The 1997 Constitution of the Maldives designates Islam as the official state religion.

The Government interprets this provision to impose a requirement that all citizens must be
Muslims. Freedom of religion is restricted significantly. The law prohibits the practice
by Maldivian citizens of any religion other than Islam, and the Constitution precludes nonMuslims from voting, obtaining citizenship, and holding public positions. The president, who
is required to be a Sunni Muslim, is the "supreme authority to propagate the tenets of
Islam." Government regulations are based onIslamic law (Shari'a). Since the Maldives is
100 Percent Muslim country, Non-Muslim foreigners are prohibited from worshiping publicly,
or from encouraging local citizens to participate in any religion. Only certified Muslim
scholars can give fatwa.
There was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom during the period
covered by this report, with freedom of religion remaining severely restricted. There were
some individual reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious belief or
practice. According to many officials and interlocutors, most citizens regarded Islam as one
of their society's most distinctive characteristics and believed that it promotes harmony and
national identity.[1]

Religious demography
"The country has an area of 500 square miles (1,300 km2) distributed across 1,200 coral
atolls and islands, with a population of 350,000.
The population is a distinct ethnic group with historical roots in South Indian, Sinhalese,
and Arab communities. The vast majority of the Muslim population practices Sunni Islam.
Non-Muslim foreigners, including more than 500,000 tourists who visit annually
(predominantly Europeans and Japanese) and approximately 54,000 foreign workers
(mainly Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Indians, and Bangladeshis), are in general allowed to
practice their religions only in private. Although Muslim tourists and Muslim foreign workers
are allowed to attend local mosque services, most practice Islam in private or at mosques
located at the resorts where they work and live.

Status of religious freedom

Legal and policy framework

"Chapter II of the Constitution relating to the fundamental rights and duties of citizens does
not provide for the right to freedom of religion or belief. Furthermore, the Constitution
precludes non-Muslims from voting, obtaining citizenship, and holding public positions." [1]
"The "Law on the Protection of the Religious Unity" states that both the Government and the
people must protect religious unity. Any statement or action contrary to this law is subject to
criminal penalty; if found guilty, sentences range from a fine to imprisonment."[1]
"The Government follows civil law based on Shari'a, in such a way that civil law is
subordinate to Shari'a. Thus, in the event that a situation is not covered by civil law, as well
as in certain cases such as divorce and adultery, Shari'a is applied." [1]
"Non-Muslim foreign residents are allowed to practice their religions only if they do so
privately, and provided that they do not encourage local citizens to participate." [1]
"Foreigners were not allowed to import any items deemed "contrary to Islam," including
alcohol, pork products, or idols for worship. Alcoholic beverages were available to tourists
on resort islands, but it remains against the law to offer alcohol to a local citizen."[1]
"Mosques were not required to register with the Government. The Government maintained
and funded most mosques" and Muslim holidays are generally national holidays.[1]
"The primary responsibility of imams was to present Friday sermons. They used a set of
government-approved sermons on a variety of topics and were not legally empowered to
write sermons independently. No one, not even an imam, may publicly discuss Islam unless
invited to do so by the Government. According to government officials, this rule was in place
to maintain a moderate Islamic environment rather than a fundamentalist one." [1]
"Men who wish to act as imams must sit for public exams and present their scores and
credentials to the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, chaired by the Chief Justice. The
Supreme Council is empowered to certify imams. However, if the Supreme Council denies
certification, the petitioner can appeal to the Board of Education."[1]
"Islamic instruction was a mandatory part of the school curriculum, and the Government
funded the salaries of instructors of Islam. While Islamic instruction was only one
component of the curriculum used in the majority of schools, there was one school which
used Arabic as its medium of instruction and focused primarily on Islam. Many people who
sought further religious education obtained it in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or other Islamic
countries. Schools offered religious education for women; however, there were no female
imams."[1]

Forced religious conversion and persecution of individuals [edit]

"There were no reports of forced religious conversion, including of minor U.S. citizens who
had been abducted or illegally removed from the United States, or of the refusal to allow
such citizens to be returned to the United States." [1]
In 2010, Ismail Mohamed Didi, a Maldivian atheist who was being investigated for his "lack
of belief" and had sought asylum in Britain allegedly committed suicide. [2][3]
On 29 May 2010, Mohamed Nazim, a student of philosophy from a devout Muslim family,
was at a public meeting in the Maldives discussing the subject of religion. He declared at
the meeting that his own comparative studies on philosophy had meant he could not accept
Islam, and declared himself to be an atheist. He was immediately arrested, under the
pretext of saving him from being attacked for his beliefs by others at the meeting. [4] After
three days of intense counseling and the threat of a state-imposed death sentence he
publicly converted to Islam.[5] Even so, the Maldivian Police submitted his case to their
public prosecutors office as of 29 August 2010. [6]

Societal abuses and discrimination[edit]

According to the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief's February 2007
report, "members of local congregations on some of the islands do not allow foreign manual
laborers to attend the mosque." She was also informed that "expatriate school pupils who
choose not to study Islam are unable to pass their end of year school exams." [citation needed] The
government denied these allegations.
When the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief visited the Maldives' only
prison, she found non-Muslim prisoners "unable to perform their prayers due to the
objections of their Maldivian cellmates." There were no accommodations made
for Hindu prisoners with dietary restrictions.
The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief also reported on the issue of
women wearing headscarves. She received reports that women were being pressured to
cover by relatives, other citizens, self-proclaimed preachers, or newly formed political
parties. Furthermore she was told that women began to cover after state-owned media
reported that the 2004 tsunami was the "result of Maldivians failing to live in accordance
with Islam." There was one report of a female student who was excluded from school for
wearing a headscarf. However, female civil servants wore the scarf at work without any
difficulty.

On Human Rights Day, 10 December 2011, protesters led by Ismail Khilath Rasheed,
calling themselves Silent Solidarity, gathered at the Artificial Beach to protest religious
intolerance in the Maldives. They were attacked and vowed to kill them. [7]
On 12 February 2012, the National Museum was stormed by a handful of men who then
destroyed priceless Buddhist statues from the nation's pre-Islamic era of over eight
centuries ago, which "effectively erased all evidence of our Buddhist past" according to a
senior museum official. Authorities banned footage of the aftermath, to prevent harm to the
nation's image.[8]
The Centre for Civil and Political rights, based in Geneva, Switzerland and the Human
Rights Committee are working to establish new guidelines with the Maldivian government
on human rights. The Committee has welcomed the following legislative and institutional
measures taken by the State: The removal by the Parliament, in 2008, of the gender bar on
running for presidency; the enactment of the Anti-Domestic Violence Act, in April 2012. The
July 27, 2012, Human Rights Committee report listed more recommendations and principal
matters of concern and expressed hope that the Maldivan State Party would continue on its
path for equal rights, freedom of religion, and decriminalization of same-sex relationships. [9]

Islam
Conversion to Islam is simple (cf. shahada), but Muslims are forbidden to convert
from Islam to another religion (cf. Apostasy in Islam). Certain Muslim-majority
countries are known for their restrictions on religious freedom, highly favoring
Muslim citizens over non-Muslim citizens. Other countries [who?], having the same
restrictive laws, tend to be more liberal when imposing them. Even other Muslimmajority countries are secular and thus do not regulate religious belief [68][not in citation given].
Some Islamic theologians[who?] quote the Qur'an (There is no compulsion in
religion[2:256] and Say: O you who reject faith, I do not worship what you worship, nor
do you worship what I worship...To you be your religion, and to me be mine [109:16],
i.e., Sura Al-Kafirun) to show scriptural support for religious freedom.
Quran 2:190194, referring to the war against Pagans during the Battle of
Badr in Medina, indicates that Muslims are only allowed to fight against those who

intend to harm them (right of self-defense) and that if their enemies surrender, they
must also stop because God does not like those who transgress limits.
In Bukhari:V9 N316, Jabir ibn 'Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin accepted Islam and
then when he got a fever he demanded that Muhammad to cancel his pledge (allow
him to renounce Islam). Muhammad refused to do so. The Bedouin man repeated
his demand once, but Muhammad once again refused. Then, he (the Bedouin) left
Medina. Muhammad said, "Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its
impurities and brightens and clear its good." In this narration, there was no evidence
demonstrating that Muhammad ordered the execution of the Bedouin for wanting to
renounce Islam.
In addition, Quran 5:3, which is believed to be God's final revelation to Muhammad,
states that Muslims are to fear God and not those who reject Islam,
andQuran 53:3839 states that one is accountable only for one's own actions.
Therefore, it postulates that in Islam, in the matters of practising a religion, it does
not relate to a worldly punishment, but rather these actions are accountable to God
in the afterlife. Thus, this supports the argument against the execution of apostates
in Islam.
However, on the other hand, some Muslims support the practice of executing
apostates who leave Islam, as in Bukhari:V4 B52 N260; "The Prophet said, 'If a
Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
In Iran, the constitution recognizes four religions whose status is formally protected:
Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. [50] The constitution, however, also
set the groundwork for the institutionalized persecution of Bah's,[69] who have been
subjected to arrests, beatings, executions, confiscation and destruction of property,
and the denial of civil rights and liberties, and the denial of access to higher
education.[50] There is no freedom of conscience in Iran, as converting from Islam to
any other religion is forbidden.
In Egypt, a 16 December 2006 judgment of the Supreme Administrative
Council created a clear demarcation between recognized religions Islam,
Christianity and Judaism and all other religious beliefs; [70][71] no other religious
affiliation is officially admissible.[72] The ruling leaves members of other religious
communities, including Bah's, without the ability to obtain the necessary

government documents to have rights in their country, essentially denying them of

all rights of citizenship.[72] They cannot obtain ID cards, birth certificates, death
certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, and passports; they also cannot be
employed, educated, treated in public hospitals or vote, among other things.
[72]

See Egyptian identification card controversy.

Apostasy in Islam
In Islam, apostasy is called "ridda" ("turning back") and is considered to be a
profound insult to God. A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a
"murtad fitri" (natural apostate), and a person that converted to Islam and later
rejects the religion is called a "murtad milli" (apostate from the community). [77]
In Islamic law (Sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to
death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for
example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be
either executed, according to Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic
jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the
Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi'a scholars.[78]
Ideally, the one performing the execution of an apostate must be an imam.[78] At the
same time, all schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that any Muslim can kill an
apostate without punishment.[79]
However, while almost all scholars agree about the punishment, many disagree on
the allowable time to retract the apostasy. Many scholars push this as far as
allowing the apostate till he/she dies. Thus, practically making the death penalty just
a theoretical statement/exercise.[citation needed] S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of
Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in
the Qur'an.[80]

Criticism
Islamic countries
However, in 1948, Saudi Arabia abstained from the ratification vote on the Declaration,
claiming that it violated Sharia law.[29] Pakistanwhich had signed the declaration

disagreed and critiqued the Saudi position.[30] In 1982, the Iranian representative to the
United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, said that the Declaration was
"a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition" which could not be implemented
by Muslims without conflict with Sharia.[31] On 30 June 2000, members of the Organisation of
the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) officially resolved to
support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,[32] an alternative document that
says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic
Shari'ah", without any discrimination on grounds of "race, colour, language, sex, religious
belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations". Turkeya secular state
signed the Declaration in 1948.
A number of scholars in different fields have expressed concerns with the Declaration's
alleged Western bias. These include Irene Oh, Abdulaziz Sachedina, Riffat Hassan,
and Faisal Kutty. Hassan has argued:
What needs to be pointed out to those who uphold the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights to be the highest, or sole, model, of a charter of equality and liberty for all human
beings, is that given the Western origin and orientation of this Declaration, the "universality"
of the assumptions on which it is based is at the very least problematic and subject to
questioning. Furthermore, the alleged incompatibility between the concept of human rights
and religion in general, or particular religions such as Islam, needs to be examined in an
unbiased way.[33]
Irene Oh argues that one solution is to approach the issue from the perspective
of comparative (descriptive) ethics.[34]
Kutty writes: "A strong argument can be made that the current formulation of international
human rights constitutes a cultural structure in which western society finds itself easily at
home ... It is important to acknowledge and appreciate that other societies may have
equally valid alternative conceptions of human rights." [35] On the other hand, others[who?] have
written that some of these "cultural arguments" can go so far as to undermine the very
nature of human freedom and choice, the protection of which is the purpose of the UN
declaration. For example, typical versions of Sharia law forbid Muslims from
leaving Islam under the penalty of capital punishment. Islamic legal scholar Faisal
Kutty argues that existing blasphemy laws in Muslim countries are actually un-Islamic and

are a legacy of colonial rule.[36]Mohsen Haredy, an Islamic scholar, states that Muslim
countries have their own views of Sharia and blasphemies are the internal issues of those
countries.[37]
Ironically, a number of Islamic countries that as of 2014 are among the most resistant to UN
intervention in domestic affairs, played an invaluable role in the creation of the Declaration,
with countries such as Syria and Egypt having been strong proponents of the universality of
human rights and the right of countries to self-determination. [38]
"The Right to Refuse to Kill"[edit]
Groups such as Amnesty International[39] and War Resisters International[40] have advocated
for "The Right to Refuse to Kill" to be added to the Universal Declaration. War Resisters
International has stated that the right to conscientious objection to military service is
primarily derived frombut not yet explicit inArticle 18 of the UDHR: the right to freedom
of thought, conscience, and religion.[40]
Steps have been taken within the United Nations to make this right more explicit, but to
date (2015) those steps have been limited to less significant United Nations
documents. Sean MacBrideAssistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and Nobel
Peace Prize laureatehas said: "To the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights one more might, with relevance, be added. It is 'The Right to Refuse to Kill'."