What tolerance?
While the accusations fly from one presidential candidate to the other and from one party to the other over religious issues there is one thing that we must remember. And that is to keep our heads where they belong and think with our brains.
Tolerance
Ibra writes on his blog about the growing sense of xenophobia in the run-up to the runoff elections. I have huge problems with Ibra's view on this xenophobia issue and also his stance on freedom of religion.
In bringing in support for his argument that the constitutions calls for tolerance and respect for differences in others - among which I assume are differences of beliefs - he invokes Article 36c of the constitution.
It states:
Education shall strive to inculcate obedience to Islam, instil love for Islam, foster respect for human rights, and promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among ALL people. (emphasis added by me to reflect Ibra's quote)
This seems all jolly good. But hypothetically speaking, as the constitution exercises its authority over Dhivehi Raaje and Dhivehin only, and as the articles and clauses in the same document is subject to interpretation, one could argue that by stating "ALL people" in this context it is exclusively talking about just Dhivehin - not foreigners. In fact, a cursory reading of the above article would bring to mind just that. That is, one would not read the above and immediately see "ALL people" as encompassing the citizens of earth. After all, this is not a universal declaration and is not universally authoritative and applicable.
But let's leave that there.
When we talk about xenophobia and the fabrication of fear toward people of other beliefs there is one thing we must remember before we open our mouths to condemn such acts.
Article 9d states:
Despite the provisions of article (a) a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives.
How can we talk about xenophobia and condemn the religious fear-mongering being carried on by Gayoom without first taking a critical look at the above article? It is clearly saying that despite what is being said in article (a) this constitution is intolerant towards people of other faiths and would not allow them to be citizens of Maldives solely based on their beliefs.
What we have here is the constitution creating the "others" - a class of people different in beliefs - by mere association. A class of people now afraid of losing their citizenship. By association, it is creating the paths and laying down the foundation for xenophobia. It is identifying the "non-Muslim" as not worthy of having citizenship of Dhivehi Raaje. It is establishing discrimination and drawing lines between "ALL people" of the same blood based on their faith alone.
Now tell me, how can we be tolerant when our constitution itself fails at that miserably?
Freedom of Religion
Ibra has said many times that those who want freedom of religion must fight for their right. I think Ibra forgets that in an Islamic society - especially one that is fast becoming ultra conservative in many ways - talking about freedom of religion itself may constitute apostasy. Does Ibra forget that the punishment for apostasy is death in Islamic law? It is true, that there is no capital punishment in our law. But in Islamic societies anyone can take it upon themselves as their duty to carry out God's law. The state might not carryout the death penalty but fanatical elements in society can be more than happy to do it for the greater good of the Umma.
Why was it I wonder, that when the bill for Article 9d was tabled not one member of the parliament opposed it even when the obvious absurdity and contradictions to other articles on the same constitution was staring them in their face? Social stigmatization, being ostracized, being demonized and called names, being threatened not just by the state but by almost everyone and being targeted by fanatics - these must have been the fears of even the liberals like Ibra at that very moment. I shudder to imagine the implications as an ordinary citizen.
Is this issue ever going to be brought to the debates in the parliament? I do not think so. Not for a very long time anyway. For, the above fear of social stigmatization alone will be the deterrent and the reason why no member will ever touch this issue.
The terrific fear programmed into the minds of Muslims from a very early age regarding apostasy and therefore resignation from the fold, is far greater and vastly more effective than any Gayoom can ever hope to match. The social implications and the tide of religious intolerance is far stronger and overpowering than any Anni or Ibra can ever fight against.
Now tell me, how can anyone begin to fight for their right to have freedom of religion here?
Notes:
It must be stated that followers of other religious faiths such as Christianity or even unbelievers have a far greater hope of having their rights respected and possibly even protected if Gayoom takes the office again. This is irony Maldivian style. But this I believe is true. For based on past speeches and actions by Gayoom and the recent apostasy case against him one can safely conclude that the fear and intolerant finger-pointing that is coming from Gayoom's camp towards MDP (and the coalition at large) is just a show to garner the support of religious apologetics. In reality, I believe those who want to protect their precious Islam (and the 100% Muslim illusion) must vote for Anni as hard-line religious groups seem to be now aligned to his party. Having said that, I'd never vote for Gayoom whatever the cause.
Altec Lansing | October 22, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply
Muslims and non-Muslims live alongside each other in many countries. Why can't that happen in Maldives? Here are a few possible reasons.
1) We are so used to being a "100% Muslim country" that we can't imagine losing that identity.
2) We choose to ignore the fact that there are many non-Muslims (and Atheists) amongst us; we only believe they are only one or two of such people but in reality the number is increasing, and fast.
3) We see in the news everyday pictures of clashes and violence between Muslims and non-Muslims even in our neighbouring countries, like India where there are regular standoffs between Hindus and Muslims. We are afraid of such violence and bloodshed taking place in our country.
4) Religious ignorance: This is sad but true. Most Maldivians are not aware of the fact that Islam calls for tolerance and religious harmony. We can blame this on the education system and perhaps our leaders.
5) Religion being used as a political tool: This is a long topic but sadly this seems to be working for the current president during the current election. But he seemed to be in his right mind when he said this: (see photo: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FSa6TvlI7mU/SPsKxZbYEwI/AAAAAAAAAGw/16jf12_g6HY/s1600-h/maidu.jpg)
Hilath Rasheed | October 22, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply
We cannot hope to get rid of xenophobia because as you pointed out, our constitution itself is xenophobic and quite hypocritically I might add.
My opinion is that whether it's Maumoon or Anni as our President, this state of affairs -- the fact that many Maldivians are not Muslims anymore -- will continue. Both Maumoon and Anni (and even Ibra earlier) are playing the religious card in order to garner support from the elder generation of conservative Maldivians. Though Adaalath is now aligned to MDP for political reasons in a marriage of convenience, I don't believe that Anni will let them have their way if he comes to power. Like Maumoon he also needs to play every card available at this juncture, so I think Anni is just using Adaalath as his puppets for now. (Remember the bitter argument MDP and Adaalath had earlier?)
In the end, I believe that whether it's Anni or Maumoon, with the globalisation juggernaut overwhelming everything about this country, Maldives will one day become a secular society. It's just a matter of time. My prediction is that within two decades we will become a country like Malaysia, where Islam may be the state religion, but other belief systems are respected with citizenship offered to non-Muslim Maldivians and foreigners as well. That will be the day when true liberal democracy comes to Maldives. Now we are living in a stage of hypocrisy but I believe that since it's just a stage, it will pass!
uglyy2 | October 22, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply
Hi Simon
I've also been a bit unhappy with Ibra's latest post and raised the same questions on my own blog.
I also agree with Lansing above. The reasons are many for the existence of such scary levels of bigotry in our country. Even the average drug addict with no income, who hasn't seen the inside of a mosque in 8 years will also transform suddenly into an outraged fanatic at the mention of 'Christianity', 'Buddhism' or 'Freedom of Religion'.
This kind of conditioned and violent mental reflex is hard to get over. Yet, it's upto leaders who have to brave the social stigma and raise the question in public to begin with.
I agree with you that Gayyoom is probably the one leader who CAN usher in some semblance of religious freedom. I DO NOT have any favorable opinion of Adhaalath 'party' and am pretty uncomfortable with their hold over the Maldivian psyche, especially in the remoter islands.
I DO HOPE Hilath is right.. and yet I doubt very much that such a transformation into a Malaysia or Pakistan is possible in the Maldives in the immediate decades.
I predict lots of chaos in the next 5 years as the new leadership (if it's indeed a new one) grapples with 30 years of mismanagement staring at them in the face.
Anni will have bigger things to worry about than Adhaalath.. which will lead to further deterioration into an ultra-conservative mode, fueling further intolerance.
Just HOW MANY countries in the world live with the silly tag of "100% Muslims"?!
uglyy2 | October 22, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply
These are the times I wonder if a Kemal Pasha is the need of the hour.
Secularism seems to be fading from the world.
BLobber | October 22, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply
I think i would interpret "All people" as people who live on Maldivian land, where their is jurisdiction of the Maldivian Constitution.
Maybe Hilath is right. If all of the Maldivians do have access to higher the percentage of Maldivians with a similar Liberal thought will increase.
Abdulla | October 22, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply
I'd rather have muslims able to practice islam in Maldives than have a 100% islamic state and population where Islam is itself suppressed!
I welcome Maldivian christians and athiests. I am perfectly fine with that.
Elect me to parliament and you'll have a bill presented. No, there is no need to protect me.
I will run for Male' in Feb 09. Watch out.
Imported Intelligence | October 22, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply
For a minute I thought you'd vote for the devil. But then again, thanks for that final sentence.
AND for the record: we are not 100% muslim. Never been one.
Dhivehi Resistance | October 23, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply
Altech Lansing says -
"Most Maldivians are not aware of the fact that Islam calls for tolerance and religious harmony."
The fact is, in Islamic jurisprudence -- there is complete unanimity: a male apostate must be put to death unless he is insane or has been forced into apostasy. Muhammad's dictum that someone who changes his religion must be killed is amply attested in the Hadith: it appears in Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, An-Nasai, Malik, Tayalisi, and Ibn Hanbal. There is only some disagreement about female apostates and about the manner in which the apostate is to be put to death.
Is that tolerance?
Yes, it's all about ignorance, isn't it? Those poor ignorant Islamic scholars, all over the world, blundering in darkness and teaching and practising an intolerant Islam...
I think you should go to Saudi Arabia, Al Azhar in Egypt and all other Islamic centers of learning and tell them that they have been practicing Islam wrongly for the past 1400 years.
a | October 23, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply
Dhivehi Resistance: I do not find much difference between your approach to religion and that of puritan Muslims (and Islamists). You seem to be reading into hadith exactly the way they would do -- that is, without any critical, historicist, contextualist, lens. There are hundreds of other MUSLIMS who employ such an approach towards Sharia law. They argue that religion (and thus Sharia law) should also be taken as a social complex, subjected to the 'sources of disagreement' or 'burdens of judgment' [such as value pluralism, limited altruism of humans, scarcity of resources, limited understanding, varying background information, and so on]. So, your reading into a hadith and citing it as evidence that Islam cannot endorse tolerance seem to be very simplistic, and is not even how Islamic jurisprudence works. How about the explicit non-mention of a worldly punishment for apostasy in Qur'an, for example? How about the important and often talked about goals of Islam such as 'justice', 'mercy', 'equity', 'compassion'?
So, this approach of yours, also used by Islamic puritans, is not helpful for an interpretative framework to start an internal critique of the problematic aspects of Sharia law (which, I add, is actually human understanding of Qur'an and the hadtih), to deal with the issues such as apostasy, women's rights, and so on.
Dhivehi Resistance | October 23, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply
Simon,
I think the answer to your question lies with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
a,
There is no dispute on this ruling among classical Muslim or modern scholars that an apostate should be killed.
While there are "hundreds of other MUSLIMS who employ such an approach towards Sharia law", they have little or no impact.
“The lack of support for the principle of freedom of religion in the Islamic human rights schemes is one of the factors that most sharply distinguishes them from the International Bill of Human Rights, which treats freedom of religion as an unqualified right. The [Muslim] authors’ unwillingness to repudiate the rule that a person should be executed over a question of religious belief reveals the enormous gap that exists between their mentalities and the modern philosophy of human rights.” http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001590.php
a | October 23, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply
Hi Dhivehi Resistance:
Thanks.
There are great disagreements among Muslim scholars on the issue. For this look up for, for example, An-Naim (several books,including Toward an Islamic Reformation and recently Islam and the Secular State), El Fadl (several books and articles -- Islam and the Challenge of Democracy and also The Great Theft), Charfi (Islam and Liberty: Historical Misunderstanding), and of course the now famous Abdullah Saeed (Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam). This list only because I'm most familiar with these authors.
As for what Warraq is referring to by 'Muslim authors' and 'modern philosophy' I am not sure, but let me speculate. To be sure, I don't claim many scholars do not argue for criminalizing apostasy and that countries have not denied religious freedom. But that is exactly my point: on the face of this, your kind of approach towards religion is unhelpful, and I emphasis is exactly the method used by puritans. Now, Warraq surely cannot refer to all Muslim authors. As for 'modern philosophy', if he refers to the 'Western' literature on human rights, one may be reminded by the quite recent historical emergence of of human rights and human rights culture in the West; one maybe reminded by the 'great justifications' modern philosophers such as Locke had to deny religious freedom to certain groups such as atheists; one may be reminded by the many declarations of Western philosophers against human rights: Burke (against the French Declaration), Bentham ('nonsense upon stilts'), Marx (bourgeois rights?), MaIntyre ('akin to unicorns'), for example. We may also remind ourselves of the 'modern philosophy' of antifoundationalism' of 'human rights' and the 'modern philosophy' of 'cultural relativism' of human rights. I also add the one recently dominant strand within 'modern philosophy' of human rights is a more pluralist, 'relative universalist' (Donnelly), 'overlapping consensus' (Rawls) approach to human rights, which is not vastly different from the views of some Muslims scholars such as An-Nai'm.
As for the impact, we both can agree perhaps there is little impact yet. But let's not forget to appreciate the work of the many NGOs and scholars working for greater freedom and employing this 'immanent critique' approach, with some success. Sisters in Islam in Malaysia comes to mind. But even if there is little impact, your kind of head-on collision with religion to try to seek greater religious freedom is guaranteed to fail in a society like ours where religion is very much part of the social and political consciousness.
Ibra | October 24, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply
Simon,
Just two brief points for you to consider.
1. There is a clear distinction made between "ALL" people and Maldivian citizens in the constitution. Whenever it says ALL, it means every human being living within the political borders of the Maldives. If the article says CITIZENS it means Maldivians. This the way the Constitution has been constructed.
2. Article 4 (d) is technically meaningless because the constitution is subject to the Quran, and the Quran expressly provides for the freedom of religion and therefore 4 (d) contradicts the Quran and is hence invalid. The arguments for death sentence for apostasy is NOT unanimously agreed by scholars. Therefore this whole thing about 4 (d) has nothing Islamic about it. It is a residue of xenophobia created by Qayyoom over the last 30 years. Previously, most Maldivians were quite content to whisper in a corner about non-muslims living amongst them and let them be. I suspect most of the people of your age would not remember what Maldives was like before Qayyoom. It was quite a liberal society then (in relative terms of course). This the cry I made in my Post, because I have witnessed the Maldives sliding from a relaxed, island culture which embraced difference into Arabisation in the name of Islam with a closing of the Maldivian mind, and into insularism ,under Qayyoom rule.
The fundamental change in the last four years is reflected in the fact that you are able to talk about religious freedom openly now, and still survive to tell the tale. This would not have been possible some 6 years ago.
100% muslim societies? They only exist in the minds of the Talebans and Saudi Arabians. If you can claim a society which has 100% belief conformity, it can't be a society of humans.
Societal change of any nature will never happen overnight. People over the age of 40 (people like me) have a very small likelihood of changing their outlook on life and their worldviews. A two generation "turnover" is required before societal attitude change can take place. The best example I can quote is, it is only after 50 years since the Civil Rights movement started in the States that the American public are seriously considering an African American as their President. This has been constitutionally and legally possible for the past 50 years in the States. But it has taken that much time to bring about that attitudinal change in Americans. The process would have been even slower if they had not implemented an immigration policy and not promoted multiculturalism. We have long way to go yet. The important thing is to keep the flame going for change and equality.
r2d2 | October 24, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply
Yes, he likes to talk a lot about freedom of religion..i wonder why that is
Mau Mune | October 25, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply
Simon, actually you SHOULD vote for Maumoon. Only way to practice some other religion in this country. Very soon there will be suicide bombers and other fanatical nuts within our midst. Maumoon is the only one who can protect us against this.
Eventually, ironic as it may be, we have to all turn to the Devil to live a happier life.
Ismail Rasheed | October 25, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply
r2d2,
Maybe because it is a fundamental human right????
Simon | October 25, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply
Ibra,
Is it article 4(d) or 9(d)?
In anycase, I agree with you on your point that there is a fundamentally more important change that took place in the last 4 years that allows us to speak our mind about freedom of religion. It is interesting to note that I get asked by locals whether I face any difficulties in my day to day life as a consequence of what I write. Am I ostracised from family and circles of friends? This sort of thing. Then I get asked by foreigners how I survive and get away with my head intact in a society in which vast denominations are fast embracing a puritan and conservative teaching of Islam. Note the difference in mentality.
The answer I give both questions is the same: it is a technological divide in conjunction with the fact that I write in English and that I am unknown and invisible that enables me to still retain my place in family circles and allows me to walk the streets safely. It is this divide that has kept such elements in society several steps behind the freedom of religion debate. And now add to this the xenophobia you mention and the increase in followers of conservative ideology and the wholesale religious rhetoric and fear-mongering on-going in the political arena. I maybe being paranoid but all this tells me one thing: that the doors for the debate of freedom of religion and the expression of free-thought on religious matters are fast closing. And yes, it is happening under the watch of Gayoom, as you said.
Of course, all this is new, ie free-thought and expression and I agree with you that it will take time.
It is in the pursuit of spreading the concept of open-mindedness and preservation of that almost sacred trait of human mind that keeps me, and therefore this blog, going.
I appreciate your taking the time to comment and state your views to readers of this blog.
Ibra | October 25, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply
Sorry, Simon. It is 9(d) not 4 (d). My mind is still stuck on the original numbering we used when we were compiling the draft. It was renumbered at the last moment. My mistake.
You have hit the nail. The task is to keep the minds open on ALL issues.
I have actually achieved what I set out to do in 2003. That was to get the freedom of expression. This I believe is the fundamental stepping stone to peaceful change in anything. Getting rid of Qayyoom was secondary, and would be a bonus when that happens. I have been persecuted more times than I care to remember for simply speaking my mind (none of these times had anything to do religion).
Freedom of expression is the cornerstone on which all other freedoms and liberties are built and maintained. That is why this regime has systematically subjugated anyone who dared to express their mind.
It is not an accident that the 1998 constitution (the famous 17 year constitution) resembles the Egyptian constitution so closely. It is also not a coincidence that one of the two MPs (X-Ray Athif) who did not vote for the 1998 constitution is a council member of the Liberal Party.
Dhivehi Resistance's Friend | October 26, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply
Let me give an eye-opener to the constitutional drafters and legislators. Article 9 (raa) does not contradict any other article and it does not denaturalise any existing non-Muslim Maldivians or any Maldivian converting out of Islam in the future. You see, article does not apply to Maldivians at all? It applies to those who wish to become naturalised as Maldivians. It says "..... a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives.". It does not say "..... a non-Muslim may not be a citizen of the Maldives.". If you analyse the semantics of the original Divehi, the meaning is the same.
So rejoice apostates, Christians, Buddhists and Atheists among us. You are safe! If you are already a Maldivian you will be within the law even if you leave Islam and become baptised as a Christian tomorrow.
The constitution that Ibra and others enacted only consolidated this right as per the Maldives obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.