Tag: religion

Q&A: Imam Mohamad Bashar Arafat

Imam Mohamad Bashar Arafat is the President of the Islamic Affairs Council in Maryland and founder of Civilisations Exchange & Cooperation Foundation (CECF). Born and raised in Damascus, Imam Arafat was an Imam in Damascus in the 80’s before moving to United States and continuing his work there. He has taught Islamic Studies and comparative religion in various universities in the States and is currently teaching in the college of Notre Dame of Maryland. Imam Arafat talks to Minivan News about whether there is room for individual cultures within Islam.

Minivan News: In recent years there has been a lot of debate about whether the concept of different cultures is compatible with Islam. Do you think there is room for diverse cultures within Islam?

Mohamad Bashar Arafat: In the past 50 years or so there has been an effort by certain countries to influence other countries with their own school of thought, their culture and their tradition. This created a lot of tension between Muslim communities. During my travel to different continents, I have come across this problem with students from Asia, Africa and the Middle East, who talk about this issue. This imposing of a specific culture is something that contradicts the true teachings of the Quran.

The Quran, first of all, gives people the freedom to worship, the freedom to choose their own religion, right or wrong. Allah says ‘there is no compulsion in religion’. So, even when it comes to religion itself, Allah is saying you should not force people to adopt it. Then what about culture, dress or certain ways of life or even songs?

This is a problem we did not see in the lives of the early Muslims that spread out of Arabia in the 7th century AD. They didn’t ask Syrians to change their culture or Egyptians to change theirs as long as it did not contradict the teachings of Quran and the core principles of Islam.

MN: Were there instances in the early days of Islam where a cultural practice contradicted the teachings of the Quran?

MBA: Yes. For example, in Egypt, during the time of the Second Caliph of Islam, Omar ibn al-Khattab, an issue arose over the tradition of ritual sacrifice of a girl to the Nile River. Amr ibn al-A’as, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad and the military commander who lead the conquest of Egypt, wrote to the Caliph.

He explained that Egyptians have a tradition of sacrificing a beautiful girl to the Nile every year and believed that this would get the Nile to flood and overflow onto their parched land. Amr refused permission for the sacrifice, however he wrote that the Egyptians were getting upset over this as the land had little water and the crops were failing. The Caliph praised his actions and sent a paper addressed to the Nile saying, ‘If you flow on your own, then we don’t need your water, but if you are flowing by Allah, we pray to Him to keep you flowing.’ Amr was asked to throw the paper into the Nile as a symbolic gesture for the people to put their trust in Allah. The Nile flooded that year and the practice of sacrifice was stopped. The point of this incident is that in cultural matters, where a person is going to be harmed or where it’s contradictory to Quranic teachings, it should not be practiced.

The Quran created a standard for basic human rights and understanding such that no matter what your culture is, people cannot be harmed or killed as sacrifices to obtain good luck. We cannot deny the basic human right to life in the name of culture. Likewise cultures that associate days of the year in celebration of drinking or eating pork, which is in contradiction with Islamic teachings, should not be continued. The Quran came to curb these cultural practices and improve them. But other than that, when it comes to certain behaviors, folklores and even group dances such as the ones that do not have mixing between men and women, which are in the DNA of societies like Egypt, they are acceptable practices.

Travel through Muslim countries in Ramadan and you will see the cultural diversity in the types of food eaten, clothing worn and ways they honor Ramadan. We should celebrate this diversity and the beauty of Muslims around the world, which varies from country to country in their color, languages and accents, shapes and architectural preferences. Muslims in China have their own cultural flavor, even when it comes to the structure of their mosques.

MN: What about one’s choice of clothing?

MBA: When it comes to clothing, Muslims in Arabia have the Jalaabiyya and the Abbaya, which is part of their culture. The Prophet Mohamad (PBUH) was an Arab. If someone wanted to dress like that out of love for Allah’s Prophet (PBUH) and wanted to dress his children that way, it’s fine, but to impose that on others is wrong. In recent years we started noticing indirect pressure on people and especially on new Muslims – those who have not read a lot or gone deeper into the spirit of the religion. The pressure is to wear his Jalaabiyya a certain way, smile a certain way or even talk in a certain manner, and the same Hadeeth (tradition of the Prophet) is repeated.

The Quran, revealed in Arabic to an Arab in Arabia, is particularly instructive. Despite this, the Quran imparts stories and information about an array of cultures and customs. It tells us about the Egyptians, the Pharaoh and the stories of King Suleiman. It talks of magic carpets and about how the jinn (supernatural creatures) served Suleiman. The Quran talks to us about foods of different people, about other civilisations, and even speaks to us about people of Hell. It is not exclusively a compendium of dogmatic do’s and don’ts; instead it is a treasure trove of cultural, historical, ethical, spiritual, and civilisational information.

The Quran has inspired people, their behavior and even Muslim architectural style. Their cultural diversity is what makes Muslims around the world unique. When you go to Hajj, or pilgrimage in Mecca, you will see Muslims from around the world and can identify them by the unique way they are dressed. You can see that she is from Malaysia, Africa or other regions. The Prophet (PBUH) used to receive garments as gifts from other areas and he wore them. There is a hadeeth about the Prophet (PBUH) wearing an Omani garment, which shows that the Prophet (PBUH) appreciated gifts from other cultures.

MN: How do we differentiate between cultural practices of that time, and ways of living that we have to follow?

MBA: The Sunnah (way the Prophet lived his life) about praying and fasting should be observed. Those that talk about people’s eating habits, like saying the Prophet used to eat with his hands, so you should discard cutlery, is not right. During his time, there was no cutlery. Instead, he taught a proper and hygienic way of eating out of one main serving dish – to use only three fingers and eat from the spot closest to oneself only. Each culture is special and valid in its own practices.

Whether or not they use cutlery does not determine their worth. It is wrong to look down on people when it comes to such. When it comes to breaking the fast, there are certain things the Prophet said to do or recommended, and these we should follow. But when there is no emphasis on other things, it is up to the people to do it the way they want. There are things the Prophet liked to do personally such as fasting on Mondays and Thursdays or fasting for three days in the middle of the month. He liked to do it that way, but nothing exists that prevents us from not doing it.

There is the example of how once when the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions were eating together; the host put a plate of lizard as part of the “meal.” The Prophet (PBUH) asked what it was and when told, he pushed the plate away. One of his companions, Khalid Ibn Waleed, said, “Oh Prophet, is this forbidden?” The Prophet (PBUH) said, “No, I don’t like it, I am not used to it.” Khalid then pulled the plate closer and started eating it.

Some Muslims eat shellfish, while others don’t. As long as there is no prohibition on the food from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, you can eat and indulge in whatever food your culture is accustomed to. Islam’s etiquette about food is that one should not eat until one is hungry and when he eats he should not overindulge.

MN: Give us an example of a time in early days of Islam when there was diverse opinion on issues?

MBA: When the Prophet (PBUH) passed away, the companions spread to other countries. This eventually gave birth to two schools of thought, the Ahl Al Ra’ee (School of Opinion) and the Ahl Al Hadeeth (School of Hadeeth). In areas where there were few companions or people who met them, people would reflect upon issues and come up with their own fatwas, or legal opinions, based on the guidelines of the Shari’ah. They used to be in Iraq. In places like Medina many companions and people lived, who met the Prophet and remembered his life. They relied more on Hadeeth. This shows the diversity in Islam and those from the two schools of thought did not speak badly about one another and differences of opinions were respected.

Nowadays the issue of music is contentious; there are those who say all music is forbidden, those in the middle and others, who are all the way to the left. Keep in mind that during the Prophet’s time, people were taken with the love of the Prophet and no one would think of music and other things because their hearts were filled with something much higher. Music used to be associated with dance, mixing of men and women, drinking and all kinds of vices. It depends on which kind of music you are talking about. Is it music that leads you to haram, or unlawful practices, or is it music that you hear in the news today? Is it a kind of music, which will lead you to forget your Quranic duties and fill your heart more than the love of Allah?

The dress of women is another issue, in certain Middle Eastern countries women cover their entire bodies, while in Africa where it’s really hot, the dress is not as conservative.

Likewise, we see in one school of thought, that of al-Imam Malik is more lenient in certain issues than the School of al-Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, who is stricter. Muslims, who live in the dessert, have characteristics and a culture that are different than those who live in Syria where there are far more trees and water and natural beauty. Even the opinions of scholars living in tough environments are stricter. Environment, culture, and beauty impact people and we see this in the way Muslims live and behave.

MN: It was traditional in the Maldives until very recently to celebrate Prophet Mohamed’s (PBUH) birthday with huge communal feasts. However there has been a drive to stop this practice on the grounds that celebrating birthdays are unIslamic. What is your opinion on this?

MBA: This is another issue; the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday was something that was not practiced by the Prophet (PBUH) or his companions. It was something that started in Egypt during the time of the Fatimid dynasty.

They were the ones who started celebrating the Prophet’s birthday. Yes it’s a bidaah (innovation), but it’s a good bidaah. You are inviting the entire community to make salaah upon the Prophet, to chant, sing and praise the Prophet’s life and character (PBUH). It’s also important to see what people do in terms of celebration; if it’s not contradictory to Islam, then it is fine.

As a boy, I remember that I used to wait for this celebration. For me, it meant having candy and lots of food, but it also brought me to the adults that were sitting and chanting songs about the prophet. When people get together for the celebrations, it’s a reminder to the younger generation about the life of the Prophet (PBUH).

Allah tells us in the Quran to constantly remember the Prophet (PBUH), his devotion and his struggle.
Celebrating the “birthdays” of other people are cultural practices. It was not the culture in Middle East, and so the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions did not practice it. If you want to celebrate it, it is up to you. It is not forbidden like alcohol. It’s a cultural practice, not a religious one.

I celebrate the birthday of my children sometimes. They live in America and see other children having birthday parties. We have parties to celebrate, but we also read the Quran and memorise a chapter for that day. In Lebanon, it’s a tradition to celebrate birthdays with fireworks. Today we have to understand what is religious and what is cultural. If you want to do something that is OK Islamically, just make sure there is nothing wrong done while you are doing it.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Mother of self-declared Addu apostate launches media appeal seeking scholars’ help

The mother of a 22 year-old girl from Addu City who publicly declared her apostasy has launched an appeal in the local Maldivian media seeking the help of religious scholars to make her daughter repent.

“She’s been a bit odd ever since she was in the seventh grade, but at the  time she did not say the things that she says now,” the 49 year-old mother told Minivan News.

“Every time I try to advise her she shouts at me and asks me what I was trying to make her believe, and says that she cannot believe the existence of Allah,” the mother said.

The mother said her daughter was currently being held under house arrest while being investigated for allegedly giving birth to a child out of wedlock.

“She has misbehaved since she was young, and is saying things that should not be said in front of the children. She has even been calling me balhu (dog).”

The mother said that whenever she tried to inform her daughter about death, the afterlife and the punishments for apostasy, her daughter would reply that it was “not a problem for her, and not to worry.”

“I admit that it was our negligence as well that allowed her to come this far. We knew about this a while ago and we could have been more careful then,’’ the mother said. “I have been asking around my neighbors and everyone about what to do, but all I can do is remain in this grief thinking about her.”

The mother said she “had no solution” to her grief.

“There’s still some good inside her. I know that because she has been advising her younger sisters not to be like her,’’ she said. ‘’It’s because she can believe that she is not going the right way.’’

The mother said there “was a reason why this had happened to [her daughter],” but said it was “a long story”.

President of Islamic Foundation of the Maldives, Ibrahim Fauzee said the organisation had heard of the appeal and that its local branch was looking into the matter.

“For sure, we will provide her assistance,’’ Fauzee said.

The Islamic Ministry said it had not received official notice of the matter.

The Maldivian Constitution states that the Maldives is a “100 percent” Sunni Muslim country, and the country maintains a reservation to article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of religion.

The last Maldivian to publicly declare apostasy, Mohamed Nazim, did so in front of an 11,000-strong audience attending a lecture in May 2010 by well-known Islamic speaker Dr Zakir Naik.

Nazim was escorted from the venue by police for his own protection after members of the audience attempted to attack him, and was held in police custody. The Islamic Foundation of the Maldives subsequently issued a statement calling for Nazim to be stripped of his citizenship and sentenced to death if he failed to repent and return to Islam.

After two days of religious counseling in police custody, Nazim declared that his misconceptions had been clarified and gave Shahada – the Muslim testimony of belief – on national television during a press conference held at the Islamic Ministry.

In a later interview with Minivan News, Nazim said that he did not regret his actions.

“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 said.

The reaction, he said, was 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, were uneasy talking about it, and very few actually discussed it with him. However, he told Minivan News he could feel the presence of the issue, “unspoken yet potent”, in every social interaction he had with another person.

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

Over two emails sent to an international humanitarian organisation on June 23 and 25, obtained by Minivan News, Ismail confessed he was an atheist and requested assistance for his asylum application, after claiming to have received several anonymous threats on June  22.

In the emails, he said he “foolishly admitted my stance on religion” to work colleagues, word of which had “spread like wildfire.”

“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,” Ismail said, in one of his letters.

“I cannot bring myself to pretend to be something I am not, as I am a staunch believer in human rights. I am afraid for my life here and know no one inside the country who can help me.”

A colleague of Ismail’s told Minivan News that it appeared the 25 year-old had sought the early 3:00am shift and “came to work fully prepared to die.”

“His mother said she called him in the morning at 5:30am to tell him to pray, but there was no answer. They found his cigarette lighter on the balcony.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(2)

Comment: Manufacturing slavery

According to psychology research undertaken in the USA, people express being happy when they experience what is called an ‘internal locus of control,’ a sense of being in charge of one’s own destiny.

One of the fundamental doctrines of Sunni Islam is that Everything happens acording to the Will of Almighty Allah, hence, a very strict Muslim will say ‘Insh’allah’ whenever they say that they will do something or expect something to happen. It is called Taqdir, the Doctrine of Qadar, or, the Doctrine of Power. If understood correctly, this doctrine can give great hope and power in times of loss and struggle. Yet the way that this doctrine has traditionally been used in the Maldives was to render the masses completely impotent, dependant on the power brokers of society in a fashion which sapped the Dhivehin of any sense of control or capacity for resistance.

Life swung from depressed helplessness, to explosive rage, the type of rage one experiences when one is frustrated deeply, dehumanised, humiliated.

The power brokers controlled the Dhivehin like Gods, and the Dhivehin were at their Mercy, degrading and debasing themselves in front of these ‘Befulhu’ Gods for every little favour. The experience was one of slavery. It was cruel, and deeply painful for the poor.

Attempts to break this power down in the name of the liberation of the Dhivehin through the creation of a republic, ultimately failed to break this system down. Once in power, the ‘Republican Presidents’ were possessed by the same culture of power, that all consuming ‘beast’ of narcisistic bliss bestowed by the general cultural understanding of any institution of leadership. One with even the greatest, the noblest sentiments, could not contain the beast,, its irepressible hunger for the bliss of being Worshipped, could overcome the greatest, most selfless heart.

This monster, now starved of its insatiable, ferocious lust for power for over two years is now rising through the possessed opposition.

This is why the opposition do not want democracy to succeed. This is why they wish to strangle the cultural development of personal autonomy and move of democracy. They wish the Dhivehin to beg at their feet, worshipping them, powerless before them like slaves, debased. This is the only motive that they have for their lack of co-operation in Parliament. They wish for Maldivian people to believe that they are not ready for democracy, to prove themselves correct, so that the masses look to them as the ones who were correct and therefore, who should be followed.

According to Ludwig Feurbach, humanities experience of God is in fact the experience of the power in ones society, the anthropomorphic projection of the will to power of a King or tribal leader, for example.

Maumoon, having tasted the complete control of power, wishes to once again immerse you in his power, to render you completely powerless in your own right. He wishes to do it by projecting his will as the all Powerful Will of God. He wishes you to remain a helpless beggar before the God that he presents, as it is ultimately, as Ludwig explained, worship of Maumoon himself.

Freud observed that one who is deeply religious to the point of anxious self debasement is in fact psychologically undeveloped, development being the experience of relative capacity for self determination, or, as Maslow would express it, ‘self realisation.’ Maumoon wishes to use religion to deprive the Dhivehin of the development of personal and social autonomy. He wants you to remain infantile, ‘his children’, forever.

On the other hand, if Durkheim was correct, and ‘God’ is the personified projection of our own society, then the concept of God can be utlised to inspire, motivate an oppressed society to struggle for freedom. God can be an expression of ones own force for personal and social, yet ‘non-violent’ resistance. When we magnify our own thrust for liberty by making it Divine, we can universalise, magnify the power, elevate the level of emotional energy fuelling our own struggle. We see this quite strongly in the moderate side of what we call Islamic Revival. The teaching in the Mosques of the struggle, the ‘non-violent’ Jihad, and those who embrace this Islamic Jihad (in a non-violent manner) as the essence of their dignity are examples of this expression.

Ones understanding of God will depend on who one is in society, and how much agency one has. We see the battle over the ownership of the true nature of God being played out in the Maldives.

Nietzche also argued the experience of God is the experience of power. He said that the will to power, for the elite, is called “Love and Benevolence,” for the middle classes it is called “equality” and for the oppressed, the will to power is called “Justice.” The Arabic equivalent of all these words are part of the ’99 attributes of God…’

Indeed, we see that the God of Maumoon and of the affluent middle classes is Compassionate, Benevolent, and the God of many of the islanders and the poor, is angry, hungry for Justice.

These anthropomorphic expressions of the will to power will remain in competition with each other, unless one particular class of people become so psychologically smashed that that their social will dies. For the class whose will dies, this is the beginning of depression, anxiety, helplesness, dependancy disorder and consequentially, physical sickness. For the class who wins the struggle, this is the beginning of bliss, of absolute power, of the complete appropriation of God and everything God is into themselves.

The death of political and religious pluralism is the death of a particular class of people. Religious and political pluralism is the sign of a healthy people, of a healthy society. To destroy political or religious pluralism in the name of creating unity, order, and love between all, is to create pain, disorder. This is because, to control a society completely and to control the religious thought of a people in the name of Benevolence, which Maumoon wishes to do, and done so for 30 years, is to take absolute power. It is to rob the masses of any will of their own.

In this scenario, rendered powerless, the defeated class must be kept poor to stay dependant on the leaders. They must be dehumanised by institutional protocol.

For they who feel so helpless, so controlled, so powerless, the only hope for freedom, for dignity, is belief in an afterlife.

The will of this class of people, which the opposition wish to create in the name of restoring order and humanity, can be awakened by the presentation of a kind of a Deity I have not yet described, a Deity of Death, the Deity of the radical suicide bomber.

In the name of restoring religious unity which they think will restore social order, the opposition are, without even knowing that they are doing it, working hard to awaken a suicide bomber mentality.

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)

Letter on religious unity

Dear all,

I write this letter in response to the Presidential Press Secretary Mr Mohamed Zuhair’s seeming need to justify his position on medicinal drugs using religion.

I feel that when Zuhair needs to bring religion into the picture to justify his position on something, the MDP are going backwards.

I once saw a heavy religious question fired at President Nasheed. ‘Anni’ humbly responded by acknowledging he was not an Alim and therefore did not feel adequate to comment. It was apparent that he would have had an opinion, and that he knows more about Islam than what most people know he does. But as an intelligent thinker, I think, he can see the danger when a President takes the role of religious authority, and chooses to feign ignorance in this area unless he has to offer an opinion.

When a politician must appear to be religious to win respect because the Constitution demands he or she be of a particular religion, religion becomes shallow, meaningful only as a way to win respect.

The competition to appear the most religious in religious-political societies has always involved lies, blackmail, bribery, torture.

Just stating all Maldivians must be Sunni Muslim does not mean the constitution protects Maldives’ religious unity, as was claimed.

Social repression of such nature creates resistance, tyranny, disunity.

Islam itself can be used as a force for disunity just as easily.

If a group wanted to break away from the mainstream government, they could say their separatist cause is an Islamic Jihad. An example? Maumoon was accused of not being a Muslim, therefore, according to very radical militant Hanbali style Zahiri, he and the NSS, if they defended him, were legitimate targets for Jihad.

For Islam to be imposed for unity, it must be controlled and defined by an elite so that contradictory understandings are oppressed. This amounts to putting a mental straitjacket on society, which will provoke a violent resistance from those who have a different understanding of Islam.

I have met Maldivians who detest preachers of Islam because they had been sexually abused by clerics as children. They associate the Qur’an with hypocrisy, oppression and sexual abuse.

Imposing religion via the Constitution and having Islam controlled by headstrong literalists is sure to provoke a sense of violent betrayal and anger against Nasheed’s government.

Imposing religion will divide Maldives, not unify it, as many will rebel, if not openly at least in their hearts. The only way to invite back such people to Islam is to demonstrate that Allah is gentle, Allah is not into forcing himself on people via the Constitution.

This aggressive controlling of human minds and hearts creates frustration, hate, resentment and militant Islam.

Allah is locked in a perpetual, raging power struggle against false representations of himself.

All Maldivians are deeply grateful for the sacrifice of the martyr. But some see their sacrifice as being for the freedom of Maldivians from oppression.

At that time the will to freedom, the strength for dignity was expressed through Islam. But to use Islam now as a force for oppression is against the reason the martyr died.

The dignity and sovereignty of the Dhivehin, for which Thakurufaanu died, has as much to do with pre-Islamic Fanditha type culture as it does Islam. Fanditha culture is as Maldivian as fishing and family, yet “orthodox” Islam is opposed to Fanditha culture.

Nearly 50 per cent of Maldivian tradition, which most Maldivians call “Islamic”, would be considered unorthodox or bida’ (innovation) by the Adhaalaath brothers i.e. Islamic fundamentalism is against Dhivehi culture.

This may seem paradoxical, but freedom of religion improves morality in a society. Religious freedom was fought for in Europe by those who wanted to improve morality, not abandon it.

On the surface the USA looks like the most immoral society on Earth, but dig deeper into Al Mamlaka Al Arabiyya Al Sauddiya and the other religious societies (Vatican, Taliban-led Afghanistan etc…) and you will see these places are morally much worse than America.

I studied Saudi history and I tremble to even think of the activity that goes on there regarding child prostitution amongst the Sheikhs.

When religion does not depend on the state for funding and is not controlled by the state, the religious are free to act as a check and balance against government corruption without fear of retribution or without being silenced.

Majid may be less obliged to remain silent about certain more serious issues than discos and graveyards if he had not climbed to power through the support of some questionable figures.

Religion should not compromise its own values for power.

When religion is not imposed through a constitution, the religious have to work harder to win people over through inspiration rather than through intimidation, as a consequence, their moral standards are elevated and they inspire others moral standards.

I knew a guy who used to refuse to come to discos as he loved the closeness to Allah he felt in the Mosques and this eventually inspired me to follow him.

If he had tried to threaten me into following him, I would have partied at the disco ten times longer.

Furthermore, to get power, even if it’s power to do good, as politicians will begrudgingly concede during rare moments of honesty, a compromise of moral values occurs.

Politicians often think that the few lies and crooked deals will be worth all the good they’ll do once in power, but if a religious leader does it, this sets a bad example.

It says the end justifies the means. People don’t strive to be as moral as possible as a consequence of the ‘amorality’ of their role models.

Ben ‘Abdul-Rahman’ Plewright

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Dr Ahmed Shaheed

Dr Ahmed Shaheed has served as a Foreign Minister across two successive (and opposing) governments, and remains one of the country’s most astute politicians. Recently appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, he tells Minivan News about being on both sides of the country’s first democratic election, reveals the extent of PR firm Hill & Knowlton’s involvement in drafting reforms and the former government’s use of private security firms to investigate the origins of the MDP, and the realities of prosecuting complex human rights abuses with a criticised judiciary.

JJ Robinson: How does the Iranian government’s refusal to allow you into the country affect your role as UN special rapporteur on Iran?

Dr Ahmed Shaheed: Whenever special rapporteur mandates are country-specific they always have the issue of not being able to access the country they are investigating. Often the country itself feels unfairly singled out for scrutiny, or that they don’t have a problem.

This is always a challenge, but by and large they come around in the end. The last time a Special Rapporteur was in Iran was in 1996. Countries eventually come round, but it takes time.

The work of the special rapporteur is structured in such a way that even if a field visit is not possible the work can continue. I will take up the assignment in August.

JJ: Will you continue in your capacity as a political advisor to the President during the mandate?

AS: No I will not. I will speak with the President and terminate my work with the government before I take on this role.

JJ: Following your resignation as Foreign Minister in the wake of Parliament’s decision in November 2010 to not approve the reappointment of seven members of cabinet, you were appointed to the Presidential Commission. What were you working on?

AS: Even as Foreign Minister I was involved in transitional justice and [pursuing] embezzled funds. It started during a conference we had in March 2009, when a number of donor countries and institutions met President Mohamed Nasheed and requested he look into the allegations of corruption.

Looking for the embezzled funds was important and the Foreign Ministry obviously had to pay attention to that. So I keep tabs on it as part of my work. In that time, one of the major issues we focused on concerned the leaked report [by forensic accountancy firm Grant Thorton, documenting the State Trading Organisation (STO)’s sale of discounted oil to the Burmese military junta on the blackmarket].

You will recall that in the furor last year over [the Maldives accepting an former inmate from] Guantanamo Bay, one of the memos showed a conversation between Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed and US Government authorities regarding the potential for US help with asset recovery.

JJ: This was StAR, the Stolen Asset Recovery programme?

AS: StAR was the World Bank’s program. We were also in discussion with other authorities. It showed the importance we attached to the issue.

My assignment to the Presidential Commission was a means of continuing the work I had done while in cabinet.

JJ: The leaked Grant Thorton report revealed that the Maldives had been selling oil on the blackmarket to Burma for years, and named former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s half-brother Abdulla Yameen as a person of interest. What is the current status of the investigation?

AS: I haven’t resigned my post from the Commission so I am bound by their code of silence.  The report that was leaked was a very preliminary report. What was surprising was Yameen’s reaction. He has since realised his error and stopped commenting, not wanting to incriminate himself further.

JJ: Did the leak compromise the investigation?

AS: The leak has not compromised anything. Of course there were worries that it would, but the report was very preliminary. Much work has been done subsequently.

JJ: Has there been any effort to trace the source of the leak to avoid further compromise of the investigation?

AS: There was an attempt to identity the leak, but leaks are always hard to plug or identify. I’m aware measures were taken to ensure material handled remains confidential. I am satisfied that nothing else has been compromised.

JJ: The government to some extent seems to be relying on the court of public opinion. Even if it accumulates considerable evidence against Yameen or Gayoom, or any minister of the former government, given the intense politicisation is it even possible to conduct a trial locally?

AS: Let me correct the initial presumption. No, we are not relying on the court of public opinion. If we did, then everything we knew would be published. We are aware of the limitations the judiciary have here in terms of handling cases of commerical fraud and corruption cases. There’s a damper on what can be achieved here.

This is about asset recovery – we do not necessarily want to see anybody behind bars. We want to establish the fact that money was stolen and recover it. The real benefit lies in recovering the funds.

JJ: The Democratic Voice of Burma, reporting on this story, raised a number of points regarding drug links and noted that people who were listed as board members of MOCOM, the STO joint venture involved in this deal, were also connected to senior members of the Golden Triangle. Has there been anything in the government’s investigation so far to suggest there may have been a drug element in this?

AS: No, we are not pursuing it as broadly as this. We are focused on asset recovery. The investigation is making progress, and I think the government might be in a position to give out more details in a month’s time.

JJ: On the subject of the judiciary – there is periodic push by the senior figures in the government, such as the present Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem, to investigate and prosecute human abuses committed under the former administration. Again, given the politicisation of the issue, is this viable and are fair trials of such cases even possible given the current state of the judiciary?

AS: Well, the short answer to your question would put me in contempt of court. I think the judiciary has a public trust deficit. It needs to really demonstrate that it is competent and able to handle complex cases, especially those trials that have a high political content. If you ask around, it is anybody‘s guess – most people will say a fair trial [on human rights abuses] would be very difficult to hold.

But that does not absolve us of the responsibility of trying to set the record straight on what was done. The aim is not prosecution but reconciliation and moving on. The idea is to understand what happened here so we do not repeat it in the future. But for the people who want direct remedy for what what was done to them – I think we have to look at the possibilities.

With parliament’s election of [Jumoree Party leader and local business and media tycoon] MP Gasim Ibrahim to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), I think we have to fathom the public reaction.

JJ: Was Gasim’s appointment to a commission tasked with overseeing the country’s justice system a step backwards for judicial independence?

AS: My worry is that the judiciary is supposed to be independent. The Maldives already violates the [Commonwealth’s] Latimer House Principles [o  separation of powers] because of the way the constitution is set up. There is already too much interference by the parliament in the judiciary, and there is too much concern from the judiciary about parliament’s sanction over them.

So when a powerful member of parliament is elected to the judicial watchdog, you really begin to wonder whether the Latimer House Principles apply in this country at all. From this perspective Gasim’s election is a concern – he is like Lord Chamberlain combined with Donald Trump.

People here are concerned about undue influence of the judiciary, they are concerned about money politics, they are concerned about justice – these concerns are amplified when you have a big industrialist overseeing the judiciary. It doesn’t matter whether it is Gasim or whoever. If you have a country coming out of autocracy and a person [from that system] sitting on the JSC, you have the stuff of nightmares.

JJ: On the subject of reconciliation over reparation, do you think there is room for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) here?

AS: No, I do not think so, because right now, every dream we had 3-4 years ago is in the background to the Z-faction (Gayoom’s faction of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party).

The values of the Z-faction are the same values people have been looking to move away from – nepotism and all these ultra-conservative attitudes. The belief that it is OK to pass the baton to family members, to cling to power for 40 years, to do all you can to cling to power. That attitude is what the Z-Faction is representing.

Look at the way it is organised. It is based on the most ultra right-wing Gayoom [support] you can find in this country. Gayoom still has so much traction in the opposition that they all react to him – either to placate him, or to mitigate his influence. Either way, they are all focused on Gayoom.

An opposition focused on Gayoom is not what we want. And therefore reconciliation – drawing the line and moving on – all that has to wait until we can move beyond Gayoom.

JJ: The ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s reaction to the current state of the opposition – and the recent poaching of their MPs – suggests a new pragmatism in their political thinking. However,  some of the core membership of idealistic activists have privately expressed concern that the new arrivals are bringing skeletons with them, as in the case of the former Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Hassan Adhil who is currently being tried for child molestation. Is there a risk that this new wave of pragmatism will undermine the party’s idealistic roots?

AS: All politicians have to be practical and pragmatic. Ideals are fine and they should not be abandoned, you should remain focused on them and pursue them, but then you ultimately have to work with the canvas given to you.

The key here is finding the critical mass for reform. To get that critical mass you need to build coalitions. And you can’t build coalitions with castles in the air – it has to happen with people on the ground.

The thing to do is not to overlook or condone, but to put up mechanisms and institutional processes to take care of these cases;  so no person is above the law or accountability, and no person has impunity. To think that you have 77 seats in the Majlis is a mistake.

JJ: We’ve talked about human rights and investigating past abuses, and the government is fairly consistent in this both domestically and in its statements denouncing war crimes in countries like Libya. But when the UN publishes a report accusing the Maldives’ neighbour Sri Lanka of war crimes and requests an investigation, the Foreign Minister [Ahmed Naseem]’s comment is that such a report is “singularly un-counterproductive”. Is there a point where a human rights agenda runs up against diplomatic realities?

AS: At a generic level throughout history this is there. But I think Naseem’s comments and the government’s position on Sri Lanka have been misunderstood. The Libyan situation is different from the current situation in Sri Lanka. Libya is ongoing – things are happening today on the ground, and we need to try to prevent further abuses tomorrow.

In Sri Lanka’s case these are post-conflict issues. What we say is that the most important thing in a post-conflict situation is to find a way forward and not live in the past. This does not mean we are condoning abuses, or saying such things are fine. But Sri Lanka needs to find common ground with the UN Human Rights Council in which both parties can move forward. The government of Sri Lanka needs to be able to enter into dialogue with the international community to achieve speedier reconciliation.

You can’t have reconciliation and long-lasting peace unless you respect human rights and set up mechanisms to do so. But we should steer clear of politicisation, or the divisions that have kept the flame of terrorism alive in Sri Lanka for so long. We are saying let Sri Lanka find a way forward and achieve reconciliation – we are not saying we don’t care about the past.

JJ: It is looking increasingly like the decision of whether to launch an international investigation into alleged war crimes in the closing days of the Sri Lankan civil war will come down to a vote on the UN Human Rights Council, on which the Maldives sits. If it does come to that, is the Maldives likely to vote for such an investigation?

AS: I no longer speak for the Maldives, but in these situations the context does matter. My recommendation for the government would be to not get bogged down in the details, and to look at the broader perspective. The long-term interest for the Maldives is that Sri Lanka improves and Sri Lanka remain within the committee of nations, and has a positive engagement with the UN Human Rights Council.

I think Sri Lanka has many friends in the West and there are many who still want to work with Sri Lanka. My advice would be to remain politically engaged.

JJ: Is there a risk that domestically-unwanted international scrutiny into these war crimes and human rights abuses could alienate Sri Lanka from the international community and risk turning it into a pariah nation? It has already opened a Chinese submarine base.

AS: Talking to the Chinese should not make anyone a pariah state. I don’t think Sri Lanka is in any danger of this – pariah states are countries such as North Korea. Sri Lanka is still democratic and it is still working, it just needs to bring some closure to a 25 year conflict that has created some very nasty wounds. It needs to find a way of healing. The West is also trying to help find a healing process.

The bottom line is that war is hell. People should try to recognise the context of what happened [in Sri Lanka], and find a way of moving forward.

JJ: You have been foreign minister across two successive and very politically-polarised governments, and you have been very active in promoting the Maldives’ human rights agenda. As a minister under the former government, were you not in a position to do something about the human rights abuses to which you now campaign against? What was it about that situation that made you unable to pursue such an agenda at the time?

AS: Without being too modest about it, I was able to make a difference to the Gayoom regime in terms of how it dealt with these issues. When I came into the Gayoom regime (in July 2005) it was very unfriendly to human rights. My terms of engagement with Gayoom was that he would pursue and reform certain policies – which happened, ultimately.

You will notice that it was on my watch as a minister that we signed onto the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the CAT optional protocol (to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), and any number of things.

We welcomed the first visit of Amnesty International and began working with them, and became much more open and engaged. We opened the doors to all UN Special Rapporteurs.

We became much more engaged with human rights. I and New Maldives (a group within the regime that pushed for liberal democracy) colleagues of mine were able to impart to Gayoom and his older advisers that we should allow pluralism at home – that we should allow political parties, and give space to the opposition.

Many of those who are linked to the President himself, through his friends and family, will know that I was an interlocutor between them and Gayoom. Twice I put my job on the line to get President [Mohamed Nasheed] out of arrest, and said I was going home unless he was released. I also put my job on the line for reporters.

Gayoom needed me to talk to the media and foreign diplomats, and I had certain no-go areas in return for that. I represented him at the Westminster House talks, and I agreed to a package of measures without consulting him, which included releasing Jennifer Latheef and Nasheed from prison, and I made sure Gayoom authorised these releases on time.

Because the things I did for Gayoom gave him international space, he was willing to go along with things I said. I was moving him along to become more open.

The only way you can verify what I’m saying is to ask others. I met [former US Ambassador, now Assistant Secretary of State] Robert Blake as Gayoom’s Foreign Minister, I met him when I was running in opposition to Gayoom in the presidential elections, and I have met him as Nasheed’s minister. So he has seen me wearing three different hats, and I don’t think he has heard me say anything different along the way.

People from Reporters Without Borders (RWB) – such as [former Asia Pacific Director] Vincent Brossel – also saw me wearing those three hats. I had a consistent message which was that we needed these reforms.

I had differences with [current Science and Technology Envoy, and publisher of the Dhivehi Observer] Ahmed ‘Sappe’ Moosa, but we both recognised the need for change. My position was this – if the government had changed in 2005, the new government would not felt the pressure to bring in reforms. After 25 years people would have toppled a dictator, felt the euphoria, and that a change of heads would work. But you don’t bring in reforms that way – that was my fear.

I knew that Gayoom’s term was limited in any case under the Constitution, and if we could use that space to introduce reforms we could build a foundation for democracy.

A week after I resigned as a minister (in 2007) I chaired a meeting of the opposition groups here on democratisation and I spoke about Huntington’s four models of democracy. And I said the most stable democracy had come when the government and opposition worked together to phase out the old system. My belief was in a gradual, reconciliatory change.

I was speaking to [then opposition leader] Mohamed Nasheed, Ali Hashim, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, Hassan Afeef, and they found me a like-minded person. The controversies around me arose because in Gayoom’s time whenever there was a public crisis, all his ministers would turn off their telephones except me. Only mine would ring.

So the only voice that was heard was mine, and people associated it with the actual action. For example when people were bashed on Fares-Mathoda in January 2006, only my phone rang. I tried to answer people’s concerns and I was the only person quoted, so if you search for the incident all the comments are mine.

When Hussein Solah was killed, was found dead in the lagoon in Male’ [in April 2007], all the Ministers turned off their phones. It was clearly the Home Minister’s charge, but he would not speak to the press. Families were looking for information and I gave all the information I had on the case. Whenever Nasheed was arrested, I was the only person who would speak to anybody, so my name gets thrown on everything.

JJ: The current government has dug up a number of receipts for the services of international public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, hired by the former government to assist with refreshing their image – a total of US$1.7 million. What was the true extent of H&K’s involvement in the Maldives and the reform movement?

AS: I do not know the motives of Gayoom in hiring Hill & Knowlton. But my links with them were on the basis that they would contribute to reform in the Maldives. So I agreed to be a liaison person with them, but only if they would work on a governance reform project.

Their first task was an audit of governance in the country: meeting various stake-holders, gauging public perception and making recommendations on what ought to be done. Their recommendation was that we needed to implement rapid political reforms, including political pluralism.

That was their report, and based on that Gayoom engaged them on a longer-term basis. this entailed assisting him with reforms internally, and projecting those reforms externally. It was not purely a PR function and it did entail real policy prescriptions for Gayoom.

JJ: So H&K was essentially writing policies for the previous government of the Maldives?

AS: Exactly. When you are in office for 30 years and your ministers and associates make recommendations to you, you don’t believe them. But if you have a posh firm from London making recommendations, you tend to believe them. And Gayoom did.

Things that Gayoom did on their recommendation included separating the army from the police, a whole raft of reforms on judicial function, prison reform, constitutional reform – all these things were done at their request.

The only H&K recommendations he left out – Hill & Knowlton wanted Yameen and the then Police Chief (Adam Zahir) sacked, and they also suggested that freedom of religion was something that was internationally demanded.

Of course, there’s no way any government here can introduce freedom of religion, and H&K’s usefulness ended when they recommended Yameen be removed – at that point Gayoom stopped listening to them.

H&K had a contract signed in April 2005, and their proposals were presented as a package. Their engagement was always positive and there was nothing covered up, and they came here only after speaking to the UK Foreign Office and US State Department. Of course, they are a commercial company and had their fees.

JJ: So you would say their role was positive in that they provided a voice of reform that Gayoom listened to?

AS: Yes.

JJ: What was behind Gayoom’s subsequent engagement of UK public relations firm the Campaign Company?

AS: The engagement of the Campaign Company was more for building his party and advice on how to manage and develop the DRP.

Of course, all these foreign advisors ended when they suggested to him that he or Yameen should go – the tracks end there.

JJ: A former H&K employee called Mark Limon continues to work for the government from the Geneva Mission. What does his work entail and is the expenditure justified?

AS: I think it is, because across three foreign ministers he has been retained. I hired him as a government agent in Geneva, and then after I left Abdulla Shahid retained him as a government agent, I retained him when I returned under Nasheed and now Naseem is retaining him.

I think his role has been very useful in projecting the Maldives as an active participant of the UN Human Rights Council, and linking up with other opportunities, such as the World Trade Organisation, the Climate Program, and a whole raft of others. The Geneva Mission is one of the best, if not the best mission that we have.

When this government came in there were calls to have the Geneva Mission closed down because not many were aware of what was going on. But I resisted, and many in the government are now convinced that Geneva is a very useful post.

JJ: What about some of these other receipts from UK security and private investigation firm Sion Resources in 2007, for a surveillance operation dubbed ‘Operation Druid’? The fact this took place in Salisbury suggests the former government had some concerns about the origins of the MDP. Were those justified?

AS: The government’s intelligence people got all sorts of reports from all sorts of sources, which any government is obligated to investigate. The range of reports included attempts to assassinate Gayoom, and they came from sometimes official and sometimes unofficial sources. The lesson after the November 3 incident [coup attempt in 1988] was that it was better to check on these to see whether they were reliable.

I’m not suggesting this applied to Salisbury, but in the summer of 2004, when there was emergency rule here, there were a number of concerns as to who was funding the MDP. The government wanted to know who was behind it, and whether it was a foreign government.

The government may have wanted to see what was going on. What these operations did was try to see who was who. And a lot of the operations the government felt were against it came from Salisbury, and I think the government of the day felt justified in engaging a firm to look into what was going on.

We’re talking about people who they had deported from the Maldives for proselytisation, people involved in all sort of activities. They felt they needed to check on that, and what came out was a clean bill of health. Nothing untoward was happening, and these people were by and large bone-fide.

There had also been an attempt to arrest Gayoom inside the UN building in Geneva. This happened in May 2005. If a head of state is stopped inside a UN building that is a breach of UN security. I was part of the delegation.

JJ: Was this an arrest by police or a group of activists?

AS: It was [Salisbury-based Friends of Maldives NGO founder] David Hardingham and Sarah Mahir.

They managed to walk inside the UN building and follow Gayoom. No head of state is going to accept that treatment by the UN – they are not supposed to be exposed to this type of harassment in the UN. There are areas for this kind of protest. I think Gayoom was quite shaken by that, and afterwards he was not as complacent over the security given to him by his hosts, be that by the UK or UN.

JJ: Salisbury came up again regarding accusations from the former government that Hardingham and Salisbury Cathedral were conspiring to blow up the Islamic Centre and build a church. The allegation still pops up occasionally. What was that about?

AS: It was just a mischievous suggestion, a very mischievous suggestion. [Former Attorney General] Hassan Saeed and I – the last election rally we had, October 7 2008 or thereabouts, the last rally in our campaign against Gayoom, at the time everyone was accusing each other of being non-Muslim, and this accusation that the MDP was non-Muslim was getting very loud.

So we came on stage and said we were former government ministers and that we were aware about this allegation against MDP and that Gayoom had hired a firm to look into this allegation, and that their report had confirmed there was no such connection to MDP. Both of us said this on record.

JJ: Gayoom hired a firm to look into those allegations concerning Salisbury Cathedral’s interest in transnational terrorism?

AS: No – all sorts of allegations about who was behind MDP. Was this a home-grown opposition, was a foreign government behind it? Who was the MDP?

Part of the concern at the time was that this might have been a religion-based opposition to Gayoom. There was paranoia about [protecting] Islam.

What we said was that various allegations about MDP were investigated, and it came out clean. It was a bone-fide political party. What I’m saying is: we said that, Gayoom knew that, and any suggestion that the MDP had links to a cathedral was just utter mischief.

That particular claim you refer to was on a flyer dumped on the street, claiming that David Hardingham wanted to blow up the Islamic Centre and build a cathedral. It was all rubbish – there was also a picture going around of Gayoom wearing a cross.

Those allegations were flying left and right, and then somebody got off at a station near Hardingham’s residence and saw a cathedral nearby.

JJ: Is there a sense that this religious paranoia – and the use of religion as a political weapon – has died down since then?

AS: I think we’ve been saturated by allegations. There is this very, very deep reaction to anything un-Islamic in this country, and you can use Islam as a political tool quite easily. Therefore these allegations become political charges.

But I think people are getting fed up with it – you can see the reactions in the press to my appointment as special rapporteur. DRP MP Mahlouf said it was a Zionist conspiracy and a trade-off for favours done to Israel on my part. These things ring hollow the more you say them. They become cliche.

JJ: Your comment last July about parliament engaging in “scorched earth” politics became the defining description for the cabinet resignation in July 2010. The government seems to have since toned down the rhetoric and deals with parliament much more diplomatically – but has anything changed significantly? Has parliament changed?

AS: I think parliament had a moment of hubris last year when the ministers resigned. I think they thought they had won the battle with the government, and therefore they went on and rejected the reappointment of seven ministers [including Shaheed]. But I think they learned that in politics you can use up your capital. Once you’ve used it, it’s finished. I think they are unlikely to act in such as arrogant manner subsequent to that.

They have come down a peg. But they still haven’t moved on. The single greatest factor restraining the parliament from moving forward is [DRP Leader] Ahmed Thasmeen Ali’s weakness as a leader.

Thasmeen isn’t Gayoom, he doesn’t carry Gayoom’s baggage, he is relatively young, and he needed to speak up against Gayoom – but he never did. And therefore he has failed to be the voice of the new generation, the voice of the future and the new age. Instead, he has been drowned out by the old guard, who are becoming louder and louder. Consequently, parliament has not really moved on from where it was a year back.

Your point about pragmatism – the MDP has become more pragmatic, and more willing to engage with parliament. I think the change of leadership in the Parliamentary Group will continue that trend. You will see a reinvigorated effort from MDP to engage the opposition and move ahead. But its success will be limited by what the opposition can match.

I don’t see Gasim or Yameen playing ball. I think Thasmeen is done for, but if anyone in the DRP can see beyond Gayoom I think you will see a better parliament.

JJ: You survived two governments and narrowly avoid a no-confidence motion regarding the government’s engagement with Israel (by one vote, after former DRP MP Alhan Fahmy voted against his own party).

AS: My feeling was that if [the Israel] accusation had been against me in person, I didn’t have the need to defend myself. If they had accused me of personal impropriety, I would not have gone to defend myself. The only reason I appeared in parliament was because the government’s policy was at stake.

I was defending the government and it was my duty to be there. I spoke to a number of MPs in the run up to it, and none of them knew the circumstances in which they could use that power to dismiss me. It’s a presidential system, so it’s an impeachment – it’s not a vote of no-confidence.

For impeachment you have to prove misconduct. But they weren’t – they were simply expressing anger over policy towards Israel. They did not charge me with misconduct, impropriety, or breach of trust. My feeling was: what a bunch of idiots.

JJ: You survived that – and later resigned after parliament refused to approve your reappointment following the cabinet resignation. Was it upsetting to ultimately lose the foreign minister’s position?

AS: No, it didn’t upset me. My view is that in a new government, a new order, you require a quick turnover of ministers. If a new democratic regime retains a minister for five years, then they are missing a beat. A rapid turnover of ministers will help the president move forward – although I’m not saying he should sacrifice experience.

Many politicians believed that if you laid low you’d survive the distance. But I wasn’t in a marathon – this was a sprint.

Two years in this government and I think I have done enough as required of me as a minister. I was not surprised by parliament’s decision, and I would have been happy to have lost that vote on Israel policy as well.

My conduct as minister has always been to be active. “It’s better to burn out than to rust” – who said that? I think it was the guy from the Sex Pistols.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Teaching the Holocaust

There have been rumours (officially denied) about the incorporation of the Holocaust into Maldivian school curricula. This rumour, in and of itself, led many to protest and speak out.

Why is it, some ask, that such decisions are made in secret, without any consultation with the people? It would be ironic for those who claim to be pioneers of democracy in this tiny island nation. However, since this has been denied as a rumour, another question remains: were these protesters’ concerns well-founded?

An issue that evokes more like-minded concern and skepticism is the involvement of the State of Israel in all of this. What interest do they have in teaching us the Holocaust?

Some supporters of the religious right-wing, the Adhaalath Party, which has been proclaimed by some as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood movement of Egypt, have equated the decision to teaching children Jewish theology. Although not quite accurate, they aren’t too far away from the point.

I personally do not know what the State of Israel has to gain from teaching the Holocaust to schoolchildren who’ve never been to and possibly never will visit Israel.

The second World War saw Nazi Germany implement the systematic elimination of gypsies, Poles, Slavs, Jews, Roman Catholics, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses from all the regions it controlled.

They did so by setting up concentration camps to which people would be transported, en masse, either to be executed in the gas ovens, or to be worked to death.

This is what would come to be known as the Holocaust. The Holocaust is a sensitive issue and it something held dear to Jewry.

The historian Tony Judd; himself Jewish; remarked that the modern Jew often had two points in space and time to define their identities. In space, they would have Israel: a ‘safe haven’ to escape to in case of persecution. In time: the Holocaust, regardless of whether or not they had ever been to Auschwitz, let alone survived or descended from those who had survived.

It is therefore no surprise that the Holocaust and its gravity would be built up in the mind of the Jew to near-mythical proportions.

In the middle of the century, there turned up a viewpoint that the Holocaust itself was “unique”. That never in human history had anything so terrible as the Holocaust had occured. This view is often accepted, espcially by the media, as uncontested; and most public gentiles who reference the Holocaust often add in a little remark (“the terrible nightmare that was the Holocaust”, etc.).

The validity of this view is very much in question. And it is not the sort of question, in the words of the politicial scientist Norman Finkelstein, one would even consider. How could one objectively compare the suffering of a child at Auschwitz with the suffering of a child during the My Lai massacre? It’s not possible, nor should it sit well with one’s moral sensibilities.

The Israeli documentarian Yoav Shamir explored the Holocaust in the mind of the modern Jew in his film Defamation. In one scene, in which he had followed the president of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham “Abe” Foxman, to the Ukraine: we have a short scene in which he’s lecturing an Ukrainian official regarding the uniqueness of the Holocaust. It seems that the Ukrainian president made a remark about a certain famine being “our Holocaust”, and this caused Abe Foxman (and much of the Jewish community by extension?) much pain and distress.

The Holocaust seems to have an almost divine status for the secular Jew; it defines him, and to deny the Holocaust would be to spurn the Jew. Such was the fate of the British historian David Irving, a Holocaust-denier whose freedom to speak was abruptly interrupted when he was jailed for a year after he’d written literature questioning the facts regarding the Holocaust. He was charged for promoting racial hatred.

The jump between questioning the facts of the Holocaust and a seething hate of people of Jewish descent is a big one. One that would require some preparation and emotional baggage. If Mr Irving were a frothing, bald, nose-ringed sociopath marching down the street waving a Nazi flag, I wouldn’t have bothered. But he’s not, he’s a historian who, despite the invalidity of his claims, has more of a right to question the Holocaust than a layman such as Abe Foxman.

But this was a gentile court that sentenced Mr Irving. What gives? Though the German government hopes to make amends and to this day continues to pay an annual sum of money to Holocaust survivors around the world, I cannot see the reason why the rest of the world are so sympathetic to the Jewish plight. Specifically, sympathetic to the suffering of the Jews while completely ignorant of or apathetic towards the Rwandan genocide, Chechnya, the Srebrenica massacre, and even the atrocities committed by Israel.

The Israeli journalist Uri Avenery claimed that for the most successful ethnic minority in the world: their constant demonising of individuals as anti-Semites is shameful.

The mainstream media are adamant that any criticism of Israel is tantamount to anti-Semitism. Any questioning of the facts of the Holocaust is tantamount to anti-Semitism. It is true that there have been many arguments made by the Israeli propaganda machine that Hamas’ rocket fire and terrorist acts keep continuing to this day because “those Arabs” just can’t stand to live side by side with “peace-loving Jewish neighbours”.

Any opposing views are, obviously, from Nazi-lovin’ anti-Semites.

Could the jump from questioning the facts of the Holocaust to racial hatred have come from a gentile fear of being seen as anti-Semites? Nazis in disguise? I have no real answer for this.

So the Holocaust has become, as the Adhaalath Party writer has said, part of Hebrew theology. It defines the secular Jew, and he loves the Holocaust with a love that seems almost religious. One could incur the wrath of Jewry by mocking the Holocaust, yet can go unscathed by blaspheming Moses (peace be upon him), the Torah, or even God.

In my personal opinion, Maldivian schoolchildren have some idea about the Holocaust, it’s nothing new to them. In fact, the Holocaust is probably taught to a great depth in secondary school arts streams. So teaching it isn’t entirely a problem per se.

But to teach the Holocaust yet to ignore the suffering of the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis each and every day is inhumane. The Holocaust has been a tool for the Zionist war machine to humiliate and torture a population of one million people for forty years. The Holocaust was always invoked in their justifications for the massacres. Anti-Semitism and Nazism, along with that.

Yet, though the Warsaw Ghetto is no longer standing; we have the West Bank Barrier, and we have Gaza. I have no shame in comparing the treatment of the Palestinian Arabs to the Nazi treatment of Jews in Europe because I do not believe that the Holocaust was unique. It was a great tragedy, but it was not unique. The State of Israel is proof enough.

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Salaf or democracy

The appeal of [Islamic NGO] Jamiyatul Salaf on June 12 is interesting for many reasons.

It is the first public statement by an influential organisation in the Maldives condemning democracy and political pluralism as ladini/un-Islamic and fasada/corrupt systems.

To be sure, an Islamist counter-discourse to democratisation is not new in the Maldives. It has its roots in the 2000’s.

Not one, too many

As early as July 2004, following president Gayoom’s June announcement of democratic reforms, Mauroof Hussain, now the Adaalath party’s deputy president, wrote a trenchant article decrying democracy. In the article, Hussain referred to the most influential Islamist ideologue Mawlana Abul A’la Maududi, who railed democracy as conflicting Allah’s hakimiyya/sovereignty.

To be sure, Maududi does not abandon democracy, but gives it an Islamised garb: Maududi’s ‘theodemocracy’ provides restricted popular sovereignty because the legislative function would be limited to ‘interpreting’ Islamic sources.

Sheikh Mohammed Shaheem Ali Saeed built along these lines in a 2006 book on the subject of democracy and Islam. He acknowledges democracy shares a lot of features with what he calls Islami nizam. However, he is emphatic that Islami nizam is not democracy, because the latter contradicts Allah’s hakimiyya.

In a more recent article, reacting to president Nasheed’s remarks that Maldives was a ‘liberal democracy’, Shaheem argued the Maldives constitution now provides an Islami nizam. Shaheem is quite emphatic: we now have an Islamic constitutional system.

It is worth quoting Sheikh Hussain Rasheed Ahmed response to a question on voting:

“If we [reject] voting, then we might as well [reject] all other things that we [Muslims] imitate and copy from non-Muslims. For example, minting or even printing Qur’an, or civil and infrastructure developments like building schools, universities or roads…these are worldly affairs. Those innovations depend on human needs and develop according to their knowledge and views. If a people reject such innovations, they will have to be behind others [in development]. Islam does not wish this from Muslims…the Prophet says: ‘You have better knowledge (of technical skill) in the affairs of the world’”.

Shaheem, Rasheed and Maududi go much further than Jamiyatul Salaf’s leader Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad Ibrahim in accommodating democracy. Sheikh Muhammad’s October 2008 article on Daruma magazine rejects democracy in its ‘essence’ as a system of kufr/un-Islamic. While he accepts voting in principle based on Islamic notion of shura, he has a highly restricted view on electing political leaders. Muhammad argued voting rights should be limited to a select few in the society: the ulama, followed by experts and the wise in the society.

Still in a more restrictive view of elections, jurist Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi reasoned that a caliph himself was entitled to appoint his own successor. So there was no necessity for elections for Mawardi. In our times, influential Islamist Sayyid Qutb would not accept democracy at all because it is a jahiliyya product.

Disagreeing with most of the above views, influential Islamist cleric of our times, Yusuf Qaradawi, argues democracy in its ‘essence’ is fully compatible with Islam. He denounces those who say otherwise as ignorant of Islamic teachings.

Unlike Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad Ibrahim of Salaf, for Qaradawi, everyone could, or rather should, vote to choose their leaders. Unlike Maududi and Shaheem, for Qaradawi, popular sovereignty does not conflict with God’s hakimiyya. Again, it is telling that Qaradawi is Qutb’s severest critic in the Islamist camp.

What do we make of all these different views on democracy? I leave it to the readers to make up their minds.

Hypocrisy or politics

But to come back to Jamiyatul Salaf’s Appeal, few observations:

The Appeal is indeed right in highlighting the continued failures of the authorities to address political issues such as corruption and bribery, economic crises, and social issues like violence in all its manifestations.

Islamist utopianism feeds on such failures: Gayoom’s personal dictatorship failed, and now democracy seems to be failing too. So, Islamism says: Islam huwa al-hall/Islam is the solution!

Second, it is interesting that after condemning political pluralism and democracy, Salaf at the same time is prepared to participate in pluralism and democracy: Salaf announces their work to groom an ideal presidential candidate for 2018 elections.

Although the principle of maslaha/public interest is implicit in the Appeal, one wonders why Salaf is not seeking a systemic change, instead of grooming a salih/pious Dhivehi Son (note it’s not a Daughter). Salaf’s anti-political rhetoric in condemning democracy and political pluralism is then highly questionable, if not hypocritical. Narrow politics lurks behind anti-political moralism.

Finally, in the usual binary division of ‘Muslim Maldivians’ and the jahiliyya Other (Christians, Jews and Maldivians educated in the West), Salaf projects a Maldives drifting away from Islam under the corrupting influence of the Other. But there is no any empirical evidence that the Maldivians generally have become less Islamic since democratic openings in 2004.

If anything, the Maldives seems to be undergoing an ‘Islamic awakening’ unprecedented in its entire Islamic history since 1153, thanks to the democratic freedoms. The sheer number of women adopting the veil and men sporting the beard is testament to this.

Lessons

So, the first lesson from our democratic experiment is this: whether or not democracy has delivered on other areas, it has surely freed Islam from the suffocating fist of Gayoom.

The second, more sobering, lesson is: democracy should not be taken for granted.

2018 is not an arbitrarily proposed year. It is only by 2018, Islamists foresee that sufficient numbers could be mobilized through outreach activities.

In the meantime, the ‘Call’ must go on.

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Democratic openings and Islamic nahda

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

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

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

That is, however, another story for another comment.

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

History of Islam in the Maldives: a mixed story

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

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

Gayoom’s ‘renewed commitment’ to Islam

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

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

Democratic openings and Islamic nahda

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

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

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

This is truly an Islamic nahda.

Correlation between Islamic nahda and social ills

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Politics and religion

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

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

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

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

Who watches the watchmen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Saudi state media carried the following statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me Tarzan, You infidel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gag Orders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Indian Ocean doesn’t.

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)