28 February 2008

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives silent on rights of non-muslim citizens

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) have not only ignored the issue of citizenship of non-Muslim Maldivians, but also ignored their existence in their recently published Annual Report 2007.

The introduction of the report states that Maldives is a 100% Muslim country, officially endorsing the constitutional amendment which made non-Muslim citizens of Maldives legally stateless for the first time.

In addition to this, giving a general overview of human rights in Maldives throughout the year 2007, it says the commission is happy to note that "basic freedoms and rights which are also included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are perfectly included in the second chapter of the new draft constitution".  The commission seems to be rejecting Article 18 of this declaration, a document which was banned as an Islamic document in 2005. The ban was later lifted following much international pressure.

While rejecting the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the Commission expressed its concern over religious divisions in the society. The solution proposed in the report was more the government to have more control over religion, with the Supreme Islamic Council propagating a state approved "authentic" version of Islam for citizens to unite upon.

"Political divisions and political conflicts are problems which would be solved as people become more aware. And political differences could be resolved with dialog. However, religious divisions and differences of opinion in matters of creed among people is very dangerous. The signs of danger and horror of this is now visible even in our Maldivian community. And  we are  experiencing the losses brought about by this even today. This commission have expressed our concern over this matter even before. Finding the reasons for these religious divisions in our small community and taking  necessary action in a responsible manner is of utmost importance. When the number of people who have thinking and orientations which contradict the beautiful Islamic principles are increasing, it is very important that the concerned government authorities bring out to the citizens the authentic information about religion (Islam) in a responsible manner. And (the commission) would also like to note that in order to save the society from religious divisions it is very important for the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs to play a broader role than now." --  From the report (Page 9).


nass said...

Maldives is a Muslims country. It'll always be that way.

nass said...

Human Rights Commission has the "freedom of speech" to put that in the first lines of the annual report.

Maldives is a Muslim country. If the HRCM "works towards protecting,and promoting human rights in the Maldives; in accordance to Islamic Sharia" that is not a problem.

I agree with you, Maldives is not a 100% Muslims country.

"the Special Majlis have made an amendment in the constitution to revoke the citizenship of all non-muslim Maldivians , as soon as the new constitution comes to power this year." Interesting :D

"'Protection of Religious Unity of Maldivians Act' which is said to be protecting the Islamic unity of Maldives; under which a person can be imprisoned for anything considered unislamic also (ranging from wearing a crucifix, to speaking or writing anything which contradicts Islamic views)."
That is cool :D

I've to say that report is BRILLIANT. Just BRILLIANT.

Anonymous said...

Hey don't worry too much about citizenship. If Maldives takes away your citizenship other countries such as UK and Australia are willing to give you all citizenship. So i consider the change in constitution a good thing for us all. It is an opportunity to claim yourself as faithless as soon as the new constitution comes in to force.

Anonymous said...

yea i wonder if welfare countries will take up the faithless. if so i am all for the this amendment. anyone with a brain will not be a maldivian citizen then and the country will be full of the manic fundies. great. perfect. or as someone just said brilliant (despite the fact that it mentions false facts: that maldives is a 100% muslim country. i guess brilliancy standards are different among muslims and non muslims)

so anyhoo, crapland is going to the dogs anyway, i'd rather settle somewhere else. cant live in a country which doesnt give me my rights. islam and modern human rights dont mix.
two women = 1 man, mutilates thieves, kills apostates, intolerant of other faiths, subjugates women (thats half the population),allows wife-beating, traumatises kids/people with an imaginary hell, hates jews and calls them monkeys and pigs, calls for the killing of gays/lesbians, corporeal punishment, doesnt understand the modern concept of freedom of speech, anti-abortion, anti-contraceptives, hinders freethought, sexual repression, censors information, ok with slavery, ok with polygyny, ok with old men marrying young girls, doesnt allow female imams, leaders or judges, doesnt allow free mixing of men and women, against co-ed, against men and women working in the same place, calls for arranged marriage, against dating/boy or girlfriends, cannot stand criticism, kills critics, bribes the killers with a false heaven or brothel, source of human rights is a 7th century arabic book blabbered by an epilectic schizophrenic anti-semitic unoriginal quasi-troglodyte, no updates to this tome is necessary, no updates within islamic ethics necessary,

those were what i could come up with. i'm sure there'll be more. too lazy to copy paste from websites as my muslim friends usually do.

Anonymous said...

ok i have this question. why is it OK for israel to be a jewish country and NOT OK for maldives to be a muslim country? i am not saying there aren't other ppls like christian arabs and some muslims in israel but its commonly acknowledged fact that they are second class citizens in israel. so in effect israel is an exclusive jewish "country". now tell me why shall maldives not be an exclusively muslim country?

Anonymous said...

its not ok for israel for to be a jewish country. period. or for america to be a christian country, despite what the conservative republic christian fundamentalists of american might think. its not ok for any country to affliate itself with any particular religion. that would be unfair to people of other faiths in that country, of people who would want to change their faith etc. therefore, secularism is best. hence this blog.

Anonymous said...

how about letting the public decide? why shall maldives be secular becuase some ppl just 'feel' that maldives shall be secular? now the ppl of this country has already decided. its a done deal if they pose a referendum tommorow and ask the ppl of this country to vote on which religion they would have in maldives. it will be infavour of islam no doubt about it. i am not implying that the majority of maldivians are devout muslims but many factors will affect the public descision and it will be infavour of islam. so.. its islam at the moment and for the forseable future. now lets got to egypt. which is a not an islamic state. and in egypt since time immemorial religions existed side by side even as they do today. there are churches and synagogues and mosques side by side and they have no problem about it. but if somehow today the regime were to announce that from today onwards egypt shall be christian or jew or exclusively muslim than there will arise this problem of imposing on ppl an idea, a religion or a belief system which is not called for. so in the same way it can be safely said that this idea of a secular maldives is not called for. the majority would not support it and the minority shall not make it a habbit of imposing their ideas on the majority.
going back again to egypt if we were to ask today a coptic christian in egypt when were their glory days when they thrived they would reply that it was in the caliphate of Umar(ra). now Umar(ra) was not coptic right? he was a muslim. so the moral from this assumption shall be like this: what we need for this country is not another belief system. we have had enough. we had budhism hinduism and christianity (for the elites..) etc etc. what is at fault is not the beleif system. the problem is with the ppl not being fond of adhering to the system. and the minority trying to impose their views on the majority.

zambrool said...

maldives shall be secular because it is a human right to have freedom of speech and expression. If that (what u say) is the case,i think muslim minority countries should persecute muslims in the same way- which wont be tolerated by you muslims.

there are certain rights for minorities in the modern world; we are demanding our rights in our land. and things have changed a bit after mohamed burned jewish neighborhoods and killed and amputated limbs of disbelievers.

btw maldivians were buddists and were converted to islam by FORCE! and they have been brainwashed through out centuries and today fundamentalism have been added to their beliefs. but in time we will one day be a free nation.insha allah or not.we still have some hope.

Anonymous said...

@ zambrool. what makes you think that only secularism allows freedome of speech and islam does not? have you skipped some islamic history lessons while studying? were you aware that in the glory days of islam when khalifa umar (ra) was lecturing to a packed crowd of worshippers a female stood up and corrected the calipha? what says thou to that? dost thee think its not freedom of expression?

now i am not saying there are such tolerant islamic states anymore but the defect is not in the system but rather the regimes that do not implement the spirit of the teaching.

then your assertion that jewish neighbourhoods being burnt... this is inaccurate history. what you were alluding to was the case of banu guraiza and the story about their expulsion from the land as is recorded by ibn ishaq is doubtful and not credited by modern scholarship. i would advise you to read a little bit more about islamic history from islamic sources rather than from popular ignorant hate sites. even if the instance were to be correct even then could not the blame be laid on the holy prophet because he did not pronounce the verdict on those ppl. they were offered to choose their judge and they chose a muslim from their own blood and he gave verdict. had they sought the judgement of the messenger they would have been treated as had been treated by the kuffar of mecca.

about amputating disbelievers.. this is also not accurate. amputations are for theft and not for apostasy or disbelieving in the first place. now this punishment is sanctioned in the holy quruan and is also to be found in the rabbinic and messianic scriptures. if you would like references i could provide this, but would that be of any value? if you seems to have made up your mind without proper study then what arguments could be of benefit? me thinks none!

Anonymous said...

yes most islamic critics are very ignorant and more so are most islamic apologists. they fail to realise that if Allah ordains a punishment then it is justified since its the divine will. The end is Allah and his laws justify the means. they also fail to see that the Prophet could never be wrong and feel there must always be an alternative explanation for apparently cruel acts done by Muslims during his time. Islamic historians prove that Jews are trecherous swine, so killing them is only a violation of pig rights, not human rights. Homosexuals and apostates are to be killed only because they are beneath human dignity, not because islam doesnt exercise human rights where its necessary. And its obvious that women are of inferior intellect. Hence they ought to be beaten if they dont obey and their inheritance should be half, since men manage their affairs. Islam is scientific too, its just that science hasnt caught up with the brilliancy of Islamic knowledge. The political Utopia of Islam, like anon says, is a perfect system and should be judged as an ideology only in an academic spirit, not as a practical system of government. The fact that this system was succesful during the Middle Ages only proves that we must return to that age in order to apply this system. The decadent world of today is obviously not suitable for the patriarchal, simplistic and agrarian social system advocated by Islam. Islam is also a champion of freedom of expression. Why, didnt the Jyllands Posten editors hear how fluently the death threats were expressed by Imams across the Muslim World? And surely you havent forgotten the beautiful fatwa by the Ayatollah calling for Rushdie's death. Surely no one stopped the Ayatollah? This is true freedom of expression.

Anonymous said...

Pls answer this:
1) Which Islamic historian said Jews are pigs?
2) Where in Islamic sharia is killing of homosexuals or apostates allowed?
3) Where is it obvious that women are inferior in intellect? How obvious is this? Who said so?
4) Also are you aware that even men are beaten up where beating is permissible and sanctioned?
5) Where is science in conflict with Islam? If it is so is it not the case that science is also in conflict with all other religions and even with science it self?
6) About the offensive cartoons lampooning the prophet, now what has Muslims done to deserve this in the first place? Had any Muslim lampooned Jesus lately? Or Moses or any prophet? Does freedom of expression also mean freedom to incite hatred and violence?
7) About the fatwa against Salman Rushdie... the fatwa only mentions him not his children or wife or neighbors. Also fatwas are issued against a crime. In this case a crime against a religion. Now are you aware that on everyday basis Israel is targeting not only their wanted targets but their wives and children? That they shoot missiles at houses where children and women and old and the sick live just because that house MAY (or may not) harbor a wanted person. Now this shall be food for thought. Also the Americans are bombing and destroying houses in Somalia Afghanistan Iraq and everywhere. Now is this not a bigger injustice than a mere fatwa legalizing the death of a person who insults cherished beliefs of a billion ppl. Is the life of single foul mouthed, hatred inciting person more precious than that of a billion ppl who have not done or reciprocated?

I know you would disagree but there is no help to it. Some are bound to be like this and others are forever destined to be opposed to them. In the Quruan as well as in the bible there is mention of ppl who sees but sees them not, who has ears but hear them not etc etc.
My advice to you is like this. If you have genuine questions about Islam then seek Islamic knowledge from Islamic scholars. I have a Buddhist friend who advised me to read more about Buddhism and I am doing that. But I have never (this is deadly honest!) ever read about Buddhism from Islamic sources. Nor would I ever do that. I prefer to seek knowledge from the source. Not second handed.
Also Secularism does not necessarily have to be anti Islam or hatred of Christianity or foul mouthing Judaism or for that matter anti religion. The definition of the word secularism is a little bit broader than that. And I trust you would be a little bit smarter than that to know this.

shabaa said...

damn thats a long post there. and i see that the comments are that long. hehe. but all i have to say is it was really interesting and informative. thanx for the post

Anonymous said...

You people are far gone astray. Wait till the Day of Resurrection when you will have to worry and cry and be in eternal torment unless you repent and obey Allah.

Anonymous said...

I've always wondered - they always say that when men (particularly jihadis) go to heaven they have a beautiful virgin to hang on every hair of their beard

What do the girls get?