Mauritania bridges the Arab Maghreb and western sub-Saharan Africa; its Arab-Berber population tend to live in the north and black Africans in the south. It is one of the world’s poorest countries, with about one fifth of the population living on less than $1.25 per day. Slavery has been described as a major human rights issue, with the world’s highest proportion of slaves, mostly the black Africans, in indenture that is socially justified with reference to Islam. Mauritania is a member of the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Constitution and government |
Education and children’s rights |
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals |
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constitution and government
Education and children’s rights
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Countries: Belgium, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chile, Congo, Republic of the, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, Japan, Kenya, Kosovo, Mexico, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Africa, South Sudan, Taiwan, Ukraine
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Countries: Barbados, Bolivia, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Gabon, Grenada, Guyana, Kazakhstan, Laos, Lesotho, Suriname, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Croatia, Egypt, Eritrea, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe
No formal discrimination in education
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belgium, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Congo, Republic of the, Djibouti, Ethiopia, France, Iceland, India, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, Nauru, Netherlands, São Tomé and Príncipe, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, United States of America, Uruguay
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Countries: Andorra, Angola, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Bhutan, Bolivia, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Madagascar, Montenegro, Namibia, South Sudan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Congo, Republic of the, Dominica, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Kosovo, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Serbia, Sweden, Taiwan, Uruguay, Venezuela
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Countries: Austria, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lesotho, Lithuania, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, South Africa, South Sudan, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Countries: Belgium, Botswana, Costa Rica, Dominica, Estonia, France, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United States of America, Uruguay
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
No condition holds in this strand
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
No condition holds in this strand
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious
This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief
Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.
The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
Countries: Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Comoros, Eritrea, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates
There is systematic religious privilege
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Belize, Botswana, Cambodia, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malta, Moldova, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Zambia, Zimbabwe
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Countries: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kosovo, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Switzerland, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional
Countries: Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Italy, Kenya, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, New Zealand, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Countries: Bangladesh, Cameroon, Colombia, Egypt, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Macedonia, Malaysia, Niger, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda
Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Countries: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, China, Ethiopia, Gambia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Mauritania, North Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is severely restricted
Countries: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Russia, Samoa, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zambia
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is somewhat restricted
Countries: Armenia, Benin, Bhutan, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Republic of the, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, India, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of, Kosovo, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Turkey, United Kingdom, Vanuatu
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state
State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Comoros, Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Tanzania, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.
Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
Official symbolic deference to religion
Countries: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of, Latvia, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Swaziland, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vanuatu
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety
This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.
Religious schools have powers to discriminate in admissions or employment
Countries: Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Ecuador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Haiti, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Lebanon, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Philippines, Sri Lanka, Uganda, United Kingdom
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
Countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gambia, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nigeria, Oman, Palestine, Paraguay, Qatar, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Countries: Bangladesh, Comoros, Egypt, Haiti, Jamaica, Malaysia, Nigeria, Palestine, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Turkey
‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Countries: Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence
Criticism of religion is restricted in law or a de facto ‘blasphemy’ law is in effect
Countries: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Brazil, Ethiopia, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Montenegro, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, South Africa, Spain, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Vanuatu
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Countries: Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Republic of the, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Germany, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, North Korea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Serbia, Singapore, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia
State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Countries: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
There is an established church or state religion
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Finland, Georgia, Haiti, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Tunisia, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Yemen, Zambia
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Countries: Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Dominica, Ethiopia, France, Ghana, Guinea, India, Jamaica, Malawi, Malaysia, Micronesia, Mongolia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
Countries: Argentina, Armenia, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, China, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Palestine, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Countries: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Egypt, Gambia, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, China, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kiribati, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tonga, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Zambia, Zimbabwe
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
Countries: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Cyprus, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
Countries: Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, North Korea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Burundi, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Religious groups control some public or social services
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Denmark, Eritrea, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, Tanzania, Tunisia, United Kingdom
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Countries: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
Countries: Argentina, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Haiti, Italy, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Rwanda, Samoa, Sweden, Switzerland
Religious control over family law or legislation on moral matters
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Macedonia, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
Countries: Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, United Arab Emirates
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom
This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Korea, Republic of, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Montenegro, Myanmar (Burma), Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Countries: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Comoros, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan
Grave Violations |
Severe Discrimination |
Systemic Discrimination |
Mostly Satisfactory |
Constitution and government
The Constitutional Council and the High Council of Magistrates are required, when taking an oath of office, to make a promise to God to uphold the law of the land in conformity with Islamic precepts.
The preamble of Mauritania’s 1991 constitution declares a “right to equality” and the “fundamental freedoms and rights of human beings”; Article 1 of the constitution notes that, “the Republic guarantees equality before the law to all of its citizens without distinction as to origin, race, sex, or social condition”. However, the constitution and other laws and policies restrict freedom of religion or belief. The Constitution defines the country as Islamic, recognising Islam as the only religion of its citizens, with Islam as “the religion of the people and the state”.
The law and legal procedures of Mauritania are based on Sharia. Sharia crimes such heresy, apostasy, atheism, refusal to pray, adultery and alcoholism are all contained in Mauritania’s Penal Code. The Code includes punishments of lapidation, amputation and lashings. Sharia norms are also reflected in Mauritania’s 2001 Personal Status Code (a legal code which regulates all matters related to marriage, divorce, family and inheritance issues). Its Article 311 states that for difficulties of interpretation as well as in cases where the Code is silent, reference should be made to Sharia.
Education and children’s rights
Classes on Islam are compulsory in the curricula of both public and private Islamic schools; attendance is mandatory.
Family, community and society
Non-Muslims are restricted from having citizenship status. Muslims who convert from Islam lose their citizenship and property rights. Article 11 of the Press Act is used to ban proselytizing by non-Muslims; the Act prohibits the publication of any material that contradicts or threatens Islam. Non-Muslims are only allowed private worship after they are granted permission to do so from the state.
Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values
Freedom of expression both for individuals and for the press are severely compromised in Mauritania.
Apostasy, blasphemy, “adultery”, and homosexuality are among the capital crimes in Mauritania, as well as terrorism.
Mandatory death for “apostasy” and “blasphemy”
Article 306 of the Mauritanian penal code, stipulates apostasy as a crime punishable by death.
Until 2018, anyone found guilty of converting from Islam was supposed to be given three days to repent and so receive a lesser sentence or be released without conviction. If they did not repent, an individual might face confiscation of their property, or the death sentence. However, despite “repenting”, Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkheitir (see “Highlighted cases” below) was found guilty of “apostasy” and sentenced to death, in a one-day trial in late December 2014. His case has been a major focus of Islamist demands and debate within Mauritania since 2014.
The case also appears to have brought about a change in the law – for the worse.
In 2018, Mauritania enacted a law which makes the death sentence for apostasy compulsory, as well as upgrading blasphemy to a capital offence and making that compulsory as well.
An amendment to penal code Article 306 will see the death penalty applied to “every Muslim, man or woman, who ridicules or insults Allah”, his messenger, his teachings, or any of his prophets, “even if [the accused] repents”.
<aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/mauritania-strengthens-blasphemy-law-blogger-case-171122163349451.html>
The law also provides for a sentence of up to two years in prison and a fine of up to 600,000 Ouguiyas (approximately EUR 13,804) for “offending public indecency and Islamic values”, or “breaching Allah’s prohibitions” or assisting in their breach.
Civil society groups including Amnesty International, Committee to Protect Journalists, PEN International, and the International Humanist and Ethical Union condemned the new law, calling for it to be reversed and for the release of Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkheitir.
<iheu.org/ngos-protest-mauritania-creates-mandatory-death-sentence-apostasy-blasphemy/>
There appears to have been a moratorium on the death sentence since 1987. However, Mkheitir remains in jail, along with around 52 persons convicted on “terrorism” charges over the years.
<opinion-internationale.com/dossier/pas-de-contrainte-en-islam-il-faut-liberer-mohamed-cheikh-condamne-a-mort-pour-ses-idees-en-mauritanie/la-condamnation-a-mort-de-mohamed-cheikh-ould-mohamed-ould-mkhaitir-un-cas-de-dysfonctionnement-de-la-justice>
“Spreading atheism”
It has been observed that the charge of “spreading atheism” has been used not only to silence writers and activists but for political means also. A number of left-wing activists and writers have highlighted what they see as a systematic campaign which accuses them of spreading atheism. They have attributed this to the Muslim Brotherhood seeking to undermine the leftist movement and to make people fearful of it. Left-wing activists have been called upon to repent to God and integrate themselves into Muslim society, fatwas signed by a group of Mauritanian religious scholars have been issued accusing some activists of apostasy, and the Supreme Council for Fatwa and Grievances has issued a statement calling on activists on social media to “stop offending Islam and the Prophet and spreading atheism”.
There were calls for the left-affiliated Aqlam Horra (free pens) website to be shut down after it published an article, entitled “Religion, Religiousness and Masters,” (which was subsequently deleted and apologised for). A Mauritanian businessman had said he would pay just under $14,00 to whoever killed the writer responsible for the article.
Press freedom
Press freedom is guaranteed by the constitution. However, in reality, privately run newspapers face closure for publishing material considered offensive to Islam or threatening to the state. Self-censorship is also practiced by journalists to some degree, when they cover issues relating to Sharia or slavery, for example, and activists against slavery have been frequently harassed and persecuted.
<iheu.org/iheu-calls-on-un-to-do-more-to-protect-mauritanian-anti-slavery-campaigners/>
Highlighted cases
In late December 2014, Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkheitir was sentenced to death for “apostasy”. As a 28-year-old blogger, he had been arrested in January 2014, for allegedly publishing an article seen by some as insulting Muhammad and constituting an act of apostasy. His writing in fact sought to highlight the indentured servitude in Mauritanian society, often socially justified with reference to national cultural identity and in particular to Islamic tradition.
<iheu.org/iheu-condemns-death-sentence-for-apostasy-handed-to-writer-in-mauritania/>
Following Mkheitir’s initial arrest, there were a number of protests condemning his writing (though with a low level of internet penetration, and at around 50% one of the lowest remaining levels of literacy in the world, there is good reason to think that the content of his blogs was not really a direct motivator for many of the protesters). There were numerous calls, including by imams, scholars and professors, for his execution. One preacher, Abi Ould Ali, offered EUR 4,000 to anyone who killed Mkheitir. The Mauritanian government and opposition parties supported the protests. President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz said, “We will apply God’s law on whoever insults the prophet, and whoever publishes such an insult.”
After his death sentence was handed down in December 2014, there were again popular celebrations. Jemil Ould Mansour, leader of Mauritanian Islamist party Tawassoul, welcomed the conviction, saying that Mkheitir had got “the fate he deserves”.
<bvoltaire.fr/philippe-franceschi/peut-sauver-mohamed-cheikh-ould-mkheitir,149711>
Ensaf Haidar, the wife of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi (see Saudi Arabia > “Highlighted cases”), protested Mkheitir’s sentence in August 2015, writing: “Millions of people around the world rallied to the support of Raif Badawi; who will care for a poor young man in Mauritania? He will be executed for blasphemy – by those who insist that Isis does not represent Islam.”
<independent.co.uk/voices/comment/millions-of-people-rallied-to-the-support-of-raif-badawi-who-will-care-for-a-poor-young-man-in-10466040.html>
In early November 2017, Mkheitiir’s sentence was reduced by an appeals court in Nouadhibou, down to two years imprisonment. Having already served four years he was due to be released. The re-sentencing was followed once again by riotous demonstrations calling for Mkhetitir’s execution. Humanists International called for his safety to be ensured.
<washingtonpost.com/world/africa/mauritania-blogger-sentenced-to-death-is-released-on-appeal/2017/11/09/00573942-c565-11e7-9922-4151f5ca6168_story.html?utm_term=.5d2f6adbd727>
<aa.com.tr/en/africa/security-disperse-protests-in-mauritanian-capital/962148>
<iheu.org/mauritanian-blogger-accused-apostasy-released-immediate-safety-paramount/>
Despite the reduction of earlier sentencing, it was not until July 2019, in the final days of the presidency of Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, that Mkheitir was actually freed from detention and was enabled to flee abroad. Humanists International commented: “That the outgoing president has taken this action in his last days in office speaks of a broken system: it appears to demonstrate that the administration knew that Mkhaitir’s prolonged detention was unjust but that there wasn’t the political strength to face down the Islamist lobby agitating for his execution. It shows once again that nation states must not allow extreme conservative religious opinion to dictate courses of action which violate basic justice and human rights.”
<middleeasteye.net/news/mauritania-releases-blasphemy-blogger-jailed-2014>
<humanists.international/2019/08/mohamed-cheikh-ould-mkhaitir-freed-after-6-years-in-detention/>