon their faith. She pointed out that the Maldivian State is one of the few among followers of Islam that still engages in the practice of flogging, imposed disproportionately on women.

Her fundamental proposition was: why not be as compassionate as your faith allows instead of being as cruel as it gives you room to be? Her suggestion was that we discuss and debate among ourselves to find this path to compassion. The official government response to this was, shockingly, ‘You can’t argue with God.’

The Islamic Ministry’s condemnation of Pillay’s speech, and its criticism of MPs for ‘allowing’ Pillay to address the parliament are hardly unexpected. At the helm of the Ministry is Dr Abdul Majid Bari who, while having no qualms about pocketing money earned from his stake in the alcohol-guzzling pork-eating infidel tourism industry, presents himself as an ultra-pious conservative when it comes to affairs of the Maldivian public.

This deep-rooted hypocrisy is what allows a man who holds a doctorate in the interpretation of the Qur’an to mislead the Maldivian public into thinking that multiple interpretations of Shari’a and hadith are unequivocally un-Islamic and that debate is beyond the Islamic pale.

The view of Dr Bari and other ‘Islamic scholars’ such as Dr Afrashim Ali (the ex-singer who treats the subject of his doctoral exegesis as a state secret) is neither new nor uncommon.

Had they taken the time to put it to the public in a coherent manner it would read: in view of the fact that there are specific offences and sanctions prescribed in the primary sources of Islamic jurisprudence, the Qur’an and Sunna, there is no justification for suspending regulation specifically outlined in these divine sources.

This is the view of most conservative proponents of the Shari’a, and is obviously the one held by Dr Bari and others leading the charge of the flogging brigade. It is, however, by no means the only view on the subject within Islamic thought and jurisprudence.

Rather, there are a great variety of ‘Muslim voices’ offering different views—conservative, liberal and pragmatic—about whether and how the idea of human rights and Islamic normative requirements fit together.

Diverse ‘Muslim voices’ on human rights

Even before the modern era, Islamic law was characterised by a broad jurisprudential diversity based on geographic, ethnic and racial as well as philosophical grounds.

This is evident from the fact that it was 400 years after the death of Prophet Mohammed that ijthihad—reasoned interpretation of the sources of Islamic law—was brought to an end with the increased petrification of the Shari’a by medieval jurists.

Many liberal Muslim reformers thus demand the recovery of ijthihad in order to do justice both to modern needs and to the original spirit of the Shari’a. They emphasise the Shari’a’s original meaning as a ‘path’ or a guide, rather than a detailed legal code.

These liberal Muslim voices do not attempt to deny the binding character of Shari’a. What they ask for is active reasoning, ijthihad, which was originally regarded as an independent source of Islamic law.

Their view, as expressed by Lebanese philosopher Subhi Mahmasani is, ‘The door of ijthihad should be thrown wide open for anyone juristically qualified. The error, all the error, lies in blind imitation and restraint of thought.’

Critical approaches of liberal Muslims such as Mahmasani, Egyptian judge Muhammad Said al-Ashmawy and Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nai’m have often highlighted the humane character of the Qur’anic revelation, which is the most important source of the Shari’a.

Tunisian scholar Mohamed Talbi has argued, for example, that ‘Were it possible for us to ensure a life of justice and equality in a different way [to corporal punishment], this would certainly be a way pointing in the same direction as the Qur’an does.’

Although Shari’a had continued to be the predominant legal system in matters pertaining to family law, from the 19th century onwards, Islamic criminal justice had gradually retreated from public law.

The introduction of Islamic criminal law through legislation is thus a relatively recent phenomenon that emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Libya enacted Islamic criminal laws in 1972-1974, Pakistan did so in 1979, Iran in 1982 and Sudan in 1983 and 1991.

And, despite the enactment of such laws, there has been a strong tendency within most Islamic societies to restrict the applicability of hadd punishments as much as possible.

In Pakistan, for instance, the Federal Shari’a Court resisted the reintroduction of stoning in the early 1980s by repeatedly refusing to apply this form of punishment. Prime Minister Zia ul-Haq replaced some of the judges with his own allies to finally have stoning judicially confirmed as being in accordance with Shar’ia.

What these arguments, incidents and discussions suggest is that reconciliatory mediation between tradition and modernity seems conceivable not only among those who are consciously liberal but also among conservative Muslims, as has been argued by many academics.

In light of the rich Islamic jurisprudence referred to above, it is hard to see what the Islamic Ministry’s statement ‘No Muslim has the right to advocate against flogging for fornication’ is intended to do. Except, of course, to shut the Maldivian public off from any other teachings and characteristics of Islam other than those held by Dr Bari and the Islamists who rule Maldivian thought today.

Yellow: the colour of cowardice?

The deafening silence of any opponents of Dr Bari and other Islamists’ extremist views is inexplicable.

Does this mean that among the Muslim scholars that this country now has in such multitudes, there is not one person who disagrees with the extremists’ position? Does it mean, as the recent Religious Unity Regulations suggest, that Maldives will only consider as legitimate Muslim scholars those who purport a particular fundamentalist view of Islam?

Is there not one member of the Maldivian judiciary, the legal community at large, the legislature, or civil society capable of espousing a different position? Does the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives agree that the UN Human Rights Commissioner is wrong? If not, why not say so? Where are you all hiding? What are you afraid of?

Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem’s statement that there is ‘nothing to debate’ is ‘singularly counter-productive’. It makes President Nasheed’s same-day appeal for gender equality ring hollow, like many of his other statements that emphasise democracy and human dignity.

We may never know details of the Faustian pact President Nasheed and MDP have made with Dr Bari and other proponents of extreme Islamism. What we do know is that it is costing the Maldivian people their democratic, and religious, right to intellectual debate and growth.

No matter how far above rising sea levels it is capable of lifting us, or how much it can lift our colossal debt burden, it is not worth keeping in power a government that lacks the courage to raise Maldivians above the quagmire of ignorance the Islamists are sinking us into at such a rapid pace.

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)

Maldivian Islamic groups call for arrest of UN High Commissioner on Human Rights

Protestors gathered outside the United Nations Building in Male’ on Friday afternoon to condemn UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay for her criticism of the Maldivian constitution, namely its provisions endorsing flogging and mandating that every Maldivian be a Muslim.

The protestors carried signboards with angry slogans, including “Islam is not a toy”, “Ban UN” and “Flog Pillay”, and called on authorities to arrest the UN High Commisioner.

Police Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam told Minivan News that the sizeable protest was contained and there were no confrontations.

“Police cordoned off the area so people could not enter the UN building or the roads leading to the building. The protest was pretty heated, but there were no confrontations or arrests,” he said.

After a break for Sunset Prayer, protesters renewed their efforts at the Tsunami Memorial.

Shiyam said police guarded the UN building during the evening protest, and kept appraised of its movements.

No concerns have been voiced to the police by the UN.

During a press conference on Thursday evening, Pillay again called for the government and the judiciary to issue a moratorium on flogging.

“Flogging is a form of punishment that is cruel and demeaning to women. I have as High Commissioner traveled to very many Islamic countries, and apart from the Maldives and one other country that practices stoning, flogging is not a practice that is condoned,” she said.

“The issue needs to be examined, and therefore I called for a countrywide discussion. It is much better if the issue is transparent and debated.”

Challenged by a local journalist that the Maldives was both obliged to protect the religion of Islam, she replied: “You have a constitution which conforms in many respects to universal human rights. Let me assure you that these human rights conform with Islam.”

She added that the Maldives had signed international treaties that are legally-binding obligations, “and such a practice conflicts with these obligations undertaken by the Maldives.”

Pillay said she had raised this matter with President Mohamed Nasheed and the judges during her visit, “and they are all looking into this matter. The President is sympathetic because each time he travels outside the Maldives the issue is raised with him. He says he can only look at it on a case by case basis, but if there is a judicial decision, that may apply to all cases.”

She renewed her call for a moratorium, and noted that the Maldives “has an excellent track record regarding the death penalty. The death penalty is unIslamic and is not practiced in the Maldives. When I travel to places where the death penalty is used, I hold up the Maldives as an example of that.”

Asked to comment on the requirement under the Maldivian constitution that all Maldivians be Muslim, Pillay respond that “Such a provision is discriminatory, and does not comply with international standards. I would urge a debate again on the issue to open up entrance of the constitution to all.”

Asked by another local journalist to respond to the religious groups criticising her requests, “my response is that as the UN High Commission of Human Rights I look at the norms and standards that all the governments of the world have drawn up.”

“It is not that I am plucking principles from the air. I point my critics to universally accepted standards on human rights are consistent with Islam. Many governments and scholars have told be there is no conflict between human rights and Islam.”

Pillay also highlighted the plight of expatriate labourers in the Maldives, who make up a third of the population and in many cases have been lured to the country by unscrupulous employment brokers.

“The Minister of Foreign Affairs [Ahmed Naseem] is very aware of the suffering of foreign workers, and agreed that something needs to be done for these people,” Pillay said.

“You can’t have 60,000 people suffering here while performing work for the benefit of Maldivians and the tourism industry, and pretend this is invisible. The media has a role to give these people a voice so they can explain their problems.

“Many of them are trafficked and the little money they earn is exploited. This is of grave concern to me, because people like this are are protected under the UN Convention on Migrant Workers and their Families. I have urged the Maldives to ratify this, and regularise the presence of 60,000 people

“I also call for an end to the stereotyping of these people as a threat and unwanted.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Intolerance growing in the Maldives: Asia Times

The rising tide of religious intolerance in the Maldives is threatening the country’s young democracy, writes Sudha Ramachandran for the Asia Times.

Monuments donated by Pakistan and Sri Lanka were vandalised last week as they were seen to be “idolatrous” and “irreligious”.

Member-countries of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) donated monuments to mark the just-concluded 17th summit of the regional grouping that the Maldives hosted.

The monument gifted by Pakistan consisted of an image of its founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and also featured figures, some of them drawn from seals belonging to the ancient Indus Valley Civilization. Historians have argued that these figures of animals and human beings point to early religion. The Sri Lankan monument was of a lion, the country’s national symbol.

On the eve of the unveiling of the Pakistan monument, a mob reportedly led by the opposition Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), the party of former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, toppled the bust of Jinnah. A day later, the monument was set ablaze and the bust stolen. The Sri Lankan monument was found doused in oil with the face of the lion cut off.

Sources in the Maldivian government told Asia Times Online that the vandalisation was driven by political motivations rather than religious beliefs. “This is the opposition’s way of damping the success of the SAARC summit,” a member of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) said.

The PPM has hailed the vandals as “national heroes” and promised to “do everything” it can to secure the release of the two men arrested over the incidents.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Islamic Affairs has ordered the government to remove the monuments as they “breach the nation’s law and religion”. Islamic Affairs Minister Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari told the local media that the Pakistan monument was “illegal” as it “represented objects of worship of other religions”.

Adhaalath Party president Sheikh Imran Abdulla told Minivan News that the monument “should not be kept on Maldivian soil for a single day” as “it conflicts with the constitution of the Maldives, the Religious Unity Act of 1994 and the regulations under the Act” as it depicted “objects of worship” that “denied the oneness of God”.

Sunni Islam was declared the official state religion of the Maldives under the 1997 constitution. This was retained in the 2008 constitution. Article 9-d says that “a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives”. While the constitution allows non-Muslim foreigners to practice their religion privately, they are forbidden from propagating or encouraging Maldivians to practice any religion other than Islam.

The island nation in the Indian Ocean is formed by a double chain of 26 atolls has a population of about 314,000. It is the smallest Asian country in both population and land area. With an average ground level of 1.5 meters (4 foot 11 inches) above sea level, it is the planet’s lowest country.

Although religion plays an important role in the daily lives of Maldivians, the kind of Islam practiced here has never been puritanical or rigid and it is suffused with local cultural practices. Faith in Islam has co-existed with belief in spirits and djinns. Traditionally, Maldivian women did not veil their faces or even cover their heads and men did not grow beards. That is now changing with a puritanical version of Islam taking root.

Religious conservatism has grown dramatically in recent years, as has intolerance. A small but vocal group of religious radicals espousing Wahhabi or Salafi Islam has campaigned for inclusion of sharia law punishments like flogging and amputation in the penal code, used intimidation to force women to veil themselves and declared listening to music as haram (forbidden).

Maldivians who are atheist, agnostic or profess the milder Sufi Islam have been hounded by radicals. In May last year, 37-year-old Mohamed Nazim, who professed in public to be non-Muslim, was threatened by the Islamic Foundation of the Maldives, a non-governmental organisation.

Three days later, he went on television and asked for forgiveness. Two months later, 25-year-old Ismail Mohamed Didi, who admitted to being an atheist and had sought political asylum abroad, was found hanging at his workplace.

Some blame the recent spurt in religious radicalism on the country’s nascent democracy. A Maldivian political analyst who Asia Times Online spoke to in 2009 pointed out that “unlike Gayoom, who jailed people like [controversial religious preacher] Sheikh Fareed for their views, under the new democratic government extremists are able to advocate their version of Islam without fear of being arrested and detained.”

Others blame what they describe as President Mohamed Nasheed’s “appeasement of religious elements”. Indeed, not only did Nasheed create a Ministry of Islamic Affairs but he also put it in under the control of the Adhaalath Party, a party of religious conservatives.

Although Adhaalath parted ways with the ruling MDP in September, Nasheed has retained Bari, who is a member of Adhaalath, as his minister of Islamic affairs.

Nasheed’s reluctance to take on religious radicals has eroded his support among young Maldivians who voted for him not only because they wanted to see the end of four decades of Gayoom’s authoritarian rule but also because they expected him to put in place real freedom, including the right to religious freedom. Their hopes seem to have been dashed by the government’s flirting with the fundamentalists.

Full story

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Making sense of the rejection of the Other

The resurgence of religious politics is a global phenomenon.

From Khomeini’s theocracy in Iran to the rise of Islamic movements in Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia, Islamist politics has continued to be a salient feature of the Muslim world.

Religious politics, however, is not limited to the Muslim world.

Hindu nationalism in India, ultra-orthodox politics in Israel, Protestant fundamentalism in the US, religious politics in Australia, Catholic ultra-conservative politics elsewhere, and the crises of secularism in several Western European countries, mean religion is a global political topic.

The first thing that we should keep in mind therefore is that religion is not an issue unique to the Maldives.

This is important in order to avoid the false sense of an outside ‘Civilised World’ in possession of all good values. The truth is reasonable accommodation has become a profound issue in several of the so-called liberal democracies.

The second point is we need to avoid the mistake of blaming solely Islamism in our failure of reasonable accommodation. Islamism in the Maldives is a recent phenomenon, largely coinciding with democratisation since 2004.

Our shrill polemics could hardly clarify the main underlying issues around religion in the Maldives. I believe the issues around religion run deeper than recent Islamism. Let’s, for instance, take the recent cases of SAARC banners and monuments.

There have been broadly three main groups of positions on the issue: a) those who reject the monuments and the banners largely because they supposedly show imageries of other religions; b) those who accept the imagery saying they are not really supposed to be religious imageries or idols as such; and, c) those who decry Maldivian ‘intolerance’, ‘ignorance’, or ‘fanaticism’.

a) What is largely true for the first group is that their publicly cited main excuse for rejecting the monuments and banners is not particularly or only Islam. For it would be extremely hard to justify destruction of imagery and idols of other religions purely based on Islam. It would be impossible to cite a purely religious rationale to reject freedom of religion.

b) What is true for the second group is their assumption that if the imageries were really supposed to be religious imageries or idols in the public sphere, it might be OK to reject them.

c) What is largely true for the third group is there is a collective, generalised image of the Maldivians: thus, we hear remarks such as ‘Maldivian intolerance’, ‘undeserving people’, ‘fanatically intolerant state’, and so on.

If so, I think there is something common to the reaction of all three groups. The underlying issue is not Islam as such. ‘Intolerance’ as such does not explain it either.

Based on these three sorts of reaction, I submit there is something about the Maldives as a nation that does not allow reasonable accommodation. Indeed, the dominant Maldivian national identity is uniquely exclusionist. It automatically excludes the possibility of any reasonable accommodation.

Therefore, much like the Muslim veil is seen as an affront to the secular character of France, any non-Muslim religious symbol or imagery in the public sphere is an affront to the Maldivian national self-understanding.

This national self-understanding has now become our background national self-understanding. That is, we are not necessarily even aware that we act under its hegemonic influence. It is our taken for granted identity.

Fortunately or unfortunately, national identity is not given or primordial.

Identity is a construction of discourses, symbols, and myths. Political and other leaders could be effective agents of construction of identity. For this to happen, modern developments such as newspapers or other communication media are necessary.

It is no trivial matter that a chapter in President Gayoom’s biography, A Man for All Islands, is entitled ‘A Sense of Identity’. When Gayoom came to power in 1978, the Maldives hardly had any sense of collective identity.

Maldivians, of course, were Dhivehin. However, despite President Amin’s initial efforts since late 1940s, Maldivians had not imagined themselves as a nation.

It came down to Gayoom, with the widespread availability of means of communication, to construct such an identity.

Today this national identity is coming under immense strain.

With the pluralisation and fragmentation of religious discourses, with the increasing number of migrants of other faiths, and the Maldives becoming part of the globalised world, life would not be either easy or just with an out-dated national self-understanding.

It’s time for us as a nation to consider seriously Islam’s universal values of equality and love.

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)