The politicisation of life, death and faith

The Parliament (Majlis) today resumes the debate on amending the Clemency Act to bring back capital punishment. Although the constitution allows the death penalty, the Maldives is abolitionist in practice.

The last time the Maldivian state put a person to death was in 1953. Depending on whether or not a majority of MPs agree to send the proposed amendment to the committee stages, today begins the process of reversing this tacit understanding of the death penalty as a form of cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment.

The amendment was proposed by MDP MP Ahmed Rasheed (Hoarafushi) after an urgent motion he introduced earlier in the Majlis session of March 8 to discuss the recent escalation of violent crime. It came on the foot of a savage altercation between members of rival gangs on March 4 in which three men were injured and a member of the public was forced at knife-point to hand over his motorcycle to one of the perpetrators. Blood was spilt in broad daylight, at the Artificial Beach, a public place frequented by families. Clearly, it is an issue that requires the immediate attention of the Majlis.

The debate that ensued, however, appeared to focus less on practical measures that can be taken to address the problem and more on finding a scapegoat with the meatiest political flesh for rival MPs to bite into.

Several MPs rushed to point the finger of blame at anyone else except the legislature itself: the security apparatus was acting with impunity in its refusal to be answerable to the Majlis; the criminal court was not doing its job properly; the president had been too lenient with members of the old regime who committed acts of torture and embezzled state funds; and the president had neglected to give due importance to the matter in his inaugural address of the Majlis on March 3, allegedly discouraging members from pursuing the matter with the required urgency.

People in glasshouses

“I was arrested on July 7 last year in allegations of planning to attack a politician with a sharp implement. They kicked in the door of my house. That was how it happened with me. But people who kill others on the street walk free,” Deputy Speaker of the Parliament and MP of the opposition-aligned People’s Alliance (PA) Ahmed Nazim said, joining the debate on March 8.

“And when I was under house arrest, confined within my own four walls, there were people throwing stones at my house, shattering the glass. They, too, are out there somewhere, walking free,” he continued. He was, Nazim said, “one of the few people in the Majlis with personal experience” of gang warfare and violent crime.

The ‘personal experience’ factor was significant in the debate. In addition to Nazim, MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik (MDP) and independent MP Ahmed Amir, relayed similar narratives of up close and personal encounters with violent crime. “I, too, was imprisoned,” Moosa said.

Having made allegations of torture against former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, his proposed solution to the problem was to imprison Gayoom himself. “As long as Gayoom walks free, there will never be an end to this problem”. MP Amir relayed his own woes of being “hit in the back while an MP”, and updated the Majlis on the fact that nothing has been done since, leaving him with a feeling of diminished equality.

MP Ahmed Rasheed, had a similar personal narrative underlying his push for implementing the death penalty. Based on “one case in which I was personally involved in”, he generalised for the Majlis the woeful inadequacies of the current criminal justice system.

“The lawyers that the Prosecutor General send to the court to represent the state are usually young children, with no experience”, he said. “With an hour, half an hour or twenty minutes to go before the court sits, these children are handed hefty case files, and told: “Here, young lady, take the file”. They are, of course, trounced by the more experienced lawyers for the defendant”, he said.

MP Rasheed’s blatantly sexist hymn sheet was shared by Deputy Speaker Nazim, who also referred to the “young 18-19 year-old girls” who represent the Prosecutor General in court, and are allegedly posing a threat to national security. Neither MPs mentioned that the more educated members of the judiciary are to be found among the country’s youth and not among the ‘experienced judges’ most of whom have had very little legal training despite having been on the bench for long periods of time.

Putting the death penalty in an Islamic frame

The deeply personal nature of the Majlis’ debate on an issue of such national importance is extremely troubling. So too is the quality of the debate so far that has put the death penalty within the framework of Islam and Shar’ia. Very few MPs have displayed any knowledge of either the long and incessant international debate surrounding the death penalty, nor the rich Islamic jurisprudence on capital punishment. Nor did they demonstrate an understanding that the matter of gangs and rising crime cannot be solved by personal opinions but may need proper study and expert advice across the board on the criminal justice system.

One MP, Ahmed Saleem, for instance, declared all legislation as irrelevant and unnecessary given the completeness of the Qur’an. To clarify his claim, he presented MPs with a hypothetical scenario: “What if”, he said, “someone like Dr Shaheed [former Foreign Minister] were to say that there is nothing in the Qur’an on how to run a foreign ministry.” Such a claim can only be made out of ignorance, for the Qur’an does give guidance on foreign policy, he said.

“God created tribes, countries and states so as each can introduce themselves to the other… Had God made only one country, there would be no need for a Foreign Ministry.” Bang went the Treaty of Westphalia, centuries of diplomacy, and the concept of social constructs, all shot down to nothing with one sweeping statement.

Reducing the death penalty in Shari’a to mere advocacy to “kill the killer” is to reduce the rich and complex debate surrounding the death penalty in Shari’a to mere revenge. Such reductionism is a practice more often associated with those who criticise Islam from the outside than with those who speak in its praise from within.

Although all Muslims accept the permissibility of the death penalty because it is addressed in the Qur’an, its application is varied ranging from those who impose it to a short list of crimes to those who call for a moratorium on it altogether. Capital punishment in Islamic law, as reputed Islamic scholars have highlighted, has its own dhawabit (checks and balances). It is not imposed until due process has been observed, and all extenuating circumstances fully considered. Those who are calling for the death penalty ‘as per Sharia’ would also do well to remember, or to find out, that the state only has the power of execution – imposing it is not a power of the state.

Arguing against the death penalty in the United States from an Islamic perspective, Dr Azizah Y al-Hibri, professor at the T. C. Williams School of Law at Richmond University for example, has pointed out that in Shari’a it is the victim’s family alone that has the right to seek qisas (a form of retributive punishment) against the murderer. It is the majority view of Islamic scholars that if the victim’s family does not seek qisas in court, the state cannot do so on its initiative – unlike the common law system.

The state does have the power, however, to protect the public through other less retributive punishments such as confinement or exile: what the Maldivian state has opted to do for almost six decades. This restriction on the state is one of the most important – and relevant – aspects of the Shari’a to the current debate. It, or any other jurisprudence, has yet to be included in the discussions.

The importance of Shari’a’s restrictions on the state lies in the status of the judiciary as a branch of the state. Even in countries where the independence of the judiciary has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, restricting the power of the state to take away the life of its citizens is a crucial element of justice. When the state is authoritarian, when the judiciary is biased, or when other branches of the state exercise undue influence over the judiciary, it becomes essential for ensuring that life is not taken away arbitrarily.

Punishment without justice

Herein lies the crux of the matter. Questions over the independence of the Maldivian judiciary have now been at the forefront of public discourse for the better part of a year.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) recently published the results of its fact-finding mission to the Maldives in September last year. The report found the Maldivian courts to be failing in their duty to serve the public impartially and laid a lion’s share of the responsibility on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), charged with imposing and maintaining ethical and professional standards of the Maldivian judiciary.

The JSC has dismissed the ICJ report as “irresponsible” and the Constitutional stipulation to remove all unqualified and ethically questionable judges from the bench as “symbolic” with the result that a large number of the judiciary comprise of convicted felons and the morally dubious.

In 2010, the JSC received over 140 complaints against the judiciary, none of which have been investigated. Currently there a total of 115 complaints pending investigation at the JSC, accumulated from 2008 onwards till the present. Questions have been raised over the JSC’s fairness in its recent appointments to the High Court, and it is due to appear before the Supreme Court on the same issue.

Several other failures of the JSC have been equally blatant, but there appears no authority capable, or willing, to hold the JSC accountable. There is no agitation for reform or independence coming from within the law community itself. The Majlis, and its oversight committee supervising the conduct of independent commissions, is the only authority that can bring the JSC to account. So far, it has not done so in any meaningful way.

It should be noted, however, that at the end of last year, the Majlis committee did instigate an enquiry of sorts – one that raises more questions than answers them. The committee, whittled down from 11 to three members for unexplained reasons – all three of whom are lawyers – have been summoning individual JSC members for questioning. The matter raised in these enquiries, unusual both in the fact that it is summoning individual members to answer questions over the conduct of the Commission as a whole and in its closed nature, are secret and banned from media coverage. So far as is known, the enquiries have been of an administrative nature – who attended meetings when and such – rather than of an investigative nature probing the JSC’s refusal to carry out its constitutional duties.

The investigated and the investigators – where is the dividing line?

One of the characteristics of the debate on March 8, which brought the death penalty to the fore, was the determination of some MPs to blame the security forces of the country.

If only they were to be made answerable to the Majlis Oversight Committee on National Security, things would change, went the argument. Problem is, at the helm of the National Security Committee is Abdulla Yameen taken into ‘protective custody’ by the Maldives National Defence Forces (MNDF) in July 2010 and held on the island of Aarah, the Presidential Retreat, for nine days.

The police arrested Yameen on corruption charges earlier that month, but after about six hours in custody, the Criminal Court, in an extraordinary sitting held at midnight, ruled that Yameen should be released into ‘house arrest’. When supporters of the ruling Maldives Democratic Party (MDP) gathered outside his house, MNDF took him into what they called ‘protective custody’.

Yameen, claimed, however, that MNDF had detained him against his will. The Supreme Court found MNDF’s actions to have been in breach of the Constitution; the ICJ report was highly critical of the executive’s involvement in the actions. Currently Yameen is back at Court claiming millions of Rufiyaa in damages for his detention.

In the immediate aftermath of the debacle, the National Security Committee began to summon senior members of the MNDF and other members of the security apparatus before it. MDP MP Reeko Moosa Manik claimed the Committee’s actions were instigated as a form of revenge by Yameen against MNDF and called for his resignation from the Committee. It did not materialise.

In addition to the history of personal involvement between the security forces and Yameen, there is also the more recent spectre of allegations of corruption worth over US$800 million against Yameen published in various South Asian media outlets from India to Burma and the Maldives.

Yameen has denied the accusations, first published in Indian current affairs magazine, The Week on February 11, alleging that the scheme involved blackmarket oil deals between the State Trading Organisation (STO), when it was headed by Yameen, and the Burmese military junta.

More recently, the Democratic Voice of Burma, an independent Burmese news outlet, has connected the same oil-scam to the explosion of heroin in the Maldives in the early 2000s. The heroin addiction of a whole generation of Maldivian youth and its current problems with violence and drugs has been well documented, and its effects clear to see.

Even if the allegations are untrue, it is clearly in the public and national interest that any state figure of authority implicated in such serious offences, to declare a conflict of interest and distance themselves from holding sway over investigations with even the remotest of links to them personally.

There was no reference made to the personal history between Yameen, the president of the National Security Committee, when his fellow People’s Alliance (PA) party member, Deputy Speaker Nazim, so fervently proposed cooperation between the security forces as the solution to the country’s escalating problem of gang violence.

Own backyard

There are currently five bills crucial to the maintenance to law and order, security and crime reduction pending members’ attention at the Majlis. Chief among these, and pending the longest, is the Penal Code.

Submitted in October 2009, it has now been in the ‘committee stages’ for exactly 17 months to the day. Awaiting attention is also the Evidence Bill, submitted in just a month after the Penal Code, in November 2009.

The Narcotics Bill was submitted in March 2010, almost a year ago; and the Bill on Special Measures to Combat Crime was proposed a month later. Neither has passed the ‘committee stages’.

More recently submitted is the Jails and Parole Bill, pending since October last. Also awaiting Members’ deliberation is an amendment to the Police Act submitted in June 2010, and the Private Security Bill submitted the same month.

As a majority of the Majlis remains preoccupied with long recesses, extending their own privileges, boycotts and deadlocks, these vital pieces of legislation – without which even an unbiased judiciary would find it difficult to perform its duties – gathers to itself the dust of neglect.

MP Mohamed Musthafa, who proposed the Bill on Special Measures to Combat Crime in April 2010, accused members of the opposition of deliberately stalling its passage through the parliament. “If you push that Bill through, the credit will go to the government, there will be no advantage in that for us,” Musthafa said he was told by some opposition MPs. “Intoxication with politics is leading this country to its ruin,” he said.

As the issue opens up for debate at the Majlis again today, it remains to be seen whether any MP who calls for the imposition of the death penalty in order to fulfil its ‘Islamic duties’ refer to the manner in which the Qur’an urges the victim’s family to move forward and to forgive (Qur’an 2:178, 42:40) even as it provides for the right to demand qisas.

It also remains to be seen whether the same MPs would remind fellow members of the instances in which the Qur’an favours forgiveness over revenge or punishment and extols its virtues in many other contexts (Qur’an 42:40; 5:45; 2:237; 24:22; 2:109).

It will also be interesting to see, whether any of the debate calls on existing empirical evidence that reveals no direct link between capital punishment and deterrence of crime. Amnesty International has found, for example, that in the United States crime is lower in states where capital punishment is not practised compared to the states where it is.

Its conclusion was that: “The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime.”

Whatever the quality or outcome of the debate, the result will be a strong indicator as to how far the politicisation of life has travelled in the two years since the Maldives became a democracy. If it has come so far as to be able to impose its will beyond life to death, there is little hope that this government is capable, or willing, to resuscitate the increasingly moribund Maldivian democracy.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP MP proposes death penalty be administered if upheld by Supreme Court

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Rasheed has presented an amendment to the Clemency Act during yesterday’s parliament session, requiring the death penalty to be administered where the sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court.

While the Maldives theoretically has a death penalty under Islamic Shariah, in practice this has been implemented as a 25 year prison sentence.

In November 2010, the Criminal Court of the Maldives issued a death sentence to a person found guilty of murder. However the last person to actually be judicially executed was Hakim Didi in 1953, who was executed by firing squad after being found guilty of consipiracy to murder using black magic.

In last year’s death penalty verdict, the judge referred to article 88[d] of the Constitution, which stated that cases of murder should be dealt accordingly to Islamic Shariah, and that persons found guilty of murder ”shall be executed” if no inheritor of the victim denies the murderer to be executed, as according to Islamic Shariah.

According to MP Rasheed’s proposed amendment, if the Supreme Court upholds a death penalty ruled by a lower court, or if the Supreme Court itself serves death penalty to a person, the death penalty shall be executed.

Rasheed said he felt he had to present the amendment because of the increase in assaults and murder cases, which had “forced the living to live amid fear and threats.”

He noted that police were sending these cases to court after “thoroughly investigating and researching” them, but the reason the criminals were escaping was because the Prosecutor General was sending “young, untrained lawyers” to the courts. In many cases, he alleged, the PG’s office was not giving its lawyers the police investigation report.

In 2008 Rasheed said 104 cases of assault were sent to Prosecutor General, increasing to 454 in 2009 and 423 cases in 2010.

”I beg this esteemed Majlis to try and make the Prosecutor General accountable,” he said, adding that if his amendment was passed, “violence in this country will be eliminated.”

”In Quran, Sural Al Baqarah verse 178, God says: ‘O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty’,” he said. ”During broad day light in this very city of Male’ people have been chopped, sliced and crushed using axes, machetes – just like fish are chopped.”

”I am saying brains have leaked out, after being constantly hit by shovels until their skulls are crushed,” he said.

DRP MP Ali Waheed said that he supported “killing those who kill.”

Waheed claimed that “more than 600 youths have been charged in murder cases.”

However, he said, ”slaughtering those who murder is not the solution. We should first try an adequate measurement for this [penalty] instead of implementing death penalties.”

”The corpse found in Lhaviyani Atoll is being buried today after taking DNA samples. But [police] is not sure whether it is the corpse of the Kendhoo person who fell in to the Kaashidhoo Ocean or the corpse of the person missing from Naifaru,” said Ali Waheed. ”This is the situation today.”

President’s Member on the Judicial Services Commisson (JSC), Aishath Velezinee, who wrote her thesis on Sharia, equality and family law, said the country had to first attend to the issue of trust in the judiciary before discussing the death penalty.

“While Islam provides for the dealth penalty in certain cases where preconditions are met, there must be no doubt as to justice has been delivered. There must be absolute faith in the judicary for the death sentence to be delivered – it cannot be reverted,” she said.

“It is an affront to the constitution we adopted for parliament to be discussing this issue without first addressing the multitude of complaints against the JSC. Parliament has shown absolute disregard for the lack of independence of the judiciary.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Sharia punishments would be a sin given the current state of the judiciary

It is natural to want the Huddud (Laws of Qur’an and Sunnah) applied when one is experiencing so much death and tragedy as is happening in the Maldives.

But before the death penalty can be applied, the legal system must be absolutely objective. Unless there is a strong faith in the ability of the justice system, unless there is widespread faith that there are no incompetent judges or possibilities of bribery or subjectivity in the decision making procedure, it is a sin to implement Shariah Law which is a huge Amanah (trust) and MUST NOT BE TOYED WITH!

Before Maldives can implement Shariah, it MUST first establish widespread trust in the judiciary by through serious reform measures.

“O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.” [An-Nisa 4:35]

The law as we know it is believed by many to be a shocking betrayal of the Quran’s Amr (command) to ensure absolute objectivity. Adhaalath and Al-Qisas (social justice and equity for all) are a MUST before Hadd can be applied!

What if your children were put to death for a crime that was made up? False charges occur very frequently.

What if the drug dealers and corrupt ones who control court rooms in much of the world killed your son or daughter on charges of “terror” or manufactured charges of murder, zina or anything – but all your children really did was try to prevent the drug dealers from harming people? And were killed for that based on false charges made up that they committed zina?

As the Ummah is as one body, and one feels the pain of every other, I cannot but help fend for the potential victims of injustice under a system which sees the rich and powerful use the legal system to exterminate their enemies unjustly.

Think about all those who stood up against tyrants in world history, and imagine if they had of been killed by the State in the name of Islam even though they were fighting for True Islam which is Peace and Justice.

Real peace cannot exist in the absence of justice – how many crimes were manufactured against the activists of history?

It seems that in the system we have, to be a Muslim, which implies standing up for the downtrodden, sick and oppressed, is to sacrifice yourself. This is because truth suffers in this unjust world, but that suffering must be embraced for others if one is to be a person of true leadership, as a leader is called to be ‘a shield for others’ (in Sahih Muslim, Book of Government.)

In many societies, the real criminals walk away from the courts – and in fact control the courts, and that does not look like it can be changed!

So, the killers and the drug dealers will be killing the innocent and oppressed in the name of implementing Islamic Law. Does that sound like Islam to you? That is serious Fitnah (dissension) from Islam…

The Hukm (Law) is deeply sacred, it is a massive Amanah (trust) which must never be taken lightly or under estimated.

Allah is Al Quddus, the Holy, and every injustice is made right in the Qiyamat. Read the Hadith about what is in store in Jahannum for Muslim leaders who missapply the Shariah Law for political ends, or for the wrong Niyat.

A judge is to be held accountable for his motives, and it is a massive Zalim (darkness – injustice) to missapply the Shariah Law.

I do advise anyone wishing to implement the Law to be aware not to play politics with the Sacred Law.

On many occasions, the Prophet (SAW) did not implement the death penalty (Rajm) for certain Hadd level crimes although others frantically pushed for it to be implemented. This was because absolute objectivity could not always be guarenteed in the decision-making procedure.

For example, in the Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim, as narrated through Sahih Isnad (a reliable chain of narration) we read about some Muslims killing other Muslims because they were ‘not Muslim…’

They said Shahada only at the edge of the sword, it was claimed. In response to the claim that their Shahada was not genuine, the Prophet (SAW) said, “Did you cut their hearts open to see the Niyat (the quality of intention) of their hearts?’

The point being, if there is any chance that there could be a mistake, then only Allah (SWT) can judge in the Qiyamath, the judgement which is in the Akhira – the afterlife. Unless absolute objectivity can be guaranteed, the Prophet did not implement or advise Hadd.

On other occasions, according to Sahih Isnad in Bukhari and Muslim, it was obvious that a child was not the child of the father who thought they were the father. For Malsahah (social utility) the Prophet (SAW) said the child belongs to whom’s bed on which it was born. It was not beneficial to prescribe Hadd though it was technically due.

The Merciful essence of Islam and the Islamic intent of social harmony, social justice, would be betrayed by Hadd in such circumstances although Hadd was technically due.

A Qadi must be a qualified Mujtahid and must investigate the issue extensively before making a decision. Notice the word Mujtahid, notice how this word for study and decision making about the Law requires Jihad – striving or struggle – as is contained in the word. If a Judge exhausts all avenues of possible doubt, only then will he be rewarded for decision making, and those doubts include ones own heart’s doubts!

Justice and truth must exist in the heart of the people before it can be applied to the courts and the system.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Death penalty and Shari’a are the answer to escalating violence in the Maldives, say MPs

Imposing the death penalty, following Shari’a, and harsher prison conditions are the best way forward for solving the increasing violence in Maldivian society, several MPs have stated.

Fares-Maathodaa MP Ibrahim Muththalib said the major problem faced by society today is the decision of the criminal justice system to ignore Shari’a. “We cast aside the Shari’a and adopted man-made sentencing laws”, he said, making today’s violent society possible.

“Instead of being put to death, murderers are allowed to languish in prisons, given the opportunity to get married and to procreate. We cannot stop the violence without stopping such practices. We cannot stop such problems without a death for death policy”, Muththalib told the Majlis.

“I believe that if you impose the death sentence on just two people in this country, there will no longer be anyone left who will kill. If you amputate the hands of two people in this country, there will be no more thieves left. We have to think about how we can establish these principles of Islam”, Muththalib said.

The debate began after an emergency motion tabled by Hoarafushi MP Ahmed Rasheed on Monday to discuss the violent murder of 81-year-old business man, Hussein Manik, on September 27 in Hoarafushi.

“Those who kill should be killed”, Rasheed said, introducing the motion. “We should amend our penal system to ensure that those who endanger the lives of others would be held in solitary confinement for life, and are never eligible for parole”, Rasheed told the Majlis.

If the murderers of Mohamed, or “any criminals of the sort” should ever return to Hoarafushi, he said, he would personally lead a campaign to provide justice to the people of the island. “I will not hesitate, even if it means that I personally get entangled in the law.”

Madaveli MP Mohamed Nazim agreed that the death penalty, as in the Shari’a, was the answer. “Islam is unequivocal that the penalty for death should be death”. The current violence in the country is a consequence of ignoring or violating the teachings of Islam, he said.

“Otherwise, had we maintained the principle of death for death the murderer would not be there to kill again, or to encourage others to kill. The problems we are confronting today is a consequence of ignoring this principle, which would have set an example for the Ummah and the nation’, he said.

Nazim also said there is no need to amend the country’s murder laws, as the death penalty already exists. “I do not see anything in the penal code that says the penalty for murder should be changed to 25 years imprisonment”.

Nazim said that unless and until the death penalty is imposed, as it is stated in the current penal code, the escalating violence in the Maldives could not be stopped.

Thoddoo MP Ali Waheed attributed the increase in violent crime to the lack of proper prisons. “People who should be behind bars are sitting around on the beaches, sucking on butts and all sorts of things – this is the result”, he said.

Drugs, agreed several MPs, were the main cause for the increase in violence in the Maldives. “We know that sometimes people can get intoxicated to such an extent that they become unaware of their own actions. Sometimes murder can be committed,” said Vilifushi area MP Riyaz Rasheed.

MPs themselves should set a good example, and allegations of intoxicating substances being found in their places of residence or their vehicles are not helping matters, Riyaz Rasheed said.

“Pictures of official delegations abroad show them drinking some sort of a yellow liquid”, he said. Unless such ways are amended, there would be no solution to the social problems of the Maldives today, Riyaz Rasheed said.

Maavashu member Abdul Azeez Jamal Abubakr suggested that religious scholars can make the most important contribution to the problems in society. Perjury, he said, is a major problem in Maldivian courts.

The gravity of such an act, as stated in Islam, should be made clear. “It is incumbent upon religious scholars to relay the ominous penalties that await such actions in Islam”, he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)