Tuesday, October 09, 2007
"Negotiate"

After the recent Himandhoo debacle, the latest perturbations are over the lack of an effort to 'negotiate' with the Islamic fundamentalists (two separate links for two mutually exclusive notions). The vocal outbursts around the tables brimming with coffee cups in the various cafes of Male' are of concerns towards the captured fundamentalists.

The resounding conclusions to most of this bravado constituted the blaming of Maldives Police for allowing the situation to escalate: that with cleverer psychological tactics the standoff could have been settled without conflict. My personal wonderment is that perhaps for Maldivians the glass is always half empty: since Evan Naseem we have come a long way if the police can defuse situations without fatalities (I do not have other statistics into the extent of injuries at Himandhoo).

Here is what I think of this outcry of injustice: bull! What is truly unjust? Government offices employ fundamentalists donning any ragged attire with wiry, unkempt beards and the most repugnant odor without question or protest for fear that any of the latter could invoke the wrath of God. What is blatantly unfair is that the management of these same offices will not even falter in their breath when firing non-radicals for the lack of conformity to 'dress codes.'

The fear of God is not just confined to Government officials. Many a private-sector business employs radicals who are privileged to look haggard while their fellow colleagues are forced to be neat and presentable. All managers suffering this apprehension of fundamentalist beliefs are oftentimes bedazzled by the simplest corruptions of true Islamic lore. Unfortunately, the Constitution or Law of Maldives do not provide sanctuary from the fundamentalist threat.

Is the Constitution or Law of Maldives to blame? If management can lay off workers based on their attire the same rule should apply to radicals, not? After all, this is not discriminating against religion or sectarianism. It is simply a matter of presentable attires at work. This is the true 'root cause' for the empowerment of this extremist subgroup of our society. We helped build it by nurturing a separate set of rules for the radicals.

As echoed by 'Adam', this is not a matter of the ineffectualness of a religion but the people who practice it: us, for not having empowered ourselves with the knowledge to swat out fundamentalism and failing to act whilst those radicals exploited the teachings of Islam to meet their own malevolent ends.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

You are quite right. but We majority maldivians are very furious of this particular event. Even then, patience and understanding can play an crucial role preventing future such occurances,i believe. From now we must also be cautious of this category of people, resist this sort of behavior in our society. Before this, honestly i never thought there were any terrorits, but now i know the americans are telling the truth. Why not we Maldivians take the moderate side of everything. World peace?

Dhivehi Resistance said...

I think some things are not negotiable. Like the child "marriages" these people are doing.
In the brou-haha and the ensuing debate/arguments, most people (my friends and aqquaitances) appear to miss out on some essential points.
Most everybody is claiming apart from the "radicals" themselves that this is a twisted version of Islam.
But could it be that these child "marriages" are inspired and copied from the actions of Mohamed himself?

Simon said...

Hi Shafiee,

I agree with you on the fact that we've let fundamentalism grow unchecked or rather..ignored it and gave it a special place in our society. The main problem is that somehow we've made ourselves believe that these people are the way they are because they know something we don't. Which is, in reality, true and what has actually happened. Hence, we should educate ourselves about religion, yes.

What I don't agree is that we should put the total blame on this ignorance of everyone else for what is happening today.

It can be argued that these radicalised people ARE following the proper ways of Islam. The fact that they, and a vast (and growing) minority of others world wide, subscribe to these beliefs wholesale is something we should look into under the proverbial microscope of critical analysis. And that means opening up the religion for diagnosis (if you will).

I think the vast majority, on the other hand, has a good grasp of the basic tenets of the religion. Which is probably why they are known as 'moderates'. But the very fact that these radicals CAN challenge those moderate beliefs so deftly USING, what is widely regarded as verified evidence from Quran AND Hadeeth, is something we should be worried about.

In my opinion, it is precisely the belief that Islam and it's teachings and traditions (and the collection of Hadeeths) are pure, tenable and unaltered (from it's initial revelation to now) and that it applies to today's world as it did centuries ago, that IS the root of the problem.

The fact remains that they are called 'radicals' and everyone else, who don't believe in their ideologies, as 'moderates' - implying that the knob CAN be turned to "highly radical" and one would still be within the teachings of Islam.

If that is not a problem with the religion itself then perhaps we should just call these people 'insane' and dissociate them from religion altogether. If that were the case then almost all Saudi Arabians are simply insane, vast majority of Pakistan and Afghanistan must have gone cuckoo and any other countries that have an ever-growing population of radicals must have lost their marbles.

Anonymous said...

It time for us, to go reunite. Forget about the differences in our ideologies, political thinking and self-values.

Let's all work as a TEAM; so that, Togather Each can Achieve More.

Bless you all.

persona non grata said...

Simon,

The opponents of the Patriot Act in the US did not call for an amendment of the Declaration of Independence. Instead, their fight is for the proper interpretation of the latter.

Likewise, we have interpreted Islamic lore throughout the ages to constitute modern laws such as upholding a suffrage. Maldivian Law states that one cannot legally enter into a nuptial contract until they are 18 years old. All societies have suffered from crimes against minors (I present the recent US case of Warren Jeff) and it is important that governments take responsibility for ensuring that its future generations are kept safe.

Any scripture that is 1400+ years old will have flaws. It is to ensure that these flaws do not contradict with the general beliefs and needs of the people that we create laws for communities. Albeit incomplete, Maldivian Law provides this protection to certain degrees (the debate of how extensive these laws are is an entirely different matter). It is sad that every so often the law fails to exercise these safeguards.

Legal barriers aside, there are so many social actions we can undertake to ensure the safety of our society. For instance, as I mentioned in the post, we are legally empowered to force our employees to adhere to dress codes should they wish to retain their jobs.

Dhivehi Resistance said...

To "take the moderate side of everything" we have to deal with those who are proponents of true islam.
http://www.minivandaily.com/component/option,com_magazine/func,show_article/id,1189/
In the above article, " Muslim scholar/mullah" Adam Naseem opposes the law and calls for child "marriages" according to the tenets of Islam.

persona non grata said...

Ismail Rasheed:

Most of us are quick to shed our responsibilities by blaming society's shortcomings on Islam. There is a reason why we rely on governments and their promise of fair governance, instead of blindly following the Quran as it was originally published. For instance, article 25 of chapter 3, article 21 of chapter 2 and and article 30 of chapter 4 of the Children's Act (9/91) are enough to create a legal precedent to ensure the worst possible sentences await child-molesters (and the potential ones).

If we were to live by these decrees in this age, then I would rather move to the US and change my name. For one thing, Maldives would simply run out of women eligible for marriage and vice versa (24:3).