A response to Hamid Kareem :
Respecting the sensitivities of the Buddhists – THE WAY FORWARD
Shenali WADUGE
Debate is certainly welcome. In a world where people are quick to
take to guns or bombs it is indeed pleasing to see people respond to
articles and that media allows for response that enables readers to view
both positions.
My article ‘LAWS AND RELIGION - SOME CONCERNS OF SINHALA BUDDHISTS’
appearing on the Daily News of January 12, 2013 http://www.dailynews.lk/2001/pix/
has been replied by Hameed Abdul Kareem in the Daily News of January 19,
2013 - http://www.dailynews.lk/2013/01/19. Certain inferences and
insinuations made need to be clarified.
Firstly, it must be categorically stated that the original article
was not written to create conflict but to highlight recent events which
have raised fears amongst the predominant Buddhists in Sri Lanka.
The goal was not to disturb peaceful co-existence. Ideally, those
fears should have been empathetically accepted to warrant the assurance
and guarantee from peace loving Muslims of Sri Lanka that – “No, there
will be no Islamization of Sri Lanka as has happened and is happening in
other nations because we want to live peacefully as we have with the
various communities in Sri Lanka”. I never expected a “how dare she
question us” attitude.
Therefore, the article was never about questioning peaceful
co-existence because we know how Muslims of yonder years carried out
their religious practices and customs except may be for the riots in
1915 caused when new Coastal Moor settlers in Gampola area built mosques
along an existing Perahera route to the Kandy Dalada Maligawa and bribed
the police to put a stop to drumming while passing the mosques.
This incident breached existing tradition of respect for pre-dominant
Buddhist culture. Armand de Souza’s book gives details of the riots.
Our problem, is that we are unable to understand the visible changes
we see in Muslims in the present. The past lifestyle of Muslims is
incompatible with the present and makes us to conclude that extremism
and extremist rules has challenged the lives of the Muslims we knew.
When we see how these extremisms have affected nations whose citizens
lived just as our Muslims lived in the past, as the majority populace we
have every right to be concerned. Neither do we want Muslims of Sri
Lanka to change how they lived nor do we want to face any situations of
conflict brought on by these extremist elements. Anyone concerned about
peace would feel the same as well.
I would like to state quite categorically that while I am merely
pointing out an impending danger to Buddhism in Sri Lanka, something
which I have every right to do in a democracy such as ours, it is the
Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and other Muslim Middle-Eastern
nations that are practicing extremism.
The fears prevalent in Sri Lanka are nothing exclusive to Sri Lanka.
There are surging insecurities in all regions of the world. The same
fears of Islamization running across Europe, US, Australia, some parts
of Buddhist Asia e.g. Myanmar and South Thailand, and Africa e.g.
Nigeria, Mali, has unnerved the non-Muslim people of Sri Lanka.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2833/qatar-financing-wahhabi-islam-europe
(Qatar Financing Wahhabi Islam in France, Italy, Ireland and Spain) /
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1572847/posts
Allaying our fears by providing us with answers to questions raised
is a far better option than quoting from ancient religious textbooks as
the dynamics of religions have changed. Original religions are not what
are being practiced – the texts have been abused and manipulated with so
many other invented religions and faiths that are tearing people in all
directions and is the main cause of disunity that prevails. It is just
as well Buddhism is a philosophy more than a religion and not a single
war has taken place in defense of Buddhism or by Buddhists which places
Buddhism apart from the rest of the faiths.
Muslim customs
Yes, I am confused myself because the changes are very visible and we
are all wondering what are the reason(s) behind these sudden changes and
demands to institutionalize practices into rights – if Muslims ate halal
food why is there a sudden need to label them, why do labels have to be
put as a compulsory measure when over 90 percent do not request halal,
how relevant is halal in restaurants and hotels that use utensils for
all food including pork items? who actually practices full halal, Jewish
kosher items in all countries are separately labeled and priced higher
and available in separate corners of the supermarkets.
If Muslim women previously covered their heads with their saree or
shawl, what is the sudden need to wear all black and are these not the
questions that the Western societies are asking too, so much so that
bans are now in place? If weddings, divorce practices, inheritance laws
etc functioned in accordance to Muslim customs, why is there a sudden
need for separate Sharia courts that run parallel to the general civil
and criminal law?
This was the same question asked by all the minorities in Malaysia
wanting to repeal Article 121 (1A) which declared that the civil court
had no jurisdiction on matters under purview of the Sharia court. The
Malaysian minorities are realizing that secular laws are being
challenged by fundamentalists pushing Islamic way in all areas of polity
– which is exactly what we are seeing taking place in Sri Lanka. The
tragedy is that Sri Lanka is a country with over 74 percent Sinhalese.
http://wwrn.org/articles/20117/malaysia
It’s well and fine in countries with 100 percent Muslims to apply the
rigid rulings of Islam but when a country has over 90 percent
non-Muslims it raises the question of necessity and fair play. Will such
a request be granted in a Muslim country to non-Muslims to establish
another system of law outside the prevailing Islamic system of law? Can
you deny that laws for non-Muslims in Muslim countries do not offer any
equal rights whatsoever? All anyone needs to do is to look up the legal
provisions for non-Muslims in state documents to discover this fact.
Simply put, we feel that Wahhabism (hiding as Salafism) is
undermining peace in all the countries of the world creating disharmony
amongst Muslims themselves as well as targeting non-Muslims in general.
We do not want to see this chaos happen in Sri Lanka. It is important
that concerns raised about Wahhabism is not misinterpreted to mean the
inference is against Islam or Muslims, though it appears that taking
this route avoids answering questions. Therefore, without avoiding the
issue, can Kareem allay those fears first? And if these questions are
being raised elsewhere is it wrong to also raise them in Sri Lanka? Even
journalists in Egypt fear Islamization of Egypt on very rigid lines –
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/01/223742.html - is it
racism when I raise similar concerns.
Does Wahhabism respect Islam? http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?(Wahhabism is not Islam)
Religious freedom
According to Kareem if “equality” of status is applicable to all, can
he provide concrete examples in today’s context and not incidents drawn
from the time of the Prophet? We can prove that Muslim countries are
essentially theocracies and do not run on the principles of democracy
because in Muslim nations the state and religion are one and the same so
where does that leave room for equality of status to be claimed for
other religions – I would be very interested to read Kareem’s response?
In reality, a Non-Muslim cannot even dream of becoming a Judge in a
Muslim nation? http://en.islamtoday.net/node/1220
When Mr. Kareem says there is “equality” the Saudi state website says
to the contrary. Taken from Saudi Govt website: “Non-Muslim worshippers
risk arrest, imprisonment, lashing, deportation, and sometimes torture
for engaging in religious activity that attracts official attention”) -
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2005/51609.htm. I am confused further
because Section II. Status of Religious Freedom under Legal/Policy
framework says – “Freedom of religion does not exist. Islam is the
official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims. Religious freedom
is not recognized or protected under the laws, and basic religious
freedoms are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned
version of Sunni Islam. Citizens are denied the freedom to choose or
change their religion, and many non - citizens, including Muslims,
practice their beliefs under severe restrictions. The government limits
the practice of all but the officially sanctioned version of Islam and
prohibits the public practice of other religions”.
There are further confusions. Kareem says “When she claims that
non-Muslims have no equal rights in Muslim countries she is off the mark
again” – then please explain why Premanath Pereralage Thungasiri is
awaiting beheading for keeping a small Buddha statue in his private room
in Saudi Arabia.
It’s all about logic really. In 100 percent Muslim countries or in
countries where Muslims are the clear majority what rights are
realistically given to non-Muslims particularly in respect to freedom of
religion and worship?
Applying the same principles where Saudi Arabia, a 100 percent Muslim
country does not offer any rights to non-Muslims, would anyone like if
Sri Lanka by virtue of having over 69 percent Buddhists declare that
animal sacrifice should be banned because it goes against the teachings
of the Buddha who condemned animal sacrifice as an evil practice?
‘Optional’ and ‘compulsory’
Would it also be fair if predominant Buddhists demanded that all food
items be vegetarians? There is a difference in ‘optional’ and
‘compulsory’. Vegetarian food is optional, liquor-free is also optional,
halal must also be an optional item especially in non-Muslim nations.
Have we not respected Muslims dislike of pork items not to serve them
but can that be said of the serving of beef when both Buddhists and
Hindus generally do not partake of beef? Can we expect to see the ‘No
Pork’ notices being amended to read ‘No Pork and No Beef’ in all
restaurants out of respect for the sensitivities of Buddhists and Hindus
who together constitute 80 percent of the population?
How can the Muslims demand from others to respect Islam and their
beliefs and their religious icons while the Qur’an commands the
humiliation and the killing of non-Muslims for simply not embracing
Islam as their religion, Sura 9:29? Kareem speaks about Jews but the
Qur’an 5:51 states to hate them. “O ye who believe do not take the Jews
and the Christians as your friends … If this was the norm in the past,
should things now change in the present given that we are all living in
a global village – dependent on one another?
Yet, Kareem asks “as minorities, shouldn’t we have equal rights with
the Sinhala Buddhists” and all I can ask is a simple question – where
have minorities been denied rights legally and constitutionally that are
exclusively enjoyed by only Sinhalese Buddhists?
Buddhist holy places
When Mecca is out of bounds to non-Muslims because it is a sacred
Muslim place, why do Muslims want to put up a mosque in the sacred areas
of the Buddhist citadel of Anuradhapura or near the sacred area of
Buddha Gaya in India with loudspeakers blaring at full throttle five
times a day and disturbing the calm and quiet of these Buddhist holy
places – is this not aimed at creating unnecessary tensions? Is it
racist of me when I say that there can’t be two different standards at
play in matters that suits Muslims?
Can Kareem recall how in 2001 the Taliban demolished the 1500 year
old Bamiyan Buddha statues (built in 544AD) in spite of appeals from the
world not to destroy what is sacred to others? Is it wrong to be
distressed when 25,000 people gathered in Bangladesh a few months ago to
destroy centuries old Buddhist temples, artifacts and killed Buddhist
monks simply to erase all traces of Buddhism from Bangladesh. Is it also
wrong or racist of me to wonder why when Sri Lanka has shown so much of
hospitality to the Maldivians allowing them to be educated in Sri Lanka,
seek medical treatment and to even live as Sri Lankans that they should
bring in legislation to prohibit us from entering the Maldives carrying
a Buddha statue or a Buddhist book.
Where is the acceptance of Multiculturalism and freedom of worship in
Muslim Maldives when as recently as 2008 its Constitution was amended to
revoke the citizenship of Maldivians who converted from Islam. Note -
until 1153 A.D. the Maldives was an essentially Buddhist nation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/world/asia/political-turmoil-threatens-archaeological-treasures-in-maldives.html
How fair is it Kareem – for raising these concerns on the basis of
not being able to understand the difference between what is said and
what is practiced by adherents of Islam that I am being referred to as a
Pauline Hanson. That is totally unfair because I have not advocated any
extremism – all I did was raise real concerns because these concerns
need to be addressed by people who want to sincerely live in peaceful
co-existence. Brushing these concerns aside as extremist and racist
ignores the possible dangers of a volcano erupting.
Kareem speaks of ‘Mithya Drushtika’. In Sanskrit this means
‘possessor of a false view’. This did not entail punitive consequences
by the State. In stark contrast an ‘infidel’ (or ‘kaffir’ in Arabic) is
an insulting and contemptuous term directed at dis - believers and it is
followed by harsh treatment by the State through discriminatory laws
e.g. jizya (jizyah) - poll tax that non-Muslims have to pay.
Foreign invaders
Islamic law identifies two distinct categories of non-Muslims. Pagans
and dhimmis (protected peoples or peoples of the book – Christians,
Jews, Zorastrians) made a distinction between two categories of
non-Muslim subjects. These were tolerated by Muslim rulers and were
allowed to practice their religion so long as they paid a poll tax known
as jizya. The rate and methods of collection differed from province and
by pre-Islamic customs. These were not used for charities, salaries and
pensions as stated but ended up in the private treasuries of the rulers
(Ottoman Empire used jizya to fund military expenses).
Kareem seems to disagree when non-Muslims are said to be classified
as ‘infidels’ or ‘dis-believers’ – then he would have to change the
millions of write-ups and analysis of Islam that term all non-Muslims as
infidels in a derogatory way http://www.islamforpeace.org/quran.html
http://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/english/country/malaysia/2008/newsarticle_5229.html
The basic fear Kareem, amongst the predominant Buddhist population of
Sri Lanka is that the ground realities of Islamization and rise in
fundamentalists taking place globally is nothing that can be excused as
an unwarranted mania or phobia.
Just as Buddhists have respected the sensitivities of other
religions, Buddhists should deserve some respect too. Sri Lanka was
occupied by three Western countries for over 450 years, and subject to a
harsh form of brutal governance particularly in the Portuguese period.
Thousands of Sinhalese Buddhists sacrificed their lives to liberate the
nation from foreign invaders. Today’s conquests are not through the use
of the gun but by using and manipulating the very tenets of democracy.
Keeping to facts – has loudspeakers at Mosques not disturbed and
violated the rights of over 90 percent of citizens? Did this not lead to
a Supreme Court interim order in 2007 banning the use of loudspeakers.
The court recognized the right to silence as a fundamental right of
the people and rejected the use of loudspeakers as it was not part of
the fundamental right of freedom of worship. Should it not be the
Trustees of the mosques, using loudspeakers who should be apologizing
for disturbing non – Muslims living in the neighbourhood and becoming a
public nuisance in addition to breaking the law of the land, rather than
people asking simple questions that could easily be answered?
Animal Welfare Bill
Animal sacrifice has been prohibited by tradition and customary law
of the land. In 1907, the British Colonial Government enacted the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance. Presently there is an
international petition lobbying public support for enactment of the new
Animal Welfare Bill introduced in Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill
in 2010 to replace the antiquated 1907 statute, and more and more people
are coming to take up the cause on behalf of innocent animals and their
right to live.
Sri Lanka is now placed in a morally indefensible position (due to
archaic and obsolete animal welfare laws) and we find ourselves very
close in this sense to many Muslim countries which do not provide any
form of legislative protection to animals e.g. Iran, Lebanon, Iraq,
Somalia, and Ethiopia.
Human rights
It would tantamount to a dereliction of public duty if a Cabinet
Minister were to allow his private and religious convictions to stand in
the way of law reform particularly relating to the welfare of animals
who were always protected under the watch of our Buddhist Kings of the
pre-colonial era!
Isn’t Saudi Arabia, which is fully controlled by Wahabbi Mullas,
blackmailing the USA through its control of petrodollars to install the
Wahabbi Muslim Brotherhood? Aren’t these Saudi, Somali and other
mercenaries funded by Saudi Arabia through the US proxy CIA – and target
nations become publicized as ‘failed states’ until objectives are
achieved - Is Sri Lanka’s case any different?
Our fears of the radicals and extremists ruling the moderate thinking
of all including the Muslims who have existed peacefully in Sri Lanka is
by looking at the fate of the countries like Libya, Iraq and now Egypt.
We are well aware of how the West used the Muslim Brotherhood to help
these nations collapse and today Wahhabism and strict sharia laws
prevail.
Have the moderate Muslims who had been living peacefully not thought
of the repercussions to them in viewing the suffering of natives in
these countries? Would the Muslims of Colombo and main cities wish to
give up the lives they lead to follow strict laws that are being
enforced through Sharia? When Muslims say Islam is a religion of peace
why is it that virtually all the movements carrying arms are Muslim? Why
would they accept arms to kill fellow Muslims?
When David Liepert, a “Canadian Muslim Leader and Spokesperson,
Interfaith Advisor to the Canadian Council of Imams,” asks plaintively:
“How can we expect non-Muslims to believe that Islam is a religion of
peace, when Muslim mobs around the world make liars of us all, Muhammad
included?” is he also being racist?
Will I still be called a racist when I quote one of the most
influential Islamic schools, Egyptian Qayyid Qutb who says that Muslims
have a duty to overthrow any non-Islamic government by violent means
“Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it.
Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a
movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it [Islam] any
opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and
hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they
are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. Only in this manner can
the way of life be wholly dedicated to Allah, so that neither any human
authority nor the question of servitude remains, as is the case in all
other systems which are based on man’s servitude to man.”(Quoted from
Andrew Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad)
For openly asking questions, it is unfair to be brushed aside as a
racist because of the reluctance to reply. If Muslims assert their human
rights in the West these same rights must be conceded to Non-Muslims in
Muslim-majority countries as well.
Apology should really come from those people who are not respecting
the sensitivities of the Buddhists and reluctant to accept the simple
fact that despite Sri Lanka being a multi–ethnic and multi–faith
country, it remains without a doubt a predominantly Buddhist country
with an unique Buddhist civilization that has won the admiration of the
civilized world. |