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?

Tribute to Muhammad Asad - by Tariq Ramadan

This is a long over due review of a lecturer given by Prof. Tariq Ramadan in memory of the great Muslim writer and revivalist thinker, the late Muhammad Asad. The lecture was part of a two-day program organised jointly by the Islamic Book Trust and the Islamic Renaissance Front, to celebrate the contributions of Muhammad Asad to modern Islamic thought and to launch the operations of the Islamic Renaissance Front.

The event consisted of two lectures, one delivered by Prof. Tan Sri Muhammad Kamal Hassan, former rector of International Islamic University Malaysia, and the other by Prof. Tariq Ramadan.

Prof. Kamal Hassan stated in his speech that the biggest contribution made by the late Muhammad Asad to the Islamic revival and reform movement was to present what he called the Islamic world view: the perspective from which Islam viewed, and dealt with, human existence. He stated that this is one of the ideas that he learned from his meeting with Mohamed Iqbal during his trip to Pakistan. This idea he developed further and passed on to the likes of Syed Abul Ala Maududi and Syed Qutub.

He illustrated this with excerpts from various writings of Muhammad Asad including his Road to Mecca, Islam at the Crossroads, and The Message of the Quran.

He read out excerpts from Islam at the Crossroads, in which the late Muhammad Asad warned Muslims against blindly following western ideas. Muhammad Asad also highlighted the unity of the physical and the spiritual, which he considered a central and integral part the Islamic world view, and illustrated it with the Muslim form of prayer, the Salat.

Prof. Kamal also read out excerpts from the Road to Mecca, a book which highlights the Islamic world view as it was seen with the eyes of Muhammad Asad before he embraced Islam; the eyes of Leopold Weiss. He read out one special excerpt, which, for me, emphasized the late Muhammad Asad's ability to differentiate between Muslims and their behavior, and Islam. It reads, '... the decline of the Muslims was not due to any shortcomings in Islam, but rather in their own failure to live up to it.'

Prof. Kamal next moved on to The Message of the Quran, a translation of the meanings of the Quran and a brief commentary on it, also authored by the late Muhammad Asad. He stated that for him Muhammad Asad's commentary is the Yin to the Yen of Abdullah Yusuf Ali's commentary on the Quran.

I found Prof. Kamal's lecture very useful and informative in the sense that he gave the audience a beginner's guide to Muhammad Asad's writings. It gave me personally a brief idea of what to expect when I read Muhammad Asad. I have already read his Roaf to Mecca and Islam at the Crossroads; but I think if I were to read them again, I would be more able to comprehend his opinions and more capable of relating to his thoughts.

The second lecture was given by Prof. Tariq Ramadan. My own introduction to Prof. Tariq Ramadan was in 2005, when he made his controversial call for an international moratorium on the implementation of Hudud. Prof. Tariq Ramadan is the grandson of Imam Hasan Al-Banna, founder of the Islamic Brotherhood movement in Egypt. He is a reformist Muslim thinker who encourages debate, and who has received criticism from both within and without the Islamic thinkers' society. He is one of the most rightful people to give a speech in memory of the late Muhammad Asad, as he is a European Muslim who understood where Muhammad Asad, and his thoughts, came from, and he has had the great privilege of meeting and learning from the West's Gift to Islam.

In his lecture, Prof. Tariq pointed to the attitude many Muslims had towards open discussions and debates. He stated that this was one of the challenges faced by the late Muhammad Asad in that when other Muslims agreed with his views they would celebrate him, but when they disagreed they would say, 'Don't forget in end that he was a Jew. Beware!' He stressed that this kind of attitude of attacking a person's personage when disagreeing with his views is not one encouraged by Islam. He stated that Muhammad Asad was a Muslim who greatly opposed Zionism, and at the same time kept his Jewish roots in tact, and this was not something a Muslim cannot do: Islam does not sanction any kind of anti-Semitism.

Prof. Tariq highlighted the important role played by Muhammad Asad's chosen career before his Islam, journalism, in his discovery of Islam within the greatly deviated practices of Muslims. Muhammad Asad traveled among Muslim countries of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, etc. before he became Muslim, and he touched the seed of Islam in their acts although he knew they were a long way from its spirit.

He agreed with Prof. Kamal Hassan's statement that one of the greatest contributions of the late Muhammad Asad was his presentation of the Islamic world view. He stated, however, that the roots of this idea can be seen even earlier than the times of Iqbal, in the writings of Jamal Al-Din Al-Afghani. Prof. Tariq stated that Muhammad Asad developed the Islamic world view based on two things: Going back to the text, and reshaping the terminology used in Islamic discourse.

Prof. Tariq elaborated on how the late Muhammad Asad used critical thinking and analysis in order to free the primary texts of Islam, the Qur'an and the Sunnah, from traditional and customary additions. He stated that he did so in order to free Islamic thought, not only from the colonization by the dominant western powers, but also the colonization by the traditions and customs of the Muslims themselves. He stated that Muhammad Asad recognized the importance of having sufficient knowledge of the Arabic language in order to accomplish this task, and mastered Arabic in a way that few Arab-speakers have mastered it in our time.

He then gave a brief insight into the way Muhammad Asad reshaped Islamic discourse. He illustrated how he himself has moved along the lines of Muhammad Asad's thought and translated 'Islam' differently from the traditional translation, 'submission'. He stated that he did so because submission in the west is an act done without thinking or rationalization, without the use of logic, and this is in complete contradiction with the true meaning of Islam. He translated Islam as 'Entering God's Peace'.

Prof. Tariq spoke further of the late Muhammad Asad's views on the relationship between the West and Islam. He stated that Muhammad Asad spoke of this relationship in a psychoanalytic manner. Muhammad Asad said once, he said, that the West's relationship with Islam was shaped by a trauma it suffered some time in its history. Prof. Tariq stated that while the trauma analogy is true with regards to the West, after the period of colonization, it is equally true with regards to Muslim societies.

Prof. Tariq then spoke fondly of the last few years of Muhammad Asad's life. He emphasized the importance of the last few years of a person's life when studying his contributions. He stated that in the last years of his life, Muhammad Asad tried to look back to his life and to his work and questioned whether he took the right steps; whether he had made the wrong moves.

In the end, Prof. Tariq, stated the main contribution made by the late Muhammad Asad was a methodology with with to revive and reform Islamic discourse. It is not necessary for us to agree with his findings, but we must appreciate his contribution.

Prof. Tariq Ramadan's lecture was a personal beacon for me, as a student of Islamic studies. It was a summary - a rather brief one, given the time frame - , of the life and the work of Muhammad Asad.

After the lectures, the floor was opened to the audience to ask questions based on the lectures.

One question that was asked by a young Syrian residing in Malaysia was, what the true understanding of Ummah was.

In answer, Prof. Tariq warned against romanticizing the concept Ummah. Ummah, he explained, is not a physical community; Ummah is a spiritual concept of community baed on a principle. What binds Muslims together is Allah. The commitment to the Ummah that must be made by all Muslims should be based on the Prophets advice to aid your Muslim brother when he is the oppressor by preventing him.

Prof. Tariq stated that the concept of Ummah is now being used as a way to be 'united against'. He stated that in reality the concept of Ummah should not unite Muslims against, but rather for; it should unite Muslims for the principles on which the Ummah is based.

Another question that was posed to the speakers by a Malaysian girl was on how Muslim youth can break free from the tribal traditional thinking and move to the scientific logical thinking.

Prof. Tariq replied that the division of knowledge into logical and traditional is something the Islamic reformist movement has had to deal with. He stated that in Islam, there is no secular science. He stated that all knowledge is Islamic in essence; knowledge, in Islam, is the means towards ethical ends. Similarly, reason is a means towards an ethical end. It was one of the main beliefs of Muhammad Asad that one of the great gift Islam can give the West is the ethical perspective of the material discoveries of western scientists.

Prof. Tariq also commented on the different levels of understanding the Quranic text. He stated that the spiritual understanding gained by the Recitation of the Quran is one that is achievable to everyone. The stories that come in the Quran in the meanwhile act as mirrors in which a person can view his own reflection. On the other hand, he warned against what he called the democratization of the depriving of Ahkam from the Quranic text and Prophetic tradition.

I also got the opportunity to pose a question to the panel. I asked a question that I thought was relevant to all my friends and classmates. We're at a stage which marks the end of our journey as learners, and start another journey as contributors. When we leave our classrooms and go out to the community, we're pulled towards two extremes: one of conservative traditionalism, another of secular modernism. My question was how and where we can find the right balance and contribute towards the development of our societies without uprooting ourselves from our Islamic traditions.

This question was echoed by another member of the audience, our own beloved Prof. Arif Zakaullah of the International Islamic University Malaysia. He asked how the Islamic world view can be ingrained in the minds of the younger society.

Prof. Kamal answered this question, and stated that the concept of 'Wasatiyya' or moderation is greatly emphasized in both the Quran and the Sunnah. He stated that it is important, in the end for this concept to be institutionalized into the education system.

Former Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahatir Mohamed, was also present in the event. He contributed by advicing the audience against rejecting the so-called secular sciences, as this will lead to further weakening of the Islamic Ummah.

====




SPECIAL THANKS: I'd like to extend my sincere thanks to my friend, Nora Huseinovic, who informed me of this event. She was unable to attend the lecture as she was part of a team making all IIUM students proud at the International Humanitarian Law Moot Competition 2009. She worked hard and won the place of Second Best Speaker. Congratulations, Nora, and many thanks!

Jaariyaa: Handle With Care

The recent ̶ or more appropriately, the ongoing ̶ scandal concerning a so-called 'Jaariyaa' claimed to be living in a Malé house has brought a glaring, critical issue regarding Maldivian journalism to the forefront of journalistic ethics. It is an issue that we have been ignoring for a long time. And, it seems, we are adamant on keeping on doing just that!

The story of the Jaariya first saw the light of day on the blogosphere. Call me crazy, but I think it was more of an offhand reference to the 'effect of allowing the Islamic extremists have a say around here' than it was an article of genuine concern for the fate of a child living in sexual abuse. And it seems, at least to me, that the girl only caught anybody's attention only when she became a political human canon.

But now, the girl seems to have gotten more attention than anybody ever deserves. She has been zeroed in on, slandered, and publicly embarrassed in front of the whole country. On top of all that, there are rumours that this may even be the wrong girl!!

What's really shocking here is the responsibility with which the Maldivian media has handled this case. It seems that for the Maldivian media this was just another story to write, another bit of information to be shared with the public. It seems that the Maldivian media is in more than a bit of confusion as to where to draw the line between the public's right to know and the private citizen's right to privacy.

I don't want to point fingers here. But, while it is inarguable that Haveeru newspaper and website has been a completely reliable source to bring straight-out-of-the-oven fresh news to every Maldivian's doorstep, I think it's indisputable they sometimes over do it. This is one instance when they went way over board. Haveeru, in this case, was acting more like a tabloid than a respectable, responsible, and professional journalistic institution.

Let's move away from abstracts and shed a little light on definitive issues:

One, in their coverage of the case, Haveeru failed terribly in protecting the identity of the alleged victim. This girl was the subject of an ongoing investigation into child abuse. Either she was a victim of child abuse, whose identity should be protected by all journalistic ethical standards; or she was not a victim who happened to be questioned as the result of a false lead, in which case she would not want to be called a 'Jaariyaa' on national media. But Haveeru reporters went forward and wrote that the 'Jaariyaa' was the 17 year old sister of a man currently in jail for his involvement in the Himandhoo unrest in 2007, and she was living in a house in Maafannu. How many people have been charged and convicted for their involvement in the Himandhoo unrest? How many of them happen to have 17-year-old sisters? And just how many of those girls happen to be living in Maafannu?

Two, for a reputed newspaper, Haveeru presented a rather one-sided report on this one. And one tainted with one too many prejudices, too. "Now that the 'Jaariyaa' has been pinpointed, let us tell you more about her: She's believed to have been sexually abused. She's now married to a young guy. But she was six-months pregnant when she was found. But we found out, through a very reliable source whom we cannot disclose, she was married to her current husband in India, during July 2009. (We're going to leave it to you to make the assumption that she was married to a man her age in order to cover up her sexual abuse after she was two months pregnant.) The Police has no comments regarding the case at the moment, btw!!"

What on God's sweet earth are they trying to say? And since Haveeru reporters seem to know who she is, where she lives, and whom she lives with, why have they not contacted her, or someone related to her, to get their side of the story? Especially since they've not managed to get a comment from the Police.

When the girl's family decided to contact the media, what they claimed was that she entered into a marriage with a guy a year older than her out of her own free will. That they were married in India, yes. But July was the month in which the couple applied to register their marriage in Maldivian courts as opposed to being the month in which they got married.

Yes, they could very well be lying. She could have been two months pregnant when she was married. She could even have been subjected to sexual abuse. But it's unjustifiable, if not criminal, to charge, try, and convict someone in the media, and sentence him or her to an undoubted future of public scrutiny and humiliation.

Media personnel throughout Maldives are calling for the decriminalisation of defamation. For more freedoms to be given to the press. The truth is, though, that ̶ as it has been clearly demonstrated in this case ̶ freedom given to an irresponsible person to handle critical information relating to others is a very dangerous thing.

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!