Day: November 22, 2009

The main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) has refuted claims by President Mohamed Nasheed that the former government seized property and assets of former President Ibrahim Nasir.

At a press conference today, DRP Spokesperson Ibrahim “Mavota” Shareef said it was proven in court that Nasir misappropriated state funds.

“The court made a valuation of those funds and took his property legally as compensation,” he said, adding that Nasheed was misleading the public on the issue.

He added the head of state making such statements was not in the public interest.

Although Nasir was found guilty of embezzlement, he continued, the former government gave back his home, Velaanage, for free.

“[But] Nasir announced that he would sell the house. When he made the announcement, the government requested that he sell it to the government instead of selling it to a member of a public,” he said.

Shareef said he worked at the property claims division of the court that handled Nasir’s case and it was revealed that he had developed resorts from government funds.

The former government did not create a commission to investigate Nasir, he said.

“It was proven in court that Velaanage, many resorts under Ibrahim Nasir’s name and many plots in Male’ were bought from state funds,” he said. “If these things are given back today, there won’t be any assets left for the government.”

In his weekly radio address on Friday, President Nasheed paid tribute to Nasir with the first anniversary of his death approaching. 

One year ago today, Nasir’s body was flown back from Singapore where he had been living in exile for 30 years and given a state burial with full honours.

The president said Nasir’s “honour and dignity” was damaged, different stories were told about him in the past 30 years and his property was seized.

“I am saying his property has been appropriated because the government took Ibrahim Nasir’s house, Velaanage,” he said. “And the government has now constructed a large building there. Velaanage is the ancestral home of that family. The Velaanage family is the most ancient and oldest family in the country.”

He added the family’s genealogy went back at least 700 years and Velaanage has been in the family for that period.

Shareef said DRP condemned the president indicating that he wanted to give a property of the state back.

He added the property was not registered to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom or his family members, but as a property of the government.

The president said it would give him great pleasure to name the office complex in Velaanage in Nasir’s honour and put up official documents of Nasir’s reign for public viewing.

“That way, people will know how things went on during his rule, how he ruled and how he made decisions,” he said.

The DRP spokesperson said the party did not object to naming the office building in Nasir’s honour, but would not support giving it back “for a third time”.

The party would welcome releasing documents from Nasir’s government, he said.

“The main thrust of my argument is that while there are important social, economic and health problems, instead of taking measures to deal with it, the government is focusing on things done by the former government,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
If wearing veils is compulsory this would be the most radical society since the TALIBAN. I know you are not Mullah Omar, so please please veto this straight away, tie a rope around Islamic Ministry (Bari and Shaheem), and make sure our society is not radicalised more than it already is.
Adhaalath party and people at Islamic Ministry have no understanding of Maldivian culture and Heritage.
I look to President Nasheed to save us from this evil!
Regards,
Anonymous

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
It seems rather ridiculous to me that the President has called for a ‘religious ruling’ over the proposal to ban places of religious worship for non-Muslims.
While the constitution refuses to recognise non-Muslim Maldivians, so it rather obvious that any places of worship would only cater to foreigners residing in our country. (Just like they let us worship in their countries)
The petty, narrow-minded and rigid stance adopted by our parliamentarians in denying others the rights that they covet for themselves is going to set a very bad example indeed.
What will be the ramifications when word goes out to foreigners that they will not be respected or treated with dignity in our country?
What does it do to the reputation of the country among well wishers in other countries? And what indeed will such a petty move do to the image of Islam as a tolerant religion?
Similarly, the move to deny non-Muslim workers the Ramzan benefits and bonuses.
Will such a move raise the image of Islam, or demolish it among non-Muslims? It seems our leaders are bent on promoting the negative stereotype of intolerant fanaticism, rather than showing the better aspects of our religion, civilization and culture.
Our parliamentarians need to get their priorities right, and stop fooling the people. These are just loud debates they start to hide their overall incompetence in doing anything in the interests of our people.
Regards,
Anonymous

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
I find it silly and uninformed that the authorities are trying to allay fears about H1N1 that are unfounded. So far the swine flu appears to be even milder than the seasonal flu and less people are expected to die from it than the seasonal flu.
Furthermore, WHO estimates two billion people will be infected. That is one of every three people in the world. There is no way it can be contained by isolating a few people in Ungoofaaru or anywhere else.
Authorities please stop spreading the uninformed hysteria and news agencies please stop fanning it by publishing these stories.
Regards,
Anonymous

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
President Mohammed Nasheed has asked about the position of the Shariah on freedom of religion. I do sincerely hope he will consider the opinions of many scholars but here is one perspective.
The Qur’an says:
[“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. ” (Qur’an 2:256)]
Literalists, mainly the Hanbali school of thought, argue that the above verse was replaced and abrogated (naskh) by verses commanding the Muslims to force others to submit to Islam.
Contextualists argue that forcing others to convert referred only to those who were attacking Muslims and so it was necessary to bring them into the fold only for STRICTLY self defence purposes and to prevent them from tyrannizing, exploiting the Muslims as well as their own children whom the pagans were killing. For contextualists, freedom can only be overridden when it is in the interests of human security.In this sense to impose religious restrictions on one who sacrifices their children as part of their religion is justifiable. Such could be forced into Islam, for example. However, if one is not a threat, or is not killing their children, contextualists would argue, it is against the liberating essence of Islam to force conversion.
From this point of view, it is against Islam to restrict freedom of worship for either foreigners or for non-Maldivian Muslims (though constitutionally there is no such thing as non-Maldivian Muslim’s the reality is different.)
Prophet Muhammad (SAW) extended rights to religious minorities (JEWS and Christians) in the Charter of Madinah, giving the non-Muslims the right of choosing a legal system they wished their affairs be governed by, be it Islamic or Jewish law or pre-Islamic Arab tribal traditions.
Under the Sharia law as determied by the four commonly adknowledged ‘Sunni Madhab’s’ (schools of thought) non-Muslims must pay a tax called Jizya if they want to be protected by the Muslims.
Those who’ve analyzed the Qur’an, Sunnah and Islamic historical context have argued that Jizyah tax was only due because the non-Muslim generally did not participate in Jihad for defence of the Islamic State, and therefore were paying for services. In this light, if a Muslim state is not at war, a non-Muslim citizen should not have to pay Jizyah.
The ijma (consenus) of the traditional Madhab’s is that an unrepentant apostate should receive the death penalty. There are different points of view on what exactly constitutes apostasy and how long the Muslim should be given to return to Islam, but this was the generally understood law in Muslim societies, a perpetually unrepentant apostate was to be killed.
Contextualists argue that the death penalty was only applied by Qur’an and by Sunnah for apostasy to save life because, the pagan religion was very inhumane in killing children – in murder and the non-Muslims were at war with the Muslims. This meant that by definition an apostate was a murderer or wanted to kill the Muslims.
In this line of thinking, to kill or repress an apostate who is not a threat is a brutal violation of the liberty promoting essence of Islam.
Regards,
Abdul-Rahman

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
Considering banning non-Islamic worship places is truly shameful on the part of Muslims, who claim to be peaceful and tolerant human beings. Have we forgotten the time when the second Caliph of Islam, Hadhrat Omar (ra) refused to offer his afternoon prayers in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem? His refusal was not out of disrespect for the Christian faith but actually for its own protection; he feared that the Muslims would later stake a claim at the Church owing to his having offered his prayers there.
Indeed, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed later, by a Fatimid caliph, but while it was under the control of Caliph Omar (ra) and early Muslim rulers, it enjoyed the protection it was promised.
By citing this example, I ask, are we to follow the actions of “mad” people who claim to be defenders of Islam, or the footsteps of the Commanders of the Faithful?
Communities can not assimilate if no tolerance is shown. We have so often read that the Holy Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion”, (2:257). If we have no right to force a person to change his beliefs, it means that all aspects of his faith remain personal to him. Again the Qur’an says, ” For you your religion and for me my religion”, (109:7), making it so obvious for a believer to stay within his own boundaries.
If a mosque is what a Muslim needs for congregational prayers, there is no reason why another faith would not want a worship place of their own.
Regards,
Anonymous

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor
It is shocking to see some readers bash Islam and Islamic scholars on the child marriage issue. One may wonder why such writers are not criticising the Parliamentarians who passed that law and the President who ratified it. On the other hand, it is seen as an opportunity to scream out against Islamic scholars.
Apparently they have also failed to take note of the fact that the age of consent for sex in various western countries is much lower than 18. Countries which we proudly claim as “best practicising” nations.
However, these “modernist” writers to Minivan News are blind to such facts. They would still continue to bash Islamic scholars! Would they scream child abuse when tourists of 13 or 16 years old from such western countries arrive Maldives and have sex with their partners who may be of same age or more and outside of marriage?
Would it be considered child abuse by the Maldivian Government???
Age of consent for sex (even if outside of marriage!):
Vatican – 12 years
Spain – 13 years
Germany, Hungary – 14 years
Denmark, France, Greece, Sweden – 15 years
Australia, Belgium, Canada – 16 years
Brazil – 14 years
Regards,
Farish

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)