January 2007 (updated on 3 Febuary 2007)
Chairman attacks the US and the UK by innuendo
(updated 0n 31 January 2007)
It was reported in Minivan
News on 30 January 2007 that "President Gayoom’s
regime, which is now 28 years old, has used torture and repression
as tools of government throughout its existence, and Anni
exclaims that it has, “probably sent its ‘cookbook’
to Abu Ghraib prison!” Anni is the popular nickname
of the MDP Chairman.
The heading of a Divehi
language article in the UK-based web site Dhivehi
Observer reads “Is K-Maafurhi
prison turning into an Abu Ghraib?” The reference to
Abu Ghraib sounded rather gratuitous and a deliberate swipe at the
United States and Great Britain, the leading states involved in
the war on Islamic terror in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The article went on to say that “since Maafurhi has been managed
under the special supervision of the Iron Lady [a derogatory reference
to the Maldive government’s deputy home affairs minister and
presidential member of parliament, who is much vilified by the Maldive
opposition movement] we are now witnessing scenes reminiscent of
Abu Ghraib prison of Iraq or Guantanamo prison of Cuba”. Both
these facilities hold dangerous terror suspects.
Maafurhi prisoners captured
after a riot
(source: Dhivehi Observer)
Unlike the atrocious crimes against humanity
with impunity in detention facilities in Islamic countries,
misconduct by military gaolers in American and British-run facilities
are reported publicly and those responsible are court-martialled,
convicted and severely punished.
Western military authorities do not authorise military personnel
to have unconsenting sex with prisoners of war and their sale into
The Maldives and many Islamic countries are still governed under
Islamic Shariah law based on the Koran and the codified
precedents of Mohamed known as Hadith.
Hadith is still legally enforceable in the Maldives as
part of the Shariah code. For example Hadith number
2150 in book 5, chapter 711 of Sunan Abu Dawud sets out
how an American, British or other infidel (non-Muslim) prisoner
of war could be treated in the Maldives. It states:
The woman Dhivehi Observer
calls "Iron Lady" (source: Dhivehi Observer)
“Abu Sa'id al-Khudri
said: The Apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas
on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy
and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.
Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant
to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of
their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent
down the Koranic verse: ‘And all married women (are forbidden)
unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses.’
This passage is in Koran, chapter 4 verse 24
and so the Hadith is clearly based on the authority of
the Koran. Malakat aimaanuhum (those whom your right hand
posseses) is a Koranic term that applies to non-Muslim female captives
of war or slaves. Some Islamic soldiers in Mohamed's armies were
reluctant to have sex with female captives but a Koranic passage
was revealed categorically making this lawful. The soldiers' doubts
were dispelled and they were given permission to have sexual intercourse
with female captives even in front of their husbands. There is further
evidence in Hadith that this practice was encouraged and
approved of by Mohamed in spite of the fact that ordinary Muslims
of the time continued to feel horrified by it.
Sahih Buhkari volume 5 Book 59, Hadith 637 reads:
The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus [a
fifth of the booty reserved for Mohamed] and I hated Ali, and
Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from
the Khumus). I said to Khalid, ‘don’t you
see this (i.e. Ali)?’ When we reached the prophet I mentioned
that to him. He said, ‘O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?’
I said, ‘Yes’. He said, ‘Do you hate him, for
he deserves more than that from the Khumus.’”
Ali bin Abi Talib, to whom this Hadith refers,
was Mohamed’s first cousin and son-in-law. He was the third
head (Caliph) of Sunni Islam and first leader (Imam) of
the Shiites. According to this Hadith, Ali took a female
captive of war and had sex with her. When a horrified Muslim by
the name of Buraida complained of this to Mohamed, rather than punishing
Ali, he approved of it and said that Ali deserved even more. There
is no evidence that the captive consented to sex with Ali. Modern
Geneva conventions relating to the treatment of prisoners of war
condemn such behaviour and in the United States, United Kingdom
or any other civilised country there is a well-known legal term
used for unconsenting sex and those who commit it are punished severely.
Army Specialist Megan Ambuhl.
First person to be charged with abuse of prisoners at Abu
In spite of having acceded to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there is no evidence that
the Maldives has repealed the rulings in these Hadiths
and Koranic passage by act of parliament. That means no Maldive
court would ever convict Maldive military personnel who have unconsenting
sex with a non-Muslim female captive taken in a conflict. Before
drawing parallels with Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, Dhivehi
Observer ought to investigate whether or not the Maldives has
repealed these Shariah provisions or if its own political
party, the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has a policy
to repeal those provisions when it gains power.
Shariah provisions relating to the treatment of prisoners
taken in non-military situations also need investigating.
Sahih Bukhari volume 7, book 71, Hadith 623 states:
bin Malik: Some people from the tribes of Ukl and Uraina came
to Allah's Apostle and embraced Islam and said, ‘O Allah's
Apostle! We are owners of livestock and have never been farmers,’
and they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So Allah's
Apostle ordered that they be given some camels and a shepherd,
and ordered them to go out with those camels and drink their milk
and urine. So they set out, but when they reached a place called
Al-Harra, they reverted to disbelief after their conversion to
Islam, killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When this
news reached the Prophet he sent in their pursuit (and they were
caught and brought). The Prophet ordered that their eyes be branded
with heated iron bars and their hands be cut off, and they were
left at Al-Harra till they died in that state.”
Before commenting on the alleged bahaviour of
the “Iron Lady” running Maldive prisons, Dhivehi
Observer ought to investigate whether or not the treatment
of criminals (they did kill a shepherd) exemplified in this particular
Hadith has been repealed from the Maldive legal code as
would be required under its commitment to the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Does the MDP have an explicit policy on repealing that provision
once it comes to power?
Unless these Shariah provisions are explicitly and unambiguously
repealed by act of the Maldive parliament, it is not fair to criticize
iron ladies. They could simply be carrying out their sacred obligations
under the Shariah. Following orders is, however, not admissible
as a defence against a charge of ordering, aiding or abetting torture,
under International Law.
Captain Adam Fusfaru. First
person to be charged for murder at Maafurhi: Conviction quashed
by Shariah High Court.
(Source: Minivan News)
The Dhivehi Observer has its operations based in the United
Kingdom, and so one would imagine that it would be subject to British
laws. According the web site, its recently created “guestbook
will be moderated in line with Article 25 of the constitution”
of the Maldives. The Maldive constitution is currently being revised
because it falls short of democratic and human rights norms. Why
then does a British web site subject itself to that constitution
while operating within the United Kingdom? Are British laws deficient
in some way or is this an example of the web site’s general
abhorrence of things Western?
Article 25 of the Maldive Constitution reads:
shall have the freedom to express his conscience and thoughts
orally or in writing or by other means, unless prohibited by law
in the interest of protecting the sovereignty of the Maldives,
of maintaining public order and of protecting the basic tenets
Surely British law would guarantee people free
expression of their thoughts and conscience within the constraints
required for maintaining public order. What is missing in British
legislation is placing restrictions on free expression in order
to protect the “basic tenets of Islam”. This is what
is unacceptable to Dhivehi Observer and so it invokes the
Maldive constitution in the United Kingdom over and obove British
law. The web site routinely censors material its moderators consider
Dhivehi Observer accepts all sorts of
material for publication, that frequently use vulgar
language and imagery. It would certainly reject any
article in this site if it were submitted for publication, giving
credit to this site or its editor- and that won't have anything
to do with blandness resulting from a lack of obscenities. According
to our contact within Dhivehi Observer, those who supply
that web site with information, at great risk to themselves, have
threatened to withdraw all support if it carries any references
to our web site or any of our articles. For a long time the British
online magazine had a link to our web site which was censored in
order to appease Islamic fanatics in the Maldives.
The reason for this censorship is our questioning
as to why the opposition MDP has a written commitment in section
3.3(a) of its provisional constitution to deny freedom of religion.
We are therefore branded as anti-Islamic. The Maldives is a state
party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and so section 3.3(a) of the MDP's provisional constitution would
be deemed illegal under International Law. The ruling Maldivian
People's Party (DRP) also has a similar commitment.
The Maldive opposition movement seeks much support
from Western countries in order to bring about democratic change
in the Maldives. It is ironic then that the movement and its media
organisations do not adhere to the democratic ideals of the West.
They also make use of every opportunity to condemn and vilify the
West and its institutions when making statements in the local language.
Their assumption could be that Westerners are too dumb either to
understand the Maldive language or to obtain translations.
Taliban-style mullahs officiate
at MDP meeting
An increasing number of Maldivians, mostly sympathetic
to the Maldive "democracy" movement, are taking up refugee
status, residence and citizenship in Western countries such as Great
Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Rather than adopt Western values
and integrate in the host countries, many of these people adopt
extremely radical anti-Western attitudes and run jihadi
campaigns. Often they target and harass others from Maldive backgrounds
in order to monitor whether or not they live by the laws of the
Maldives and the Shariah. These people do not realise that
by doing so they are breaking the laws of their host countries.
Harassment of the daughters
of Adam Zahir, the Maldive police chief:. This picture,
containing derogatory comments in the Divehi language, appears
on the home page of Dhivehi Observer. One comment
reads "women with festering armpits". Does British
law allow harassment of innocent women? Islamic fanatics in
the Maldive "democracy" movement object to these
ladies enjoying a day out on the beach in normal swimwear.
The jihadists' other objection is based on these young ladies'
failure to observe the burqa. Jihadi funding
from the Middle East is currently being used to coerce Maldive
women into the burqa.
>>more (this picture
was quietly removed from the DO home page on 1 February 2007)
A woman alleged by Dhivehi Observer to be a Maldivian
doing a belly dance in front of a Christmas tree. In
a Divehi language comment, Dhivehi Observer denigrates
this female and implies that she is a Christian evangelist.
The British-based Maldive opposition web site often engages
in such jihadi witch-hunts. A favourite theme is
accusing people of being Christian missionaries. This woman's
father is named as a minister in the presidential compound
of the Maldive president of the republic. He is accused of
facilitating the "first conference on propagating Christianity"
in the Maldives.
Dhivehi Observer is the leading media organ of the
Maldive "democracy" movement. That movement claims
to have many supporters in the UK, Europe, Australia, the
US and more specifically in the British and European parliaments.
If there were such supporters, we would like to ask them if
they condoned this type of harassment of women based on their
parents' association with the Maldive government?
It must also be pointed out that this anti-Christian witch-hunt
is undertaken by the Maldive government as well. David Hardingham,
the head of a British humanitarian organisation is barred
from entering the Maldives after the Maldive authorities alleged
that he was a "Christian missionary engaged in Islamic
terrorism". This is not such a strange allegation from
a government that once
arrested an Australian woman of Maldive descent for arriving
from Bali (a Hindu island) with a "Buddha used for Christian