Petition to the Government of the Maldives: 15-year-old rape survivor faces flogging in the Maldives

I cannot sign the Amnesty International petition against flogging: The petition uses the disparity between the practice of flogging in the Maldives and the principle of penalising fornication as a platform to call for decriminalising fornication, which is clearly against Islamic principles.

So here is my own Petition to the Government of the Maldives:

"I am outraged on hearing that a 15 year old girl, who has survived rape by her stepfather and a resultant pregnancy, has now been found guilty of "fornication" and sentenced to flogging and house arrest.

I call on you to release the girl immediately and unconditionally, and ensure that she is not flogged or otherwise punished. Survivors of rape or other forms of sexual abuse need counselling and support - not prosecution. The 15 year old girl must be provided with adequate and appropriate protective and support services.

While I welcome Dr. Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik's statement 28 February that "the Government will facilitate and supervise her appeal of the case, via the girl’s lawyer, to ensure that justice is done and her rights are protected", I want to be assured that the provision for the offence of fornication will no longer be abused to prosecute minors, victims of sexual assault and people of unsound mind."

Crime Rates: The Case AGAINST Hudud & Capital Punishment

(This is the English adaptation of my previous post in Dhivehi language under the title, 'Shari'ah, Death Penalty and the Maldives. It is not a direct translation. Additional information have been provided based on the comments I received on the Dhivehi language article.)

DISCLAIMER:

1. Yes, the title was meant to be provocative: it was meant to provoke thought and open-mindedness. Not a string of insults and verbal abuses, or calls for me to repent. Please read this article before you reach a verdict on the title! 
2. I AM A MUSLIM. I believe in Islam (the whole of it, and not bits and pieces of it). And I am NOT an apologist Muslim either, who believes in the 'convenient' parts of Islam and is undecided on what is perceived to be 'inconvenient'.
3. This article does NOT address the issue of Hudud in general. It addresses the issue with a backdrop of a certain time, a certain place, under certain circumstances.

The makers of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives - passed and gazzeted in 2008 - gave full recognition to the Islamic heritage and culture of the island nation when they made Islamic principles a yardstick against which the constitutionality and validity of all Maldivian laws and regulations ought to be measured (Article 10(b) of the Constitution). This being the case, it cannot be anything but shameful that 'implementing Islamic Shari'ah' - and it ought to be noted that in this context, 'Islamic Shari'ah' stands for , and ONLY for, corporal punishments - has become a mere mantra chanted - by masses and leaders alike - in the face of one social or legal calamity or the other that hits the nation; a marketing slogan to shout out in order to garner support for one political stand or the other.

Time and time again in the Maldives - along side periodical highs in crime rates, or upon the discovery of a particularly gruesome crime - calls arise to 'implement Islamic Shari'ah' with special emphasis on the death penalty. The idea among Maldivians seems to be something like this: if you 'implement Islamic Shari'ah' on just one gangbanger, just one murderer, just one child abuser, just one rapist, JUST ONE, no one else will dare to even think of committing such a horrendous crime. Many of the Islamic scholars in Maldives, too - wrongly, in my humble opinion - give similar meaning to the deterrent factor in Islamically-prescribed punishments of Hudud stating in sermon after sermon and fatwa after fatwa, that the main problem in Maldivian society is that we don't 'implement Islamic Shari'ah' and don't treat criminals harshly enough. 

What has led me to speak out on this issue at this juncture is that a bill has entered the People's Majlis, for the third time, with the pretext that the death penalty is the one and only God-given solution for this country drowning in its own blood. Every time an MP - first one belonging to the then-ruling MDP, then an independent, now one from PPM - proposed to compel the government to implement the death penalty, it was following an 'inspiration' that 'Islamic Shari'ah' is the lone solution to the country's crime problem.

To take a look at the contents of the bill proposed by Mr. Ahmed Mahloof, member of Galolhu Dhekunu constituency, the bill is an amendment to Section 21 of the Clemency Act, which currently allows the President to commute death sentences to life imprisonment. The bill removes such authority and requires the executive to implement the death sentence should the Supreme Court uphold it. Now, looking at the above stated provision from a Shari'ah perspective, the provision is in clear contradiction with Islamic principles relating to Qisas; once first-degree murder is proven against an accused, only the heirs of the victim - not the State - have the right to pardon the convicted murderer.

Having said that, one cannot help but wonder why 'Islamic Shari'ah' is being presented as synonymous to the death penalty and corporal punishment? Is capital punishment - and are Hudud, for that matter - the first and foremost line of defense presented by Islam to prevent criminal activity? Perhaps, there's something we're missing here? Perhaps, maybe, possibly, Islam has preventive mechanisms other than corporal punishments - mechanisms that focus more on building and developing core Islamic values in the society - in store that need to be employed prior to any implementation of harsh punishments that affect the very life of human beings?

True; in Islam, there are certain corporal punishments prescribed against certain crimes that would detriment the social fabric of an Islamic society. But, note that these punishments are meant to PROTECT morals that are already part of the society's value system, not to implant new morals into the society. The development of moral and ethical values in the society, no matter what school of thought you refer to, is a job for generation builders: parents, educators, etc.; not for law enforcement officers and security forces, and certainly not for executioners! The death penalty is not, and will never be, a viable solution for a society faced with a moral crisis.

Hudud, I believe, should be a step taken after, and ONLY after, reasonably implanting Islamic values in society: true belief in the Almighty, respect for authority, chastity and morality, proper maintenance of public peace and order, sanctity of public and private property, as well as the value of intellect and sanity.

This belief is one founded on evidences from Qur'an and Sunnah, writings and opinions of classic and contemporary scholars, as well as logical derivations that support the view that a gradualist approach should be taken towards the full implementation of Islamic Shari'ah under the current circumstances. It should be noted at this juncture that the very idea of gradualism in the implementation of Shari'ah is one upon which contemporary Islamic scholars have divided opinions.

While one group of scholars - notable among them Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi - rely on Qur'anic and prophetic evidences that illustrate gradualism in the very revelation of Islamic rulings, the other rely on general Qur'anic injunctions that command Muslims to rule in accordance to Allah's revelations and forbids them from following their whims and fancies. The latter group rejects evidences put forth by the earlier, stating that such evidences illustrate a gradualism that was adopted during the transition from the Jahiliyyah of pre-Islamic period to the Islamic rule; and it is not the case here. The earlier group of scholars admonish the latter for being too idealistic; too removed from the reality of Muslim societies, where, they argue, a Jahiliyyah is truly in place, and state that to start implementing certain injunctions of the Islamic Shari'ah under the current circumstances will in fact be against the values of compassion and justice promoted by Islam; that to implement those injunctions in the current circumstances will NOT be to rule in accordance with Allah's revelation. Supporters of gradualism in the implementation of Shari'ah, such as Muhammad Salim Al-Awwa, state that to implement Hudud in today's Egypt, for example, is impossible because the Shari'ah conditions for the implementation of Hudud are not fulfilled in the society. What strengthens this argument further is the fact that Sayyidina Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had halted the implementation of the prescribed Hadd of amputation against thieves during the year of famine which hit the Muslim lands during his caliphate.

Looking at the situation in Maldives, it might strike one as intriguing that one of the main reasons why I am AGAINST the implementation of the death penalty currently in the Maldives is actually the very corner stone of the case presented by its PROPONENTS: hiking crime rates. While the proponents are under the illusion that its implementation will bring an abrupt stop to crimes in general, and violent crimes in particular, I argue that penalising criminals is too passive a response to the crime problem faced by our country. Crime is an issue that needs to be addressed proactively; a growing cancer in our society that we need to strike at its roots.

Many surveys and studies have been carried out in the Maldives in order to understand the causes of escalating crime rates in the small island nation; some conducted by international bodies; some others by the government; a few even by non-governmental organisations. One main cause that has come to light, especially for the growing involvement of the youth in criminal activities and violent gangs, is congestion in the capital city of Male' which houses a majority of Maldivians. Former Home Minister, Mr. Mohamed Shihab, made note of this back in 2010, and his statement was later reiterated by Police spokesperson Sgt. Ahmed Shiyam.

Another important factor leading to the increase of criminal activity among the youth is the high divorce rates. Maldives is proudly - and I say it with every bit of sarcasm possible - the country with the highest divorce rates in the Asia/Pacific, with crude divorce rate being 3 times higher than the average rate in the region. Research has continually shown a link between delinquency in young people and the break down of their family structure.

Now, consider young Maldivian generations: trapped in the concrete jungle of Male', caught up in the middle of the raging divorce and alimony battle between their parents, finding nothing to do and going out to aimlessly roam the streets on which gangs, drugs and violence are rampant.

The most important ingredient in this horrific brew is still missing: the lack of good parenting among many Maldivian parents; the lack of a good education system; the lack of a social structure to prevent crime.

Maldives has become a breeding ground for rape, child abuse and other violent crimes of sexual nature. Only last year, a 19-year old young man was arrested on suspicion of raping a bed-ridden, mentally impaired woman of 74. In the meantime, the kind of moral guidance that the youth receive at home is that 'Well, boys will be boys after all!' In this country where gang violence, assault and murder have become an epidemic, bullying, which research shows is an early warning of violent tendency, in schools is an issue that is almost completely neglected. A blame game had followed the untimely death of a 13-year old student of Majeediyya School back in 2005, but no real action was ever taken. As for many parents, they like to think 'My darling child' will not beat anyone up. Pre-marital and extra-marital sex is so much the norm in Maldives, that even if a man and woman are dragged out of a room stark naked, no one would so much as blink. In many cases, women (mostly because they get pregnant) get convicted easily of Zina, but men rarely do. In just as many cases, women go through unspeakable emotional and physical pain in order to undergo illegal abortions. Brothels and back-alley abortion houses; they USED to be shocking. Not anymore. What kind of parental guidance is given to youngsters regarding sexual behaviour? Children, sometimes as young as 10 years old, watch r-rated movies without any adult supervision. Note that 'r-rated' is a rating done by the Motion Picture Association of America. What kind of rating do you think such movies will get if rated according to Islamic values? It is quite normal in the Maldives that teens have boy/girl-friends. For many, it is not because they intend to build a life with the other partner; it just isn't cool to be the only single person among your peers. When a teen's girl/boy-friend comes to see him/her, in many Maldivian families, the parents empty out the teen's bedroom so they can have privacy. I know; I have had teen-aged friends! Add easily available alcohol and drugs to the recipe. Now, what do you expect from this society?!

Just as Muslim lands were hit by a year of famine during the caliphate of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), Muslim lands today are suffering from a greater famine; our societies are starved of moral values!! The sky-rocketing crime rates are a clear indication of that fact.

I think it would only be right to address some of the logical inconsistencies in the arguments brought forward by proponents of corporal punishments, especially those who propagate it in the name of Islam. The arguments they bring forward go something like this: (1) We want to implement Islamic Shari'ah - they mean, corporal punishments, of course -  because they are deterrents; (2) Western countries that don't implement Shari'ah, such as the US, are facing huge crime problems. Then they go on the defensive and say that (3) it's nonsensical to reject Shari'ah based on human rights because countries considered to be champions of human rights, such as the US, do implement the death penalty. If US States do implement capital punishment, and they also face rising crime rates, quite obviously the death penalty alone does not have the deterrent effect that they're supposing it has. If one were to look at the murder statistics of US states that do implement the death sentence and states that don't, one will find that states that do NOT have capital punishment legislation have continuously had less murders than the states that DO have capital punishment legislation. This is a clear indication that the states that do not have death penalty statutes are doing something right; something that is sustainably, and - to a certain extent - successfully acting as a deterrent against murder.

A friend recently told me that 'it is utter desperation that leads ppl to support the idea [of the death penalty] itself.' I believe he might very well be right. But utter desperation to do what? If the goal is - as it seems to be - to put away the criminals for good, people in their utter desperation are supporting the wrong idea. What comes with harsher punishment, in the criminal justice system, is a stricter burden of proof on the prosecution. When it comes to punishments such as Qisas and Hudud, Islamic evidence principles are so strict that the crime has to be proven beyond any doubt. (True; Maldivian laws and legal practices have shown discrepancies from this general rule. But don't blame the theory when the practice is non-compliant!!) The point to be made here is that even without strict corporal punishments in place, the Prosecutor General's Office is having a tough enough time presenting evidences to prove that the accused on the stand is the perpetrator of the crime. The death sentence will only make it harder to do so; and will, thereby, help free suspected criminals rather than putting them away.

The mistake many Maldivians - masses and leaders alike - make is to oversimplify things. They think that because classic Islamic texts say that Qisas and Hudud are deterrents against crime, they are deterrents against crime no matter what the real circumstances on the ground may be. The equation isn't as simple as:
                                'Hudud is negatively correlated to Crime Rates;
                                 Therefore No Hudud = Crimes
                                                      Hudud = No Crimes.'
It just isn't that simple. The fact of the matter is, that crime rates is the very corner stone of the case AGAINST Hudud. Not the case for it.

Shariah, Death Penalty and the Maldives (Dhivehi)

އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތަކީ ކަނޑާ ވައްޓާލާ ރުކެއްހެން ޤާއިމުކުރެވޭނެ އެއްޗެއް ނޫނެވެ.

(The English language article on this topic will be published soon, inshallah.)

ދިވެހިރާއްޖެއަކީ ޒަމާނުއްސުރެ ސައްތައިން ސައްތަ މުސްލިމު ޤައުމެއްގެ ގޮތުގައި އޮވެފައިވާ ޤައުމެކެވެ. ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ޖުމްހޫރިއްޔާގައި ހަދާ، ޢަމަލުކުރާ ޤާނޫނުތަކަކީ އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތާ އެއްގޮތް އެޝަރީޢަތާ ފުށުއެރުމެއް ނެތް ޤާނޫނުތަކެއް ކަމުގައި ވާން ޖެހޭނެ ކަމީ ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ޤާނޫނުއަސާސީގައި ކަނޑައެޅި ބަޔާންވެފައިވާ ކަމެކެވެ. އެހެން ނަމަވެސް، ހިތާމައާއެކު ފާހަގަކޮށްލަން ޖެހެނީ އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތް ޤާއިމުކުރުމުގެ ވާހަކައަކީ ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގައި ހަމައެކަނި މޫސުން މޫސުމަށް، ވައިޖެހޭ މިސްރާބާއި ބާރުމިނަށް ބަލައި އޮއިވަރު ހުރި ނެތް ދިމައެއް ބަލާފައި ދެކެވޭ ވާހަކައެއްކަމެވެ. މާލެތެރޭގައި މާރާމާރީ ގިނަވާ ދުވަސްވަރަށް، ރާއްޖޭގެ ކޮންމެވެސް ހިސާބެއްގައި އަނިޔާވެރިކަމުން ހައްދު ފަހަނައަޅާފައިވާ ޖަރީމާއެއް ހިނގާ ދުވަސްވަރަށް ޖަހާ މައިތިރިއަކަށް ވެފައިވާކަމެވެ.

އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތުގެ ވާހަކައާއ ޝަރީޢަތް ތަންފީޒުކުރާ ވާހަކަ މިއަދު ދައްކަން މިޖެހުނީ، އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތް ތަންފީޒުކުރުމުގެ ނަމުގައި ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގައި މަރުގެ ޙުކުމް ތަންފީޒުކުރާ ވާހަކަ ތިންވަނަ ފަހަރަށް ރައްޔިތުންގެ މަޖިލިހުގައި ދެކެވެން ފެށުމުންނެވެ. ފުރަތަމަ އެމްޑީޕީއަށް ނިސްބަތްވާ މެމްބަރަކު ހުށަހެޅުއްވާ އަނބުރާ ގެންދެވި ބިލު، މިނިވަން މެންބަރަކު ހުށަހަޅުއްވާ އަނބުރާ ނަންގަވާފައި މިހާރު މިއޮތީ ޕީޕީއެމަށް ނިސްބަތްވާ މެމްބަރަކު ހުށަހަޅުއްވާފައެވެ. މިބިލު މަޖިލިހަށް ހުށަހަޅާ ކޮންމެ ފަހަރެއްވެސް ދިމާވަނީ މާލެއާއި ރާއްޖޭގެ އެކި ހިސާބުތަކުގައި ކުށްކުރުން ގިނަވެ އެމައްސަލަ ބޮޑުވެގެން އުޅޭ ދުވަސްވަރަކަށެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ މިބިލު ހުށަހަޅުއްވާ މައިގަނޑު އެއް ސަބަބަކަށް ވަނީ 'ކުށްކުރުން މަދު ކުރެވޭނީ އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތް ޤާއިމުކޮށްގެންކަމަށް' ބިލު ހުށަހަޅާ މެމްބަރަށް އިލްހާމުވެ ވަޑައިގަތުމެވެ.

ކޮންމެއަކަސް، މިބިލަށް ޤާނޫނީގޮތުން ނަޒަރު ހިންގާލާއިރު، ބިލަކީ މާފުދިނުމާއި އަދަބު ލުއިކޮށް ދިނުމުގެ ޤާނޫނުގެ 21 ވަނަ މާއްދާ އިޞްލާޙުކުރުމަށް ހުށަހެޅޭ ބިލެކެވެ. އިޞްލާޙު ހުށަހެޅިފައިވާ މާއްދާއަށް ބަލާލާއިރު އެމާއްދާގައި ވަނީ، ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ޝަރުޢީ ކޯޓުތަކުން މީހެއްގެ މައްޗަށް މަރުގެ ޙުކުމް ކޮށްފިނަމަ، 'އެޙުކުމް ނިސްބަތްވާ މީހާ ހުރި ޙާލަތަށާއި، ކަމާގުޅޭ ޝަރުޢީ އުސޫލުތަކަށާއި ، ދައުލަތުގެ މަސްލަޙަތަށާއި، އިންސާނިއްޔަތުގެ ހަމަތަކަށް ބަލައި، އޭނާގެ ޙުކުމް، ޢުމުރު ދުވަހަށް ޖަލުގައި ބަންދުކުރުމަށް ބަދަލުކުރުމުގެ އިޚްތިޔާރު ރައީސުލްޖުމްހޫރިއްޔާއަށް... ލިބިގެންވާ' ކަމުގައެވެ. މިމާއްދާއިން ރައީސުލްޖުމްހޫރިއްޔާއަށް ލިއްބައި މިދޭ އިޚްތިޔާރަކީ އިސްލާމް ދީނުގައި ކަނޑައަޅުއްވާފައިވާ މަރަށް މަރު ހިފުމުގެ މައްސަލާގައި އެއްވެސް ގޮތަކުން ރައީސުލް ޖުމްހޫރިއްޔާއަށް ލިބިގެންވާނެ ޙައްޤެއް ނޫނެވެ. ސަބަބަކީ އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތުގައި ވާގޮތުން ޤަޞްދުގައި މީހަކު މެރިކަމުގެ ޙުކުމް، އިސްލާމީ ހަމަތަކުގެ މަތިން މީހެއްގެ މައްޗަށް ސާބިތުވެއްޖެ ނަމަ، އެކުށްވެރިޔާއަށް މާފުދިނުމުގެ އިޚްތިޔާރު އޮންނާނީ ހަމައެކަނި މަރުވެދިޔަ މީހާގެ ވާރުތަވެރިންނަށެވެ. އެމީހުން ކުށްވެރިޔާއަށް މާފުނުދޭހާ ހިނދަކު ކުށްވެރިޔާގެ މައްޗަށް މަރުގެ އަދަބު ތަންފީޒުކުރުމަކީ ވެރިޔާގެ މައްޗަށް ލާޒިމުކަމެކެވެ.

މިކަން މިހެން އޮތްކަމުގައި ވިޔަސް، މަރުގެ ޙުކުމެއްގެ ވާހަކަ ދެއްކުމުގެ ކުރިން ބަލާލަން ޖެހޭ ކަންތައްތަކެއް އެބަ ހުއްޓެވެ. ފުރަތަމަ ސުވާލަކީ، އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތަކީ ހަމައެކަނި މަރުގެ ޙުކުމް ތަންފީޒުކުރުން ހެއްޔެވެ؟ ޑިމޮކްރަސީއެއްގައި ވެރިކަން ފެށެނީ ރައްޔިތުންގެ ފަރާތުންނޭ، ނިމޭނީވެސް ރައްޔިތުންނާ ހަމައިންނޭ ބުނެވޭ ބީދައިން، އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތް ފެށެނީ އަދި ނިމެނީވެސް މަރުގެ ޙުކުމާ ހަމައިން ހެއްޔެވެ؟ އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތުގައި ކުށް ކުރުމާ މީހުން ދުރުކުރުވުމަށް ކަނޑައަޅުއްވާފައިވާ އެންމެ މުހިއްމު އަދި އެންމެ ފުރަތަމަ ފިޔަވަޅަކީ މަރު ހެއްޔެވެ؟ ނުވަތަ ޖިނާއީ ޙުކުމްތަކެއް، އަދި ވަކިން ޚާއްޞަކޮށް އިންސާނާގެ ނަފްސާއި ދިރިހުރުމަށް އޭގެން އަސަރު ކުރުވާ ޙުކުމްތަކެއް، ޤާއިމުކުރުމުގެ ކުރިން ޤާއިމުކުރަން ޖެހޭ އަޚުލާޤީ ތަރުބަވީ ޙުކުމްތަކެއް އިސްލާމް ދީނުން ކަނޑައަޅާފައިވޭ ހެއްޔެވެ؟

އިސްލާމް ދީނުގައި ޙައްދުތަކެއް ކަނޑައަޅުއްވާފައި އެބަވެއެވެ. އެޙައްދުތައް އިންކާރުކުރުމަކީ އެއްވެސް މުސްލިމަކު ކޮށްގެންވާނެކަމެއް ނޫނެވެ. އެހެންނަމަވެސް، ހަދާންކޮށްލަން ޖެހޭ ކަމަކީ، އެޙައްދުތައް ކަނޑައަޅުއްވާފައިވަނީ އިސްލާމީ މުޖުތަމަޢެއްގައި ކޮންމެހެން ހުންނާނެ އަޚްލާޤީ ހަމަތަކެއް ރައްކާތެރި ކުރުމަށްޓަކައެވެ. އަޚްލާޤީ ހަމަތަކެއް މުޖުތަމަޢުގައި އަށަގެންނެވުމަކަށް ނޫނެވެ. މުޖުތަމަޢުގައި އަޚްލާޤީ ހަމަތަކެއް އަށަގެންނެވުމަކީ ތަރުބަވީގޮތުންނާއި އިޖްތިމާޢީ ގޮތުން މަސައްކަތްތަކެއް ކުރެވިގެން ކުރަން ޖެހޭ ކަމެކެވެ. ޖިނާއީ ޢަދުލަކީ އޭގެ ފަހުން އަންނަން ޖެހޭ މަރުޙަލާއެކެވެ.

ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގައި މަރުގެ ޙުކުމް ތަންފީޒުކުރުމަށް ތާއީދުކުރައްވާ ބޭފުޅުން އެބޭފުޅުންގެ ވިސްނެވުމަށް ބާރުދެއްވުމަށް ބޭނުންކުރައްވާ އެންމެ ބޮޑު އެއް ކަމަކީ ރާއްޖޭގައި ކުށްކުރުން ގިނަވުން ކަމަށް ވާއިރު، އަޅުގަނޑަށް ފެންނަ ފެނުމުގައި އެކަމުން ދައްކުވައިދެނީ އިސްލާމީ ހަމަތަކުން ބަލާއިރު ދިވެހި ރާއްޖޭގައި މަރަށް މަރު ނުހިފޭނެކަމެވެ.

ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގައި މިހާތަނަށް ކުރެވިފައިވާ ސަރވޭތަކާއި ދިރާސާތަކުން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި ރާއްޖޭގައި ކުށްކުރުން ގިނަވާ ސަބަބުތައް ބައިވަރެވެ. ޢާއިލާ ރޫޅުމާއި، ގެދޮރުގެ ދަތިކަން ކުރިމަތިވުމާއި، ކުރާނެ މަސަައްކަތެއް ނެތިފައި ލާޗާރު ބިޗާރަށް އުޅޭ ޒުވާނުން ގިނަ ވުމާއި މިހިރަ މިހިރަ ކަންކަމަކީ ހުސް ކުށްކުރުން ގިނަވުމަށް ކެދުވެރިވާ ސަބަބުތަކެވެ. މިހުރިހާ ކަމެއް ވެފައިމެ، ޙަޤީޤަތުގައި ކުށްކުރުމަށް ބާރު ދޭ އެންމެ ބޮޑު ކަމަކީ އީމާންތެރިކަމާއި އިސްލާމްވަންތަކަމުގެ މައްޗަށް ބިނާވެފައިވާ ތަރުބިއްޔަތެއް އެތައް ޖީލަކުންސުރެ ދަރިންނަށް ދެވިފައި ނެތުމެވެ.

މީހުން މަރާ ހިސާބަށް ކަންކަން ދަނީ މީހުންގެ ޖިސްމަށް ގެއްލުންވާ ކުދިކުދި އަނިޔާކުރުމަކީ 'އޯކޭ' ކަމެއް ކަމަށް ބެލުމަށް ފަހުގައެވެ. އަންހެންވެރިންގެ ޢިއްފަތްފޭރޭ ހިސާބަށް ކަންކަން ދަނީ ގޯޅި ގޯޅި ކަންމަތީގައި ގުރޫޕުހަދައިގެން ތިބެ މަގުމަތިންދާ އަންހެނުންނާ ފޮށި އެކަން ހުއްޓުވާނެ މީހަކު ނެތޭ ހިސާބަށެ ޙާލަތު ދިއުމަށް ފަހުގައެވެ. ޒިނޭގެ ބޮޑު ޖަރީމާއަށް އަރާ ހިސާބަށް ކަންކަން ދަނީ ސްކޫލުތެރޭން ފެށިގެން ސިއްރު ސިއްރުން އެކަހެރިން 'މީޓް' ކުރުމާއި 'ޑޭޓް' ކުރުމަށް ފަހުގައެވެ. ގޭތެރެއިން ދަރިންނަށް ދެވޭ ތަރުބިއްޔަތުގައި ހުންނަ ވަރަކީ 'މަގޭ ދޮންފުތު މީހެއް ގައިގައި ޖެހިޔަސް ނުޖަހާނެ' ކަމުގެ ތަރުބިއްޔަތެވެ. 'ފިރިހެންކުދިން ދެން އެހެން ބައެއް ފަހަރު ރީތި އަންހެންކުދިންނާ ކުޑަ ކޮށް ފޮށޭނެ ނޫންހޭ'ގެ ތަރުބިއްޔަތެވެ. ބިޓު 'މީޓް' ކުރަން އައިމާ ކޮޓަރިތެރެ މުޅިން ހުސްކޮށްލާފައި 'ޕްރައިވަސީ'ދީފައި މަންމަމެން ބައްޕަމެން ބޭރަށް ދާ ތަރުބިއްޔަތެވެ.

ރާއްޖޭގެ މީހުން ބައިބޯ ރަށްރަށުގައި، ވަކިން ޚާއްޞަކޮށް މާލޭގައި، މީހުން ދިރިއުޅެނީ ކުދިކުދި ކޮޓަރިތަކުގައެވެ. މަންމައާއި ބައްޕަގެ މެދުގައި ޢާއިލީ މައްސަލަ ހޫނުވެގެން ކުއްޖާ ބޭރަށް ނިކުމެލާއިރު ނިކުންނަން އޮންނަނީ ގެއިން ބޭރު ގޯޅިގަނޑެވެ. އެތާގައި ތިބެނީ 'ޕީސް' ވިއްކާ ވިޔަފާރިވެރިންނެވެ. ކޮންމެވެސް ކަންމައްޗެއްގެ ނަމުން ނަން ކިޔޭ ގްރޫޕެކެވެ. އެކުދިންނާ އެކު ކުއްޖާ އުޅެން ފަށަނީ މައިންބަފައިންނަށް ރަގަޅަށް ނުބެލުނީތީއެވެ. އަޅާނުލެވުނީތީއެވެ. ގޭންގުތެރެއަށް 'އިނިޝިއޭޓް'ވެ ނިމުމުން ދެން ނިކުންނާނެ ގޮތަކީ ނެތްގޮތެވެ. ގޭންގަށް މީހުން ދައްކަން ޖެހޭ ދަރަނި ޚަލާޞްކުރުމަށާއި، ގޭންގުގެ މެންބަރުންނަށް ނުވަތަ ގޭންގާގުޅުން ހުރި މީހުންނަށް އުދަގޫކުރާ މީހުންގެ ކިބައިން ބަދަލު ހިފުމަށް މަސައްކަތްކުރުމަކީ ގޭންގުގެ މެންބަރުންގެ ވާޖިބެކެވެ. އެހެންވީމާ އެވާޖިބުވެސް އަދާކުރަން ޖެހެއެވެ. ވާޖިބު އަދާކުރުމަށް ފަށާ މާރާމާރީއިން ތަރުބިއްޔަތުވެގެން ކުއްޖާ ބޮޑުވެގެން އަންނަނީ 'ބޮސް'އަކަށް 'ޑޮން'އަކަށް ވެގެންނެވެ.

ދިވެހި ޢާއިލާތަކަށް ރަގަޅު ބޯހިޔާވަހިކަން ސަރުކާރުން ފޯރުކޮށްނުދެވި ވާއިރު، މައިންބަފައިންނަށް އެމީހުންގެ ދަރިންނަށް އަޅާލަން ޖެހޭ ވަރަށް އަޅާނުލެވި ވާއިރު، ސްކޫލްތަކުން އިސްލާމީ ތަރުބިއްޔަތު ދިވެހި ދަރިންނަށް ނުދެވި ވާއިރު، އިސްލާމީ ޙައްދު ޤާއިމްކޮށްގެން ރައްކާތެރިކުރާނެ އަޚްލާޤީ ހަމަތަކެއް މުޖުތަމަޢުގައި އަށަގަނެފައިވާކަމަށް އަޅުގަނޑުމެންނަށް ދަޢުވާކުރެވޭނެތޯއެވެ؟ ފަޤީރުކަމުގެ އިންތިހާއަށް ގޮސްފައިވާ މީހާ ކުރާނެ އެއް ކަމެއް ނެތިގެން ވައްކަން ކުރީމާ އޭނާގެ އަތްވެސް ކަނޑާނީތޯއެވެ؟

މާތްﷲ ރުއްސުންލެއްވި ޢުމަރުގެފާނުގެ ޚަލީފާކަމުގައި ފައިސާވެރި ވިޔަފާރިވެރިއަކު އަމީރުލް މުއުމިނީންގެ އަރިހަށް ޙާޟިރުވެ، އޭނާގެ އަޅަކު އޭނާގެ މުދަލުގެ ތެރެއިން ޖަމަލެއް ވަގަށް ނެގިކަމުގެ ޝަކުވާ ހުށަހަޅައި އެއަޅުމީހާގެ މައްޗަށް ޙައްދު ޤާއިމުކޮށް ދެއްވުމަށް އެދި ދެންނެވިއެވެ. ނަމަވެސް، ޢުމަރުގެފާނު ޝަކުވާ ހުށަހެޅި މީހާއަށް ރައްދު ދެއްވީ ސާހިބެއްގެ ގޮތުން އަޅުމީހާއަށް އޭނާ ފުއްދައި ދޭން ކޮންމެހެން ޖެހޭ ކަންކަން އޭނާ ފުއްދައިދީފައި ނެތް ކަމުގައެވެ.

ހަމަ އެހެންމެ، މުސްލިމުންގެ މައްޗަށް ހަނަފަސްކަމާ ބަނޑުހައި ހޫނުކަން އައި އަހަރެއްވެސް ޢުމަރުގެފާނުގެ ޚަލީފާކަމުގައި ކުރިމަތި ވިއެވެ. އެއަހަރު ޢުމަރުގެފާނު ވައްކަންކުރުމުގެ ޙައްދު ޖައްސަވާފައި ނުވާކަން އިސްލާމީ ތާރީޚުން ސާބިތުވެއެވެ. މިއަދު ދިވެހި މުޖުތަމަޢަށް ކުރިމަތިވެފައި މިވާ އިޖްތިމާޢީ އަދި އަޚްލާޤީ ހަނަފަސްކަމާއި ތަދުމަޑުކަމުގެ ތެރޭގައި މަރުގެ ޙުކުމް ތަންފީޒުކުރުމުގެ ވާހަކަ ދެއްކުމަކީ މޮޔަކަމަަކަށް ނޫނީ ނުވާނެއެވެ.

ދިވެހި މުޖުތަމަޢު މިއަދު މިއޮތް ޙާލަތުގައި އޮއްވާ ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގައި މަރުގެ ޙުކުމް ތަންފީޒުކުރުމަށް ބާރު އަޅުއްވާ ބޭފުޅުން، ވަކިން ޚާއްޞަކޮށް ދީނީ ޚިޔާލުގެ ބޭފުޅުން، ދައްކަވާ ވާހަކައިގައި ހިމެނޭ ދެކޮޅުނުޖެހޭ ކަމެއް ވަކިން ފާހަގަކޮށްލާނަމެވެ. މިކަން ފާހަގަ ކުރަން މިޖެހެނީ މިވާހަކަ އެކި ގޮތްގޮތުން ދެކެވޭ އަޑު އަޅުގަނޑަށް އިވިފައިވާލެއް ގިނަކަމުންނެވެ. އެބޭފުޅުން ވިދާޅުވަނީ ކުށްކުރުން މަދުކުރެވޭނީ މަރަށް މަރު ހިފައިގެން ކަމުގައެވެ. މީގެއިތުރުން، އެބޭފުޅުން ވިދާޅުވަނީ ހުޅަނގުގެ ޤައުމުތަކުގައި ކުށްކުރުން ގިނައީ އެޤައުމުތަކުގައި އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތް ޤާއިމްކުރެވިފައި ނެތުމުން ކަމުގައެވެ. އެއަށްފަހު، މަރަށް މަރު ހިފުމަކީ އިންސާނީ ޙައްޤުތަކާ ޚިލާފުކަމެކޭ ބުނާ މީހުންނަށް ރައްދުދީ އެބޭފުޅުން ވިދާޅުވަނީ އެމެރިކާގެ ބައެއް ސްޓޭޓްތަކުގައިވެސް މަރަށް މަރު ހިފާކަމުގައެވެ.

އެމެރިކާގެ ބައެއް ސްޓޭޓްތަކުގައި މަރަށް މަރު ހިފާ އިރުވެސް މީހުންމެރުމުގެ ކުށް ހަމަ އެސްޓޭޓްތަކުގައި އެހާ ގިނަވުމުން، ދައްކުވައިދެނީ ހަމައެކަނި މަރަށް މަރު ހިފުމުން ކުށްކުރުން މަދު ނުކުރެވޭނެކަމެވެ. އަދި ކީއްތޯއެވެ؟ 1990 ގެއަހަރުތަކުން ފެށިގެން 2010 ވަނަ އަހަރާ ހަމައަށް ހިނގާފައިވާ ޤަޞްދުގައި މީހުންމެރުމުގެ ޖަރީމާތަކަށް ބަލާއިރު، މަރަށް މަރު ހިފުމުގެ ޤާނޫނެއް ނެތްސްޓޭޓްތަކުގައި މީހުން މެރުމުގެ ޖަރީމާ ހިނގާފައިވަނީ މަރަށް މަރު ހިފުމުގެ ޤާނޫނުއޮންނަ ސްޓޭޓްތަކަށް ވުރެ މަދުންކަން ފާހަގަކުރެވެއެވެ. އެހެންކަމަށް ވާއިރު ހަމަ އެކަނި މަރަށް މަރު ހިފައިގެން ކުށްކުރުން މަދު ކުރެވޭނެ ކަމަށް އަޅުގަނޑުމެންގެ ތެރެއިން ބަޔަކު މި ހީކުރަނީ ކޮން ކަހަލަ ހެއްކެއްގެ މައްޗަށް ބިނާކޮށްތޯއެވެ؟

ކުށްހީފުޅެއް ނުކުރައްވާށެވެ! އަޅުގަނޑު މިއުޅެނީއަކީ މަރުގެ ޙުކުމް ތަންފީޒުކުރުމާ ދެކޮޅު ހަދާކަށް ނޫނެވެ. ޙައްދުތައް ޤާއިމްކުރުމާ ދެކޮޅެއްވެސް ނަހަދަމެވެ. ޤަބޫލުކުރަމެވެ. ޙައްލަކީ އިސްލާމްދީނެވެ. ނަމަވެސް އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތަކީ ހަމައެކަނި މަރަށް މަރު ހިފުމާއި ޙައްދު ޤާއިމްކުރުން ކަމަށް ދޭހަވާ ގޮތަށް އަޅުގަނޑުމެންގެ ޢަމަލާއި ބަސްމަގު ހުރެގެން ނުވާނެއެވެ. އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތް ޤާއިމްކުރުމަކީ ރުކެއް ކަނޑާ ވައްޓާލުން ފަދަ ފަސޭހަ ކަމެކޭ ހީކޮށްގެން ނުވާނެއެވެ.

From the Nib of an Adhaalath Member: A Critical Analysis of the Scholars' Council Statement (Dhivehi)

ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީގެ މެންބަރެއްގެ ޤަލަމުން: ޢިލްމުވެރިން މަޖިލިހުގެ 

ބަހާމެދު ފާޑުކިއުމުގެ ނަޒަރެއް

- ޢާއިޝާ ޙުސައިން ރަޝީދު -

2005 ވަނަ އަހަރުގެ މެދުތެރޭގައި، އޭރުގެ ސަރުކާރަށް އެކި ދިމަދިމާލުން ކުރިމަތިވި ފިއްތުންތަކާވިދިގެން ސިޔާސީ ޕާޓީތައް އުފައްދައި ޙަރަކާތްތެރިވުމުގެ ހުއްދަދެވުމާ ގުޅިގެން އެންމެ ފުރަތަމަ ވުޖޫދަށް އައި ޕާޓީތަކުގެ ތެރޭގައި ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީ ހިމެނެއެވެ. ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީއާއެކު އުފެދުނު އަނެއް ދެ ޕާޓީ ކަމަށްވާ ދިވެހި ރައްޔިތުންގެ ޑިމޮކްރެޓިކް ޕާޓީ (އެމްޑީޕީ)އާއި ދިވެހި ރައްޔިތުންގެ ޕާޓީ (ޑީއާރުޕީ)އާ ޚިލާފަށް ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީ ނިކުތީ ސިޔާސީ ވެށީގެ ތެރޭގައި ދީނީ ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ ބައިވެރިވުމާއި ދީނީ އުޞޫލުތަކުގެ ބިންގަލެއް އޮންނަންޖެހޭ ކަމަށް ބުނެ ދީނީ ޢިލްމުވެރިންތަކެއް ކުރީގައި ތިބެގެންނެވެ. މިކަން ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީގެ ރުކުންތަކަށް ބަލާލި ކަމުގައި ވިޔަސް ވަރަށް ފާޅުކަން ބޮޑު ގޮތެއްގައި ދޭހަވެގެން ދެއެވެ.

ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީއަކީ ޕާޓީ ވުޖޫދަށް އައިއްސުރެ ދީނީ ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ ބަހަށް ޚާއްޞަ އިތުބާރެއް ދީގެން ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހެއް އުފެއްދި ހަމަ އެކަނި ޕާޓީއެވެ. 2005ވަނަ އަހަރުގެ އޮގަސްޓު މަހުގައި ޕާޓީއިން ޢާާންމުކޮށްފައިވާ ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީގެ އަސާސީ ޤަވާޢިދުގެ 25ވަނަ މާއްދާގައި ވަނީ ޕާޓީގެ އެއްވެސް ދާއިރާއަކުން އިސްލާމް ދީނާ ޚިލާފުވާފަދަ ކަމެއް ކުރާ ނަމަ، އެކަމެއް ހުއްޓުވުމުގެ ބާރާއި މަސްއޫލިއްޔަތު ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހާ ޙަވާލުކޮށްފައެވެ. މީގެ އިތުރުން ދިވެހި މުޖުތަމަޢުގައި ދީނާ  ޚިލާފު ކަމެއް ހިނގާނަމަ އެކަމާ ބެހޭ ގޮތުން ޕާޓީގެ ނަމުގައި ޤަރާރު ނެރުމުގެ ބާރާއި މަސްއޫލިއްޔަތުވެސް ވަނީ ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހާ ޙަވާލުކޮށްފައެވެ.

މިދެންނެވި އަސާސީ ޤަވާޢިދު އިޞްލާޙުކޮށް 2011 ވަނަ އަހަރުގެ އޭޕްރިލް މަހު ޕާޓީއިން ޢާންމުކޮށްފައިވާ ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީގެ ދުސްތޫރުގެ 16 ވަނަ މާއްދާގައި އިތުރު އެހެން މަސްއޫލިއްޔަތުތަކަކާ އެކު، މަތީގައި ދެންނެވި މަސްއޫލިއްޔަތުތަކާއި ބާރުތައް ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހާ ޙަވާލުކޮށްފައި ވެއެވެ. ހަމަ އެއާ އެކު ޕާޓީގެ މަޝްވަރާ މަޖިލިހުން ނިންމާ ނިންމުންތައް ބަދަލު ކުރުމުގެ (ވީޓޯކުރުމުގެ) ބާރުވެސް ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހަށް މިދުސްތޫރުން ލިއްބައިދެއެވެ.

މާނައަކީ، ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހަކީ ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީގެ އެތެރޭގައި ދީނާ ޚިލާފު ކަމެއް ހިނގާ ނަމަ އެކަމެއް ހުއްޓުވުމުގެ ބާރާއި، ޕާޓީއިން ބޭރުގައި އެފަދަ ކަމެއް ހިނގާ ނަމަ އެކަމަކާ މެދު ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީގެ ބަސް އިއްވުމުގެ ބާރު ލިބިފައިވާ ޕާޓީގެ ތެރޭގައި ވަރަށް ގިނަގުނަ ބާރުތަކެއް ލިބިފައިވާ މަޖިލިހެއް ކަމެވެ. އެހެނަސް، ހިތާމައާ އެކު ފާހަގަ ކުރަން ޖެހެނީ ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ މަސްރަޙުގައި އިސްލާމްދީނާ ޚިލާފު، ނުވަތަ އިސްލާމްދީނާ ޚިލާފުކަމަށް ބުނެވޭ، އެތައް ކަމެއް ހިނގައި ދިޔައިރު ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީގެ ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުގެ ބަހެއް އެންމެ ތިން ފަހަރު މެނުވީ އިވިފައި ނެތް ކަމެވެ. މަޖިލިހުގެ ބަހެއް އިވޭނީ ކިހިނެއްތޯއެވެ؟ ދުސްތޫރުން ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުގެ ހިންގާ ޤަވާޢިދެއް ދުސްތޫރު ފާސް ކުރާތާ ތިން މަސް ދުވަހުގެ ތެރޭގައި ފާސްކުރަން ލާޒިމުކުރާ އިރު، އެފަދަ އެއްވެސް ޤަވާޢިދެއް މިއަދާ ހަމައަށްވެސް ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީއިން ޝާއިޢުކޮށްފައި ނުވެއެވެ.

މިހެން އޮތުމަށްފަހު، މިހިނގާ ޖެނުއަރީ މަހުގެ 26 ވަނަ ދުވަހު މަޖިލިހުން ވަނީ އެ ހަމަހިމޭންކަމަށް ނިމުމެއް ގެނެސްފައެވެ. 'ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގައި ހިނގަމުންދާ ކަންކަމާ' ބެހޭގޮތުން 'ބަހެއް' ބުނެފައެވެ.

ޙަމްދު ޞަލަވާތަށް ފަހު ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުން ނެރެފައިވާ ބަޔާނުގައި އެންމެ ފުރަތަމަވެސް ބުނެފައިވަނީ ޤައުމުގައި ހަމަނުޖެހުން ހިނގަމުން މިދަނީ މިމަހު 16 ވީ ހޯމަ ދުވަހުގެ ރޭ ދިވެހި ސިފައިންގެ ޓީމަކުން ގޮސް، ކްރިމިނަލް ކޯޓުގެ އިސް ފަނޑިޔާރު ކަމުގައި ހުންނެވި ޤާޟީ ޢަބްދުﷲ މުޙައްމަދު ހައްޔަރުކުރުމުގެ ސަބަބުން ކަމުގައި ދެކޭ ކަމުގައެވެ.

ގަދަ ނިންޖަކުން ނިދާފައި އޮތް މިމަޖިލިސް، ޤާޟީ ޢަބްދުﷲ ހައްޔަރުކުރުމުން ލިބިގެންދިޔަ ކުއްލި ސިހުމަކާއެކު ހޭލިފަދައެވެ. 2010 ވަނަ އަހަރުއްސުރެ ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ޝަރުޢީ ނިޒާމާ ދޭތެރޭ އެކި އެކި ފަރާތްތަކުން ކުރަމުންދާ ޝަކުވާތަކާއި ތުހުމަތުތައް ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުގެ މެންބަރުންނަށް ތޯތޯ ވާހަކައެއްގެ ގޮތުގައިނަމަވެސް އިވިފައި ނުވާ ކަހަލައެވެ. 2010 ވަނަ އަހަރުގެ އޮކްޓޯބަރ މަހުގައި، ފަނޑިޔާރުންނާބެހޭ ޤާނޫނެއް ރައްޔިތުންގެ މަޖިލިހުން ފާސްވެފައި ނެތީސް، ކުއްލި ގޮތަކަށް، ނުވަގުތެއްގައި ދަށު ކޯޓުތަކުގައި އިންތިޤާލީ މަރުޙަލާގައި ތިއްބެވި ހުރިހާ ފަނޑިޔާރުން ތަޢުލީމީ ފެންވަރަކަށް، އަޚުލާޤީ ސުލޫކީ މިންގަނޑަކަށް ބެލުމަކާނުލާ ދާއިމީކުރުމުން، އެވަގުތު ޖުޑީޝަލް ސަރވިސް ކޮމިޝަން (ޖޭއެސްސީ)ގައި ރައީސުލް ޖުމްހޫރިއްޔާގެ މެންބަރުގެ ގޮތުގައި ހުންނެވި ޢާއިޝަތު ވެލެޒިނީއާއި ޢާންމުންގެ ތެރެއިން ޢައްޔަންކުރެވިފައި ހުންނެވި މެންބަރު އައްޝައިޚް ޝުޢައިބު ޢަބްދުއްރަޙްމާން އެކި ގޮތްގޮތުން މީޑިޔާގައި ދެއްކެވި ވާހަކަފުޅުތައް އެބޭފުޅުންނާ ހަމައަށް ފޯރާފައިވެސް ނެތް ފަދައެވެ. ޖޭއެސްސީން ޤާޟީ ޢަބްދުﷲގެ ސުލޫކީ މައްސަލައެއް ސާބިތުވާ ކަމަށާއި އޭނާއާ މެދު ފިޔަވަޅު އަޅަން ޖެހޭ ކަމަށް ނިންމުމުން، އެކޮމިޝަންގެ ބެލެނިވެރިކަމުގެ ދަށުގައިވާ ސިވިލް ކޯޓުން އޭނާއާ މެދު އެއްވެސް ފިޔަވަޅެއް ނޭޅުމަށް ކޯޓުތަކުގެ ބަލަދުވެރި ފަރާތްކަމަށް ޤާނޫނު އަސާސީއިން ކަނޑައަޅާފައިވާ ޖޭއެސްސީގެ މައްޗަށް ހުސްވި އަހަރުގެ ނޮވެމްބަރ މަހުއްސުރެ އަމުރު ނެރެފައިވާ ކަން އެބޭފުޅުންނަށް ރޭކާވެސް ލާފައި ނުވާފަދައެވެ.

ދިވެހި ރާއްޖޭގެ ކްރިމިނަލް ކޯޓުން ޤާނޫނުލް ޢުޤޫބާތުގެ 125 ވަނަ މާއްދާ (ހަދަހަދައިގެން ދޮގު ވާހަކަދެއްކުމަކީ ޒަރީމާއެއް ކަމަށް ކަނޑައަޅާ އެ ޖަރީމާގެ މައްޗަށް އަދަބު ކަނޑައަޅާ މާއްދާ) ޤާނޫނުއަސާސީއާ ޚިލާފުވާ ކަމަށް ވިދާޅުވެ ބާޠިލުކުރެއްވި އިރު، އެޙުކުމާމެދު ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުން ބަހެއް ބުނެވިފައި ނުވަނީ އެޙުކުމް، އިސްލާމް ދީނާ ކިހާ ވަރަކަށް ފުށުނާރާތީތޯއެވެ؟ ކްރިމިނަލް ކޯޓުގައި ޙުކުމްކުރެއްވުމަށް ޤާޟީ ޢަބްދުﷲ މިނިވަންކަމާއެކު ހުންނެވި ދުވަސްވަރު، މީހަކު މަރައިގެން ކޯޓަށް ޙާޟިރުކުރެވުނު މުއްތަހަމަކު، ސަރުކާރުގެ ވަޒީރަކު ޒިންމާދާރު ކުރެއްވުމަށް ކަމުގައި ވިދާޅުވެ މިނިވަންކުރެއްވުމުން ޖެހިގެންހުރި ދުވަހު ހަމަ އޭނާ ގޮސް އިތުރު މީހަކު މަރާލި އިރު ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ޢަދުލު އިންޞާފު ޤާއިމުކުރުމުގެ ނިޒާމު ސަލާމަތް ކުރެއްވުމަށް މަޖިލިހުން ތެދުވެވަޑައި ނުގެންނެވީ، އެދުވަހު ޢަދުލު އިންޞާފު ޤާއިމުކުރުމަކީ އިސްލާމް ދީނުގެ އަޞްލަކަށް ނުވީތޯއެވެ؟ އެއަށްވުރެވެސް ކުރިން، މުރޫއަތްތެރިކަމުގެ ކަންފުޅެއްވެސް ނެތް މީހަކު، ފަނޑިޔާރަކަށް ޢައްޔަންކުރެވުނު އިރު، ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުން ބަހެއް ނުބުނެ އޮތީ، ފަނޑިޔާރުންގައި ހުންނަން ޖެހޭ ސިފަތައް ކަމުގައި އިސްލާމީ ޝަރީޢަތުގައި ކަނޑައެޅިފައިވާ ސިފަތަކުގެ ތެރޭގައި މުރޫއަތްތެރިކަން ނުހިމެނެނީ ތޯއެވެ؟

މަޖިލިހުގެ ބަޔާނުގައި ދެން ބުނެފައިވަނީ ސަރުކާރުން ޢަދުލު އިންޞާފު ޤާއިމުކުރުމުގެ ނިޒާމާ ދެކޮޅަށް ހިންގަމުންދާ ކަންކަމަކީ ޤާނޫނުއަސާސީއާއި ޤާނޫނުތަކާ ޚިލާފަށް ހިނގަމުންދާ ކަންކަން ކަމުގައި ރާއްޖޭގައި ތިއްބެވި އެންމެ ފުންނާބު އުސް ޤާނޫނީވަކީލުން ވިދާޅުވެފައިވާ ކަމުގައެވެ. މިހެން ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުން ބުނާއިރު، ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުން ޤާނޫނީ ކަންކަމުގައި ލަފާ ހޯދަން ޖެހެނީ ރާއްޖޭގައި ތިއްބެވި އެންމެ ފުންނާބު އުސް ޤާނޫނީ ވަކީލުންގެ ކިބައިންތޯއެވެ؟ އެހެންކަމަށް ވާނަމަ، އެވަކީލުންނަކީ ކޮބައިކަން ނިންމަވާނީ ކިހިނަކުންތޯއެވެ؟

ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީގެ ދުސްތޫރުގެ 36 ވަނަ މާއްދާގައި ބުނާ ގޮތުން ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީގައި ޤާނޫނީ އަދި ސިޔާސީ ކަންތައްތައް ދިރާސާ ކޮށް އެކަންކަމާ މެދު ޕާޓީއަށް ލަފާދޭނޭ ޤާނޫނާއި ސިޔާސީ ކަންކަމާބެހޭ ދާއިމީ ކޮމިޓީއެއް އޮންނަވާނެއެވެ. ޕާޓީގެ ދުސްތޫރުގެ 53 ވަނަ މާއްދާގައި ވަނީ އިޞްލާޙުކުރެވިފައިވާ މިދުސްތޫރު ފާސްވެ ޝާއިޢުކުރުމަށް ފަހު ތިން މަސް ދުވަހުގެ ތެރޭގައި ދުސްތޫރުން ލާޒިމުކުރާ ކަންކަން ކޮށް ނިންމަންވާނެއެވެ. (ދުސްތޫރު ޝާއިޢުކުރެވިފައިވަނީ 18 އޭޕްރިލް 2011 ގައެވެ.) ޕާޓީގައި ޤާނޫނު ކިޔަވައިވިދާޅުވެގެން ތިއްބެވި ބޭފުޅުން މަދުން ނަމަވެސް ތިއްބެވުމާއެކު، މިދަންނަވާ ކޮމިޓީ އޮންނަންވާނީ 2011 ވަނަ އަހަރުގެ ޖުލައި މަސް ނިމޭއިރު އެކުލަވާލެވިފައެވެ. އަދި، އަޅުގަނޑުގެ ކޮށި ވިސްނުމަށް ފެންނަ ގޮތުގައި، ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހާއި ޕާޓީގެ ހުރިހާ ގުނަންތަކަށް ޤާނޫނީ ކަންކަމުގައި ލަފާ ދޭންވާނީ އެކޮމިޓީންނެވެ. ޕާޓީއިންނާއި ޕާޓީގެ ހުރިހާ ގުނަންތަކުން ޤާނޫނީ ކަންކަމުގައި ބުރަވާން ޖެހޭނީ އެކޮމިޓީއިން ދޭ، އަދި ދޭން ޖެހޭ، ޤާނޫނީ ލަފައަށެވެ. ދިވެހި ރާއްޖޭގައި ކިތަންމެ ފުންނާބު އުސް ޤާނޫނީ ވަކީލުންތަކެއް ތިއްބަސް، ޤާނޫނާއި ސިޔާސީ ކަންކަމާބެހޭ ކޮމިޓީއިން އެބަހަށް ބުރަވެ ލަފައެއް ނުދޭހާ ހިނދަކު ޕާޓީގެ އެއްވެސް ގުނަނަކަށް އެފުންނާބު އުސް ޤާނޫނީ ވަކީލުންގެ ބަހަށް ބުރަވެ ކަމެއް ނުނިންމޭނެ ކަމަށް އަޅުގަނޑުގެ ބައިކުޅަ ބައި ބުއްދިއަށް ޤަބޫލުކުރެވެއެވެ.

ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުގެ ބަޔާނުން ދެން ފާހަގަ ކުރެވުނު ކަމަކީ މާލޭގައި ކޮންމެ ރެއަކު ހިންގަމުން މިދާ ޙަރަކާތްތަކަކީ 'ޞުލްޙަވެރި އެއްވުންތަކެއް' ކަމުގައި ލޭބަލްކުރެއްވުމަށް ކުރައްވާފައިވާ މަސައްކަތެވެ. ބަޔަކު މީހުން ޞުލްޙަވެރި އެއްވުންތަކެއް ބާއްވާ އިރު، މަގުތަކުގައި އިންދާފައި ހުންނަ ރުއްތައް ވެއްޓެނީ ޞުލްޙަވެރިކަމުގެ ބޮޑުކަމުންތޯއެވެ؟ ބޮޑެތި ގާ ބުރި ބުރި ސިފައިންނާއި ފުލުހުންނާއި ނޫސްވެރިންނާ ދިމާއަށް އަމާޒުވަނީ އެތަކެތި، ބިމަށް ދަމާ ބާރު ކަނޑުވާލައި އަމިއްލަ ޒާތުގައި އުދުހިފައި ދަނީތޯއެވެ؟ އެމްއެންބީސީ ވަން ގެ ނިއުސް ކާސްޓަރެއްގެ ގައިގައި ލަޓިބުރިތަކަކުން ވީނުވީއެއް ނޭނގި ދެތިން ހަތަރު ބޮނޑި އެޅުނީތޯއެވެ؟ ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީގެ ރައީސް އިސްވެ ހުންނަވައިގެން ސިފައިންގެ ސަފުތައް ފޫއަޅުވާލުމަށް އެއްވެ ތިބި މީހުންނަށް އިރުޝާދު ދެއްވަމުން ގެންދެވި މަންޒަރު ވީޓީވީއިން ދެއްކީ، އެމަންޒަރަކީ ހަދާފައިވާ ވީޑިއޯއަކުން ބައެއްތޯއެވެ؟ ޕީޕީއެމްގެ ވަގުތީ ރައީސް ޢުމަރު ނަޞީރު، އެއްވެފައި ތިބި މީހުންނާ މުޚާޠަބުކޮށް ލޭ އޮހޮރުވުމުގެ ވާހަކަ ދައްކައި ސީދާ ޙަރަކާތަށް ދާން ގޮވާލީ ލޭ އޮހޮރުވުމަކީ ޞުލްޙަ މަސަލަސް ކަމުގެ އެންމެ ފުރަތަމަ ރުކުން ކަމުގައިވާތީ ތޯއެވެ؟

މީގެ އިތުރުން، އިދާރީ ގޮތުން ފާހަގަ ކުރެވޭ ކަމެއް އިތުރުކޮށްލާނަމެވެ. ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުގެ ނޫސް ބަޔާންތަކުގެ ޒިންމާ ނަގަނީ ކޮން ބޭފުޅެއްކަން އެއްވެސް ގޮތަކަށް އެނގޭކަށް ނެތެވެ. ނޫސް ބަޔާން ނެރެނީ މަޖިލިހުގެ ބައްދަލުވުމެއް ބާއްވައި މެންބަރުންގެ އަޣްލަބިއްޔަތުން ނިންމަވައިގެންތޯއެވެ؟ ނުވަތަ މަޖިލިހުގެ ރައީސް ނުވަތަ ނައިބު ރައީސް ނޫސް ބަޔާނެއް ނެރުމަށް ނިންމެވުމުން ފުދޭތޯއެވެ؟ މިހިރަ މިހިރަ ކަންކަމަކީ މަޖިލިހުގެ ހިންގާ ޤަވާޢިދެއް ޝާއިޢުކުރެވިފައިއޮވެ، އެޤަވާޢިދެއްގައި ލިޔެވިފައި އޮންނަން ވާނެ ކަންތަކެވެ.

މިފަދަ ދޯދިޔާ ކަންކަން ޕާޓީގެ ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުން ފެންނަމުންދާ އިރު، އެކަމުގެ ޒިންމާ ނަގާނީ ކޮން ފަރާތަކުންތޯއެވެ؟ އަޅުގަނޑު ދެކޭގޮތުގައި މިކަމަކީ ޕާޓީއާއި ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުގެ އޭރާއި މިހާރުގެ ލީޑަރޝިޕުން ޒިންމާ ނަގަންޖެހޭ ކަންކަމެވެ. ޕާޓީއާއި ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުގެ ލީޑަރޝިޕް ބައެއްގެ އަތްމަތީގައި އޮވެ ފަސް އަހަރުގެ ދައުރެއް ނިމި، އެހެން ބައެއްގެ އަތް މައްޗަށް ދާއިރު ޕާޓީއާއި މަޖިލިހުގެ އިދާރީ ކަންކަން އޮންނަންވާނީ މިއަށް ވުރެ ރަނގަޅަށް ހަމަޖެހި ނިމިފައެވެ. ދެވަނަ ދައުރަށް ޕާޓީގެ ދުސްތޫރު އިޞްލާޙުކުރެވިގެން ފާސްކޮށް ޝާޢިއުކުރަންވާ އިރަށް ދުސްތޫރުގެ ދަށުން ހަދަންޖެހޭ ޤަވާޢިދުތަކުގެ ދެލިކޮޕީއެއް އޮންނަންވާނީ ތައްޔާރުކުރެވިފައެވެ.

އެއާޚިލާފަށް، ދިވެހި ރާއްޖޭގެ ރައްޔިތުންގެ މަޖިލިހުން އިންތިޤާލީ މަރުޙަލާ ނިމުނު އިރު ނިންމަން ޖެހޭ ޤާނޫނުތައް ނުނިންމާ ނިޒާމީ ނުކުތާތަކާ އެތެރޭގެ ކޯޅުންތަކުގައި މަޝްޣޫލުވެ ތިބި ފަދައިން  އާ ދައުރަކަށް ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީއިން އިންތިޚާބުކުރެވުނު ބޭފުޅުންގެ ކިބައިންވެސް ފެނިގެން ދިޔައީ ނިމިގެން ދިޔަ ދައުރުގައި ޕާޓީގެ ހިންގުންތެރިންގެ މެދުގައި އުފެދުނު މައްސަލަތަކެއް ނިންމަން ވެގެން ނެގި ނިޒާމީ ނުކުތާތަކެއްގައި މަޝްޣޫލުވެ ތިބި ތަނެވެ.

ކޮންމެއަކަސް، މިއަދު މިފެންނަނީ ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީގެ ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުން ޤާނޫނީ މައްސަލަތަކުގައި ޕާޓީގެ ޤާނޫނާއި ސިޔާސީ ކަންކަމާބެހޭ ކޮމިޓީގެ ލަފައަކަށް ބުރަވުމެއް ނެތި ގޮތް ފާޑު ކިޔާތަނެވެ. ދުވާލުގެ އިރު ފެންނަ ފަދައިން ފެންނަން ހުރި ކަންކަމަކީ ނެތް ކަންތަކެއް ކަމަށް ހެދުމަށް މަސައްކަތްކުރަމުން ގެންދާ ތަނެވެ. ޢަދާލަތު ޕާޓީގެ ރައީސާ މެދު، ދީނުގައި ޙަރާމް ކުރައްވާފައިވާ އަދި ޙައްދު ކަނޑައަޅާފައިވާ ޤާނޫނީ ސަރުކާރު ވައްޓާލުމަށް ޤާނޫނާ ޚިލާފަށް ނިކުތުމުގެ ތުހުމަތު ސަރުކާރަށް ނިސްބަތްވެ ވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ބޭފުޅުން ކުރައްވަމުން ގެންދަވާ އިރެއްގައި އެކަމާ މެދު މުޅިން ޣާފިލުވެ ތިއްބަވައިގެންނެވެ. ޕާޓީގެ އިސް ސަފުގައި މަސައްކަތް ކުރައްވާ، އަދި ޢިލްމުވެރިންގެ މަޖިލިހުގެ މެންބަރެއް ކަމުގައި ހުންނެވި ބޭފުޅަކާ މެދު ބަދު އަޚްލާޤީ ޢަމަލުގެ ތުހުމަތު ކުރެވި، އޭނާއަށް ކުރިމަތިކުރެވިފައިވާ ތުހުމަތުތަކުގެ ސަބަބުން ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގައި ތިއްބެވި ހުރިހާ ދީނީ ޢިލްމުވެރިންނަށް ލަދުވެތިކަން ކުރިމަތިވެފައިވާ މިޙާލަތުގައި އެކަމަށް ޖަވާބުދާރީވުމުން ވެސް ރެކި ރެކި ތިއްބެވައިގެންނެވެ.

މަޖިލިހުގެ ބަޔާނުގައިވާ ޙަދީޘަށް މަޖިލިހުން ތަބާނުވަނީތޯއެވެ؟ ޕާޓީގެ މޮޓޯކަމުގައިވާ ކީރިތި ޤުރްއާނުގެ އާޔަތް ހަނދުމަފުޅު ނެތުނީތޯއެވެ؟

Islamic Scholarship and Maldivian Women: My Swim Against the Tide

As a Maldivian woman, and as a pursuer of Islamic scholarship, the issue of how Islamic scholarship relates to the women of this country is one that I have been faced with at various points of my academic and personal life. One thing, I found, is undeniable; there are huge challenges for women in the field of Islamic scholarship in our country.

In the Maldives, Islamic scholarship - at least on the level of public discourse - is a field almost completely monopolised by men. In Maldives, an Islamic scholar MUST have a beard, at least the potential to have one. A Maldivian Islamic scholar MUST wear his pants short, or at least must be able to do so without uncovering part of his awrah. Women, by their very nature, are unable to fulfill these conditions.

It is true that as a principle, Islam does not prevent women from studying Islamic sciences or from preaching Islam based on their knowledge. Aisha, my namesake - I have always been proud to say - and the Prophet's wife (Peace be upon him and may Allah be pleased with her) is an Islamic scholar, who is shown as a role model to Muslim women. It is also true that many women, including myself, have been issued licenses to preach Islam by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, and previously by the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs. One must ask, however, how often these women do, or are given the opportunity to, address an audience at all, not to mention one comprising both genders. One cannot help but wonder whom among these women is given the opportunity to be at the forefront of the Maldivian stage of the eternal strife to promote Islam.

Thus, all issues relating to women are given but a rather reluctant and half-baked coverage; Women's education, women's employment, marital responsibilities, family commitment, etc. are all discussed only from a man's perspective.

The current discourse of Maldivian scholars on women's education and employment is impractical, if not illogical. It is their stand that Islam does not prevent women from pursuing higher education. Women, in fact, are encouraged to pursue a degree in professional fields such as medicine, education, law, psychology, etc.. Afterall, women do need the services of doctors, educators and lawyers. Who better to provide these services to women than female professionals? Thus, Maldivian women are encouraged by Islamic scholars to build dreams upon dreams of a professional career along side those of love, husband, children, family and home. 

The oxymoron presents itself once these women - after having spent several years toiling away under thick volumes of reports and case studies, being trainee teachers under the supervision of stricter than hell supervisors, dissecting dead bodies, attending to injuries, and assisting surgeons in operation theatres - choose to fulfill the Sunnah of marriage and forming a family. Now, there's no denying that the primary role of a woman upon marriage is that of a wife; and upon having a child is that of a mother. But if women are encouraged to train as professionals, should women also not be encouraged to work as professionals? Should women not be provided with suitable circumstances where they can pursue a career without undermining their roles as wives and mothers?

Unfortunately, all that I've heard to this day from Maldivian scholars is that women should be content to be housewives, and that being a mother is the biggest honour of all. 

The same goes for the issues of marital responsibilities and family commitment. I heard a Sheikh recently speaking on radio of men who work all day and return home only to find an unwelcoming wife at home. It was his claim that this is one of the main contributors to the breakdown of marriages in our society. While I do not deny that many men do in fact grind daily to earn a good living for their families, I can't help but wonder whether women do nothing at all. The way I understand it, it is a division of labour: women ought to take care of the family; men are the bread-winners. Neither task is more important than the other; neither can be considered harder, or easier than the other. In the end, both partners of the marriage are supposed to provide each other with support. 

When a man returns from office, returns from work and spends all his time going out with friends, reading the news, or watching television, is he not neglecting part of his responsibilities? Could it not be that a woman whose emotional needs and expectations from her husband is more likely to be unwelcoming to him wheh he comes home from work to change and go meet with his friends?

The half-bakedness of the scholarly address applies even to the issue of Hijab. This age-old issue, discussed, re-discussed, and then discussed yet again has been focused only on women. The focus of the Hijab issue is so much on the female gender that one cannot help but wonder that perhaps an awrah is defined in Islam only for women. I recently watched a televised sermon of a Maldivian Islamic scholar in which he recited verses 29 and 30 of Surah Al-Nur which translate as follows:

"Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do. (29) And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed. (30)"

Unfortunately, although the Quran first commands men to lower their gaze from viewing Haraam and to protect themselves from committing illicit deeds, the Sheikh only translated the verse that relates to women's Hijab. Allah's Command to believing men was purposely ignored!

Such oversight may perhaps be excused if Maldivian men do generally follow the Command to lower the gaze and guard the chastity. This, sadly, does not seem to be the case. Allah is Most Gracious, Most Wise; he limited man's awrah to what is comprised between the navel and the knees - as opposed to the whole body of the woman, with a few body parts being the exception. Even so, many men - especially, many young men - seem unable even to cover this small area. In order to follow pop fashion - or, hip hop fashion; you name it - many young men deem it necessary to let their pants fall way below their waist, not to mention that they deem it unnecessary to wear undergarments!! The result: I'd rather not divulge in!!

Another issue not to be forgotten is that of pornography. Maldivian Muslim men, like their brothers all around the world, seem to be acting under the impression that as long as you don't view the awrah of a Muslim woman, it is permissible to view the awrah of other women in general. In the end, the general effect of dehumanising and objectifying women has been unavoidable. Reports of sexual crimes against the female gender, including crimes against children and the elderly, have been on the rise in Maldives - It is impossible to say whether the rise is in the number of crimes or the amount of reports; it in all probability is both! - and all that Maldivian scholars have been able to say is that women should cover themselves better and the Government should implement Hudud!

It is my belief that Maldivian scholars find it easy to speak the same words and to address the same issues in the age-old manner without looking at them from any different angles. And this, I  believe, is the ultimate wrong!

I do realise that I am only raising issues here; I have not proposed any solutions. 

I have, however, started my own personal swim against the tide. I have chosen to have a child and to work. I have decided that I, as the mother of my child, will take the primary responsibility of feeding, bathing, playing with and rearing my child. I will not delegate these pleasures to a maid or babysitter. I have also decided that I, as a graduate of Shari'ah and law, will practice the law. I will pursue a career, but on my own terms. I work from home. And because my child is a toddler now - who rarely sleeps during the day and refuses to leave me and the laptop alone -  I work when he, along with the rest of the world, sleeps.

Is it easy? No. Is it a sustainable solution? Definitely not. By Thursday - weekends in Maldives are Fridays and Saturdays, and that's when I sleep - I can't wait for the week to end. I am always wishing for one more hour in the day and a few more minutes to the hour. But, for me, it is a start.

I also have chosen to start my journey, preaching and pursuing the values of Islam, by addressing issues that many other graduates of the Shariah are shying away from. I do this with the full understanding that this is a path filled with obstacles. Be it as it may, it is my belief, that if no one else will, I ought to do the hard - and perhaps the right - thing.

I am a Maldivian woman. I am a pursuer of Islamic scholarship. I swim against the tide.

The Deafening Silence - A Vote of Confidence?

The Education Ministry of the Maldives has recently announced its intention to introduce co-educational primary schooling, starting with grade 1, into the four currently all-secondary single-sex facilities available in the country. A few disgruntled voices here and there, by certain groups the Ministry claims are trying to confuse the public in order to achieve personal goals at the expense of the nation. Overall, however, the relative silence of Maldivian parents, and the society as a whole, has been deafening.

And by silence, I mean silence. Few words have been said for, or against the Ministry's plans. And one can't help but wonder if politicians have been making mountains out of ant hills so often, that by the time a real issue did come forward, the people are too tired and frustrated of it all to give it a thought. Or is it that people really think that this issue is no issue in the first place?

Why am I getting so bothered about this anyway? What's the issue in it for me? As far as I can see, this is a move that can either make or break the future of our country. But since I do believe that the future of our country has been broken to a great extent — please refer to the drug abuse and criminal rate statistics among the youth — I suppose, more accurately, I believe this is a move that can either RE-make or FURTHER break the future of our country. And the cause(s) for this belief are as follows:

According to senior officials at the Ministry of Education — such as the Deputy Minister, Dr. Abdulla Nazeer, on a SunFM debate against PA MP, Mr. Abdul Azeez Jamal Abu Bakr — the main reason for this change is the gradually, and continuously, deteriorating academic and behavioural levels of the student bodies of these four government-run secondary schools. This is in contrast to privately-run schools, as well as government-run primary schools, which have been maintaining, if not improving, their levels of academic and behavioural standard.

The Deputy Minister further stated that night that the Ministry has conducted an experimentation on the students of Imaduddin School, a government-run, previously primary only school, by allowing those who graduated from the primary level to continue in Grade 8 within the same school institution and the same co-educational framework that which they have been accustomed to throughout primary level. The Ministry found that the students, when given this opportunity were able to maintain their academic levels, in contrast to students who are changed to secondary-only single-sex schools.

It is the Ministry's assertion that this proves that co-education fosters academic excellence as well as social and behavioural compliance. Going by this assertion, following the proper implementation of this plan, Maldives will see higher levels of productivity and reduced levels of delinquency and criminality among secondary school graduates.

Only glitch to this marvellous plan is that the basis of this assertion is not necessarily right. Anyone with the slightest know-how about social research and experimentation knows that in order to ensure the accuracy of the results it is necessary to control and minimise the effects of factors other than the one in consideration that could affect the turn-out. Alternatively, the sample needs to be big enough, or the observation period long enough, to render the effects of these other factors small enough to be ignored.

This was not observed at all by the Ministry of Education in their little experimentations. There was no control on the environments of the four secondary schools and other schools when the Ministry made assertions regarding the deteriorating academic and behavioural standards of the said school, nor when the Ministry conducted the experiment on the students of Imaduddin School. Nor was the observation made in a long enough period: The observation of the academic results of Imaduddin students was done in just one academic year. This being the case, there are many other factors, other than co-education — or the lack of it — that could be the reason for the disparity between the academic and behavioural standards of the student populations in the four secondary schools and other schools.

Factors such as better and stricter management: I've been informed countless times from students studying in Majeediyya and Dharumavantha schools that the management staff and teachers are scared to take disciplinary action against certain delinquents for fear that they, along with their gangs, will come and retaliate for it afterwards. And it was quite recently that I was told that a student of one of the female schools was given only 2-weeks suspension after being caught with illegal drugs on school grounds, and then allowed to come back to school. I have yet to hear of such terrorist-victim relations between the teachers and students, respectively, of private schools, or of such leniency in dealing with even criminal delinquency on school grounds.

Factors like better parent-teacher cooperation: Parents in government-run primary schools have direct contact with the teachers who instruct their children. They have direct access to the classrooms their children study in. They are able — rather, encouraged — to come to class during school hours and observe their children while they study. As opposed to that, parents of students in secondary schools meet their children's teachers on rare occasions: the first day of school, maybe; parent-teacher meetings; if the student gets into trouble at school. Even to parent-teacher meetings, some students prefer to take a friend of theirs so as to prevent their teacher(s) from having a direct conversation with their parents or guardians.

Factors like the difference in the curricula: Dr. Nazeer in his SunFM debate spoke of how Arabiyya School and Mauhad, the only two institutions in Male' currently providing education with a focus on Islamic revealed knowledge, are able to produce productive graduates with very little level of delinquency or criminality recorded among them, while employing co-education system. What he failed, or neglected, to notice is the huge difference between the curricula taught in these schools and other government-run schools.

Look, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying co-education is wrong. I can't prove it, and I have no interest in trying. I studied in co-educational schools, and I turned out just fine, even if I say so myself. It's just that the whole country seems to have reached a consensus that the issue here is co-education vs. single-sex education, and I just wanted to get that out of the way. Neither co-education — nor single-sex education, for that matter — is a magic pill that will solve all the problems in the educational system, and neither one is a poisoned apple either. And as far as I've read into research done about the issue, there is simply not enough data to conclude that one is better than the other.

But that's not the only problem with this plan. It's not even the primary cause of concern in this plan. The plan is to introduce grade 1 in the four schools. Schools that, according to the Deputy Minister of Education — and what better authority on this matter than him? — have reached such a level of delinquency and academic failure that the Ministry had to decide to take unconventional measure in order to bring even the slightest improvement to them. What's wrong with that?

Have you ever seen the desk tops and the toilet walls of these schools? Any one of them? I remember going to one of these schools back in 2003 — yes, back then it was just Majeediya and Ameeniya school — with my classmates to use its chemistry lab. (Back then, Mauhad, the school I studied in, didn't have a chemistry lab, so we were forced to beg other schools like science-school orphans to use their labs.) I had the honour of sitting at a desk on top of which a crude picture of homosexual sex was etched in with a sharp object — most probably a compass pin. The table right next to mine had a newsflash on top of it that a certain boy had f***ed a certain girl, and that she was a s**t. That was back in 2003. Now, seven years on, I'm told that there are some students who take stashes of illegal drugs to the school, carry them to the toilet, and smoke, sniff, inject, and — of course, who can forget! — trade them.

By introducing grade 1 into these schools, we are potentially exposing 7-year-olds to obscene language, graphic illustrations of sexual nature, and illegal drugs. I've come across people who seem to claim that if these things are there in the society, then it's better to let children have enough exposure to them, along with proper guidance. As one person put it, 'One cannot hide children from the world.' If this is a sensible excuse to expose 7-year-olds to the things I mentioned earlier, then there is nothing wrong with handing over the latest issue of the Playboy magazine to them either; there is nothing wrong with taking them along to an R-rated or 18+ rated movie; there's nothing wrong with letting them watch the meth-creation process. As long as you give them proper guidance.

Apart from that, the level of violence among the students of these schools is also at an alarming rate. Smaller students have been bullied and victimised by bigger students — bigger either in their personal size or their gang size. Let alone students; even foreign teachers have been beaten up by student gangs — for low marks, reporting bad behaviour, taking disciplinary action, etc. Cat fights among girls get just as gruesome as gang fights do among boys. In 2005, an eighth-grader in Majeediya School chose to end his life over going to school. The incident was never thoroughly investigated.

By introducing grade 1 into these schools, we are potentially exposing 7-year-olds to being victimised by older and bigger students. One might say that although older students bully each other, they probably won't bully children as young as 7 year old. I'm not so sure about that. I was told by a student in one of these school about the reason why the windows were permanently locked down by the school management. Apparently the students of one class that over-looked an open yard of a house thought it was funny to throw stones and pebbles at a toddler who was laid to sleep in the yard, until the poor thing was black and blue. Even if the assumption that older students won't bully younger students were taken to be true, research shows that even witnesses of bullying may suffer from negative psychological effects due to their experience, especially if they are not given proper attention and counselling. In a country where a bullying-related suicide went uninvestigated, one can't help but wonder how much attention the witnesses of bullying might get.

Last I checked, Section 5 of the Child Protection Act (Act No. 9/91) of the Maldives stipulated that government institutions must provide children with places suitable for their play and entertainment, to the best of the nation's economic capability. The rising crime rates within the country has for the most part rendered public parks and open areas unsuitable for children to go out and play. The only remaining area then will be the school grounds. But stuffing first-graders alongside delinquent secondary-school students, is the Ministry of Education trying to make even school grounds unsuitable places for children to go out and play?

Last I checked, Article 35 (a) of the Maldivian Constitution stipulates that it is the right of every child to be given special care and special protection by the family unit, by the society and by the government. Will the Ministry of Education be able to give these first graders the special care and special protection that they are entitled to, when they implement this plan? And are Maldivian parents living up to their constitutional responsibility of providing their children with special care and protection when they remain silent and blindly give a vote of confidence to the Ministry's plans?

Or is it that our 'commitment' to protect children is a mere word of the mouth? Or perhaps a sword we can yield to silence some sectors of the society?