Democracising Islam or Islamising Democracy

The spread of democracy and the rise of Islamic political parties that are willing to work with in the available system in order to reach their goals and achieve the targets set in their manifestos has given rise to a very important question: How compatible is democracy to Islam?

Democracy by classic definition is 'the rule of the people by the people for the people'. In more modern terms democracy is used to refer to a system of governance opposite to authoritarian and totalitarian systems. The sovereignty of the people may be an untamed beast, or can be one restricted by constitutional restrictions, depending on the form that democracy takes. In all cases however, a model democracy ensures the protection of human rights, the guarantee of religious freedom and freedom of speech. A model democracy also enshrines the doctrine of Separation of Powers, or separation of the three institution of government, namely the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislature. But the fact that a model democracy also enshrines the principle of Checks and Balances means that each one of these otherwise independent institutions do have the authority to act as watchdogs, if I may, over the actions of the other two institutions. So, in the end a model democracy enshrines the concept of Good Governance.This is achieved, not by the total independence of the government institutions, but by their interdependence.

One the other hand, Islam is the belief in the sovereignty of Allah Almighty. He revealed the Qur'an to the Prophet (PBUH) as a source of knowledge and guidance. The Prophet's traditions, known categorically as Sunnah, form the other primary source of Islamic law, second only to the clear guidances of the Qur'an. However, no statement could be more wrong than to say that the issues that are addressed by Islam are only those that are addressed to explicitly in the texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

The reason for this is that the Qur'an and Sunnah provide an Islamic legal framework. Instead of providing a complete set of rigid laws, they provide the basic principles for Islamic law. They further provided us with guidelines and methods to use our minds as a secondary source of Islamic law, that must lean on the general principles and authorities from the Qur'an and Sunnah.

This is true for all aspects of Islamic law, including politics. Whatever methods provided in the Qur'an and Sunnah form an inclusive definition of Islamic politics as opposed to an exclusive one.

The truth however remains that there are certain practices that are associated with democracy that are not completely in line with Islamic principles and ethical guidelines.

For example, the concept of human rights, as it is portrayed today, denotes the idea of complete equality, even if it does not establish equity. It also denotes the acceptance of certain deviances from rules of morality and canons of human nature. Religious freedom and freedom of speech, as 'democracy' portrays it, seem to indicate a total acceptance of all kinds of blasphemies and scandalous utterings. It also seems for some people that to nominate yourself for a post and to campaign for it means making false claims about traits that you never even dreamt of having. For others it is to make fabricate stories about the other parties that are contesting for the same spot. Even more dangerously, the power of money in politics means that the special interests of the rich are more protected than the rights and interests of normal citizens.

So, what are we to do as Muslims? Are we to go against a clear principle of Islamic law that Islamic politics is not restricted to the explicit provisions of the Qur'an and Sunnah there by rejecting Democracy as non-Islamic and a sin? Or are we instead to accept 'Democracy' as it is given to us on a gold plated platter, despite the clear deviations from Islamic teachings?

I believe neither of the above mentioned choices is an option for Muslims. To choose the first way would mean to let our governance go in the end to the hands of by non-Islamic people who have no care what so ever for the teachings of our religion. The second choice, would mean there's no difference between 'Islamic' people who 'love Islam' and those people whom we don't want to be governing us.

What choice are we left with then? As it has been repeatedly mentioned throughout this article, we Muslims have been given clear guidelines that we must follow. What is known as democracy is not a rigid set of rules, but rather a system that targets for the implementation of justice. Democracy can be shaped in accordance to the Islamic teachings. The reason for this is that while democracy is intended to provide the people with the goodness of this world, Islam is the way for the betterment of both this world and the next.

We as Muslims don't have to accept the Western definitions of democratic values. To be given human rights does not be to be given the right to fall below the standards of humanity. To be given religious freedom is not to be given the freedom to wage war against what Islam holds divine. To be given the right of free speech does not have to mean the freedom to utter whatever defamatory thoughts that come to your mind. To run for a political post with all your might is not the same as to run for that post with the might that you don't really have. And for politicians to follow every whim of special interest lobbyists, despite the danger it poses for the country as a whole, is not even a democratic value.

So, no. We don't want an imported version of democracy. We don't want a country where the people are supreme. We want a country where Islam is supreme. We want a country where justice is implemented. We want a political system that respects our values, and allows us to grow as a nation.

Why Won't the Mullahs Be Content With Their Mosques, Damn It!?

Secularism is the fad today, and to call for any religious affiliations within a political organization is completely outdated. We, the young generation, associate religious political movements with tyranny, dictatorships, and loss of human rights. We think religion, whether it be revealed or not, should know its place, and stay in the places of worship. We won't let religion walk through the doors of parliaments, presidential offices, and judge's courts.

It seems that most other religions have accepted this. The Church doesn't mess with what countries do, neither do Rabbis, or Buddhist and Hindu monks. Not usually anyways. Except Muslim scholars, the so-called 'Mullahs', who still believe that Islam has a place with in the operation of the governments of modern countries. For a lot of us who believe in secularism it is rather incredible how the Mullahs are so hotheaded regarding this, and simply won't be content with their mosques.

To be fair, the fear of Mullahs can be said to be for good reason. The image portrayed by the media of Islam is scary enough. For many people of the world, the 9/11 terrorist attacks are synonyms of Islam. And truth be told, the attempts of Muslims to recover their image after the 9/11 attacks remain a gesture - too little, too late.

Worse, every one knows that there are certain countries where Muslims try to implement Islam without having sufficient knowledge of Islamic law, resulting in blundering failures that are in the end nothing more than tyrannies. After all, little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

Even worse still, the rise of certain groups of Muslims who believe that the only way to save the Muslim Ummah from the unbelievable lowly state it's in is by waging war against the whole world at large has done the Mullahs, and even Muslims in general, no favor. The result has been a confusion between terrorist groups and Muslim political organizations who want to work through the democratic system and Muslim freedom fighters who took up arms only after having made failed attempts at diplomacy.

Having said all this, what makes Mullahs so adamant in their belief that they don't have to do what the Church and the Rabbis did?

I bet you've heard this enough times already, but Islam is a complete way of life. Sure enough, other religions are also a complete way of life in a sense. I say 'In a sense,' because they focus more on formulating a set moral guidelines, where as Islam has come with a more sophisticated legal framework. It is an uncontested fact that the Islamic state established by the Prophet (PBUH) and later ruled by his rightly guided Caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them) was the first nation in recorded history to have developed such a sophisticated legal system, all of which was based on religious teachings. Muslim scholars have elaborated on matters of constitutional, civil, personal, criminal laws, as well matters related to international relations.

Now, what makes these laws, that were formulated more than a century and a half ago suitable to the modern age that we're living in?

The most important factor that makes Islamic Shariah suitable for the modern age is the fact that it accepts custom, public interest, and in certain matters even individual benefit, as sources of law, or matters taken into consideration in the formulating of the law. Of course, customs and the interest of the public, differ from place to place, and from time to time. Individual benefits differ from person to person. Thus, Islamic law is more flexible than we initially might imagine it to be.

Of course, it must be kept in mind that these sources of law come secondary to the Qur'an and Sunnah. We, as Muslims, believe that the Qur'an is a divine revelation from Allah to the Messenger (PBUH) as a guidance for the whole mankind. The Qur'an is therefore the primary source of Islamic law followed by the traditions of the Prophet (PBUH). And these two primary sources provide the guidelines that we must abide by in following the secondary sources of law. As a matter of fact, there's a whole science around the methods of deriving laws from the texts of both the Qur'an and Sunnah as well as from the secondary sources of Islamic law.

All this aside, there's another simple reason why the Mullahs and the Mullahs' followers like myself believe we simply cannot be content with our Mosques. Because the Qur'an and Sunnah has a complete set of rules, to simply be stuck in our mosques would be to work in accordance to around 25% of what has been revealed. We as Muslims have been ordered to live our whole lives in accordance to 100% of what has been revealed.

To follow Islam is to follow Islam in our every day. To pray in the mosque. To go out to the street and be able to relate to the problems we face there. To have the ability to guide the society. To have the guts to be able to lead the society. That's why the Mullahs won't be content with their mosques, damn it!

Please, Stop! It Hurts!

Today's children are tomorrow's adults. Sorry for the pun, but it is true that those young people whom we call children today do hold the key to the future - the future of our nation and all nations for that matter.

That's why it's such a grave tragedy that in this age and time when humanity is making such great efforts for the betterment of the future there's a cancerous disease spreading like wildfire in our societies. When we are busily inventing new technologies and finding cures for previously incurable diseases our children are falling prey to sexual predators by the day, and no matter what we do we seem to be failing to stop or reduce the spread of this phenomena. What more, it seems that the advancements in communication technologies are actually helping the predators find their prey.

What's even more unfortunate is the deafening silence with which this issue seems to be addressed by many Muslims, Muslim scholars, and Islamic institutions. Is it a result of pure shock? Or is it that Muslims find it easier to live in a bubble, blind to the realities of the world around them?

If it's shock, it's about time they got over it, because being incredulous is not to going to help us solve the problem. If it is that they want to live in their own perfect little worlds within their own heads, they should realise that Islam wasn't sent to keep a perfect world on its perfection. Islam was sent to perfect a world filled with imperfections. The main goal the Shariah has set out to achieve is the prevention of harm and ensurement of benefits for the individual and for society as a whole. It is every Muslim's duty to work to achieve this goal.

This being the case, it's nothing less than an utter wrong for Muslims, whether affiliated with organisations or working individually, to disconnect themselves from society to such a great extent that they fail to address such a great issue within the society. It's even worse when Muslim scholars choose to be silent about an issue because it gives the impression that, 'Look, look! Islam doesn't prohibit child abuse either. Those stupid pedophilia-condonists!'

But that's untrue. Islam has prohibited all kinds of abuse. Even the abuse of animals is prohibited in Islam. The Prophet (PBUH) narrated the story of the woman who caged a cat without feeding it until it died. He informs that Allah has destined her to Hell for this act of cruelty towards an animal. Such being the stand of Islam towards the abuse of animals, do you seriously think that Islam will possibly condone the abuse of children?

The Prophet (PBUH) has paid great attention to informing the Ummah of the value of children in front of Allah. He being the perfect example showered his own children with love and care. Even after Fatimah, his daughter, got married and moved in with her husband, the Prophet (PBUH) showed great concern for her affairs. He gave the same treatment to the children of his companions (may Allah be pleased with them). He further instructed his companions to show love and care for the children who have lost one or both parents and thus become orphans.

Muslims are to follow the instructions of the Prophet. The instructions of the Prophet (PBUH) for Muslims to offer kindness to children are so great in number that they can only constitute the act as compulsory for Muslim. Under Islamic law, failing to do an act that is compulsory, and doing an act that is prohibited is what constitutes a crime.

Is the parent who beats up his own child to death in the name of punishing the child for being mischievous showing the kindness which is compulsory for him to give his child? Is the man, any man, who forcefully takes away the innocence of a child being kind to that child? Are the people who force children into slavery showing kindness to those children? Or are they acting in contravention to the many instructions by the Prophet (PBUH) for Muslims to treat children with love, care, and due respect? If they are acting in contravention to the Prophet's instructions, their act constitutes nothing but a crime.

The recent judgment delivered by a Saudi court to sentence a couple to death for abusing and killing a child over time is most noteworthy. Perhaps, for once other Muslim countries should in fact follow the Saudi lead and strengthen their laws to prevent child abuse.

But the Saudi court's judgment is not cause enough for celebration. In a time when people of different ideologies all over the world are addressing the issue of child abuse by various methods, the majority of Muslim scholars remain silent about the issue. The silence heard from the scholars is nothing short of shameful.

I refuse to take part in the shameful silence. I choose to raise my voice!

Hi Aisha, Are You Pregnant?

Having being newly married, I am constantly asked by people when I'm planning to have a baby. Not always is the question posed so nicely and with such civility. Sometimes people even ask me if I'm planning to make a baby soon. Others shout out at my husband, 'So is your wife pregnant already?' as if we've been trying for ages and failing. Lol!

The answer is quite clear in my mind. I simply can't afford a baby at this stage in my life. I'm still a student and I'm going to face a flood of student loans when I finish my degree a year from now. Leaving my financial status aside, I don't want to have a baby unless I'm sure I am in a position to fully live up to my responsibility towards the baby as a parent. Quite honestly, I'm finding it hard enough balancing marriage and studies. Even with my husband helping me as much as he can around the house our apartment is falling into complete disarray. I don't think I can devote the time, attention, and care to the baby that it deserves. That being the case, I don't think it's fair for the baby that I'll be dragging it to my classes and to the library and everywhere else all over the campus, exposing it to all sorts of international fevers and colds that even I can't seem to avoid (in the International Islamic University). Especially if I can't give it enough attention in between classes.

And whenever I get asked if I'm pregnant, or planning to be pregnant soon, or anything of that sort, I try to explain to whoever asks me the question, in as little an amount of words as possible, this reasoning. Many people do agree with it (and suggest I get pregnant as soon as I finish my degree), and some few think it just shows how little I believe in the Will of Allah.

There seems to be a belief among some Muslims that babies are a gift from Allah and we simply have no right to turn away from a gift that Allah sends our way.

While I cannot agree more that babies are bundles of love that Allah gives us as gifts, I cannot look at parenthood as a gift alone. I think it is wrong to equate a baby to the gifts that we sometimes receive on birthdays, say, that are later left forgotten at the back of shelves gathering dust.

Since it is agreed that babies are in fact gifts from Allah, let's look at what a gift from Allah means. A gift from Allah, whatever it maybe, comes to us with certain responsibilities. Let's look at our lives for example. Life in it self, the short time span that we spend on earth, every single millisecond, is a gift from Allah. And it is our duty towards life itself that we spend it in the service of Allah. Our lives were not given to us to be wasted. Our bodies are gifts from Allah. And we owe a responsibility towards our bodies: to keep it healthy and safe from diseases as much as possible. To seek treatment in case we do contract a disease. To not endanger ourselves and put our bodies in hazardous situations. And these are responsibilities that we owe to gifts that were given to us as our sole right. What with a baby it is another soul. And when you bring a child into the world, you have a responsibility as a parent to take care of it and take all possible measures to give it a good future. And while it is true that the future is in Allah's hand, isn't it just as true that Allah commanded us to plan for the future?

Muslim scholars have taken a purposive approach in their discussion of the position Islam towards marriage and this approach has accepted by consensus in the Muslim world. The position of the person in life, his physical well-being and his financial capability included, is taken into consideration when discussing whether he or she is required, recommended to, or prevented from getting married.

Perhaps the same should be done in our discussion of the Islamic view of different methods of contraception. First of all, sterilisation is not the only contraceptive method available. So, it won't be proper to generalise the ruling on sterilisation to include all the other methods of contraception. Secondly, pregnancy, birth, and parenthood should not be looked at as the sole experience of the parents. It is first and foremost the start of the baby's life, and that is how we should look at it. And the idea that a couple who are not sure whether or not they can fully take care of the baby, or are sure they cannot give the baby the love and care it deserves is in my mind irresponsible.

Gifts from Allah are not to be treated in that manner. These gifts from Allah are facets of our being viceroys of Allah on earth. And as the Qur'an explains in Al-Ahzab: 72, this is an undertaking that the whole universe shook and shivered from its might and weight.

This being the case, we can't possibly in our right minds jump into such a responsibility with closed eyes. We need to plan for our future, our children's future and such plans are very much in line with Islam, as opposed to being against it. That's the proper way of believing in Allah's Will.

I Did NOT Consent To Be Raped!

It happens very often, that a girl meets the 'man of her dreams', dates him, goes into an engagement with him, and then decides that she does in fact want to spend the rest of her life with him, and gets married to him. The wedding is always an flowery affair. And if luck sides with the marriage, maybe the honeymoon will be a bliss too. Then the points comes where the peak has been reached and its all downhill from that point on.

The journey downhill, although most of the time completely destructive of the marriage itself, doesn't always have to be life-threatening. But sour marriages seem to be getting physically sour more and more often and the need to address the issue of marital rape is becoming more and more grave. Or maybe it's simply that women are become more open and daring to come forth and talk about these issues than they were before.

The issue now arises whether a husband can actually rape his wife. Well, physically, yes, of course, and why the hell not? If the wife was resisting to have sex, and the husband had his way with her despite that, then viola, we have a forced intercourse! In the west, that is rape and nothing less.

But, can it really be called rape? Or is it brutal case of domestic violence?

What needs to be noted at this point is the huge difference in the usage of the word 'rape' between Islamic Law and other laws. Where 'rape' is used in western laws to refer to any forced intercourse, under Islamic law 'rape' refers to any sort illicit sex that has been forced. Where in the west, sex itself is not punished unless it is forced, under Islamic law sexual intercourse outside of a marriage is punished. Alleging rape - and proving it of course! - under Islamic law aggravates the offence of illicit sex on the part of the perpetrator, and exonerates the victim from any sort of punishment.

That brings us to the issue of using the word 'rape' within the context of a marriage. What the word rape implies is that the act of having sex in itself was an offence, and this is very much untrue.

Islam gives both parties to a marriage a right to ask for sex when they desire to. And it is the other spouse's obligation to fulfill the wishes of his or her partner. When you sign a marriage contract, you consent to having this obligation towards your spouse.

Funnily enough, the husband's right to ask for sex whenever he desires has been under the spot light for so long, that many Muslims have forgotten that the Prophet stopped one of his companions from practicing celibacy by saying that 'your wife has a right over you.' The right to initiate an intimate time is a mutual right in Islam given to both spouses, and this right is based on kindness, mutual respect, and mutual understanding.

When a husband forces his wife to have intercourse, while she is resisting, the problem is not with the fact that he had intercourse itself. The problem is with the cruel manner in which he had intercourse, and the fact that this contravenes the clear guidelines given in Islam with regards to the relationship between a husband and a wife. Can it be called 'rape'? Legally, I think not. It is the ultimate case of domestic violence, and that is how it should be treated.

Which brings us to our second issue. The fact of the matter is that laws regarding domestic violence are very much under developed even in western countries. In our part of the world it's even worse. What happens in the matrimonial house stays in the matrimonial house, and the police cannot penetrate the veil of privacy that guards the secrets of the marital home. Domestic violence cases are looked into very often in civil courts that rarely can give a strong penalty against a perpetrator.

In this situation, will it be safe to consider marital rape - let's loosely call rape here since it's such a bother to call it 'forced marital sex' - a domestic violence case? Note that in some countries a perpetrator convicted of domestic violence can be punished with a maximum fine of 150 Dollars. Is it in anyway even comparable to the grave crime he has committed against his own wife?

Raping your wife cannot in anyway be considered even close to slapping her hard enough to bruise her face. It's not the same as beating her up. Of course those acts do degrade her and take away from her the security and safety that she is supposed to feel within the marriage. But once you force yourself upon her, that's going to the next level. And no ointment can cure the bruises left on her from such an experience. A man who finds it in himself to do so needs to be punished accordingly, and there is no domestic violence law in the whole world that can punish a man enough for 'raping' - loosely again - his wife.

Having considered all these factors, what hell is wrong with legislating a law that makes it a crime to force yourself upon to your wife? Why are Muslim jurists and legislators so stuck up with names and terms that they can't see the fact that women in their countries are suffering and not because the Shariah doesn't address their issue, but because of a lack of people who cared enough about upholding justice to read the Qur'an beyond it's letters.

Call it rape, call it forced sex. I really don't care. I did NOT consent to being made a sex slave. And if my husband were to force himself upon me, I expect him to be punished. That is what justice requires. And that is what the Shariah requires as well.

To force or not to force, THAT is the question!!!

A recent case I came by: a 16 year old Saudi girl drank bleach so as to avoid being forced into a marriage with a 75 year old man. In the end, the girl managed to appeal to the authorities, and the marriage was in fact avoided, al-hamdulillah, without her having to choose between the embrace of the grave and the embrace of a 75 year old husband.

My concern is that the father, who, in return to marrying her to the 75 year old man, was going to be able to get married to her future groom's (if a 'groom' is a word suitable for a 75 year old) 12 year old child, probably was a man who prayed the 5 obligatory salat, fasted the month of Ramadan, and considered himself to be a pious servant of Allah. How then does he not know that forcing his daughter into a marriage is completely against the laws of Allah?

This is a common mistake that many Muslims make: The belief that the father and the paternal grand father are wali mujbir, and that wali mujbir means they can force their virgin daughters to enter into any marriage of their choosing. A mistake that happens because they tend to translate technical, VERY technical, terms literally. And that too VERY literally.

The whole idea of forcing daughters into marriage is a legacy of the pre-Islamic era that that the Prophet (peace be upon him) made great efforts to do away with. It is a well-known fact of Islamic history that a girl who was given away in marriage by her father without obtaining her consent was given the right to annul the marriage when she complained to the Prophet (PBUH). But the reality of the world we live in right now is that many Muslims in many parts of the world are so unaware of the rules they claim to abide by that they find it okay to marry off their daughters despite their cries and pleas.

Wali mujbir is a technical term used to refer to the father and paternal grandfather of a girl, and literally it does mean the wali who forces. But 'forcing' here is not forcing as we know it.

The difference between these two wali and others (like the brother, and the uncle for example) is that if the others are acting as wali in a girl's marriage, the marriage won't be solemnised unless she expressly says that she consents to the marriage. However, if the father or the paternal grandfather is to be acting as wali, the virgin girl's silence is taken to be a sign of her consent.

So the other day, when one of my lecturers told our class that wali mujbir means someone who can force a girl into marriage, I was shocked. I was more shocked when she told the class that although the Shariah allows forcing virgin girls into marriage, the Malaysian law doesn't. I felt it may not be right to argue with her there. But now I want to make it clear to everyone here: wali mujbir is a technical term. Giving a simplistic and literal definition of it is not only a mistake. It is a blasphemous mistake. It is a concession to all those allegations that Islam doesn't protect woman's rights.

The current situation the Muslim world is in right now is not because of anybody else. Muslim societies all around the world are living in societal disrupt and disease because we have started to implement Islamic law without knowing the basics of it. Which brings me to what I have been saying all along: Muslims need to stop calling each other kafir and get real. Start doing something that is beneficial to the Ummah! Next time a Muslim has the itch to call another Muslim a mushrik or kafir or any one of those names they so lovingly call their brothers, they should go and educate those people who think forcing girls into marriages is a good way to get a new bride or tons of money.

A Sad Tale of Law

Have you ever wondered why it is that Islamic law is not implemented fully in anywhere in the world? Even in Saudi Arabia where they claim that Islamic law is followed word to word, you find such clear deviations from Islamic principles that Islamic law in itself has become a laughing stock. For all those who actually do laugh at the implementation of Islamic law, I won't pass judgment on you; you are excused.

People say, how barbaric is Islam? How can a law, any law, sentence a person to be stoned to death just for having sex with someone other than his/her spouse? How can premarital sex be punished with 100 lashes from a whip? People don't know that for a person to be whipped or stoned, there has to be FOUR just and honest witnesses who saw the sexual act with their own eyes. No circumstantial evidence is accepted. If there were four witnesses who would bear witness to having seen an act of illicit sex, and one of them were to back out, the three people who claimed to have seen an illegal sexual act would be convicted for the crime of fabrication.

Funny, punishing a rape victim in Saudi sure doesn't seem to be in line with that!! Nor does abandoning God's law for man-made laws whereby fornication is applauded, or given a blind eye at best.

When young girls are given as child brides in parts of the Arab world, people of closed minds and unthinkable short vision love to mention that Aisha, wife of the Prophet (pbuh), (and may Allah be pleased with her) was only 7 or 9 when her hand was given to the Prophet in marriage. What they don't consider is the fact that where the Prophet's marriage to Aisha made her a source of Islamic law and Prophetic tradition, marrying of young girls to old tribal chiefs kill any dreams they have of a good education and a prosperous career. And, seriously, when did we start putting chieftains in the same category as the blessed Prophet (peace be upon him)??

With all due respect, any Muslim scholar who believes that women don't have the right to vote needs to go back to Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Okay, so no woman voted the Prophet (pbuh) as leader of the Islamic state in Madinah. No one voted. As believers in the Prophet all the companions were unanimous in their decision to follow every order he made. But the Prophet himself consulted his wives at different stages of Islamic statehood. His caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them) had women in their company when they discussed policy. Now conisder the irony when Muslims read the Qur'an and look through compilations of Hadith and decide women can't vote!!

Before Muslims go out on the streets raging that someone said that Islamic law cannot be implemented in this age and time, they should look at themselves. Islamic law is under-developed. God gave us a law. He gave us the Holy Qur'an. He sent us the Prophet (peace be upon him) and ordered us to follow his traditions. But God gave us minds too. But Muslims, for the most part seem to have forgotten this God-given mind of ours.

Dance Parties, Tsunamis, and Bordering on Atheism

This has been my first time to read former Information Minister Mr. Mohamed Nasheed's blog. Even now as I type these words, I ask myself why I am bothering to comment on the blog; maybe it's because it relates to the status of the religion of Islam in the Maldives more than it relates to politics, or maybe it mentions Mr. Mohamed Nasheed's educational credentials as a graduate of the International Islamic University Malaysia, the same university I myself am studying in.

It seems to me that Mr. Nasheed has been angered into an outburst of “conversation” by the decision made by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs to ban “dance parties” that were planned to be held in Male’ on New Year's Eve. It seems that Mr. Nasheed is of the opinion that such parties should be allowed and that the decision by the Ministry to ban them is one that will breed further extremist thought among Maldivians.

Mr. Nasheed’s idea that DJ’s that are planned to be a place for young people to hook up is part of Maldivian tradition is absurd. What’s more absurd though is his idea that there is a more modern ‘version’ of Islam that would allow such behaviour.

In his frustration at the Ministry’s decision, Mr. Nasheed has moved on to question the Islamic Affairs Minister’s comments regarding the 2004 tsunami. Apparently, the Minister’s comments that the tsunami was Allah’s Punishment and Wrath didn’t make sense at all to the former Information Minister.

We all know the science behind a tsunami: an underwater earthquake or landslide causes a sudden large movement in the water, creating a fast moving wave that slows and gains height in shallow water.

What we all also know about the 2004 earthquake and tsunami though, is the fact that the earthquake which took place on December 26th, 2004 was greater than anyone could have expected: The location where the epicenter of the earthquake was was a completely different location from what scientists had anticipated. Scientists had identified the southern part of the fault-line near Sumatra as being at risk of an earthquake. The rupture had occurred further north. In addition to that, a weakness in the Earth's crust near that area created a shortcut allowing energy to the surface.

The 2004 Tsunami was in fact a series of tsunamis: one caused by the displacement of the seabed when energy escaped to the surface through 'cracks' in the Earth's crust, another caused by the movement of the tectonic plates themselves.

The question is why did the rupture occur further north than could have been anticipated? Why were there weaknesses in the crust in that particular region? Why was even the rupture far greater than expected? Why do ruptures occur in the first place? Why are there plates in the Earth’s crust? Chance? Science? No. We Muslims are supposed to believe it's Allah's Will.

We as Muslims are supposed to believe that there is a force above science, and above nature; a more powerful force. That's what belief in Allah is. We don't believe in Allah the way ancient people used to believe in their numerous gods; that they created the Earth and that was it. That they didn't have anything to do with what was going on.

Natural disasters are Allah's Wrath, as well as His Mercy. His Wrath for those who indulged in wrongdoing until their very last moment. His Mercy for those god-fearing people who were nonetheless affected by the disaster. His Mercy because Allah has promised them reward. "Such is the Promise of Allah. Never Doth Allah fail in His Promise." (Surah Al-Zumar: 20)

What really shocks me as I write all this is that the person who finds the idea of a natural disaster being Allah’s Wrath as absurd is a graduate of International Islamic University Malaysia. I have studied in this great university for 3 years now. And never have I heard anyone here, neither lecturer nor student question this concept before. And according to what I learned here, believing in Allah’s Will is the six pillar of Iman (faith).

In any case, I believed it was my duty to deliver the message of knowledge, in case you didn’t know. And if you did, please accept my humble reminder!