Random Reflexions

Rise in radicalism in Maldives is being balanced with an increasing number of non-religious, non-believing, non-muslim people too. An article written by a certain woman (which is hot news in the media in the past couple of days) is proof of that. A blog called ArabiGuitar is also proof of that. I don't c u having problems with those people. U only seem to have problems with religious people it seems.

most maldivians are in denial about this problem. Opting to see this through rose coloured glasses saying that we are just becoming more aware of religious issues. Having seen the drastic change a person goes through once bitten by this bug (ankle skimming trousers, and burugas)i am not optimistic that most maldivians can withstand this onslaught. A loathing of all foreigners are also being instilled in the minds of our compatriots, and it won't be long before we have an incident involving a tourist.
And Nass, true the number of non-believers are also on the rise, but have to admit atleast they don't try shoving their opinion down others throats. As a muslim i resent this so called expert preachers who arrogantly believe their way is the only path to god, and expect all beleivers to behave in exact same manner, down to the most minute details.

Nass,

Isn't it all too obvious an observation? I don't have a problem with religious people as highlighted by the fact that the word "radical~" appears 9 times in this post. And why do you suppose I (and many others) have a problem with the religious far-right?

blanche Neige, I really don't have any problems with other faiths. Ppl have the freedom to choose their faith. I only don't like it when they can't let others practice their religions in peace.

simon, it's true that u've used the word "radical" 9 times. But I also see the word "Islamic Radical". So isn't it obvious that ur having a problem with islam?

Simon, I don't agree with you this time.

We do not have to date back our lives to the 7th century, even if Maldives is to be governed by a 'proper' Islamic party. We'll just have to experience it.

It's the way you interpret it. We call ourselves 100% Muslims. But where do we stand? Is our judicial system as per the Islamic rules? Take a simple thing as marriage ?? We have inherited the 'policy' of Indians. As you see the covered up women on the road, I assume you would see the skimpy ones as well...maybe you miss that too much !!!

I feel Nass is right, you have a problem or maybe lets say a fear !!!

aaniyas case give me shivers. She was forced in to sublime. She was forced in to believing that she has to give in. She was forced to go anainst her conscience. She is nothing but a victim of the radicals.

DO sappe must be ashamed of him self. MDP must be ashamed of themselves as an organized political entity. These radicals are more powerful than the liberal minded mass. It is frightening. It is scary. I have no more faith in MDP. It is obvious that they are not fighting for a good cause. It is obvious that they are not there to protect the women. It is obvious that they are not there to protect peoples opinions. It is obvious that they dont respect women. It is obvious that they are loosers. They will lose in the end. No doubt about that. History has thought us that.

Aaniya should not have resigned. It is her bravery in the first place to raise her voice about such an issue. She got death threats and got scared. It is natural reaction. MDP and other liberal minded people should have suported her. Even you, Simon, never said anything in support of her.

What are these politicians up to. Power hungry maniacs destroying our country. Shame on all.

This is a simple example of where our society stands in this time. We are reverting back to the stone ages. We are stripping our women of the rights they have. We are pathetic. And we will regret.

Aaaniya you are very brave and i hope that you continue to raise your voice in what you believe in. Show the other women that we are made of substance o think think for ourselves.

We do need to start this debate at a national level. I can only hope that the parties involved realise this and start it soon. This incident alone is a good platform to built the debate on. But it seems that MDP dont want to do it. So will. I dont care if it is DRP. Some one need to start this debate.

It is really sad that aaniya resigned. I thought that she would fight to defend her view point.

What she should do next is that she should give a stsement to the media defending her decision and say that she still stands with her opinion. She should do this openly for the sake of all women.

Simon:

What’s more, I’m interested in the case of unfounded condemnation of, some even urging the execution (see www.factimaldives.com) of Aniya, who had written, in a very critical way, how men absolve themselves of real social issues by their obsession with other matters, most significantly symbolized by the Veil. The Adaalat, the IDP, the MDP, and, propagandistic websites such as www.themaldivian.org, www.factmaldives.com, www.dhivehiobserver.com, all have condemned her in varying degrees. But none of these parties, or not a single mainstream newspaper, as far as I know, has presented us with an analysis of her article and how and where she went wrong. What’s more, in their hastiness in condemning her, none of the articles I have read against her article, was even able to correctly comprehend what she had written in her original article. There were, instead, straw-man approaches. For example, Ilyas Hussein, who is an MP and MDP senior figure, totally and utterly misinterpreted her, and used that as a basis of his attack.

Aniya’s article was one of the very few Dhivehi articles, I have ever read, written with reason and argument. I urge these people to come up with a critical analysis of her article and show us the reasons why she deserves condemnation or execution. I think the fact that she has critically touched the patriarchal monopoly and power men are traditionally advantaged to wield through religion is the main reason they are condemning her. Indeed, her conclusion to one cogent argument is practically being evidenced here to this end. She, roughly, says in her article: religious ‘scholars’ do not wish people to critically question what they say; and this attitude of not questioning is reinforced by our fear – that religious ‘scholars’ instill in us – of ‘godly’ wrath; thus religious ‘scholars’ wield enormous influence over the people of their society; therefore, they are very ‘dangerous’. As I said, this very cogent argument is practically being evidenced by the unwarranted and unfounded condemnation and threats of execution she is facing.

How will you characterize these condemnations? Are they not symptoms of radicalism? If they are not, and you are ready to call they are reactions of the ‘moderates’, it seems we already have been having a brand of Islam for very long to concern ourselves with…

radicalism in the maldives is focussed on and revolves around subjugation of women in several forms: they have been prohibited to wear underwears, they are not allowed to strip naked, husband also cannot see her body, they mate with holes cut in their clothes, and in darkness, wife sleeps on the floor, husband on the bed, female genital mutilation (they call hithaan) is on the rise depriving women of any sexual climaxing ever after, wife's arse is being used to control birth, goats are being brought in for livelihood, driving, riding, working, talking to men all disallowed for women. degree holders are abandoning themselves to hijab and home.If this is what we are going for, there is a "clear and present danger" to our society's very fabric. this warrants swift, comprehensive action on out part as a community of like minded people.

My gods, I have to see this article by this Aniya woman. I don't think the clerics and Quran-thumpers actually fear or understand a challenge to their hegemony except when it comes within their established paradigms and familiar issues. Women's independence being one of them.

I'm not playing devil's advocate, however there is no reason why, or way in which how, we could call for religious "extremists" and "fundamentalists" to "moderate" their views on the treatment of women in Islam. They believe that the god's word in the Quran is final on any and all subjects talked about therein and lies outside social dynamics regarding contemporary ideas of right and wrong. There was a time not so far ago that the whole world agreed that women were inferior and that the bible, Tora, Quran, Malleus Maleficarum or whatever were exactly right about their lack of a moral compass or their affinity for the devil. So those crazy religious people are right about one thing. The position of women in society has been subject to change as much as any other social construct and it has nothing to do with any idea of universal, unchangeable, innate human rights. So if they want to subscribe to one view of women in a certain geographical and historical context and call it god's will then there's no way that we can reason with them. Debating ethics is only effective if we're all speaking within the same paradigm.

It is regrettable that this Aniya woman had to bend knee to the religious right however I can understand why she would do so. Democracy often means mob rule people and there's no stronger mob than the religious conservatives, especially in the Maldives. Our surprise and outrage that the many outnumber the few is surprising in itself.

Aniyas case is something which the IT community can try to expose to the intrnational media. That is an area where you guys can help the women of Maldives being treated as rubbish .
This is utter discrimination agaisnt women and death threat is a serious thing.

This utter disgusting act by the mullahs in Maldives need exposure so that women are not exploited for political gain in the future of Maldives. I have written to BBC regarding this cowardly act by DO and MDP, the so called liberators of women and people of the Maldives. I have written to the American embassy in Sri Lanka. I will send a copy to the common wealth secretariat and the EU soon.

I hope that others will follow pursuit and write to the international media regarding this kind of treatment of our women for political gain in the Maldives. these people MDP who always has been showing another side and pic to the international community need to get the right exposure they deserve.

This is not just a simple case. This is serious. This is not just another woman. She is a woman who has been forced to go against her beliefs for the fear of her life. If our women are to live their life in fear the future looks very bleak.

People like Ilyas hussain has shown the real colour of them this time. The thinking these kind of people has never changed. I have known this fellow for sometime.

Abuse of women for political gains is nothing new. What is new though in Maldives arena is that it is becomming violent. Fathwas calling her to be leashed, beheaded, killed, stoned, this is what is new in Maldives. It is a clear sign that people should start to wake from the slumber state they are in. It could be your daughter, sister or mother who will be under the hands of brutal mulllahs next.

This is unacceptable. What baffles me is the quietness of everyone who knows that what is happening is wrong. Is this the ignorance Simon is talking about?

What if tomorrow you wake up and find that your sister is about to be stoned due to an opinion she has put forward?

Will you just watch her to be brutally stoned, ripping her of the humanness from her, her right to be a woman. Even dogs are treated better by these mullahs. This is scary shit man.

What is next some one may ask. Honour killings?

If i was a relative or a frined of aaniya i would have gone to the streets with a mega phone defending her. Where are all those people who seem to identify themselves as being fighting for humanity. Where the hell are the friends of Maldives.

I am utterly disgusted by these poeples double standards.

This revolutionary movement is taking us backwards rather tha forward. So is it a worthy one?

The reforming talks looming in the air is utter rubbish. Both sides are using what ever means in gaining the power they need to control people, some seem to have rolled their sleeves in the wake of the opened opportunity to gain the control over women. In the process the victims are the women and children.

Women have been very free people in the history of maldives. They were free to say what ever they want. They raised their voices against ill treatment. This hapened near holhuashi , at homes and everywhere. They had a voice then. They could shout to the top of their god given voices then.

These mullahs will be laughing now sinnce she has put in her resignation. These mullahs has won. Are we to let them win?
Are we to stop them winning? What can be done to stop this wave of radicalism. Obviously we all are better off without these radicals and mullahs.

Answer is simple. Exposure.

We need to write to the international community of the double standrds of the poeple in the politics in Madives. There is a need to expose these disgusting MDP acts who obviously do not respect women, who obviously do not respect a personal view point, who does not give a damn in other words about the women of our country.Some one who dont give a damn about women of a country will not give a damn about the country itself. Which basically makes them unfit to take over a government.

I read Aaniya's article and I found nothing wrong with it. Every word I looked with critical thinking and I found not a single word not describing the reality. I congratulate Aaniya for her courage and truthfullness. What she has said was what a lot of peolple among us wanted to say, but are scared to. I tried to call her so many times to congratulate her, but she seems to have put her mobile off, probably because of the hateful fanatics' and misogynists' calls.

I also read in an article that Fareed is Planning to quit MDP. Of course he and his likes do not belong in a real democratic institution. The next one I hope wil be Naseem, the leading MDP Mullah.

Sappe and and MDP should support Aaniya instead of abusing the religion for short term benefits.

(I'm not a member of any political party, nor do I support any of them)

The news release by MDP (which I saw in DO) had only THREE sentences. And one of the three (which said MDP had no relationship whatsoever with Minivan News) was clearly a lie. Who are we kidding here? Those kinds of lies would only harm the view of the Maldivian ppl about MDP.

And since she was holding a high ranking post in MDP, it is very logical and rational to say that she would certainly be having views which the leadership of MDP really agree with. So for those reasons, I really don't think MDP or DO Sappe condemn what Aniya had written.

Whatever they wrote saying Aniya should resign were just weak attempts to repair the damage which was done by the article. The biggest blow I'm sure was the resignation of Sheikh Fareed. Any now the resignation of Aniya herself would be a big blow to the party (politically).

We need changes in our country; all sorts of changes. But we need people who accept the fact that we are a Muslim community. If people who don't believe in Muslim culture and ways try to influence the people, I'm sorry to say it will not work.

It is depressing to see the biggest opposition party crumpling like this. MDP's leadership need to know that a large number of Maldivian people's hopes are with them to bring crucial changes to our country.

We need changes... not insulting articles on the religion which is followed by the people of the country.

Nasheed,

Generally speaking, i think all religions are out there to control people . In some religions the emphasis is given more in controlling women. These are the perverse versions of a certain religion.

In addu atoll feydhoo, in one house i visited, there is this farudhaa between the living area and the kitchen. All women who go to that house has to go in from the back door and staright in to the kitchen. All men will sit in the main room. Some women even refuse to unveil in front of their sisters and mothers. Some one i know in this feydhoo house havent gone out of her house for 3 months. She told me of brutal beatings from her husband. She is basically a fuck and food factory for her husband. She is so psychologically stressed that she hinted to me that she dont want to live like that any more.

This is slavery in the 21st century. In front of our very own eyes. In front of the island chiefs. In front of the government authorities visiting these islands. Women are beaten up in the same society we are living in. Knowing that it is happening and we doing nothing about it tells something about us as a society.

nass: Show us the insult you are referring to?

I find it really hard to understand that still some people are trying to believe that MDP is the savior.

I think the sooner both MDP and DRP crumble , the best for the people of Maldives.

Nass, we also need to understand that there is a community who dont belive in god at all.

Hassan. Unfortunately that article has been removed from MinivanDaily's website...

But i guess if MDP felt that they had to investigate the article, there must have been sumthing wrong with it... thing logically n rationally. :)

And Mr. i dont believe in god and the mullas:

i dont care :D

Nass: the article is still there: http://www.minivandaily.com/content/view/5175/31/

What kind of reasoning is that when you say 'if MDP felt that they had to investigate the article, there must have been sumthing wrong with it'? Just because some people thought or felt they had to 'investigate' some thing, by their having to investigate, that thing is seen to be 'wrong'? That does not follow at all. They might, for example, investigate to see if there is any thing wrong about that thing they investigate.

Besides, whether or not some people just thought there is something wrong with the article, it does not have any bearing on the cogency of the arguments in it, nor does it show that the article is insulting. So I have given you the link there. Also, www.themaldivian.org has a PDF file of the article. Read it as many times as you want and come up with the 'insulting' against Islam in it that deserves any condemnation and threat of killing on the basis of Islam. Further, also show us what you think is false in it and what you think are bad arguments in it.

hassan,

ah, my bad. I did check the site using their calandar... nevermind.

u asked what was wrong abt it.. see the very first paragraph.. or the title which says women are some sort of disease. that doesn't sound rite to me. Islam doesnt say women are a disease.

she's pointing at the fact that in Islam women are supposed to wear burugaa n cover their bodies. that doesnt mean in islam women are a disease.

u think for urself. if u were married, wud u want ur wife to walk naked on the street? wud u want other men to see ur naked wife's body? wud she feel comfortable about it? (u asked her if u a wife)

it is funny. some women wear mini skirts n go out to streets... n thet complain when men look at them. They call the men who look at them as perverts. But what made the men perverts? The fact that she wore a miniskirt.

If islam says cover ur bodies n wear skirts, YES, it is for women's protection. It IS for preventing the minds of men from becoming corrupted.

that's just ONE example

then u can see paragraph 4. U see the very last sentence of the 4th paragraph. It says some scholars say it is not compulsory to wear burugaa... the quran clearly indicates the dress code.. so u dont have to look at what a scholar says. Cos the words in Quran are the law....

then u can read the 2nd n 3rd lines of the 10th paragraph...

i think all those are insulting....

there u go...

u can also see paragraph 8 which talks about homosexuality. She says that becos of homosexuality men also shud wear burugaa.

had she lost her mind when she actually wrote that? homosexuality is not allowed in Islam.

whether she likes it or not, men and women are no equal IN EVERYWAY. that remains a fact. But what she wrote in the last paragraph is also not acceptable.

and from the beginning sentence of the 7th paragraph, she says "Islaamdheenuge ahuluverin".... is she not one of them? :)

wow! this is mindblowing. I read her article and basically she has voiced something quite a large number of us feel.
She is being crucified for voicing her opinions, and personaly as someone who beleives in Quran, i find nothing even remotely insulting towards it, in her article.
Those who have lashed out at her in print, have either not read the article, or have a hard time understanding her points. Btw she made her case quite well. I can't decide wheather she was stupid enough to think there would be no major outcry or if she is just a gutsy women.
Either way its high time, we spoke up, instead of standing silenty watching while Maldives slides back to dark ages.
Simon where do you stand on this?
MDP is playing this very wrong, they love to turn a blind eye to this issue, and concentrate on getting Gayoom, but i think this would in the long term prove to be more dangerous.
btw Nass.....the article does not question the credibility of quran, it only questions credibility of translations. And yes opinions differ on the 'buruga' issue, and i think as long as quran is there we can refer to it, instead of listening to some self appointed mullahs.I really feel these Mullah types must be suffering from some inferiority complex.

exactly, blanche neige!

too many ppl are saying too many different things. so some ppl end up getting confused. the best thing though, is to stick to Quran n Hadhees.

Nass,

That is what everyone who claims to be religious is doing: stick to Quran n Hadhees. That is what all the political parties are doing, stick to Quran and Hadhees. MDP, DRP and IDP are sticking to Quran and Hadhees. Are Adhaalath, Al Qaeda and Taleban not sticking to Quran and Hadhees?

Nass, or is it only you who knows how to stick to Quran and Hadhees?

I am sticking to no Quran no Hadhees, only doing what I think is right and fair. That is what we as human are expected of, no more no less.

Blanche Neige,

You are too right. It will only take just ONE incident involving a tourist or a tourist establishment and we wave bye bye to our livelihood for good.

Nass,

I thought it was understood that I was talking about Islamic radicalism as I do not see we are having a problem with radicalised Buddhism.

Zero,

Why are you stipulating that I have a problem and or maybe a fear of radicalism. I've said it plainly in black and white Yes I do have a problem and yes I do fear - several times on this very blog.

You are right we do not have to date back our lives to the 7th century because what we ideally want to do is use all the infidel made technology as much as possible and THEN adopt 7th century ideologies. Convenient isn't it?

Also I do not expect people to generally agree with me at all. In fact, I find it very surprising that some people actually agree with me on certain issues.

Dart,

This article was written before I heard about Aaniya's case hence the lack of any mention.

Hassan,

The reaction to Aaniya's article is I think part insecurity from the radical religious and part politically motivated. Although it is easy to point the finger at radicalism I think many are pretending to hold radical views just to have a go at an MDP member. However, I do agree this is worrisome either way.

Nass again,

How in the world can you possibly say that the biggest blow the MDP had was the resignation of Fareed? The government had him locked up several times for very good reasons. If anything MDP is better off without him.

Blanche Neige again,

Where I stand in all this would probably be very clear to anyone who frequents this blog.

Hi Simon,
I meant that the resignation of both Fareed & Aaniya was a blow to MDP as they were both senior members of the party. Ofcoz it wasn't the biggest blow they've had. There had been bigger ones in the past. The only problem is, these kinds of problems only affect the view of the neutrals on political parties. Enuff political talk, huh ;)
tc.

Simon, this Aniya incident and the Buddha incident just reminds us how insecure some of the religious people are. The easily offended muslims as you had published earlier - only this time, it ain't Denmark or elsewhere, this is taking place right on our soil.

I wonder if these people who are going crazy over the Aniya article ever had a look on the Maldivian blogosphere. Her article pales in comparison to what people have said on their blogs and in comments ... even on this very blog!!

Interestingly, Prez Gayyoom advocates a no buruga policy. No ones rebelled against him in such a harsh a manner as this. He came to power levying his knowledge in Islam and has used it as a tool to keep under control. Now the religious party in the country are attempting to do the same. Will they succeed? Yes, I bet they would as long as the people who disagree keep their mouths shut. I salute you for voicing your dissent and doing your part. :)

jaa,
Prezident Maumoon's words don't cancel the orders in the Quran or Prophet Muhammad's hadhees ;)
That goes out for any religious scholar, not just Prez. Maumoon.
cheerz,
nass

Nass; Again you have proved my point in my first comment. You people don’t even comprehend what the article says.

You said: .

The article does NOT say women are ‘some sort of disease’, let alone Islam says so. You were wrong there too. The title raised a question. What is wrong with first paragraph? That does not “SOUND” right to YOU? Because she is telling the truth? All her statements can be backed up by evidence, but which need not be done there, because those are common knowledge statements.

You said:

Again you could not comprehend her correctly. She is not saying that. But she says some Islamic ‘scholars’ say so. She says there is controversy over the veil issue. That is true. There IS controversy. You need only to look at the Maldives context to see that. In the Maldives the president is the supreme authority to propagate the sharia tenets. The current president in the Maldives unambiguously says wearing veil is not a must. Whether or not he knows THE sharia, this makes the issue a legitimate controversy in the Maldives context.

I don’t know how you made the connection between ‘…in Islam women are supposed to wear burugaa n cover their bodies’ AND ‘that doesnt mean in islam women are a disease’. She NEVER says or even implies that women are a disease for that alleged supposition of yours.

You said:

Again this is a blatant straw-man tactic, if you are trying to connect it to Aniya’s article. Not wearing veil is not equivalent to being naked unless you define nudity that way.

You said:

This is one major point of Aniya’s article. There is no scientific evidence I'm aware of that men necessarily become perverts because women wear mini-skirts. Again, you are applying straw-man tactic using the strong word ‘pervert’. Aniya never used that. She says ‘it is said that the rationale for wearing burga is that otherwise it will lead men to do wrong things or it will ‘affect’ [or perhaps ‘arouse’] them. She counters this with devastatingly reasoning when she says men are not only sexually attracted to, or aroused by, women, men are also sexually attracted to, or aroused by, men. So by the former reasoning, men also must wear veil. This is simple devastating logic. If veil can prevent men’s wrong caused by women not wearing veil, then veil can curtail such homosexual attractions, and eroticism, too.

You said:

You seem to agree with Aniya here, when you say you don’t have to look at what ‘scholars’ say. I’m not a very well-versed in Quranic matters. But, I’m good enough to comprehend its translations are interpretations written in English. So based on what I have read so far, no where in Quran does it specifically and directly asks women to wear veil over their heads. I don’t want to mean that veil is NOT a must, though. Just look at my words ‘specifically’ and ‘directly’ and ‘heads’.

You said:

This is one of the most misunderstood paragraphs it seems. The argument is a metaphorical and satirical way of making a point. One of her aims in the article is to show that when wrong doing is there, the way should be to deal with people who do wrong doing, not ‘terminating’ the problem. If people steal, it is no solution that we take all goods from our shops every night to our home. Such things are terminations of the problem. Not resolutions. She is obviously using ‘veil’ in relation to supermarkets as a metaphor here. ‘Corruptions’ are ‘theft’ serious crimes, even much more serious than veil issue to states that are partly justified on property rights (minimalist state of say Nozick or see Locke’s writings.) So, Aniya’s implication here is that in solving this issue, why do we arrest the thieves or those guilty of corruption? If we do that, then why cannot we arrest men who do wrong when they see unveiled women? That is a very cogent argument again.

You said:

I think none of it is insulting because those are very good, cogent arguments.

You said:

You again totally failed to comprehend her. I have dealt with the issue above. Besides, is men’s wrong-doing seeing unveiled women ALLOWED in Islam?

You said:

She never even appears to make that claim. Again miscomprehension and straw-man tendency. I want to add here that no good feminist has the illusion that women are absolutely equal to men in all respects.

You said:

Don’t just say so, SHOW me.

You said:

How do you possibly make this conclusion based on that phrase. There is no implication at all. Yet another tendency to straw-man?

(Sorry for some reason, 'you said' parts don't appear there. So here again.)

Nass; Again you have proved my point in my first comment. You people don’t even comprehend what the article says.

You said: see the very first paragraph.. or the title which says women are some sort of disease.

The article does NOT say women are ‘some sort of disease’, let alone Islam says so. You were wrong there too. The title raised a question. What is wrong with first paragraph? That does not “SOUND” right toYOU? Because she is telling the truth? All her statements can be backed up by evidence, but which need not be done there, because those are common knowledge.

You said: she's pointing at the fact that in Islam women are supposed to wear burugaa n cover their bodies. that doesnt mean in islam women are a disease.

Again you could not comprehend her correctly. She is not saying that. But she says some Islamic ‘scholars’ say so. She says there is controversy over the veil issue. That is true. There IS controversy. You need only to look at the Maldives context to see that. First, in the Maldives the president is the supreme authority to propagate the sharia tenets. The current president in the Maldives unambiguously says wearing veil is not a must. Whether or not he knows THE sharia, this make the issue a legitimate controversy in the Maldives context.

I don’t know how you made the connection between ‘…in Islam women are supposed to wear burugaa n cover their bodies’ AND ‘that doesnt mean in islam women are a disease’. She NEVER says or even implies that women are a disease for that alleged supposition of yours.

You said: u think for urself. if u were married, wud u want ur wife to walk naked on the street? wud u want other men to see ur naked wife's body? wud she feel comfortable about it? (u asked her if u a wife.

Again this is a blatant straw-man tactic, if you are trying to connect it to Aniya’s article. Not wearing veil is not equivalent to being naked unless you define nudity that way.

You said: it is funny. some women wear mini skirts n go out to streets... n thet complain when men look at them. They call the men who look at them as perverts. But what made the men perverts? The fact that she wore a miniskirt.

This is one major point of Aniya’s article. There is no scientific evidence I'm aware of that men necessarily become perverts because women wear mini-skirts. Again, you are applying straw-man tactic using the strong word ‘pervert’. Aniya never used that. She says ‘it is said that the rationale for wearing burga is that otherwise it will lead men to do wrong things or it will ‘affect’ [or perhaps ‘arouse’] them. She counters this with devastatingly reasoning when she says men are not only sexually attracted to, or aroused by, women, men are also sexually attracted to, or aroused by, men. So by the former reasoning, men also must wear veil. This is simple devastating logic. If veil can prevent men’s wrong caused by women not wearing veil, then veil can curtail such homosexual attractions, and eroticism, too.

You said:so u dont have to look at what a scholar says. Cos the words in Quran are the law....

You seem to agree with Aniya here, when you say you don’t have to look at what ‘scholars’ say. I’m not a very well-versed in Quranic matters. But, I’m good enough to comprehend its translations are interpretations written in English. So based on what I have read so far, no where in Quran does it specifically and directly asks women to wear veil over their heads. I don’t want to mean that veil is NOT a must, though. Just look at my words ‘specifically’ and ‘directly’ and ‘heads’.

You said: then u can read the 2nd n 3rd lines of the 10th paragraph...

This is one of the most misunderstood paragraphs it seems. The argument is a metaphorical and satirical way of making a point. One of her aims in the article is to show that when wrong doing is there, the way should be to deal with people who do wrong doing, not ‘terminating’ the problem. If people steal, it is no solution that we take all goods from our shops every night to our home. Such things are terminations of the problem. Not resolutions. She is obviously using ‘veil’ in relation to supermarkets as a metaphor here. ‘Corruptions’ are ‘theft’ serious crimes, even much more serious than veil issue to states that are partly justified on property rights (minimalist state of say Nozick or see Locke’s writings.) So, Aniya’s implication here is that in solving this issue, why do we arrest the thieves or those guilty of corruption? If we do that, then why cannot we arrest men who do wrong when they see unveiled women? That is a very cogent argument again.

You said: i think all those are insulting....

I think none of it is insulting because those are very good, cogent arguments.

You said: u can also see paragraph 8 which talks about homosexuality. She says that becos of homosexuality men also shud wear burugaa. had she lost her mind when she actually wrote that? homosexuality is not allowed in Islam.

You again totally failed to comprehend her. I have dealt with the issue above. Besides, is men’s wrong-doing seeing unveiled women ALLOWED in Islam?

You said: whether she likes it or not, men and women are no equal IN EVERYWAY.

She never even appears to make that claim. Again miscomprehension and straw-man tendency. I want to add here that no good feminist has the illusion that women are absolutely equal to men in all respects.

You said: But what she wrote in the last paragraph is also not acceptable.

Don’t just say so, SHOW me.

You said: and from the beginning sentence of the 7th paragraph, she says "Islaamdheenuge ahuluverin".... is she not one of them?

How do you possibly make this conclusion based on that phrase. There is no implication at all. Yet another tendency to straw-man?

Nass:

Further, I am also posting my comments to one Ali Rasheed’s (who writes for www.minivannews.com) understanding (http://minivannews.com/news/news.php?id=3045)of Aniya’s article. The relevance here is that I take him also to be on your side.

Ali Rasheed says: Miss Anya is of the opinion that if women are to wear veils then men ought to do so as well.

This is straw-man again. She is not of this opinion as such. She is of the opinion if women must wear Veil because of the possible effects (e.g. sexual arousing) not wearing the Veil will have on men, then, men must wear the Veil because men are also aroused by (and sexually attracted to) men.

The guy also says: By publicly stating her views which is in contrast to the generally held beliefs she has stepped outside the pale of Islam.

What generally held beliefs is he talking about? If he is talking about beliefs surrounding the Veil, I’m not sure of the general position on the Veil in the Maldives. Even if the general view is that women must wear the Veil, it serves only as an appeal to mass. It does not show the general position is true or right.

What does he mean by ‘stepped outside the pale of Islam’? I don’t want to comment on this very vague phrasing.

This guy also said: If the reason behind the veiling of women is to dissuade men from materialistic things, then goods in the super market ought to be veiled too to keep men contained, says Miss Anya. I could most certainly enlighten Miss Anya on that subject. That which is soft does not grow hard at the sight of goods in a shop window. To be honest, she ought not to say stupid things like that in public; the two aren’t even comparable.

What does he want to say by saying that [t] hat which is soft does not grow hard at the sight of goods in a shop window. Again, it seems there is a failure to understand her argument. Her use of ‘veil’ here is a metaphor most obviously. As I said, her point in this argument is if we arrest and jail people who commit theft, corruption, etc, why don’t we talk doing the same to men who are 'affected' when they see Unveiled women? To treat the cases similarly, we must ‘veil’ or ‘hide’ supermarkets, too. Implying we must not let money be held in ministries’ ‘safes’, must not send money to atoll offices, island offices, and must not let the goods in shops be seen, and so on. She is arguing essentially, we must deal with the people who do the wrong. We must deal with men who molest, harass, rape, women. That is how we try to solve other crimes (corruption, theft, etc) too. This becomes very clear toward the end of her last paragraph.

This guy also says: To be honest, she ought not to say stupid things like that in public; the two aren’t even comparable.

‘Stupid’ only serves as an appeal to emotion here. Show us the stupidity.

Her argument about the crimes is most comparable in the context of dealing with people who commit crimes.

Nass, your words:

"U can also see her paragraph 8 which talks about homosexuality. she says that becos of homosexuality men also should wear burugaa. Had she lost her mind when she actually wrote that? Homosexuality is not allowed in Islam."

Nass, you are the one who lost your mind, as you are implying here that sexual violence against women is allowed in Islam. If you have not lost your mind and if Islam really allows sexual violence against women, I think Islam is not for women.

Nass, your words again- "whether she likes it or not men and women are not equal IN EVERYWAY. That remains a fact."

Here I do not understand what sort of equality you are talking about. The way I comprehend your point of view, I can use the formula to say that not even two men are created equal.

Or is it to say that men have the right to subjugate women in Isalm?

Nass, you words again, "And from the beginning sentence of 7th paragraph she says 'Islaamdheenuge Ahluvereen',...... Is she not one of them?"

If she is not among them, what?

hassan, thanx for the questions. since i'm not a religious scholar don't expect me to come straight up with verses from quran n hadhees just like that. I'll try to answer all ur questions as well as i can.

since i've already commented on this article a lot, n also cos my last comment appears to be deleted, i guess i shouldn't post any more comments for this particular post.

so i'll post the answers to ur questions in http://mvmuslims.seenuatoll.com

ur free to visit n leave ur comments there. we can discuss everything there n no comments will be deleted.

..__nass__..

Suhail,

U can twist n turn my words. But here's what I believe, clear n simple for u to understand:

- Homosexuality (being gay or lesbian) is a sin in Islam
- Men n women are not equal in EVERY WAY.
- Islam doesnt say u have to be violent with women or do whatever u want with them.
- I don't have a problem if she isn't a muslim.

thank u.

Simon nass says his comment appears to be deleted. Did you delete his comment?

hi Hassan dude,
this may help u a bit to get my point:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/notsogoodphotography/365679956/
read the comments written under the foto.
enjoy.

What is your point that you think I don't get?

Nass
You seem to be in agreement with me, however what i am advocating is not listening to those self appointed Mullahs. I don't see anywhere in quran where it is stipulated that veil should be worn over the head.
As for men getting aroused at the sight of unveiled women, beleive me in Male, veiled women also get harrassed a lot, and commented on. A veil does not stop men from passing comments on a girl.Not to mention in Islam, its also stated that men should lower their gazes, so its the men's responsibility also not to go leering at women.
I feel what these people advocate is more of a sect thing than islam thing. And going to the extent of calling for someones head just cause she said something contrary is against the rules of islam. Quran is there so that everyone can refer to it, we don't need a go between, between us and god.whatever that is not spelled out specifically in quran is up to the interpretation of the individual person, god gave us a brain to think.
And i for one beleive that islam is compatible with modernity and that a covering on the head does not make or unmake a person muslim.
Not to mention, i have to admit that all the young guys now, with long curly hair does make me want to leer at them. I think how aroused you get from the opposite sex is connected to a persons libido and nothing to do with his sex.

Simon, I hope Sappe doesn't remove the link to your blog, as he seems obsessed with Burugaa more than a Mullah does.

I think, because in England, Buruga obsession among Muslims is contagious and among non-Muslims is very sensitive.

I still fail to see why this has become such a cause celebre. People have had strong opinions against the Bourka in the Maldives for ages. Why I've been talking about it in the street in plain sight of anyone who could hear/and or possesses a hearing aid. This is certainly not a clear cut case of righteous indignation vs. blasphemy. Most of it seems to have to do with the fact that it came from a female, political figure who writes for Minivan News which already probably was hated enough for being written in that mysterious incomprehensible secret code known as English which might as well have crucifixes at the end of each sentence. What's more, some of the articles are actually written by Protestant Christians (shudder), who ironically are sometimes associated with the pope (ah go figure). This woman's article has been blown way out of proportion. There's nothing really controversial in it. It seems to reflect the general attitude that a lot of women in our country have towards this alien concept of a Bourka which isn't quite hated as much as the Pope because of its source.

Anyhoo there's only one conclusion which can be drawn by Ms. (or is it Mrs.?) Aniya's oh so academic article. There's a huge conspiracy by homosexual and bisexual men in the Maldives to cover up all the women so they can go around admiring men with their strategically exposed ankles and shins and sexy, Lucifer-esque beards. Mmmmm..devilish.

Ever wonder why..man doesnt have to wear burugaa...??com on dose gal's dont get hony when they see cute guys....

http://noorul-islam.net/home/minivan.asp

Nass, I have not twisted nor turned any of your words. They were written as they were. It is there for everyone to see.

If any of the commenters other than you says,I have done that I would apologise. Otherwise I stand with my words and declare that Aniya is not the one who lost her mind, but you are the demented and lost one.

About Noorul-Islam article:

From this very long article there are only scant statements, (most notably para 18) I can deem as replies to Aniya. The long article does not attempt at a case by case rebuttal of her arguments. So, I will consider it basically irrelevant to Aniya’s article.

In the para 18, it says the controversy Aniya talks about in her article surrounding the Veil is merely a controversy about whether the face and palms/hands also constitute as ‘aura’ that needs to covered. But this is a blatant lie; this is only true by excluding some scholars of Islam as not scholars. Besides, in the Maldives, it is a controversy among Islamic ‘scholars’, as seen by the differing opinion about the matter the highest authority to promulgate the tenets of Islam has on the issue.

So, I call upon Noorul-Islam’s website to come up with case by case rebuttals of Aniya’s article.

I also call up them to show us from Qur’an and Hadith clear injunctions that the rulings of one generation of ulema cannot be superseded or abrogated by another generation of ulema, as they claim.

Also, I wish they could write it in English, lest that we may avoid translation errors, misrepresentation, etc.

Hassan,
What if they write in Arabic, the language spoken in Paradise?

Simon: There are many agnostics too, as opposed to full-fledged atheists. You may therefor consider including 'Agnostic' as one of your religious categories. Alternatively replace 'Atheist' with 'non-believer in God', or perhaps 'Non-religious' as an umbrella term?

hassan n suhail,
u guyz r welcome to visit http://mvmuslims.seenuatoll.com n comment to our reply to aaniya's article...
all those who think her article was a breath of fresh air are also welcome.
thanx.

Simon, Hassan's words are true. I cannot join myself in any of your categories. Maybe you add some more categories. I do not know!!

Nass,

I had enough of you and your likes, thanks. You are just a twisted mind. That is all.

Nass: post your comment here.

Suhail, thanx. Really shows u can't face the truth :)

Hassan, sorry man. I've posted enough comments here and also the article is too long to post as a comment. U can go there n comment or back off like Suhail ;)

OK here is the article on mvmuslims. I don't see how the artilce showed Aniya's article was insulting so that it deserves condemnation and threats of killing. Despite that, I will try to respond to this article. But first this article:

Nass: Here are my 'spur-of-the-moment' reactions to your article dealing with Aniya's para 1-4. I will post the rest as I get time.

On your first paragraph: It says: ‘…I decided to produce a spur-of-the-moment reaction (as opposed to critique) to that article. Out of laziness, I have decided to critique it paragraph-by-paragraph…’ So, is it a critique or a hasty reaction? Maybe a typo, right?

On your ‘spur-of-the-moment reaction’ against Aniya’s first para: I say all statements in the first paragraph are relevant as a background to her article, and were widely talked about during and after the events of the 2004 tsunami. It is not an oversimplified assessment of post-tsunami reactions because she was being selective only to bring what is relevant to her article. She was not concerned about the overall or all reactions to the tsunami in the article.

It is difficult to bring up here evidence (which would include witness-accounts, religious preaching, and CDs distributed.) One may disagree with her statements. But I do not, because I myself had heard such preaching, and such blame on women, first hand. In the Maldives the media does not usually record and bring us such religious preaching. But, in other countries this was published. A Google search may provide you the sources.

But most importantly, you say tsunami can be a ‘warning’ from God is a ‘valid Islamic interpretation’. So, it would not be surprising or impossible that the Maldives religious scholars in fact might have talked along those lines.

Aniya was not denying that tsunami could be in fact God’s warning or wrath because of our sins (including perhaps the sin of women not wearing the Veil.)

On your ‘spur-of-the-moment reaction’ against Aniya’s second and third paragraphs:
In the second paragraph she firstly makes a conditional statement. She says if the views/ideas/beliefs people accept without hesitation and without further questioning are called ‘ideology’, then religion is the strongest ideology. This is common knowledge again: overwhelming majority of religious believers do not further question their religions. Whether or not idealogy is the right word, her assertion is true. That is that religions are the strongest belief systems unquestioned by their followers.

In the third she says:

1) The religious scholars say that to believe in religion is to believe without any doubt whatever is there in the religion.
2) Thus, except for a few religious followers, other religious followers do not question about/seek the rationales for religious injunctions.
3) If thoughts to question about/seek the rationales for religious injunctions come to one’s heart (mind), fear fills in one’s heart; one wonders if one is going astray from the righteous path; one fears a possible diseases of ‘paralysis of one’s mouths and limbs’.
4) Thus, those who claim to be religious scholars wield enormous influence over the followers of the religion
Therefore,
5) These religious scholars are very ‘dangerous’.

Premise 1 and 2 are common knowledge. Premise one is a fundamental of Islam, and serves as an explanation of premise 2. Premise 3 may be taken both literally and metaphorically. Here the ‘fear’ the author is talking about may be fear because of both divine and human wrath. If that is so, as for human wrath we are witnessing that even now against Aniya’s article. Literally, as for god’s wrath that is how some people feel. Premise 4 is a sub-conclusion. The fact that religious scholars can create an uncritical majority (1, 2), and, the fact there may be divine and human wrath (the former is the case according to these religious scholars, and the latter is none but their wrath mainly), these religious scholars have enormous influence over people. The conclusion is strongly supported by these premises. Religious scholars, who can create uncritical masses who fear possible Godly wrath and possible and real backlash by the same scholars and their dogmatic followers, when they become critical, can be descried as dangerous. For to be dangerous is also to be liable to causing harm.

On your ‘spur-of-the-moment reaction’ against Aniya’s fourth paragraph: In the fourth paragraph she tells us what religious scholars say and do. That some religious scholars say that there is no need to raise questions on the rationale for wearing the Veil. And if such questions are asked these scholars recite verses from Sura Nooru and Sura Nisa and many Hadiths and claim these verse and Hadiths ask women to wear the Veil. She then says there are different views or opinions among Islamic scholars on the issue of wearing the Veil. She says some scholars tell that it is no necessary to wear the Veil. Indeed, if you ask about the rationale, the scholars usually recite verses from those Quranic Suras and show Hadiths. That is, if there is clear injunction in these sources, one need not question about the rationale of those injunctions.

As for her claim that there are differing opinions among scholars on the issue, it is totally true. It seems only authoritarian to not include some people as scholars in this issue. That is, the liberal views on the issue are automatically excluded by some religious scholars in order to claim there is no controversy over the issue. So, there in fact is controversy among religious scholars over the issues. But, what is most important here is the existence of controversy over the issue among Maldivian religious scholars. In the Maldives the highest authority to propagate the tenets of Islam is the president. Coincidently, the present president holds ‘Master's degree in Islamic Sharia and civil Law, with the degree of excellence with honors. In addition to his MA from Al-Azhar University, he obtained a second Masters Degree in the same field from the American University in Cairo’ (source: wikipedia). At least based on qualifications, he is an Islamic scholar. He explicitly says wearing the Veil is not necessary. So, Aniya is totally justified in saying there IS controversy.