Foreign Policy Prostitution - Terrorism Invitation

The recent decision taken by the Maldivian government to restore and develop diplomatic relations with Israel came as a shock to the Maldivian public. The simple question asked by many is: 'Why?' A question that the Maldivian government has miserably failed to answer.

The decision wasn't such a big shocker for me though. This government has been giving signals of its indifference towards Israeli crimes since even before it took office. On 10th November 2008, the then president-elect, Mr. Mohamed Nasheed, while talking to The Guardian about his plans for the newly born democracy, compared his plan to legitimately buy an environmental refuge for Maldivians to what the Zionists did back in the early 1900s in order to acquire Palestinian land!

Now moving on to the real no-brainer: 'WHY?'

Take a slight look at the condition the Maldivian economy is in right now. While the Maldives is currently enjoying the highest GDP per capita in the region, 60% of it is spent on maintaining big government. Foreign debt amounts for 35% of GDP. And we have 5% of our tourism-earned blessings for developmental projects. Yay!

True, there was a time when the President promised to get the economy in ship shape within a week. But I'm sure he's truly and honestly over that day-dream. Now, he's trying to reinitiate the preferencial trade agreement with the US that was suspended in 1995, due to human rights violations by the previous government. Also, let's not forget that we're practically sending SOS messages to the World Bank to help us reduce the giant-sized civil service, recover the green we lost funding the previous regime's corruption, and don't let acquiring more green to fund actual development slip off the list.

Well, Israel isn't exactly the kind of economy where Maldivians will want to be investing in. But truth be told, improving diplomatic relations with Israel sure will help reduce the number of investors who do not want to inject their green in the Maldivian economy because Maldives has been refusing to have relations with a big not-so-behind-the-scenes player in the international community circus. Besides, it's an inarguable fact that the Israeli economy is one of the most highly techonological economies in the world right now. Forget the undisclosed nuclear weapons program. I'm talking about Intel, IBM, and Cisco all having R&D facilities in Tel Aviv. So, I guess you can connect the dots now.

President Mohamed Nasheed, in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly, gave more reasons than just that though. He stated that the Maldivian government intends to use its relations with Israel as leverage to push for a sovereign and independant Palestinian homeland. I have one word for you, Mr. President: 'BULLSHIT!' (With all due respect.) Egypt and Jordan have had diplomatic relations with Israel since 1960s. They have more to offer Israel and more leverage to provide for the Palestinians than we ever will. Not once have the two countries been able to use their relations with Israel to reduce or stop the killing of Palestinian people during its many military expeditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hell, all the UN Secretary General was able to do when Israeli military aircrafts bombed a UN-operated school in the Gaza strip last time was to 'strongly condemn both sides'. The Obama administration since it entered the White House has been trying to push the Netanyahu government to freeze settlements. It backfired: Now the Obama administration is asking for a "restraint" in activity.

Reality check, Mr. President: Maldives doesn't even have an airforce to begin with. Israel has the most highly combat-trained, technologically equiped army in the world. And being a nuclear power adds a cherry on top of that cake. What leverage?!

In the meantime, the Maldivian Foreign Minister, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, claims that restoring diplomatic ties with Israel must in no way be seen as condoning the actions of Israel against the Palestinian people. That's kind of hard, really, especially since at the very beginning of this year Israeli aircrafts and tanks and footsoldiers assaulted a people trapped in a refugee camp, and killed thousands of civilians including hundreds of children. So what's our reaction? Go to the UN and shake hands with the Foreign Minister who's pushing for more illegal settlements. Bravo! Way to to use leverage.

And just for kicks, let's take the Palestinian people and any feelings of solidarity the general Maldivian public may or may not feel towards them out of the picture. It's an undisputed fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the failure of the international community to bring an end to it, has inspired a many Islamic terrorists. Maldives had its first brush with terrorism when a group of extremists exploded a home-made bomb in Sultan Park, which houses the National Museum. Don't get the wrong idea: We shouldn't bow down to that kind of extreme demands and extreme methods. But will the restoration of diplomatic relations with Israel not fuel more extremist thought? Do we want to legitimise attacking our country in the eyes of extremists the same way a US military base in Saudi Arabia legitimised, in the eyes of some, rebellion and the use of terrorism against the Saudi government. And for what? Agricultural help? Seriously?!

In any case, it's questionable if getting under the sheets with the Israel for a one-night stand will in any way benefit the people of Maldives. It will help Israel get a facelift sure, especially after the Goldstone report. Bravo, Mr. Nasheed and Dr. Shaheed! Way to expose us to extremism and terrorism just so that the Israeli government will provide agricultural help. Were they the only ones who could do that?

Hadd Procedure? Blame it on God!

Much has been said and written about how the Hadd, or the Shari'ah-prescribed punishment, for the crime of Fornication is only suitable for the 6th or 7th century Arabia.

But let's not get started arguing about the reason behind the criminalization of pre-marital sex, because that's one argument that is going to go in circles and will never end. I can argue that a personal freedom that threatens the very fabric of society should take a backseat to societal interests. You can argue that freedoms are absolute, although jurists, judges, and legal academicians will all tell you that granting absolute freedoms to any human being is not in the interest of justice. You can argue then that consensual sex between two people isn't detrimental to society: that every couple has to make sure whether or not they 'click' before they make a commitment, although sociologists will tell you having sex isn't the way to do it. That a couple living together happily provides just as much a sense of security to their children as a happily married couple can, although sociologists will most probably not agree with that argument either. So let's agree to disagree on that one.

But I do believe that those people who claim that the substaintial law of the Hadd is in some way discriminatory against women are clearly misguided on the issue.

Their argument is based on statistics: in the year 2006, 146 out of 184 people sentenced to be punished by the Hadd of fornication in the Maldives were women. Now, without jumping to 'Aha!' take a step back and think: what does this really indicate? It simply indicates women leave more evidence after the crime; or to put it more precisely they have a greater probability of carrying evidence around with them than men do. Women get pregnant. Women confess more easily. Maybe, they have more conscience than men do about these things.

Speaking of evidence, the Maldivian legal system is NOT where you'd want to look for a proper evidencial system. Believe me, I've looked into the current Evidence Act. I know! It's more than 30 years old, and it's less than a page and a half long. No, we're not talking parchments here. We're talking A4 papers. I guess by now you know what I'm getting at. Vague areas. Lots of them. It'd be really great in a country where judicial precedent is applied, and judges are open-minded in their application of law. But in a country where most judges don't even have a degree, and High Court judges think that 'judicial independence' means that the Judicial Service Commission should only be chaired by people from within the judiciary, the current Evidence Act really sucks. And saying 'sucks' is putting it very lightly.

So going back to Hadd convictions, most women are convicted based on confessions, given after the birth of an illegitimate child. And the current Evidence Act doesn't provide any detailed provisions on the acceptance of confessions.

Under Islamic Law, the birth of an illegitimate child alone does not prove Fornication (the crime punishable with the Hadd). The reason is that Fornication, under Islamic law, is committed when a man's glans fully penetrates a woman's vagina. And it is a medically proven fact that a woman can get pregnant even without full sexual intercourse. Yeah, well, the chances are slim, but there's still a chance. But under Islamic law, the crime must be proved beyond a shred of doubt before the Hadd can be implemented. The other reason is that under Islamic law, as in all other modern laws, the lack of consent is a full defense in all crimes other than murder. If a woman were to plead the lack of consent in a Hadd crime, that in itself becomes a reason to doubt the commission of a crime. Again, under Islamic law, the crime must be proved beyond a shred of doubt before the Hadd can be implemented.

Going on to confessions, in most other countries, the accused, especially if unrepresented, is forewarned by the judge of the consequences of a confession. In the Maldives, the current 1-and-half page Evidence Act does not even touch on procedure for confessions.

This being the case, the case presented by those who call for the abolishment of the Hadd is based mainly on the fact that more women are sentenced than men. Of course, in reality this happens because women are under the impression that their pregnancy is conclusive proof of their actions and confess to having committed fornication, while men refuse to confess to commission of the act.

Muslim jurists have discussed procedural matters relating to confessions more than 1200 years ago. For example, in this case, when the woman claims in her confession that she committed the act of Fornication with a certain man, and that man denies the claims she has made, what are we to do? Imam Abu Hanifah holds the opinion that in this case, the woman cannot be sentenced to Hadd. The reason why he holds this opinion is that Fornication is a crime that can be committed by two people, a man and a woman. When the man denies having committed the act, it becomes as if the woman committed fornication all by herself, which of course doesn't make sense. Now there's a doubt. Go back to the doctrine of 'Proof beyond a shred of doubt' and the case against the woman comes down crumbling. All that can be proved against her based on her confession, and even her pregnancy, is that she was involved in immoral acts that put her in the situation. The government is not obliged to punish her with flogging in this case, but is free to legislate any punishment is sees fit. House arrest. Imprisonment. Any thing.

I do believe that although this is an opinion narrated from Imam Abu Hanifah alone, his argument does hold water, and is more in line with the standard of proof for Hadd crimes. Perhaps, it is time the Maldivian law adopted this position.

Now, one more important issue relating to Fornication convictions is that DNA tests today can show the paternity of any child. This being the case, how do men get off the hook so easily? Again, it is medically possible for a woman to be pregnant without a full intercourse. So, even if an illegitimate child is proved to be a certain man's child, that does not prove that the said man has committed Fornication with the woman. However, what must be noted is that while DNA test results cannot be used to prove Fornication against the man, or to establish the legal paternity of the child, DNA test results do prove the man's involvement with the woman in a sexual manner.

Why then does the Maldivian interrogation authorities and prosecuting authorities not use such evidence to convict the men involved in such crimes against society? Is it that we'd rather implement the Shariah without looking beyond the text?

A Maldivian diplomat to a European country, speaking in her personal capacity, stated that Maldives has never fully implemented the Shariah. She claimed that there was no necessity to implement the Shariah fully in this matter either. What she doesn't seem to know however is that what has led to the law being implemented in such a discriminatory manner against women is the fact that the Shariah has not been implemented fully even in this matter.

Perhaps it's easier for us to keep blaming God for our closemindedness. But don't you think it'd be more beneficial to us as a nation to take a step back, and take a look at ourselves?

Conning the People: Con-fusing the Cons-titution

NOTE: To start with, this is an article I wrote a few days ago. So the dates don't match. You will have to do the math yourself. The theme of this particular article may seem a bit off, but it's not. I still believe that whatever field you're in, you have to abide by certain morals and ethical codes. As a good Muslim. As a good human. Even if it's politics. A friend of mine told me, 'politics is dirty'. I don't believe it has to be. And I don't believe politicians have to be conmen. Hope you enjoy the read. :)

I'm not sure if it's something Maldivian, like our tuna-based cuisine, or something to do with simply being human. But we Maldivians are an extremely opinionated bunch of people. Especially about politics. It doesn't matter whether you're a fisherman, a farmer, or even a primary school student. But you're bound to have something to say about the decision made by the President, the Attorney General, or the Home Minister yesterday, today, or tomorrow. And whatever opinion that is expressed is most usually not based on, 'This will cause a lot of difficulty for us Fishermen,' or 'farmers like us,' or 'us students'. The arguments are mostly based on something like, 'This is completely against the clear provisions of the Constitution.'

Now, don't get me wrong here. I do believe that it's a good step to familiarize Maldivians to concepts like Constitutionalism and Constitutional Supremacy. It's just that I have a slight issue with the fact that most Maldivians on the street don't really know what the Constitution says. Most Maldivians get their knowledge of the Constitution, not from the text, but rather through whatever is said by the politicians in our beloved respective political parties. And we know full well how the politicians of our beloved country can't help twisting and turning facts and laws around to support their own whims and personal interests.

And it's not like we have to look very far to see the political games these people play.

Just today, the honorable MP elected from Maafannu constituency, Mariya Ahmed Didi, raised a procedural point that gave way to a domino-effect in the first sitting of the newly elected Parliament. While paying tribute to her ability to twist the wordings of the Constitution and confuse the MP presiding over the sitting, Mr. Mohamed Hussain, what with her being a barrister at law in the UK and all, I personally think what she did was just a bit lowly for the position she was in. So she is a barrister. So she is really good at this lawyer stuff. So what? She's not in a court of law trying to win a case for a client of hers. The responsibility that she took upon herself in that sitting was to make the law clear to the people. Not to make it more and more clouded by playing little political jokes in a sitting that was being televised live to all parts of the country.

What she said was this: Article 82(a) of the Constitution provides that the election of the Speaker and his Deputy must be done by way of a secret ballot. Article 87(c) on the other hand denotes that the Speaker or any other person presiding over a sitting of the Majlis should cast his vote only in case there was a tie of votes for and against the particular issue being put up for ballot. Hey, wait! Doesn't that mean the ballot will no longer be secret? Contradiction, right? 'Oh my Gawd!!'

What she didn't mention is this: If there's an apparent contradiction between two provisions in the Constitution, you're supposed to read the two provisions together. Something like, Article 82(a)'s secret ballot is the general rule. And Article 87(c) is talking about an exception. This is a well known rule in constitutional interpretation, and I can bet my soul Mariya knows about it. What with her being a barrister and all. Then what the hell was she doing asking trick questions that were fit to be asked in a Constitutional Law exam paper?!! (Oh, by the way. If it were an exam, I wonder what kind of a grade Mr. Mohamed Hussain would have failed with!)

Now let's do a bit of time travel. Like around a week or so back. President Mohamed Nasheed (the Anni guy not the Kutti dude) appointed a special presidential commission for the purpose of investigating alleged cases of corruption and embezzlement. The very same day that was announced on the media, Mr. Ibrahim Shareef (Ma votaa) of DRP was on TV claiming the appointment made by the President was completely totally unconstitutional. And when you note the fact that Mr. Shareef was acting as a member of the Parliament when the Constitution was drafted and passed, you'd expect him to be a reliable authority in this kind of stuff.

But apparently, even though President Anni was not in the Parliament when the whole amending thingy went on, it turns out he knows this Ganoon Asasee thingy more that Mr. Shareef does. I think Mr. Shareef forgot some parts of it. He must have been quite busy with other stuff, right? Anyhow, President Anni seems to have gone through the Constitution enough to notice that Article 115(o) provides for him to appoint temporary commissions of this sort. Well, waddaya know! He can appoint the commission.

Later on, the DRP tone changed. Last night, the 'outvoted' former President, Mr. Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom appeared on VTV and said that, 'You know what? The President does have the power to appoint a commission for the purpose of investigation. Article 115(o) and all that. But that's only for investigation. Such a commission cannot constitutionally have the right to arrest people or search people's houses or any of these stuff.' Damn, that's so 'hikmat Amalee' and true! So wise, man!

But then again, who the hell is talking about any commission arresting people? Or searching people's houses? Why is he the only person who heard the news?

Lemme tell you, Mr. Maumoon, what really goes on in this 21st century country. These Commission dudes gather something called evidence. And call up the Police and give it to them. They take it to this place called the High Court. The people at the Court, who are called judges, print out and sign this piece of paper called a Warrant. And the Police people in their fancy uniforms and all that go arrest people and search houses.

And, no! President Anni didn't hold a pistol to coerce the Court people into signing the warrant thingy. He doesn't have to. If there's enough evidence to show that there's reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in a criminal activity, the people at the Court are morally and legally bound to issue the warrant. That's how things work in most modern 'dhimaqratiyyah's.

Unfortunately, Maldivians have only been recently introduced to democracy, Constitutionalism and all that. And if politicians go on playing these little political games of theirs with laws and constitutional provisions, they're not doing a huge favor to the newly born Maldivian democracy.

So, yeah. To all the politicians out there. Stop conning the people of the Maldives. And to all the people of Maldives, please don't let these people con you. Enough is goddam enough!

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.

Iran Sure Has Balls!

Before you start reading this article, I'd like to warn you: for all those who think Sunnite Muslims are better than Shiite Muslims, and that all Sunnites are destined to be in Heaven while Shiites are condemned to Hell, this article may have some materials that you may find disturbing. READER DISCRETION IS ADVISED! And for those people who can't wait a second before passing judgments, keep this in mind when you're reading the article: I'm NOT Shiite.

I've spent 21 years on the face of this earth. And for at least 10 of those years, I was looking for some Arab leader to rise up to the wishes of the people on the streets of the Muslim countries. What I learned through out those 10 years was that for the 21 years that I've been around, the US government has been stuffing the extremely huge egos of Arab leaders. How the hell else did Israel manage to get two Arab countries to establish diplomatic relations with them?

Well, it seems that if Arab leaders want to keep on kissing American a$$, leaders of some other Muslim countries think they can all go to... well, where ever they want to go! We've seen how the Turkish Prime Minister gave a piece of his mind, on behalf of all the Muslims, to Shimon Peres at Davos. That was a breath of fresh air different from what the secular followers of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk would have wanted. The truth of the matter is that part of the beginning, and I say PART of the BEGINNING, of the Palestinian issue was the fall of the Ottoman Empire which was representing the Islamic Caliphate at the time.

Now, Iran has tested a nuclear reactor with unrefined uranium rods. What more, the US administration seems to be showing signs that the US foreign policy towards Iran will have a different colour. But mere signs aren't going to be enough this time. Enough US administrations have fooled Muslim countries with 'signs'. Now's the time for action, and Iran has made it clear. Iran has been put under a long embargo, and I personally expected them to be ready to give in any second. But they didn't. And that calls for a show of respect.

Look, I don't agree with all the policies of the Iranian government either. But truth is, I disagree more with the cowardice of the other Muslim governments. I found it silly when the Saudi government was refusing to support Hamas during the Gaza war with the excuse that Hamas get support from 'Shiites'. I found it sillier when the Egyptian government claimed the PA is the true voice of the people. Like, the Egyptian government which has been repressing any opposition for more than 20 years will know what the true voice of the people is.

OK, so the Iranian government is a Shiite government. OK, so there are some differences in the theology between Sunnites and Shiites. But let's face it: Right now, Iran is doing more for the betterment of the Ummah than any other Muslim country has managed to do for the long time.

Iran may not have an upper hand against the US or Israel at the moment. But they do at least HAVE a hand. And they're playing it. Let me summarise Iranian supreme leader's comments regarding Obama's offer to 'start over':

'We'll start over when the US stops greeting us with, "Happy new year, terrorists". It would be nice if you lift the economic embargoes you've put on us. And in the mean time how about reviewing your policies towards the Israeli nuclear program.'

So, yeah, somebody had the balls to say that, for once. My salutes.

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.