Tag: terrorism

Comment: Maldivian government endorses Deobandi Islam, the religion of the Taliban

The Religious Unity Regulations have provided the clearest indication yet of the official direction religion in the Maldives is taking: towards Deobandi Islam, the religion of the Taliban.

Among 36 institutions of Islamic learning approved by the regulations is the ultra-orthodox Jamia Darul Uloom in Deoband, India and at least six affiliated madrassas.

Established in 1867 to bring together Muslims who were hostile to British rule, the Deoband madrassa, created the so-called ‘Deobandi Tradition’ committed to a literal and austere interpretation of Islam. For the last 200 years, the Deobandi Tradition has argued that the reason Islamic societies have fallen behind the West on all spheres of endeavour is because they have been seduced by the amoral West, and have deviated from the original teachings of Prophet Mohammed.

It is the fundamentalist Deobad Da-ul-Uloom brand of Islam that inspired the Taliban movement. Many of the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan and in Pakistan are graduates of the Deobandi-influenced seminaries in Pakistan. Mullah Omar, for example, attended the Deobandi Darul Uloom Haqqania madrassa in Peshawar.

The Kabul Centre for Strategic Studies has reported that so many of the Taliban leaders were educated at the school that its head cleric, Maulana Sami ul-Haq is regarded the father of the Taliban. The Deobandi Tradition is highly critical of Islam as practised in modern societies, feeling that the established religious order had made too many compromises with its foreign environment.

The mission of the Deoband is to cleanse Islam of all Western influences, and to propagate their teachings with missionary zeal. Increasingly, the Deobandi movement has been funded by the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, leading to the former being co-opted by the latter.

Without a clear indication – such as ‘Darul Uloom’ appearing in the name of the institution – it cannot be said with certainty how many of the total of 10 listed Pakistani institutions in the regulations  are categorically Deobandi.

Available facts suggest, however, that more than just the two Darul Ulooms listed in the Regulations are Deobandi. It is the Deobandi that has the largest number of religious seminaries in Pakistan – of 20,000 registered seminaries in Pakistan, 12,000 are run by Deobandi scholars; and 6,000 by the Barlevi, with whom the Deobandi have many disputes.

Among the 10 Pakistani institutions approved by the regulations is also Jamia Salafia, a seminary whose alumni include several leaders in Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba, the organisation behind the Mumbai terror attacks in which a Maldivian is alleged to have participated. It is also the leading supplier of Salafi neo-conservatism in the Maldives.

Even when the approved list of institutions in the regulations’ list goes beyond South Asian borders, it gravitates towards the Deobandi movement. The list includes, for example, the Dhaarul Uloom Zakariya in South Africa. The only institute in Britain the regulations approve of is the Islamic Da’wa Academy, a place which produces the Muslim equivalent of a missionary. Why is there such an acute need to proselytise in a country where the population already believes in Islam except to propagate a particular view?

The Deoband HQ has recently sought to distance itself from violent extremism. For the powers that be in the War on Terror, what matters is the graduation from extremism to violence. But, for societies such as the Maldives, and for the people who have to live under its precincts, what matters more is the oppression that extremism imposes on daily life. This is the reality that a Maldivian people living under the Religious Unity Regulations will have to face.

The application of the Deobandi school of thought on Maldivian women is a frightening prospect that is not too far in the distant future. The Taliban’s stance on women is a clear indication of the scale of the potential problem. An example of the Deobandi’s take on women is the 24 April 2010 Fatwa by the seminary in Deoband that declared it ‘haraam’ and illegal according to Sharia for a family to accept a women’s earnings.

‘It is unlawful for Muslim women to do job in government or private institutions where men and women work together and women have to talk with men frankly and without veil.’

Embarrassed by the angry reaction in the Indian media and among women’s groups, the Deoband madrassa denied it banned women from the work place and only insisted that working women be ‘properly covered’. As analysts have pointed out, however, what the Fatwa suggests is that women can only work in such places where they can fully veil themselves and where they cannot ‘frankly’ talk to men, whatever that means. The Fatwa effectively banned Muslim women from the workplace in India.

The Religious Unity Regulations stipulate that no one should propagate their particular ideology of Islam as the ‘right Islam’. This stipulation looks good in writing, and is perhaps what has allowed the government to spin the document as ‘a crack-down on extremism’.

It is true the regulations prohibit the promotion of a particular ideology of Islam as the ‘true Islam’. But by regulating what truth about Islam would be considered as legitimate in the first place, a pre-selected knowledge of the ‘right Islam’ – what looks like Deobandi Islam – is being imposed on the people that pre-empts the regulations themselves. It is clear from the staggering changes that have occurred in Maldivian faith in the last decade that the Deobandi movement has been a resounding success in the country. Now it has the chance to flourish further, with no conflicting opinions to be allowed in.

Clamping down on other forms of Islam is, in fact, a defining characteristic of the Deobandi Tradition. Although from a global perspective the Deobandis are only one of many religious expressions of Islam, from the Deobandi point of view, theirs is the only true Islam.

The Deobandi regard all other forms of Islam as heretical, leading to continued tension and long-term violence between the Deobandi and other Muslims. In Pakistan, where the Deobandi is known to have played a crucial role in establishing an Islamic state, the Deobandi Taliban have carried out many acts of violence against followers of the Berlevi tradition, which many Pakistan’s Muslims follow.

The Religious Unity Regulations have already created tensions among those who have claimed the mantle of ‘religious scholar’ in the Maldives. The Islamic Foundation of the Maldives is arguing against the Regulations on the basis that the requirement of a first degree as a prerequisite for the Preachers License is unconstitutional. It is also fighting for the religious right to describe Jews as ‘evil people and liars’.

The Adhaalath Party, meanwhile, has objected to the regulations because the President and his advisors apparently watered down the purity of their contributions to the draft Regulations by contaminating it with “provisions from English law…not suited to a 100 percent Muslim country”, echoing the founding principles of the Deobandi Tradition.

‘Compared to the first draft’, President’s advisor on the Regulations, Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, said, “the regulations do not impinge on freedom of expression”.

What matters is not whether, comparatively speaking, the first draft is a veritable Magna Carta. What matters is the final draft that has been gazetted. And it severely restricts the freedom of the Maldivian people in the name of the ‘right Islam’ – Deobandi Islam. To spin the document as something that “will allow liberal-minded thinkers to convince people of the middle ground” is deliberately misleading if not an outright lie. This document does the exact opposite.

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)

New religious unity regulations crack down on extremist preaching in Maldives

New religious unity regulations have been published in the government’s gazette cracking down on extremist and unlicensed preaching of Islam in the Maldives.

The regulations reflect the enforcement of the Religious Unity Act and were originally put forward by the Islamic Ministry, but have undergone numerous drafts and revisions over the past year. The penalty for violating the regulations under the Act is 2-5 years imprisonment, banishment or house arrest.

Under the regulations – the government’s interpretation of the Act – scholars foreign or local must be licensed to preach in the Maldives by the Islamic Ministry, and have received at least a first degree at one of 36 listed universities.

None of these are Maldivian institutions, although the regulations stipulate that new institutions would be evaluated on a case by case basis, and the list reviewed every three months.

The regulations contain general principles for the delivery of religious sermons. These include an emphasis on specifically referencing the Quran when statements are made, and clarifying the authenticity of Hadith.

Preachers are instructed not to express anything “against general agreement” reached among Islamic scholars, or provide any information “ about issues disputed among Islamic scholars that serves to create disunity among the people and result in internal conflicts.”

The regulations also require preachers to refrain “from passing off as Islam one’s personal stand – that may result in obstruction of human progress and development and hinder modern findings and intellectual advancements.”

Controversially, preachers are also asked not to preach in a manner that flaunts human dignity, that may be interpreted as racial and gender discrimination, prevent people from education or health services in the name of Islam, or demeans the character or creates hatred towards people of any other religion.

Foreign scholars preaching in the Maldives “should not talk against Maldives’ social norms, nor should they criticise Maldives’ domestic policies and laws,” the regulations state.

It remains illegal to propagate any other religion other than Islam, and to carry or display in public books on religions other than Islam, “and the translation into Dhivehi language such books and writings on other religions.” Proselytising by foreigners remains punishable by deportation.

Articles involving comparisons between Islam and other religions, “and description of sayings and expressions about Islam by people of other religions, and dissemination of Muslim expressions on other religions”, are exempt, according to the regulations.

Media is banned from producing or publicising programs, talking about or disseminating audio “that humiliates Allah or his prophets or the holy Quran or the Sunnah of the Prophet (Mohamed) or the Islamic faith.”

“This also includes the broadcasting of material (on other religions) produced by others and recording of such programs by the local broadcaster, and broadcasting such material by the unilateral decision of the local broadcaster,” the regulations stipulate.

Reaction

At a press conference today, the Islamic Foundation of Maldives (IFM) contended that the regulations conflicted with both the Maldivian constitution and the Quran.

In February this year, the IFM filed a case at the High Court requesting that outdated provisions in the Protection of Religious Unity Act of 1994 be abolished.

Article 2(b) of the Act states that permission to preach or offer instruction in religious matters must be sought in writing with the President.

Islamic Foundation Lawyer Shaheem Ahmed argued today that the Act conflicted with article 27 of the constitution, which states that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and the freedom to communicate opinions and expressions in a manner that is not contrary to any tenet of Islam.”

“Sadly however no hearings have been conducted in this case so far. We don’t know why this is so,” he said.

In addition, Shaheem argued, the Ministry of Islamic Affairs did not have the legal authority to enact regulations that restricts or limits fundamental rights and freedoms enumerated in chapter two of the constitution.

Article 16 states that the rights and freedoms contained in the chapter could be restricted “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by a law enacted by the People’s Majlis”.

“After this regulation was approved, from this day onward no one without a degree could teach Islam in any school in the country,” he said, adding that imparting knowledge of Islam by a person without a degree would also be illegal.

As provision 5(l) of the regulations prohibits speech that could “incite hatred among the public, demean or undermine the human dignity of followers of another religion,” Shaheem noted that the Quran described Jews as “evil people and liars” and cautioned against “taking Jews as your friends.”

“Would expressing something like this from the Quran incite hatred or love towards us from Jews?” he asked. “The people who formulated this regulation should consider that the basis of Islam is the Quran.”

Quran 2:120 states that, “Never will the Jews or Christians be pleased with you till you follow their religion” while 5:51 reads, “Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya’ (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya’ to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya’, then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust).”

Sheikh Ibrahim Fareed Ahmed meanwhile called on Islamic Minister Dr Abdul Majeed Bari to “repent” for approving a regulation that conflicted with the Quran.

“[The regulations] obstruct the freedom granted by Almighty God to spread Islam. It is therefore completely void,” he claimed.

Fareed called on the government to review the regulations and reconsider enforcing the new rules, urging Islamic Minister Bari to consult religious scholars who were not Adhaalath party members and “not make such decisions on your own.”

“We urge very respectfully and with affection, to reconsider this and change [the regulations] so that it does not conflict with the Quran,” he said. “And don’t try to narrow Islamic matters in the country.”

IFM President Ibrahim Fauzee meanwhile revealed that the foundation was preparing to mount a legal challenge to the regulations at the Supreme Court.

Adhaalath Party condemns regulations

The Adhaalath Party, which controls the Islamic Ministry, issued a press statement today criticising the removal of “very important principles” from the original draft, and distanced the party’s religious scholars from the regulations.

The statement notes that the regulations were drafted by a legal team from police and 11 prominent religious scholars and approved by three Attorney Generals.

“We would like to inform the beloved Maldivian people that the party condemns [the changes] in the harshest terms and the party’s religious scholars and members renounces the gazetted regulations,” it reads.

“We note that provisions from English law have been added that were not in the regulations before and are not suited to a 100 percent Islamic community. We also note that other dangerous changes have been made to the regulations,” reads the statement signed by Sheikh Ilyas Hussein, vice-president of Adhaalath party’s council of religious scholars.

“While the Minister of Islamic Affairs [Dr Bari, president of the religious scholars council] was requested to not agree to publishing the regulations in the gazette without consultation with the party’s
scholars, we want to reveal that the regulations were brought out in the form it is in the gazette without any discussion at all with Adhaalath party’s council of religious scholars.”

Among the clauses that were removed were provisions outlining criteria for issuing preaching licenses, and prohibitions on broadcasting “un-Islamic” material.

These included provisions that preachers must be Sunni, and according to the Adhaalath Party, a provision requiring that religious fatwas (edicts or rulings) must be issued in accordance with the Sunni sect
was also removed, and so-called ‘blasphemy’ laws appeared to be toned down.

Laws forbidding independent prayer congregations were also scrapped.

The amendment regulations published in the government gazette yesterday was made up of 12 provisions, whereas previous drafts contained 40 provisions and a number of sub-clauses.

A more ‘academic’ approach

Former member of the Special Majlis and the new Constitution’s drafting committee, Ibrahim ‘Ibra’ Ismail, who was involved in redrafting the regulations, told Minivan News that they set out a more “academic” approach to preaching Islam in the Maldives, and were targeted at curbing the spread of extremism.

“[The regulations] do not impinge on freedom of expression, compared to the first draft, and I believe we have taken out those elements,” Ibra said.

“We have observed in this country and elsewhere that there are people who misquote the Quran and twist it around to propagate their agenda. These provisions curb that,” he explained.

“What in effect we are ensuring is that preachers should not say whatever comes to their mind. We say that if those preaching religion must refer to sources – the Quran and the Prophet’s sayings – so someone can independently verify if they wish.

“Where scholars deliver sources on areas and issues that are in dispute, these regulations require that they should state that,” he said.

“We put in a provision that prohibits hate speech, such as no one should propagate xenophobia or negative sentiments towards other religious.”

The criminalisation of those who violated the Act was not stipulated by the regulations, but in law, he explained.

“Currently the parliament is reviewing the relevant legislation (the Religous Unity Act), what we are doing is simply setting out how this can be enforced,” Ibra said, confirming that 2-5 years sentences was “more or less” what was in the Act.

Enforcement would ultimately be a court decision, he explained, with the Islamic Ministry only having the right to temporarily suspend preaching license pending the outcome of the court decision.

Ibra suggested that religious groups active in the Maldives – such as the Islamic Foundation of the Maldives and Jamiyyath-al-Salaf – should welcome the regulations, “as until now there has been a move by some people to silence them. These regulations do not silence them, but ask them to engage and follow procedures in their work. There are no ramifications for any particular group – again this different to what was originally proposed.”

He disputed that outlawing extremist preaching would drive the practice underground, and lead to a repeat of the 2007 Himandhoo incident, in which islanders donned red motorcycle helmets and armed themselves with batons and knives to defend the Dhar al Khuir mosque from a police crackdown.

In the ensuing skirmish, a policeman was taken captive and another’s hand was severed. Shortly afterwards a video discovered on an Al Qaeda forum was found to contain footage taken inside the Dhar-al-khuir mosque moments before it was raided by police.

“Himandhoo  was not based on religion – those where highly politicised times,” Ibra said. “What I believe is that this will allow liberal-minded thinkers to convince people of the middle ground. Initially there may be some reactions, but I’m optimistic.”

Download an unofficial translation of the new regulations (English)

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

How the US discovered the Maldives in the aftermath of 9/11

Before 2002, Maldives was over the horizon and off the radar of the American embassy in Colombo charged with following Sri Lankan and Maldivian affairs. Busy with the Sri Lankan civil war at its doorstep, the embassy kept no representative in Maldives. Following the 2001/9/11 attacks, US anti-terrorism responses required the Colombo embassy to fully engage with Maldives for the first time. The US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that it was a discomforting experience for both parties.

US officials wanted an interactive relationship with a government controlled for over two decades by President Maumoon Gayoom. After 24 years of his rule, the American diplomats knew almost nothing about him and his administration. Regardless, the US expected Maldives to enact anti-terrorism laws and sign an Article 98 agreement making Maldivian-US prisoner exchange procedures immune from the International Criminal Court. There was also the matter of Ibrahim Fauzee, a Maldivian terrorist suspect being held at Guantanamo Bay.

In December 2001, the embassy praised Maldives as ‘extremely cooperative in its dealings with the international coalition.’ The brief period of extreme cooperation was followed by a long hiatus.

Nearly a year later, ‘during coffee breaks and over lunch’ at a counter terrorism conference in Washington, US officials were told by Maldivian delegates that terrorist legislation was held up because Maldives ‘does not even have a formal criminal code and needs further assistance developing the legal framework for countering terrorism.’

In fact, Maldives has had a criminal code since 1968, which was updated in 1981. A broad anti-terrorism law had been ratified by President Gayoom in 1990. However, mention of administrative and legal inadequacy brought immediate rewards after the conference, with the US financing ‘two slots to the Maldives Law Commission to attend the Tulane University Legislative Drafting course in New Orleans.’

The Maldivian delegates also described a ‘back log’ of legislation awaiting ‘refinement’ by their Law Commission, including ‘a securities act, a telecommunications act, a customs act and a civil aviation act.’ The embassy could not assess this information. Similarly, details of a minor cabinet and diplomatic corps reshuffle by Gayoom in October 2002 were cabled by the embassy without comment or analysis.

Effective lobbying from Ibrahim Fauzee’s family prompted the Maldivian government in November 2002 to request access to him at Guantanamo Bay. For the US, Fauzee’s detention seemed to reinforce the importance of counter-terrorism legislation. It was time for a serious meeting.

In December 2002, US officials sat down with senior Maldivians in Male and demanded that Maldives sign an Article 98 agreement. Sri Lanka had already signed in November, and the US was impatient for Maldivians to comply. States that refused were being removed from US Aid programs.

This time the Maldivians did not blame the delays on bureaucratic ‘back log’ or the absence of a legal system. Rather, it was President Gayoom’s busy travel schedule, and the need for ‘weighing whether the U.S. proposal “conformed with Maldivian law” and was in the country’s “foreign policy interest”.’

The Maldivian officials linked consent to an Article 98 agreement with a request from Gayoom to meet with President George Bush. Gayoom would ‘deeply appreciate the honor of even a very short meeting… [He] was up for re-election next year and, as a politician, a meeting with President Bush was especially important to him at this time.’

At the December 2002 meeting the Maldivians learned that access to Fawzy in Guantanamo was being granted. The US seemed keen to have Maldivian security officers question him. In its cable, the embassy admits it had collected information about Fawzy ‘that surfaced on the anti-GoRM [Government of the Republic of Maldives] website “Sandhaanu”.’

The meeting’s final item was the desire of the Maldivian government for continued Least Developed Country (LDC) status, due for review by the UN Committee for Development Policy in April 2003. Maldives ‘would appreciate strong US support on this issue, as it had received in the past.’

In these secret negotiations, the US and Maldivian positions were clear: The Americans wanted an Article 98 agreement immediately, while Gayoom wanted cheap loans and a photo opportunity with Bush before the Maldivian Presidential referendum. Both countries wanted to question Ibrahim Fawzy when it was convenient.

During their stay in Male, US officials also took a keen interest in politics and subversion trials. In a second cable about the December visit, the Americans reported discussions with government officials and others about the 2003 Presidential referendum. The acting Indian High Commissioner ‘revealed Gayoom maintained strong support in a Majlis stocked with family members and close friends.’

The attorney-general Mohamed Munavvar told US officials that ‘Mohammed Zaki, Ahammaadhee, and Ibrahim Luthfee, all Maldivian nationals, had been convicted of subversion in July and sentenced to terms ranging from 15 to 25 years in prison… The objective of the group, according to Munavvar, was to undermine President Gayoom’s government and replace it with some sort of Islamist regime.’

This cable did not mention the actual reason for the subversion charges against the three men – the production of the emailed magazine Sandhaanu and its website – the same website used by the embassy to gather intelligence information on Fawzy.

Munnavvar confirmed to US officials that ‘Ibrahim Fareed, a Muslim cleric from Male was under arrest. Fareed would be tried soon on charges of disturbing “religious harmony”. Munavvar thought that Fareed would probably be convicted and sentenced to four years imprisonment. He said Fareed’s offense involved repeated sermons in which he asserted that the government was not following Islamic law. It was not clear whether Fareed had international connections, but he had studied in Qatar.’

The reality was that Ibrahim Fareed’s sermons were more a threat to religious apathy than harmony, for which the attorney general was predicting a four year sentence.

When asked about the banning of the Monday Times magazine, the attorney general ‘denied that the magazine had been banned, but he admitted that the government had urged its publisher not to print it any longer.’

US officials learned that ‘Gayoom, his family, and his allies hold virtually all of the top government jobs, and they also control most of the lucrative commercial enterprises.’ The officials noted that ‘a brittle response to the so far gentle requests for further democratization could provoke opposition.’

The embassy did not question the severity of the sentences handed out to Zaki, Ahammaadhee, and Luthfee, while Mohamed Bushry and his publisher and father-in-law Zahir Hussein (a long-term close friend and supporter of Gayoom) faced no charges or lengthy prison sentences for their efforts with the Monday Times.

The Gayoom government’s provocative responses ‘to the so far gentle requests for further democratization’ raised no misgivings among the US representatives, and they decided the President’s ‘grip on power seems solid into the foreseeable future.’

Undemocratic Maldivian political processes and human rights abuses aside, over the next few months the embassy remained focused on an Article 98 agreement.

In January 2003, the Maldives foreign minister Fatulla Jameel assured the US ambassador that Maldives considered an Article 98 agreement almost superfluous. ‘The Maldivian government would never turn over a U.S. national to the International Criminal Court,’ said Jameel. ‘The Maldivian government would not sign the ICC treaty and would not respect its claim to universal jurisdiction.’

In March 2003, the US invaded Iraq. The Colombo embassy reported there were no demonstrations in Maldives against the war, and that ‘government-controlled’ Haveeru was carrying reports of events without comment.

An article 98 agreement was ready for signing as the invasion occurred, but there were further delays for the impatient US embassy which was ‘in close and constant touch with the Maldivian government, pressing it to sign the non-surrender of nationals agreement as soon as possible… The Maldivians have, so far, made it very clear to us that they want Jameel to be the principal who signs the document for their side.’

The agreement was eventually enforced by Gayoom’s executive decree, but not before a US official suggested that ‘bureaucratic confusion leading to inertia in the government… is endemic’ in the Maldives. The problems were within the Majlis and administration, which as the embassy knew, were controlled by ‘Gayyoom, his family and his allies’. In such an environment, delays could be due to connivance as much as ineptitude.

With the Article 98 agreement finally concluded, US officials in July 2003 promoted the payoff to Maldives, namely a positive response to a request for continued Least Developed Country (LDC) status. ‘Embassy strongly believes meeting this modest request will go a long way towards reassuring the Maldives that their recent helpfulness to us (Article 98 signature, support for the war on terrorism) is not unrequited.’ Military and other diplomatic considerations were also listed in support of the LDC favour.

To be truly convincing, the embassy’s geo-political and great buddy arguments required an additional economic impact analysis. A US delegation spent three days in Male in July, where they heard first from foreign minister Fathulla Jameel, his senior officials and the Indian High Commissioner. All argued that continued LDC status would protect the country from ‘the threat of Islamic extremism’.

The US visitors were treated to meetings with other government officials and their associates, who repeated the same lines. The foreigners learned that Male had ‘a population density 50 percent greater than that of Manhattan’ and there were ‘vast inequalities in wealth between residents of Male and those of the outer atolls’ where many Maldivians lived in poverty. ‘Some NGO officials said 20 percent of the population is estimated to live on less than one USD a day.’ Maldives had 200 inhabited islands, the US officials discovered, and they heard tales of high atoll development costs and many unemployed young people, but these facts were not enough to change the delegation’s forgone conclusions.

Though LDC status was not delivering on the 199 inhabited islands outside Male, the US embassy cable chorused Gayoom officials and proclaimed ‘the development of the Maldives continues to hinge on the international aid and favorable trading agreements it receives as a result of its LDC status.’

That same month, the status of Ibrahim Luthfee, convicted subversive emailer and Sandhaanu producer, was raised with the embassy by ‘a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection officer… [who] stated that Luthfee’s case was under review to determine possible refugee status. Pending the outcome of this review, UNHCR planned to contact Mission to ascertain possible resettlement in the U.S.’

The embassy’s understanding of Luthfee’s case was blinkered. It knew he was involved in ‘a website that carried anti-GoRM information.’ The embassy repeated what it had been told by Gayoom’s officials: ‘This individual, Ibrahim Luthfee, was convicted along with two other Maldivian nationals of subversion in July 2002 and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. In explaining the long sentences, the Maldivian government had told us that the three were extremists bent on overthrowing President Gayoom’s government and replacing it with an Islamic state.’

Though they were happy to parrot a condemnation of Luthfee, the Americans seemed not to be aware that Maldives was already officially an Islamic state. Nor did the Americans share Gayoom’s belief in the extraordinary powers of Sandhaanu. The US officials noted without concern that the previous year it ‘carried some anti-U.S. and pro-Al-Qaeda content’, and many months later ‘the website is still in operation’.

In August 2003, the US embassy repeated the predictions of its informants in Maldives, reporting that ‘Gayoom and his ruling circles seem to be relatively popular’ with the proviso that ‘there are no polls, so this perception is anecdotal.’ Gayoom had ‘the wind of solid economic indices behind his back’, and this was expected to overcome criticism of the ‘only marginally democratic presidential selection process, which has chronically produced non-competitive races in the past.’ The US embassy suggests that ‘this system might well have to be adjusted and opened up.’

The same month, two senior Maldivian security officers questioned Ibrahim Fauzee at Guantanamo. The Maldivian officers reported the results of their interrogation to US officials in Colombo, and the embassy then distanced Fauzee from suspicious activities. He was ‘residing briefly in an apartment whose owner apparently had a tertiary connection to an individual who had connections to Al-Qaida/Taliban elements,’ according to their cable.

The Maldivian interrogators revealed that Fauzee had travelled to Pakistan from Maldives via Kenya in early 2000, staying in Kenya 10-12 days waiting for a Pakistani government No Objection Certificate. Maldivians travelling to Pakistan usually obtained these certificates in Sri Lanka, the Maldivian officers said. Also, Fauzee would not reveal the source of the US$1200 used to purchase his air ticket to Kenya, and he ‘claimed not to remember his activities during his time in Kenya.’

Nevertheless, the embassy cable exonerated Fauzee: ‘he did not subscribe to Islamic extremist thinking and he expressed sadness about the September 11, 2001, attacks.’ The Americans raised no objections when the Maldivian officers said that Fauzee would not likely face any charges should he be returned to the Maldives.’

Above all, the return of Fauzee would make Gayyoom’s government happy, and ‘in his 25 years in power, President Gayoom’s regime has been no friend of extremism, locking up a number of Maldivians who it felt strayed too far from the government-imposed moderate Islamic orthodoxy.’

For old times sake, and in recognition of those Maldivians already incarcerated, Fawzy was to be returned, freed and forgiven. It was curious behaviour from both the Maldivians and the Americans, given their proclaimed fear of Al-Qaeda-style Islamic extremism. Fauzee may have been only the friend of a friend with ‘connections to Al-Qaida/Taliban elements’ but he, and young Maldivians like him, were closer to real extremism than the jailed Maldivian emailers and the preacher facing 4 years in prison.

On September 15, the embassy continued to claim that there was ‘little sign of serious political dissonance’. Three days later the embassy cabled, without comment, a full copy of the 2003 Human Rights Report for the Republic of Maldives. It included a devastating critique of the Maldivian justice system and the powers of the President: ‘The Constitution does not provide for an independent judiciary, and the judiciary is subject to executive influence. In addition to his authority to review High Court decisions, the President influences the judiciary through his power to appoint and dismiss judges, all of whom serve at his pleasure and are not subject to confirmation by the Majlis.’

Before Gayoom had a decent opportunity to deny everything, there was a devastating display of social disorder on the weekend of September 20 and 21, with a torture death and mass shootings at Maafushi jail and riots in Male directed against government buildings and property.

On 23 September 2003, two days after the violence, the US embassy critically analysed Maldivian government statements for the first time. ‘These unprecedented riots were apparently triggered by mistreatment of prisoners but quickly mushroomed into a broader expression of discontent. Maldivian officials are quick to assert that the disturbances are not connected to the just-launched Presidential selection process, although we find it interesting that the Elections Commission was one of the buildings put to the torch.’

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

PG charges Shahum with terrorism through gang violence

The Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office has charged Ibrahim Shahum Adam with terrorism through gang violence, alleging that he murdered 17 year-old Mohamed Hussein and 21 year-old Ahusan Basheer.

Haveeru reported that Shahum denied the charges and again asked for time to find a lawyer.

Shahum was recently sentenced to a year in prison for attacking a student in an Imam course they were both studying. If convicted on terrorism, he faces execution, banishment or life imprisonment.

Haveeru reported that following today’s hearing, Shahum threatened journalists present that “you should consider your own safety.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives President expresses sympathy after Norway terror attack kills 92

President Mohamed Nasheed has sent a message of sympathy to His Majesty King Harald V of Norway, after a bomb attack in Oslo and a shooting rampage on Utoeya Island killed 92 people on Friday.

Norwegian police have since arrested 32 year-old right-wing anti-Islam fanatic Anders Behring Breivik, as the country comes to terms with its worst attack since World War II and the single worst attack by a lone gunman.

85 of the casualties were young people attending the annual summer camp for the youth wing of Norway’s ruling Labour party.

One of the survivors told news agency Reuters that the gunman was dressed as a policeman and “would tell people to come over: ‘It’s OK, you’re safe, we’re coming to help you.’ And then I saw about 20 people come toward him and he shot them at close range.”

Another survivor told media that Breivik “seemed very focused. He took his time and picked victims out one by one. People lay on the ground, and he went over them and shot them in the back. He shot them all twice to make sure they were dead.”

Breivik had undergone compulsory military training as part of Norway’s national service and held licenses for several firearms, including automatic weapons. He surrendered to armed police who arrived at the Utoeya Island camp 40 minutes after being called by panicked attendees.

Police are investigating whether the car bomb, which exploded outside government offices in Oslo, was linked to Brevik’s purchase of six tons of fertiliser for a farm he bought 10 weeks ago.

Al-jazeera reported that under Norwegian law, Breivik faces a maximum sentence of 21 years extendable indefinitely in five year increments.

Norway has meanwhile entered a period of national mourning.

“This is beyond comprehension. It’s a nightmare,” Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg told press in Oslo.

In his letter to the Norwegian King, President Nasheed said he was “deeply shocked and saddened to hear about the bomb attack on government buildings in Oslo and the subsequent shooting on Utoeya Island. The Government and the people of the Maldives and I condemn this wanton act of terror in the strongest terms. At this time of distress I extend my profound sympathy and support to Your Majesty, the Government and the people of Norway.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives desperate to maintain paradise image amid rising extremism: The Diplomat

Desperate to maintain its image as a tourist paradise, the Maldives is boosting co-operation with regional partners to combat the threat of militants, writes Berkshire Miller for current affairs magazine The Diplomat.

“Senior officials in Washington and New Delhi continue to express concern that madrassas funded by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have the potential to radicalise Maldivian young people through jihadist doctrine. Such fears were given some credence in 2006, when three Maldivians were detained in Sri Lanka on suspicion that they were using the country to transit to Pakistan to join a jihadi training camp. It’s with cases like this in mind that the Maldives’ National Central Bureau – which heads up intelligence and national security operations – remains invested in its partnership with Sri Lanka’s Criminal Investigations Department to enhance intelligence sharing on terrorism and national security issues.

“More generally, India is alarmed by the growing presence of radicalism in the Maldives, and has offered its experience in detecting and responding to terrorist attacks. But setting aside the more immediate benefits for it of doing so, the Indian government also likely sees its co-operation with the Maldives through the prism of its grander strategic policy of targeting Pakistani-based terrorism in the region. Over the past few years, the Indian Coast Guard has been continuing its efforts to train Maldivian authorities on ways to avoid maritime terrorist attacks through enhanced surveillance of sea lanes and increased monitoring at key ports.

“The Maldives has little history linking it to terrorism, whether international or domestic. Still, local and regional authorities aren’t taking any chances. After all, Maldivian citizens still recall the Sultan Park bombing in the capital of Male in the autumn of 2007. While no one was killed in the attack, a dozen foreigners were wounded, prompting Maldivian business owners and politicians alike to roundly condemn the infringement to the islands’ harmony and the threat it posed to tourism there.

“State law enforcement authorities quickly rounded up nearly a dozen suspects (10 of whom were Maldivian citizens) within the first few days following the Sultan Park attack. Investigators eventually traced the bombing back to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, where al-Qaeda and jihadi groups were widely reported to have based their operations. Nine of the 12 suspects – all Maldivian – were arrested in the FATA region, but were later released due to a lack of evidence that they were tied to the attack. While no legal case was made against the ‘Maldivian nine,’ intelligence officials in New Delhi and Washington understandably felt something was amiss with Maldivians ‘vacationing’ in one of the most dangerous parts of the world.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UN Envoy claims Sri Lankan execution video authentic, depicts “war crimes”

Video footage purportedly showing Sri Lankan troops executing bound and naked Tamil dissidents in the closing days of the country’s civil war has been described as authentic by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns.

The video was obtained in 2009 by the UK’s Channel 4 news network and aired in August that year. Heyns’ predecessor Philip Alston declared in January 2010 that “extracts” were genuine.

Heyns obtained and analysed a longer version of the video in consultation with a forensic pathologist, firearms expert and two forensic video analysts, and this week concluded that the footage was authentic.

The Sri Lankan government has maintained that the video is fake.

“What is reflected in the extended video are crimes of the highest order — definitive war crimes,” Heyns told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

“I conclude on the basis of the extensive technical evidence we obtained from independent experts that what is depicted in the video indeed happened. I believe that a prima facie case of serious international crimes has been made.”

The Sri Lankan government has been under international pressure to submit to a war crimes investigation after a UN report published in April found “credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law were committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

Head of the Sri Lankan delegation to the UN Human Rights Council, Minister of Plantation Industries, Mahinda Samarasinghe, argued that the UN was usurping Sri Lanka’s own Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).

“It is disconcerting to note the haste with which some have sought to usurp the government of Sri Lanka’s prerogative in deciding its domestic process,” Samarasinghe told the Council.

“We firmly believe that our home-grown process is capable of addressing the nuances of our unique situation.”

An international war crimes investigation can only be conducted on the invitation of the host government, or by the mandate of a UN body such as the UN Human Rights Council – on which the Maldives, Sri Lanka’s neighbour, ally and historical trading partner, sits.

During a recent press conference in Colombo, Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem described the UN’s report into the country’s civil war as “singularly counterproductive.”

“The focus should now be on how the country can move forward,” Naseem said. “As a responsible member of the Human Rights Council, the Maldives believes it is imperative that the international community closely examine all aspects of the report before taking any further action.”

Upon the release of the report, President Mohamed Nasheed’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair told Minivan News in April that the release of the UN’s document was belated.

“Why say it now? Why not when the war was going on? My point is that this report only appeared after the war was over. We support the Sri Lankan government’s desire for peace and harmony, and any government that brought about that peace should be held in high honour.”

Meanwhile, the Maldives Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Iruthisham Adam, on Monday addressed the Human Rights Council by “welcoming recent global events which have promoted accountability and justice.”

It was, she said, “a momentous time for human rights around the world – a time for accountability for past crimes, and a time of hope for new beginnings.”

“The flight of former President Ben Ali from Tunisia, the arrest and prosecution of former President Mubarak and his associates in Egypt, the arrest of former President Gbagbo in Cote d’Ivoire, the death of Osama Bin Laden, and the recent capture of Rtako Mladic in Serbia all send out a powerful message to those who believe they can violate human rights with impunity,” Ambassador Adam said.

She expressed concern that, in some countries, “governments have chosen to use fear, intimidation, and state-sponsored violence to subdue protests – a response which not only violates international human rights law but one which is also doomed to failure.

“The more those governments try to tighten their control, the less control they will in fact have. The Maldives today renews its call for these governments to immediately stop using force, to listen to their people, and to begin genuine programmes of democratic and human rights reforms.

“In our globalised, inter-dependent world, those who would trample human rights, deny basic freedoms, and kill in the name of power or greed will ultimately be held accountable.

“No matter how high their walls, those who violate human rights will be brought to justice. These welcome developments across different continents are not only important as signals that impunity is, in the end, illusory; they are also important in that, by dealing with the past, by securing accountability and redress, the countries concerned are laying the foundations for a better future.”

Warning: some readers may find the following footage disturbing

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Haveeru stands by Maldivian terrorist report despite Interpol denial

Haveeru has stood by a report it published claiming Interpol had confirmed that two Maldivian nationals were being sought as part of an alleged plot to attack the 2011 Cricket World Cup, despite an outright denial by the international police organisation that such an investigation has taken place.

In an article appearing on the daily newspaper’s website, Haveeru published an Interpol statement calling for corrections to a report entitled “Interpol on the hunt for two Maldivians involved in planning Cricket World Cup attack”, which the organisation alleged has “serious inaccuracies”.  The Interpol statement was followed by a response from the author of the original article standing by the claims.

Both Interpol and the Maldives’ National Security Advisor yesterday released statements that said that there had been no arrests or investigations over the involvement of any Maldivian nationals in an alleged plot to strike the International Cricket Council (ICC) World Cup event taking place in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Haveeru today responded that it was committed to the highest journalistic standards in its investigative reporting and had sought to act in the public interest without compromising any potential ongoing investigations.

“However, Haveeru Daily wishes to inform those concerned that our Colombo Correspondent, who was also a Senior Defence Correspondent for a leading Sri Lankan national English weekly, stands by his report,” the paper stated.

“Due to the highly sensitive nature of the investigations carried out up to now, our writer is not in a position to reveal more intricate details of the probes due to reasons more fully enumerated hereinafter. However, as and when investigations unfold, Haveeru Daily will reveal further details of these investigations in due course.”

The original Haveeru report can be read here.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Interpol denies media reports of Maldivians’ involvement in World Cup terror plot

Interpol has criticised media reports in the Maldives following claims that it was hunting two Maldivian nationals over alleged plans to attack the 2011 Cricket World Cup event, adding that it had no such information.

In a statement released today, Interpol said a report in local newspaper Haveeru inaccurately cited it as stating that it was searching for two Maldivians suspected of involvement in a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) terror plot.

Interpol also reiterated claims made earlier today by the Maldives’ National Security Advisor denying any knowledge of Maldivian involvement in any reported terrorist plots targeting the Cricket World Cup.

“An article entitled ‘Interpol on the hunt for two Maldivians involved in planning Cricket World Cup attack’ and published in the newspaper Haveeru on 26 March 2011 in the Maldives contains serious inaccuracies which require a correction by the newspaper and an express denial from Interpol,” the organisation stated.

“The article states that ‘Two Maldivian nationals, who are believed to be connected to a Pakistani terrorist group, are now wanted by the International Criminal Police Organisation – INTERPOL – for conspiring to  attack international cricketers during the ongoing  2011 Cricket World Cup.’  In fact, there are currently no Maldivians wanted for arrest by Interpol for conspiring to attack any of the 2011 Cricket World Cup events.”

Interpol claimed that a reported confirmation from ” officials” cited in the article, alleging the involvement of “four Pakistanis, two Maldivians and an Afghan” in an alleged terror plot had not been made as the organisation had not received any such information.

Interpol’s statement followed similar claims by Ameen Faisal, the Maldives’ National Security Advisor, who denied that the country’s security forces had been involved in any investigations concerning Maldivian involvement in alleged terror attacks targeting the ICC tournament.

Faisal today issued a statement claiming that Iqbal Mohamed, a suspect taken into custody earlier this month and identified in press reports as being involved in alleged plans to strike the tournament, had been arrested solely in connection to an earlier attack that occurred in Male’ in 2007.  After being taken into police custody on March 10, Iqbal was released by the Criminal Court this week after police reportedly did not supply required information to detain him further.

The statement from Faisal was released to media just twenty four hours after Maldivian police told Minivan News that they had not been supplied with any information relating to an Interpol hunt for two Maldivians accused of being part of a wider terrorist group targeting the high profile cricket tournament being held in Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh.

Attempting to clarify the arrest of a terrorist suspect made at Male’ International Airport earlier this month, Faisal stated that he had no knowledge of any involvement of Iqbal in plans to attack the Cricket World Cup as alleged by international media, including the Times of India.

“Iqbal Mohamed is a Maldivian citizen who had an Interpol Red Notice issued against him in connection to an improvised explosive device which was detonated in Sultan Park, Male’ on Saturday, 29 September 2007,” said Faisal in a statement.

“Iqbal Mohamed was travelling back to the Maldives from Pakistan, via Colombo, when the Interpol’s Major Events’ Support Team, who was in operation due to the ICC Cricket World Cup, identified him and informed the Maldivian authorities in coordination with the security agencies of our friendly neighbouring countries.”

Faisal added that the Maldives had been grateful for the assistance provided by Interpol and regional police services.

Iqbal’s arrest was related to questioning over a homemade bomb attack in Male’ in 2007, where a device built from components such as a gas cylinder, a washing machine motor and a mobile phone exploded injuring 12 tourists – several seriously.

Although police sources have previously claimed that the suspect was believed to have been in Pakistan at the time of the bombing, Iqbal had still been wanted by authorities as part of their ongoing investigations into the 2007 attack over an alleged role in the plan.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)