Gayyoom abuses Islam to sustain dictatorship in Maldives

Readers' Review

17 March 2005

In chapter 1 and section 7, the existing constitution of the Maldives proclaims that Islam is the state religion. It means that the State as a legal being is a Moslem. By implication, therefore, any act of, or done on behalf of, the state that violates an Islamic principle would also be a breach of the constitution, for it is like trying to convert the State to a non-Moslem which is clearly against the constitution. The state or the government of the present time does not tolerate its people violating some principles of Islam, but ignores its own violations of the same Islamic teachings. The reader must recall that violation of the constitution is the highest treason in the Maldives.

Divorce is a right that Islam has bestowed upon the husband, whom, the Koran says, is next to God, by implication, of course. Allah in His Words revealed upon the Prophet Mohamed says that if He would allow man to worship anyone other than Him, it would be wife to her husband. We all know that Islam forbids polytheism or worshipping another, so women, they may rightly feel, are saved from having to offer prayers to their fellow husbands. Nevertheless, this shows very clearly that how important is man in family or marital life, in particular, and in everyday life, in general.

Islam does not allow misuse of power either. If man has power, he must use it within the bounds that Allah has set thereto. Man cannot go beyond them for it would be a sin. Notwithstanding man’s right to divorce what any administration can do is, of course, to establish whether or not man exercises whenever he does in accordance with the manner that Islam has set forth.

A relationship exists where it is needed. In other words, it can survive as long as this need exists. Dependence or the feeling for it on one another for the satisfaction of some desire or other is the need necessary for the existence of the relationship between them. Where they no longer depend, or have to, on one another for the fulfilment of one or other need of theirs they put an end to the relationship as redundant. Maybe, for man subordination in one sense or other is not particularly appealing at all. This is true of marriage, too. The modern theory of gender equality undermines the principle of dependence effectively. Dependence exists between unequal persons; it does not among equals. Men and women are equal; therefore, a relationship that turns on dependence cannot exist between them.

A marriage is also a relationship of this sense and would last for as long as there is this dependability exists between the spouses. All societies of ancient time have accepted that man’s supremacy even outside marital relationships. Even among friends of both sexes, women depend on men for help mainly because of their physical stamina. Islam has upheld this social phenomenon that has prevailed among the people from time immemorial.

Thus, in recognition of the custom, Islam vests the option of divorce not with the woman but the man. Nevertheless, he must exercise this right of his righteously and judicially, i.e., it must be used in the manner prescribed, again, in Islam, not in the men-made statute or other laws. In married life, the wife owes a duty of obedience to the husband except he orders her to commit a sin. This obedience is characteristic of woman’s dependence on man. If she fails to obey or defy him in any other of her obligations, the man must take certain actions against her. First, he must try, mutually and amicably, to secure her obedience, failing which he must involve her relatives to convince or persuade her that she must obey her husband. If this, too, fails, then man is free to exercise the authority of divorce vested in him and part with her honourably or keeping her would be a burden to him and an injustice to both. No one can interfere with it. In Islam the right of divorce is subject only to the limits set in Islam, which does not require it to be exercised only in the court.

In spite of this, the laws in the Maldives are set out to object to man using his right of divorce by making it an offence punishable in law by a fine not exceeding R5,000. It, in effect, makes something permitted in Islam forbidden. This is a claim that Islam is not right always. It is pronouncing that there are mistakes in Islam, for example, like making divorce a right of man, that man must correct on his own. This is a very dangerous implication. If man starts thinking that Islam has some or other similar weaknesses as the family law in the Maldives brings out, man would soon lose confidence that Islam is correct and comprehensive. The Islamic world has got to review this and other similar situations affecting the fundamental claim that Islam is a universal religion.