Our anxieties yet to be allayed…but getting closer
Response to Hameed Abdul Karim:
Shenali Waduge
It is welcome to see the toning down of Karim’s expressions of
opinion and extending friendly gestures, therefore let me reciprocate
whilst also appreciating the Daily News editor who has accommodated both
our views allowing readers to see both sides of the story. The lovely
sketches courtesy of the editorial staff carry a deeper meaning for all
of us. In a democratic society this is certainly the best way to move
forward.
Let us approach the discussion on the presumption that there is a
problem. All problems offer solutions so long as honest and genuine
attempts are made to ensure that there is no repetition to what caused
the present unrest. In most cases, conflict arises from the ignorance
that certain practices seemingly natural to some may be the cause of
concern for others. When knowingly or unknowingly people start
disregarding others sensitivities and trespassing on others space and
territory which were traditionally considered as sacred and belonging to
the older culture, issues begin to rise.
This appears to be the root issue of the current unrest.
Before, I proceed any further, I would like to invoke the message in
the karaniya metta sutra where the Buddha calls on humanity to be
compassionate to all living beings in a manner similar to a mother
showing love and kindness to her only child.
This is one of the greatest declarations made in the history of human
kind.
Let us now take a step back and look at it from a “what if” scenario.
|
Ruins in
Anuradhapura. File photo |
* What if Muslims who had been eating halal as they have for a good
length of time (with no objections from any community) did not introduce
the need to issue halal certificates and for companies to obtain and
display certificates - would people be protesting against halal? The
current reaction is as a result of people opposing to see halal labels
in everything they purchase. If the certificate is today considered a
“right” perhaps the best compromise is to have separate halal counters
like the kosher products for Jews. It does not need to be a compulsory
certificate for all food, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals for the entire
nation. Two of the six top hotels in close proximity to each other in
Colombo cater exclusively to Muslim requirements – now no non-Muslim
will ever enjoy such freedom in a Muslim state. The halal certificate
was introduced as a response to Jewish Kosher products and with 1.8
billion halal consumers the halal business is worth more than $60
billion annually. Moreover without direct State involvement it is
tax-free and profits go directly to the companies issuing the
certificate. (http://www.worldhalalcouncil.com/about-us)
*What if Muslims had not been illegally putting up mosques or
encroaching on lands (ex: in Ampara district the 2000 year old
Muhudumaha Vihara where 200 acres had been gifted by the Sinhalese
Kings, or the Kurugala incident which has a history dating back to the
2nd century BC which the Muslims have taken over and four other places
south of Kirinda). Some Muslims contributors have said that putting up
mosques has become a competition and some are not even used. In the
current context sense must prevail in view of the rising opposition
against more mosques - a solution to this is a moratorium to put up
future mosques because we do not want to have a situation similar to
France, Germany and the UK. If Kareem argues against this, can he please
name even five temples/kovils/Churches newly put up in a Muslim country.
*Dambulla and Anuradhapura comprise historically sacred land areas.
The supposed ‘mosque’ in Anuradhapura was only an aluminum (‘takarang’)
shed round a tree with a green cloth at the bottom of the tree. The
scene was vividly shown on TV and it can be still seen on YouTube. The
shed had been hastily put up without any prior approval from the
authorities. It was discovered when the area was being cleared for a new
Buddhist Dagoba i.e. Jayamaha Seya, in the vicinity. It was the public
that opposed the unlawful constructions in sacred areas gifted by
Buddhist kings to the Buddha Sasana, it was the Buddhist public who had
got agitated because they saw Muslims as attempting to enter areas that
were earmarked as sacred Buddhist areas by tradition and customary law.
Thus the protests were due to the respect for traditional heritage
and territory being violated. When government officials and Police
arrived there was hardly anyone at the site to speak in defense or
provide any documents showing legal title to this ‘shed’. The government
official responsible had no hesitation in giving the order to the Police
to demolish this unlawful and unauthorized construction. The demolition
was a valid and legitimate exercise carried out by the State.
*What if Muslims had not been abusing the use of the loudspeakers?
The loudspeakers are a recent innovation and came into use perhaps in
the last 30 years at Muslim mosques. The loudspeakers by their very
nature are meant to be used only on special occasions and certainly not
on a daily basis five times a day every day. The right to freedom of
worship is not an absolute right. It is only a qualified right. Nobody
has a right to cause harm to another (human or animal) under the guise
of exercising freedom of worship. One’s freedom ends when pain begins.
The right to silence is deeply entrenched in any civilized society. It
is one of the most fundamental of human rights. It is associated with
the right to be left alone and right to sleep undisturbed. These basic
rights are infringed with the use of the loudspeaker. The original
complaint on loudspeakers arose following rifts between Muslims in
Weligama that led to the matter coming before the Supreme Court as a FR.
Be that as it may, the majority of non-Muslims who do not believe in a
God do not welcome being forced to listen to calls to prayer to God
through loudspeakers at different times of the day. Just as Muslims in
majority Muslim countries would not like being forced to listen to
Buddhist Pirith over loud speakers the same must apply in reverse as
well.
The Supreme Court interim order issued in 2007 required the consent
of the neighbourhood to be obtained before Police gives permission for
use of the loudspeaker and more importantly if a loudspeaker were to be
used at a mosque, it had to be directed inwards and not outwards.
However, the Supreme Court orders are not being honored. Buddhism is a
philosophy of silence and reflection; it is not a religion of
loudspeakers. We must all try not to compete to make the biggest noise
using loudspeakers in the name of religion because it is a public
nuisance to everyone. Countries like Australia and Singapore have banned
the use of loudspeakers. Use of a loudspeaker is not a fundamental
right– reducing the decibel in not sufficient a solution either.
Supreme Court Interim Order to Control Noise Pollution.
http://www.island.lk/2007/11/10/news9.html. It is not only in Sri
Lanka that the issue of loudspeaker has arisen. What excuse can Kareem
give for building a mosque in Buddha Gaya close to the Maha Bodhi temple
recently and using loudspeakers where the sound emanating from the
mosque affects the proceedings of the temple and Buddhists in prayer? –
Is this not directly targeting the Buddhist sensitivity?
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2012/08/islams-war-against-buddhism.html
? What if there was no requirement to pave way for Sharia courts,
laws, banking etc? Muslim weddings, divorce and other Muslim-only
customs has been practiced without objections from others. The people do
not want to face a situation like in Malaysia where rulings of Sharia
courts can overrule that of civil courts. Whatever excuses are given,
there is no requirement to have parallel courts in Sri Lanka. Customs
can continue as has happened. If Sharia Law champions for absolute
freedom of conscience and freedom of religion why can’t people put up a
temple, kovil of church in Saudi Arabia and other majority Muslim
nations? Why does Malaysia have an Article in its Constitution clearly
saying that Sharia Law can overrule rulings of civil courts? The truth
is that whilst allowing the other religions of the book that existed to
prevail all Muslim majority nations have stringent laws prohibiting new
construction or expansions? If Sharia is the law that all Muslims must
follow when questions are raised on its application the answer that is
given is not to denounce the law but the country that applies it – as
Kareem has done in the case of Saudi Arabia?
Let’s recap to 1915.
External forces
The riots resulted because coastal Moor settlers in Gampola started
building mosques along the existing perahera route, they had bribed the
Police to stop drumming when the Perahera was passing the mosques. The
riots were a reaction to several acts that Muslims (newly settled
Coastal Moors) had committed violating hitherto sustained mutual
understanding between the Muslims and Buddhists, and unwritten laws of
respect and tolerance. The riots were primarily as a result of the newly
settled Coastal Moors not being aware of the Buddhist ethos of the land
which eventually contributed to the civil unrest that ensued. Fast
forward to present – similar actions over a period of time have created
the reactions. The external force was the British in 1915 but today we
cannot overrule multitude of external forces attempting to create
disharmony.
There is a whole chain of actions that Kareem has to agree is what
has led to the reactions. Whether the reactions should not have been
violent is secondary to the fact that these incidents are as a result of
violations that have taken place. The factuality of these violations
must take precedence in any discussion and solution and not be sidelined
by only concentrating on the reactionary elements. Both are certainly
wrong and should not be permitted.
The response nevertheless has been to quickly use the biased media in
Sri Lanka to project that there is a deliberate racist and
discriminatory attack on Muslims in Sri Lanka. These channels neglect to
investigate background issues thoroughly to explain why the reactions
occurred because their objective is to use any and every instance to
demonize the government and the Sinhalese Buddhists.
Now we come to the question of non-violence. Certainly no religion
would ever advocate violence and Kareem will agree that all religions
except for Buddhism and Hinduism have a history of invading nations
using religion. No conquests of new territory have taken place because
of Buddhism/Hinduism or in the name of Buddhism/Hinduism. Violence on
Buddhist heritage has been sequential. It is certainly an organized
event. Who is behind this is as important as the fact that the objective
was to wipe out all traces of Buddhism. With that fait accompli it
offers little solace in apologies or sympathies post-destruction. It
makes little difference too whether the violence was done by Christians,
Hindus or even Muslims because the objective of annihilating history was
achieved.
We next come to equality and Kareem’s example of Vesak and Poson held
at the Sri Lanka embassy gently extinguishes the reality. If the Sri
Lankan Embassy was allowed to display Vesak pandols outside the complex
or even outside the residences of staff members or hold a mini Perahera
for the 500,000 Sri Lankans in Saudi Arabia then it would be a different
story. It is not only the public worship of a non – Islamic religion
that is forbidden but that Buddhists are not permitted even to carry a
Buddhist book, statue or any Buddhist symbol e.g. Vesak Card, when
entering these countries. Maldives which was a virtually a colony of the
Sinhalese in the distant past with Buddhism being the major religion has
now erased Buddhism even from their Museums and confiscate any Buddhist
item taken by a Sri Lankan at their airports. The GOSL cannot allow our
countrymen to be harassed in such manner and the External Affairs
Ministry through its diplomatic channels must take up this matter with
the Maldivian government without delay.
The topic of dress code was brought up to show our surprise at why
ladies are adapting to tribal dress codes in this modern era and this
change is visible across the world though none of the Borah ladies have
changed their attire. Through this attire we feel that Muslims are
attempting to segregate themselves on the footing of a separate
identity. It is these new conducts, attitudes and practices that are
seen as the seed of a future problem – because generally speaking people
respond to others in the manner they conduct themselves. We have all
heard of the saying – “When in Rome do as the Romans do”.
Political advantage
Kareem concludes that the weblinks sent are anti-Islam or run by
Zionists therefore let me know if the Huffington Post, the IBTimes and
the Center for Democracy and Human Rights also falls into this category
or if there is any website that gives a version that Muslims are ready
accept or suffice it for us to conclude that the world is totally at
fault for projecting Islam as a religion of violence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/saudi-warns-nonmuslims-re_n_1688859.html
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/365501/20120721/saudi-arabia-kingdom-ramadan-islam-muslim-sunni.htm
http://www.cdhr.info/index.php?option=com_content;view=category;layout=blog;id=37;Itemid=68
And maybe this video too is another conspiracy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263905/Muslim-patrol-Hooded-vigilantes-walking-streets-London-telling-women-cover-taking-alcohol-hands-revellers-behave-Islamic-way.html
Kareem is also requested to provide the reference in the Mahavamsa
that says that Muslims had been trading in the country from Anuradhapura
times. As far as I know, there was no Muslim/Islam in Anuradhapura or
Polonnaruwa. It was only in 1283AD, that a Muslim delegation had been
given approval by King Bhuwanakabahu I of Yapahuwa to go to Egypt. It
was during this period that the Muslims from Coromandel coast of South
India invaded Sri Lanka. These defeated soldiers were however allowed to
remain in Sri Lanka and went on to settle north west of Sri Lanka. Even
Ibn Batuta when he arrived in 1344 was not given an audience before the
King. Therefore, Kareem’s attempt to showcase that Muslims/Islam existed
during Anuradhapura reign to justify the existence of the mosque at the
center of controversy does not hold water.
‘The Sinhala kings in Action’ -
http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/12/16/fea10.asp should not escape anyone’s
reading to understand the chivalry and intelligence with which the
Sinhala kings ruled Sri Lanka. It is advised not to create or change
history for political advantage.
Kareem needs to also be corrected that Buddhism does not spend for
conversions.
Next we come to the ‘ethnic’ political parties. Political parties
were formed along extremist lines by both Tamils and Muslims – JHU
entered the scene much later again as a reactionary force. We are all
the time concerned about how ‘nationalist’ motivated these parties are.
Majority of Tamil parties are seeking to either separate and putting out
a plethora of vocabulary that leads to the same target.
Buddhist heritage
Our next concern is how valid is the Oluvil Declaration of 2003
issued by the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress in today’s context of things.
(Sunday Leader – February 9, 2003, Volume 9, Issue 30).
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/archive/20030209/issues.htm
1. Muslim autonomy ensured in any federal solution
2. Muslims entitled to equitable share in all resources for development
3. Muslim political leadership must unite
4. Muslims must be represented as a separate entity at peace talks
5. Final political settlement must have consent of Muslims
Are these not grounds for concern in view of the nature of the
demands being made amidst a very large congregation? Of course these
demands made unanimously were relevant to the Muslims living in the
Northern and Eastern provinces but do we not have a right to worry as
well as voice our concerns – in a democratic nation no one can deny that
right? No one wants to have a country facing unwanted strife and why
would the Sinhalese wish to create trouble when it is they who end up
facing most of the problems – we did loose over 30,000 Armed Forces
personnel.
Kareem’s arguments project a view that Islam is being abused. That
violence takes place in the name of sectarian conflicts throughout the
Muslim world is true. Numerous sectarian issues have taken place in
Eastern Sri Lanka as well. I believe we can recall how a Muslim was not
allowed to be buried some time back in the Eastern province.
Kareem needs to accept that whatever excuses given Muslims are having
problems in every nation or people are having problems with Muslims –
either way, there is a problem. I do not think that the Buddhists in Sri
Lanka are asking Muslims to be accountable for the behaviors of
“Muslims” in other countries. No one is asking Muslims to defend the
indefensible but to see how best they can address the concerns in Sri
Lanka. Moreover, I do not think Sri Lanka has a problem with Sufis’ but
only with groups that are out to forcefully dominate Muslims and
non-Muslims. Wahhabism is a concern to a large number of people
throughout the world including the Sinhalese Buddhists of Sri Lanka.
Just as it is a concern for Muslims it is a concern for the rest of the
world including Buddhists too. Kareem may like to respond to this link
-
http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2071/the-wahhabi-invasion-of-sri-lanka
Sri Lanka is one of few countries where Buddhism is revered and
protected whilst some of these very Buddhist majority countries like
Myanmar and Thailand are facing similar threats that Sri Lanka does not
want to experience if left neglected.
No one can deny the high status given to Buddhism in Sri Lanka under
the rule of 180 kings. The multi-cultural ploys to usurp and marginalize
the status of Buddhism is nothing that can no longer be entertained by
the Buddhists of this country.
http://english.srilankamirror.com/2012/05/we-are-fighting-to-save-the-2300-year-old-buddhist-heritage-that-is-ours/
More importantly, for the Sinhalese Buddhists, Sri Lanka is their
birthright – their only heritage and place of refuge.
In short the Buddhists do not want to see Sri Lanka “softly usurped”.
The course, I take is not violent but to bring to the open issues
that would offer both sides the opportunity to think inward because the
voice of the Buddhists is suppressed and put into the background by a
biased media. It is no exaggeration to say that Buddhists do not receive
the same opportunities to air their views and opinions that media
provides to non-Buddhists.
It has become media-savvy to quickly flood the electronic and print
media demonizing the Buddhists as racists and extremists because the
mass media is virtually owned and controlled by non-Buddhists. Since the
examples are too many, an example relevant to the discussion is the
Sacred Land Act, a bill introduced to Parliament in 2011 has been
quickly diverted to project the view that the Act has nothing to do with
protecting sacred land and so an over-active media drums this version
and the Act is purposely put into the background by the negative
buildup.
If media had balanced the issues as an unbiased media should even the
LTTE issue could have been dealt with better. If not for the present
Daily News editor, the dialogue that has prevailed would not have
happened. The other daily private newspapers hardly carry anything
related to Buddhist issues or give space to Buddhist opinion apart from
the monthly Poya supplement – this too is no exaggeration.
No one can accuse the Buddhists of discrimination or disrespect of
other religions. If the country had been as rigid as projected there
would be no occasion to protest against the many mosques that have been
established and others now been constructed in an uncontrolled and rapid
manner.
If Buddhists respect the right of other religions to exist and their
adherents are allowed to practice their religion unhindered, then people
belonging to other religions must respect the status and place of
Buddhism as non-negotiable by virtue of Article 9 of the Sri Lanka
Constitution and its foremost place in the history of the country.
The sentiments that have been expressed in these past discussions
were to bring to the attention of all that communities to live in
peaceful co-existence must respect the traditional space of others which
is not a prescriptive right especially in times of national security. It
is when infringements and encroachments take place that issues arise and
open room for external forces to make the situation worse.
Thus, mutual respect of traditions, practices and most of all space
will help solve all issues of present and future.
National security
We do not have to take the road other countries have taken nor repeat
the route that the LTTE took which was why I took the most sensible path
of bringing these issues to light so that in the open and with issues
transparent solutions can be reached with wisdom.
Having said that, it is the authorities that have failed in their
role – the Government, in particular the municipalities and provincial
councils should have been doing their job without favour. Illegal
constructions take place under the very noses of the authorities and
sometimes with their explicit knowledge whilst these very people create
nightmares for ordinary citizens wanting to build a simple house.
It cannot be reiterated enough that the authorities need to review
the rules and guidelines and follow these to the word and the public too
must be afforded opportunity whereby their concerns are heard as well
without bias.
No illegal construction must be allowed to prevail under any
circumstances.
Since the discussion started with a “what if” scenario turning the
tables around Kareem and others can ponder a situation where what if the
Buddhists did not protest against any increase of mosques, did not make
their views known on halal, sharia laws and other associated systems,
did not object to loudspeakers, did not alert people to radicals
indoctrinating youth, did not protest against home slaughter, animal
sacrifice and halal methods of slaughter allowing animals to bleed to
death without stunning them…. what if the entire country remained silent
and allowed all these and more to take place since we get loans, since
we get a vote of international support etc? Is this the solution that
would satisfy all?
Most of the recent issues have stemmed from the absence of proper
visibility and legality – it is now the time to look inwards and
thereafter work out remedial measures so that everyone can live as they
had in peaceful co-existence without creating any disturbance to the
equilibrium. We do not want to see the current trends reverse the
goodwill nurtured over years.
I will quote from the leader of the Muslim Congress who made a
special statement in August 2012 that “We (Muslims) have enjoyed the
patronage and the benevolence of the Sinhala people from the time of
Sinhala Kings. In fact, it was only a few months ago that I ….publicly
acknowledged the pluralism as practiced by Sinhala Buddhists from the
Time of King Senarath who gave refuge to the Muslims persecuted by the
Portuguese invaders.”
It was in 1626 that King Senerath(Kandy) to whom the Muslims appealed
following their expulsion by the Portuguese, settled nearly 4,000
Muslims in East Sri Lanka.
In conclusion, it would not be correct to accept a personal dinner
invitation when I was only attempting to project the side of the
Buddhists that the majority of media channels do not wish to give voice
to – but I sincerely thank Kareem for extending the invitation.
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by
many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and
elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many
generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and
all, then accept it and live up to it.
The Buddha
Kalama Sutra
|