The Islamic Foundation of the Maldives, led by Ibrahim Fauzy, have filed a case with the High Court of the Maldives in a bid to remove two articles of the Religious Unity Act, Act number 6/94.
President of the Foundation Fauzy told Minivan News that the two articles deemed contentious were articles A and B of the Act.
”The two articles state that a permission from the government will be required to preach, contradicting article 27 an 29 of the constitution which states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression subject to the tenets of Islam,” said the Islamic Foundation in a statement.
The Islamic Foundation said that Sheikh Fareed’s permission to preach was confiscated in 2003 but later returned in 2008.
During the last hearing of the case conducted in the Criminal Court, the state attorney admitted the case was presented according to the recent constitution while Sheikh Fareed’s lawyer Shaheem Ahmed claimed that the laws under the Religious Unity Act would be voided upon ratification as they were contrary to the constitution.
”The case was accepted by the High Court and it is being processed,” said Fauzy.
After the Islamic Foundation presented the case in the High Court, the Criminal Case has halted thecase against Sheikh Ibrahim Fareed pending the High Court verdict.
Sheikh Fareed was charged with violating the Religious Unity Act four years ago.
(0)Dislikes
(0)
I do not understand why Minivan News bothers to publish every little thing that happens about Islam in this country.
This article is hardly worthy of front page news. But still, this and similar articles will be published without fail by Minivan News.
Why?
Can Ahmed Nazeer tell me why he always does this?
You can give an explanation by saying that such articles are appealing to the readers of this website. But, from the comments I have seen on this website, I too, like someone else mentioned a few days ago, have realised that Minivan is read and commented mostly by the MDPians.
The commentres on this website are mostly MDPians and does not give anything close to the reflection of the views of the general public. So are the articles about Islam published to satisfy the MDPians?
everyone in this country has the rights to speak about their religion. its time that shia muslims also should be given the freedom to express themselves as shia. it is time for women to preach too.
we humans are only humans we are not god to decide who and who should or should not be nabees or prophets. i personally believe that mohamed the prophet was a pure dictator.
God chose muhamed, an uneducated man so who are we to choose degree holders or sheiks to be the only people to preach. when did human start becoming gods. this is not Christianity. we are not pray to another human being... sometimes some sunni pray to muhamed, just as people still pray to maumoon. its very surprising how far a deluded ideology can spread to.
religion is now like a photoshop tool to draw in fear in every single ones head so they can easily control. Talk about freedom... allah will punish you... talk about sex... alaah will punish you... talk about women should be given freedom to choose.. alaah will punish them... so far the only thing i have seen is the punishment authority which is under government and the only punishment we are getting is by human??? konthaaku mijehunee... yes people like us human and this is so ridiculous.
why cant people just stop being god and let it be and let things go so everyone has the right to choose just as alaah gave everyone a choice with options so alaah can punish not sheik naraka billboard alhaigen ulhey mullah rules!!!!!!
These people are a bunch of hypocrits, who use terms like "freedom of speech" whenever it suits their agenda and has no regard to it whatsoever otherwise.
and also MDP sucks because they have veiled themselves in adhaalaths -the hipocratics - mohamed delusion.
first talk about freedom... get peopleto vote, get all youth(majority) to vote for freedom and then after wining the election start talking about the end of the world, and how the end is close scientifically and then talk about god. then put fear in everyone and slowly close all doors that you open.. give more power to mullas and less to open minded people (or morally put most open minded powerful people in your seats, jobs so they will have a obligation to shut their intellectual mouths) and trap people of this country again so you could control economy to the best of your benefits and all the stakeholders who gives you money to play the puppet or sesame street... what a plan!!!
All the reader of minivan..(I do not understand why Minivan News bothers to publish every little thing that happens about Islam in this country.
This article is hardly worthy of front page news. But still, this and similar articles will be published without fail by Minivan News.
Why?) Clear Answer: this is not a news. its a portal of missionaries. minivan has to publish every little details of religious matter. Because they use this minivan to measures to get note of the situation in according to convert country LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC UNISLAMIC NATION. for more information. those who get the real benefit is UN,UNICEF,RED-CROSS,RED CRESCENT,and other missionaries..think beyond..think big... nazeer is just a boy.. he needs money.. he will do what JJ says.. keep all mouth shut.. why don't u guys understand all these...?
Dear IFM,
Have you no shame publicly displaying this level of hypocrisy?
Sincerely,
Not IFM
In my opinion, the biggest problem that is preventing the Maldives from achieving its democratic potential, even to the level granted by its present constitution, is that people do not understand the concepts of rights and freedoms.
Every right comes with a duty, and every freedom carries with it a responsibility.
I agree with the Islamic Foundation about the clauses requiring the government's 'license' to speak/preach - it IS indeed an infringement upon fundamental rights, and it has been abused in the past and if it remains will continue to be abused in the future.
However, as with any rights, there has to be equal safeguards in place - Fareed's freedom of expression does not (or at the very least, should not) automatically allow him to indulge in hate speech.
The same goes for Illiyaas, Shaheem and other anti-semites and hate mongers in this country. But when the thieves themselves are in charge of guarding a treasure - this is exactly what happens.
Do read the text of the last "Religious Unity Regulations" they drafted.
In Islamic countries the Miltary has to force democracy. Otherwise extremist would kill it in no time.
Extremists know very well that democracy could be turned against itself. The freedom of expression provided by the constitution, is the best medium for a violent agenda. For them democracy is a windfall and its party time.
This is why democracy would not thrive in Islamic countries. And this is why the Turkey military has assumed the role of the guarantor of the constitution (and thus democracy) against extreme elements.
In the Friday sermons here in Male, I have heard the imam comparing women rights to throwing 'our sisters' to the wanton desires of wild beasts.. Such statements clearly contradict decent norms, sprit of our constitution, international conventions and even Islam itself...
Such Imams should be removed from the pulpit immediately and jailed for violating the constitution.
1. Dear Mr Ahmed Nazeer. I find that your articles are very week. Can you ask Mr JJ Robinson to edit your articles before he publishes it.
2. Also, I congratulate IFM for filing this case at the High Court, during the time the hypocrite Adhaalath party is ruling the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.
3. Thirdly, I condemn the government officials for failing to address Sheikh Fareed's case.
does Hitler deserve freedom of speech?
if given the chance do we let him gather all the idiots & let those racist bastards go on a killing spree
im just saying there is a limit to freedom of speech
i think it should be discrimination
I call hypocrite Prosecutor General Mr (Bandu) Muiz to withdraw Sheikh Fareed's cases from the court. You Munaafiq greedy guy has withdrawn the notorious cases of parteys and cahrging Sheikh Fareed although the cahrges are against the spirit of the constitution.
I call Islamic Foundation to call Munaafiq Muiz to resign, preventing him from heating the chair.
Muiz, one more thing. It would be more healthy to do some exercise rather charging Sheikh Fareed to make your big belly smaller.
Yaamyn:
In my opinion, the biggest problem that is preventing the Maldives from achieving its democratic potential, even to the level granted by its present constitution, is that people do not understand the concepts of rights and freedoms.
Every right comes with a duty, and every freedom carries with it a responsibility.
I agree with the Islamic Foundation about the clauses requiring the government’s ‘license’ to speak/preach – it IS indeed an infringement upon fundamental rights, and it has been abused in the past and if it remains will continue to be abused in the future.
However, as with any rights, there has to be equal safeguards in place – Yaamyn’s freedom of expression does not (or at the very least, should not) automatically allow him to indulge in hate speech.
Hmm. She accused me with her own iniquities and slow slips away.
Is this another hate speech..oops
Loop Loop!
Once they get what they want they would preach to stifle free speech of others. What say the hypocrisy!!
eynameena,
You just provided a sad example of a cynical, pointless reaction, that illustrates my point that very few people seem to understand what freedoms and rights are, and what boundaries exist for them in civilized societies.
Criticism, for instance, is not the same as hate speech. Satire is not hate speech.
Not everything that you disagree with automatically becomes 'hate speech'.
There are other considerations to be made in the context of free speech and the responsibilities that accompany it.
A nobody, average Joe citizen is allowed to air his opinion without restriction in private, or on his personal blog.
But people and institutions that have larger responsibilities - like MPs, media officials, state Ministers, Party leaders, Commission members, etc. have to keep their personal prejudices and biases out of their public roles in the interest of the larger public welfare and fairness.
One thing I fail to understand is how people can react to my admittedly strongly opinionated blog - which hardly hides its strong liberal views - and call it 'hate speech', just because it criticizes various random mullahs with divine pretensions.
These same people will, however, turn an absolute blind eye to any number of anti-semitic rulings, fear mongering, intimidation of minorities, and outright calls for oppression or regression (think about almost every bill that Muttalib has proposed in Parliament. Ever)
Does. not. compute.
Taliban supporters, pretend-jehadis have no right nor moral ground to call me or anyone else a 'hate monger'. It's quite the opposite of what I promote.
Those who oppose darkness is not another form of darkness, it can also be referred to as 'light'.
I think a license should be given to anybody who wants to preach in the Maldives. Doctors can't practice medicine without a license, and if scholars want to preach, they need that license too. However, I do not believe Fareed is a scholar since he is not qualified enough. Knowing arabic doesn't instantly make you a scholar of Islam.
If Sunnism is maintained, it is considered freedom of expression, and if any other "brand" of "Islam", its blasphemy. If any other religion "Kufur" and should be put to death. The Maldivian constitution FORCE Maldivians to be Sunni. I wish people understand democratic values before boasting Maldives is a democratic country.
@ yaamyn
"One thing I fail to understand is how people can react to my admittedly strongly opinionated blog – which hardly hides its strong liberal views – and call it ‘hate speech’, just because it criticizes various random mullahs with divine pretensions."
If I am interpreting what you said correctly, you expect everyone to have the same opinion about everything.
Otherwise, why is it so hard to understand that the articles on your "strongly opinionated blog" WILL be considered hate speech by at least some?
Yeah, very true. PG Muizzu is not a suitable person to fill that seat. I call Muizzu to GET LOST.
I believe it is MY freedom of expression to state that "I" do not believe in religion or God, even IF it violates the so called tenets of Islam.
Cal you digest this, Fauzy from Islamic "Foundation" of the Maldives?
Robin,
Freedom of expression allows me to hold strong opinions and express them - but only to the limit where I do not cause others undue grief, physical harm or threats thereof.
I'm not a public official that wields power, nor do I have an intention of becoming one, and therefore as an average citizen I have more leeway to express my thoughts openly.
My words and opinions are my own - and I am willing to discuss them and even change them if I am provided with a strong enough argument.
I do not expect everyone to have the same opinion about everything - I do not even believe that is possible.
I do not even think even the same person holds the same opinions with the same conviction over a period of time.
That's why I personally think freedom of speech and expression should not be restricted by those who follow an ideology of absolute rigid conformism.
(I made mention of the religious unity regulations in my previous comment as an example of this)
I have no desire have a legal gag order on Fareed or Shaheem or Illiyaas to the point where they're locked up and "banned".
But I do believe that their rights to expression are limited to the point where they do not infringe upon others rights to exist and in fact, disprove them or argue back.
In other words, as a citizen I have the right to criticize and disagree with anyone - whether in person or on my blog, but I do not have the rights to harm or threaten to harm, or instigate violence against them.
It must be the same for the mullahs as well.
yaamyn,
Your whole comment was in agreement to what I said -- that we cannot expect everyone to have the same opinion.
You can justify what you write (btw, I am yet to read your article(s)) by saying that they are "strong liberal views". But you cannot understand why someone else will call that "hate speech".
Why?
Do you expect everyone else to agree with you that they are indeed "strong liberal views" and not "hate speech"?
How do you define hate speech?
Is your definition a universally applicable one?
"In other words, as a citizen I have the right to criticize and disagree with anyone – whether in person or on my blog, but I do not have the rights to harm or threaten to harm, or instigate violence against them."
I agree with you on this, wholeheartedly.
But I have one thing to tell you: that you are walking on a thin line here. When you opt to "critisize and disagree" with someone and express your views so openly, it will not take long before someone calls it "hate speech". And if the person you crtisize is someone who is adored or respected by many, your line is even thinner.
"It must be the same for the mullahs as well."
Absolutely.
Tell me when a Maldivian Mullah has threatened to harm or instigated violence against someone else?
In the end, this will boil down to a difference in opinion.
we don't need freedom to speak.... we need freedom from religion and its simple as that.