Second reply to Palitha......:

‘The issues concerning Universal Laws’

This is with reference to Palitha Senanayaka’s bitter response to my letter, criticizing him for his lack of professionalism, in writing the article entitled ‘The issues concerning Universal Laws’ which appeared in your journal on July 29. By bandying with words in his reply, he tries to deviate from the main question that was raised by me. Let him answer in a straightforward manner the following questions.

1. The proof that the Muslim Arab countries that he mentions officially encourage Polygamy.

2. The Quran allows paedophilia. (please quote chapter and verse)

If he does this then I will honourably withdraw my statement that he lied and that he is ignorant. Stating that he lied blatantly and that he was ignorant does not constitute invective. I will now show how PS deflects the substantive issues and resorts to innuendos to bolster his failing brief.

a) There was no invective in my article but he highlights this as his main rebuttal

b) His statements were not judgmental but rather descriptive but in the process he denigrates the character of one of the finest persons in history (of course he did not mean to do this it was simply based on hearsay!)

c) PS states that I wrote that PS should not to pick on Muslim Laws because it should not be his concern. I actually wrote quote why pick on Islamic Laws especially as he has shown an abysmal ignorance on the subject. Unquote. Pay attention to the little additional words to portray me as a fanatic.

d) PS writes that I have quote misconceived reality out of his own sense of inadequacy which he should do well to address rather than faulting those who see the truth as it is. What is this inadequacy? Is he referring to a wrong system of Laws? If so then PS has already passed judgment that these Islamic Laws are wrong and he is truthfully right? You see the mask he put on when he said he was not judgmental is off. If I now call him a liar will that be invective?

e) I did not use the word cult (which means a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs considered as extremely strange and abnormal) when referring to the Mormons. I used the word Sect (which is a group that breaks away from a larger group may finally end up being the larger group). You see by use of the word cult which I did not use, is PS trying to make the reader believe that Islamic laws are like cult laws?

f) My answer to PS’s rhetorical question... Is IM inferring that every man who does not practice polygamy keeps mistresses? Is that PS should read my reply objectively, not as he purports to view Islamic Laws? I have this to say that I do not practice polygamy and I have no mistresses. After all when the Westerner takes the vows of marriage, does he not profess to be faithful to his partner? Then how can he be dishonest by validating the services of a prostitute, licensed or not?

g) As to the dignity of prostitution as a profession, and likening it to the disciplines of engineering or journalism, I wonder what the reply of those who advocate this will be to the question.

Would you mind if your wife or daughter enrolls in this profession? If the answer is no, then surely is this not what we call blatant hypocrisy?

The answers to these questions and my statements read objectively, indicates why he has opted to run away from the hornet’s nest he chose to stir.

Eng. Ismaeel Marikar
President, Al Hidaayah
Foundation, Colombo