Understanding the role of ‘Zakat’ in humanitarian response

Zakat’ is the Muslim practice of charitable giving based on accumulated wealth. It is one of the five pillars of Islam and is obligatory for all Muslims who are able to do so. The past 30 years has seen a growing interest in humanitarian activity among Muslims as part of expressing their spiritual obligations of Zakat.

There is little to no information available on the use of Zakat in humanitarian response. However, estimates suggest that it could be significant in terms of both volume and potential impact upon humanitarian response.

The GHA Programme’s recent report Humanitarian assistance from non-state actors: What is it worth? briefly refers to Zakat as a potentially significant yet largely untapped source of funding for humanitarian assistance. Dr Jemilah Mahmood and Amjad Mohamed Saleem explore this issue further.

UNDERSTANDING CHARITY AND ZAKAT IN ISLAM

The recent report by the Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) Programme: Humanitarian Assistance from Non-State Actors: What is it Worth? makes interesting and pertinent reading, pointing to a paradigm shift in thinking around both humanitarian funding and programme delivery as new non-state actors have emerged as key players alongside traditional institutional actors. Here we explore the potential role of ‘Zakat’ in humanitarian assistance as a significant form of non-state humanitarian funding.

The concept of charity is central to social justice, which is a sacred value in Islam and a tenet of the faith. Indeed the Qur’an considers an act of charity as more than just a good deed because of its function in balancing social inequalities. The Qur’an also has numerous references to the importance of creating a just society and provides a framework for justice in inter-personal relationships toward the poor and needy, and connections between communities and nations.

Muslim non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other Islamic charitable institutions are therefore seen as instruments of social justice, and are part of the theological, intellectual and cultural heritage of the Muslim society. The instruments are divinely entrenched in the teachings of Islam, as illustrated in the following verse from the Qur’an: “If anyone saved a life it would be as if he had saved the life of the whole of mankind…’ (5:32). It is these types of teachings that have inspired acts of charity, concern for others and the provision of social welfare to be an integral role in Muslim societies for the last 1400 years, as without them faith is incomplete.

Charity in Islam, in the traditional sense of a transfer of material resources from the rich to the poor, falls into two categories in Islam: voluntary (Sadaqah) and obligatory (Zakat). These practises are supposed to empower communities and address their needs sufficiently enough to lift them out of their vicious cycle of poverty.

CHALLENGES FACED IN USE OF FUNDS COLLECTED THROUGH THE ZAKAT PROCESS

There is no shortage of funds for charitable causes coming from the Muslim world. The issue is not about the amount to be collected but what is done with it. A study in 2012 has estimated that every year, somewhere between US$200 billion and US$1 trillion are spent in “mandatory” alms and voluntary charity across the Muslim world. In fact, Islamic financial analysts estimate that “At the low end of the estimate, this is 15 times more than global humanitarian aid contributions in 2011 of $13 billion (UN Financial Tracking System)”. However, as economist Habib Ahmed calculated in 2004 – Muslim countries could lift all of their poor people out of poverty with only a third to a half of all potential Zakat collections.

These numbers speak not only to the duality of increasing religiosity and wealth in the Muslim world, but also to the globalisation of increasing poverty. It is estimated that one-quarter of the Muslim world is living on less than $1.25 a day (calculated by IRIN based on 2011 Human Development Index) with increasing needs for humanitarian response, recovery and peace-building in the Muslim world from Somalia, Syria, Mali among many other countries.

However in recent times, there has been a lack of understanding (and spirit) with regards Zakat (and Sadaqah). Zakat is largely regarded as charitable giving and its potential to go one step further and empower communities has not been adequately realised. As a result, the wide breadth of possibilities, which includes supporting non-Muslims; the levying of administration costs for the collection of Zakat; vital infrastructure projects; peace building and human trafficking initiatives remain grossly under funded and unexplored with Zakat. Herein lies the major challenge of balancing the role of Zakat in its conventional understanding with the contemporary demands of society today.

THE WAY FORWARD

If we are to move forward in terms of really contributing to humanitarian and development initiatives, we need to evaluate and understand the empowering concepts of Zakat in order to develop new models for implementation that are not only congruent with the times but address the empowering aspects of Zakat. At the end of the day, charity in Islam is about redistributive justice as the hoarding of wealth is not permissible and carries penalties if found guilty of such practice.

Private donors – including Muslim NGOs and other Islamic charitable institutions involved in the allocation of funds collected through Zakat – need to move away from the idea that humanitarian response is merely an act of charity and philanthropy, but a tool for empowering communities to build resilience to poverty and humanitarian assistance.

this originally appeared here

On Rudrakumaran’s Opportunistic Hypocrisy Of Reconciliation

A recent post in the Colombo Telegraph by the ‘PM of the TGTE’ expressed solidarity with the Muslim community whilst “extending our fullest support to the Muslim people, we also extend our solidarity to the Muslim community, as a community whose mother tongue is also Tamil, asking them to join the Tamils in their struggle to build a secure future for all in the Tamil state”.  The article was written on the back of rising incidents of attack against the Muslim community by extreme Buddhist groups.

I not only found this article laughable but highly delusional in the assumptions that the Muslim community would entertain any notion of an alliance with the TGTE, whose singular premise has been to extend the LTTE mantra and campaign on a separate Tamil state.  Making this statement, the TGTE was not necessarily ‘concerned’ about the Muslim community per se, but it was aimed at showing the ‘intolerance’ of Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism.  At quite a crucial time for Sri Lanka, during the anniversaries of the Black July pogroms 30 years ago, the article aims to draw parallels with then and now and to show that nothing has changed.  Yet interestingly it seems to have taken the TGTE 4 years since the end of the conflict (and the occasions of these incidents) to publicly reach out to the Muslim community

At one level, it is rather presumptuous  and hypocritical of the PM of the TGTE to call for solidarity with Muslims and to suggest that there is a secure future for them in a Tamil state.  The experience of the Muslims with the Tamils has far from been the case.  Without acknowledging let alone at least apologising for what took place in Jaffna and the north in 1990, with the ethnic cleansing of the Muslim community by the LTTE, the TGTE’s sincerity will be questioned and the notion of the safe presence of Muslims in a Tamil state is merely academic.

However it is not just the expulsions from the north that needs to be discussed.  There are other elephants in the room that need to be acknowledged between the Tamils and the Muslims. Whilst the end of July was the anniversary of Black July, the beginning of August brought about two poignant yet painful memories for the Muslim community of the 30 year old war which apart from discussions on facebook, didn’t elicit much of a public response.

The horrific shootings at the mosques in Kathankudy, Batticaloa Province, in August 1990 by the LTTE is a painful reminder that the sanctity of religious places of worship is a stain on inter community relations in Sri Lanka and is not something that has been only violated by today’s proponents of Sinhala Buddhist extremism.  Visit Kathankudy today and the physical scars of that day are just as visible as the mental scars.

Fast forward to August 2006, and the precursor to the start of hostilities between the government and the LTTE which led to the end of the conflict in 2009, triggering international protests around the world for the way it ended, the killing of civilians and treatment of displaced people. Almost 50,000 mainly Muslims were displaced once again by the LTTE  from the village of Mutthur in the Trincomalee district, after leaflets were sent around the town  by the LTTE in April of 2006 warning Muslim residents to leave,  in a scene almost reminiscent of what happened in Jaffna in 1990.   Despite this mass exodus of people from the  town and being kept in refugee camps, the international outcry and remembrance will be for the 17 aid workers who were killed in Mutthur during this time.  What is also little talked about apart from the actual displacement and the refugee crisis that ensued are the eyewitness accounts that talk about how LTTE cadres intercepted evacuees from Mutthur and separated youth from the group, executing them,  with some dying as a result of government shelling.

Without such acknowledgements and recognition of such incidents, the rhetoric of TGTE and many other Tamil representatives (both outside and within Sri Lanka) ring hollow as they opportunistically ‘reach out’.

Of course the opportunistic hypocrisy is not just one sided.  There are those in the reconciliation movement who will have to ask themselves some serious questions as they fail to address the trajectory of Sri Lanka currently.  30 years ago when the mobs came hunting for the Tamils, many Muslims were warned that their time would come. It seems recent incidents involving the Muslim community seem to be proving this statement to be true.  In the week of the commemoration of the Black July anniversary, there was a lot of naval gazing and hand wringing as people  not only openly apologised for the sins of their community but also spoke eloquently about the need for lessons to be learnt.

Yet a few weeks afterwards in the wake of an attack on a mosque in Colombo, seeming to put into action the threats from 30 years ago, it was evident that those laments were nothing more than just rhetoric.  The deafening silence of many prominent Sinhalese activists (a large number of them Buddhist), especially those involved in reconciliation work, a large number of them friends (from the UK),  has not only been disappointing, but frustrating and disheartening.  In the height of the real challenge for reconciliation for the country, it was met with silence and inaction.

Thus in that light, the premise of the article the PM of the TGTE could be interpreted as right:  The actions of the minority extreme Sinhala Buddhist elements actually reflect the sentiment of the majority. If that is the case, then there is no hope for any united Sri Lanka where anyone who is non Sinhala Buddhist can hope to live peacefully. One can argue whether that would also exist for non Tamils in the TGTE, but again that is academic.

There are many who argue that had they been able to, they would have spoken out or tried to help during Black July as lessons were learnt  The opportunity that they missed then presents itself now.  In the absence of any real effort to tackle ethnic and faith problems now, all the rhetoric of reconciliation (by all stakeholders) smells just of opportunistic hypocrisy.

If we truly want reconciliation, then we have to be consistent and at least speak out against any injustice perpetrated in our name.

this originally appeared here

Protecting Refugee Rights: The Role of Religion

Religious teachings and practices cannot be ignored if we are to effectively protect the rights and wellbeing of refugees.

During my time as country director for Muslim Aid in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, I dealt with refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) fleeing man-made and natural disasters. Very often, I came away from each project thinking the same thing: “We are not doing enough”.

This is not aimed as a criticism for the sterling work many humanitarian agencies undertake during emergencies and in trying circumstances, but there is a gap in the work that is currently being done. This gap is the failure to recognise the role of religion in the protection of refugee rights, as well as a failure to recognise the traumatic spiritual experience that many people, who are forced out of their houses losing everything of material value, often face.

Being made a refugee is possibly one of the most testing times of one’s faith and patience — barring the loss of a loved one. However, because of the nature of how international non-governmental organisations (INGO), donors, humanitarian agencies, and faith based humanitarian agencies view the concept of faith — as an elephant in the room — the role of religion and spiritual counselling are not considered for refugees. Often, the latter are reluctant to engage in this, and rightly so when there have been instances of abuse involving faith based organisations preying on the vulnerability of refugees and trying to proselytize. Hence, the blanket unwritten rule that comes into operation: “we don’t do faith”.

It is also not helped by the fact that current debates on migration and displacement largely exclude discussions of religion whilst in refugee studies, “religion receives most attention for its role in violent conflicts and the politicization of religious identities”. These gaps in academic research tend to influence government policy towards refuge and asylum, which in turn ignores religious influences on forced migrants.

This is a shame, because part of the counselling and healing needed for refugees has to go beyond the emotional and psychological. Many of the people who are made refugees come from religious and spiritual backgrounds, and in order to restore them to some normalcy, we have to address the cracks in their faith as a result of their traumatic experience. In addition to this, and more importantly, by failing to consider religion as a fundamental factor in the protection of refugee rights, these academic scholars ignore the fact that religious beliefs and practices can be crucial to many refugees’ wellbeing once they have been granted asylum, providing a sense of security in strange and often threatening environments.

Protecting Refugee Rights From an Islamic Perspective

Largely because a lot of my work has been centred around Muslim displacement, and being a Muslim myself, I was curious to see what Islam had to say about this.

We are constantly told in history lessons about the migration of the early followers of Islam, and in the Qur’an, the stories of the lives of the Prophets Abraham and Moses (upon whom be peace), are also testimony to the fact that migration and seeking refuge are part and parcel of spiritual development.

Thus, based on an initial study on the subject, I was curious to delve into the history and theology of Islam and migration. Bearing in mind that refugees from Syria could soon number close to three million and that since 2007, Muslims have constituted the largest refugee populations worldwide with nearly half of the world’s refugees coming from Muslim countries, whilst a significant amount of the total IDPs are displaced in the Muslim world, it seems quite a timely topic to try and address. Especially as one of the current issues seems to be the lack of protective mechanisms for refugees in the Muslim world — where most Muslims seek asylum.

The concept of migration, or hijrah, is central within the teachings of Islam and its history, especially in the case of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him), who fled persecution in Mecca and sought refuge in Medina in 662 AD. This hijrahcame to symbolise the movement of Muslims from lands of oppression to those of Islam (although in current discussions this has been elaborated by scholars to lands of safety). Moreover, the hospitable treatment of Muhammed by the people of Medina embodies the Islamic model of refugee protection contained in the Qur’an. Thus, individuals not only have the right to seek and be granted asylum in any Muslim state, but it is the duty of Muslims to accept and protect these refugees for as long as they seek protection. Here, it is interesting to note that in comparison to modern refugee law, hijrah offers a broader definition of refugees and gives individuals, rather than states, the right to the determination of asylum.

The Qur’an speaks explicitly about the issue of asylum seekers and refugees:

“And if anyone of the disbelievers seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the word of God, and then escort him to where he will be secure.” [Chapter 9, Verse 6]

The concept of sanctuary, as is popular in Christianity, is also affirmed within Islamic law and history. On the conquest of Mecca by the Prophet Muhammed, anyone who sought refuge in sacred spots or the home of one of his companions was safe and secure. Thus, this is usually extended by scholars of Islamic law to conclude that asylum is not confined only to sacred places – it is also granted in homes and designated communal places under the protection of Islam, with the responsibility of asylum being provided without discriminating between free persons and those who are enslaved, rich and poor, men and women, Muslim and non-Muslim. This responsibility is formalised in the fourth chapter of the Qur’an:

“He who emigrates in the path of God will find frequent refuge and abundance.” [Chapter 4, Verses 97-99]

This responsibility is known as aman, or trust/safety, which encompasses the rights of refugees and asylum seekers and the duties required by their hosts. Aman also refers to the refuge and safeguard offered to non-Muslims, even if they are in conflict with Muslims. It requires that host populations facilitate the voluntary return of refugees to their places of origin when considered safe. Such refuge remains inviolate, even if the person who is being offered protection is in a conflict against Muslims.

However, principles in Islamic law regarding refugee assistance and protection remain largely ignored in academic and political discourse, and certain challenges need to be discussed. For example, Islam recognises two types of rights: rights that humans are obliged, by virtue of being the creations of God, to fulfil and obey, and rights that they are entitled to expect from their fellow human beings.

This may appear to have some contradiction with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), where the latter corresponds to what are elsewhere termed "human rights". The former are rights that stem from, and are obtained through, belief in God and religion. In this concept, only God truly has rights and the rights of humans are understood as their obligation to abide by God’s commands. They are, first and foremost, the rights of individuals to abide by and adhere to the laws that God decreed and are only possible through this belief system; thus potentially excluding people who do not believe in God.

Another potentially difficult point to reconcile is the principle of equality between men and women. The UDHR affirms unconditionally the complete equality between the two sexes. The discussion in Islamic law does offer different rights and obligations to men and women, which means that in the situation of the rights of restitution of property to refugees, for example, the following question may be raised: What are the implications for the many female-headed households trying to survive or rebuild lives and livelihoods after conflict and displacement?

The Role of Religion

What this brief discussion on Islamic rules and regulations shows is that there are valuable sources for the protection of the rights of refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers from Islamic sources. No doubt Muslim countries and faith based organisations need to understand them fully in order to deal with some of the crises affecting the Muslim world today. More broadly speaking, religious teachings and practices cannot be ignored when dealing effectively with refugees. Space needs to be provided for these discussions and it needs to be considered at all levels. As we commemorate World Refugee Day and Week, we need to now think about new paradigms for dealing with refugees which involve engaging in faith, religion, and spirituality issues.

*[Note: This article is an adapted version of an earlier report by the author for Islamic Relief Worldwide and the UNHCR.]

This was originally posted on Fair Observer

Sri Lanka: The Uncertain Future for IDPs

Sri Lanka’s internally displaced persons continue to face significant challenges for resettlement.

In a previous piece for Fair Observer, I wrote about the plight of internally displaced persons (IDPs) who were victims of the Sri Lankan conflict at the hands of the LTTE, and who still remain without much hope of any viable solution today.

These victims, who have languished in camps for the last 23 years, have barely elicited a response except at election time when they become pawns of politicians. Recently, the politicisation and the ethnicisation of this agenda have pitted a Muslim politician against a Tamil religious leader in terms of who gets priority for resettlement — and effectively the bigger share of the resettlement pie. This development does not bode well for relations between the two communities.

Ethnic Cleansing

Worse still is the hypocrisy of many human rights organisations and Tamil Diaspora groups, who neglect to mention these particular IDPs as they have vociferously campaigned for the rights of the displaced Tamil people affected by the end of the war.

However, recently, the plight of IDPs has been recognised in a few ways. Firstly, the recent admissions over the last few months by Tamil politicians of the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1990, shows the beginning of a process of healing and recognition for this group of people. The second issue concerns a report issued by the Commission of Inquiry for Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation (LLRC), set up by the Sri Lankan government in the wake of international condemnation over the end of the conflict and post-conflict reconciliation.

In its 407 page report, one chapter is dedicated to the issue of resettlement. Within this, the displaced Muslim community from the north warrants special reference.

The report also highlights some of the challenges faced in terms of once again resettling these displaced people in their places of origin. These challenges range from political will and financial obstacles, to the will of the people to actually move.

One of the biggest challenges appears to be uncertainty in the actual process of physical resettlement and reconstruction. There seems to be a grey area in terms of which entity is actually doing the resettling and reconstruction. Once the purview of international humanitarian agencies and international donors, it now appears that this is no longer a priority as many agencies and donors are now winding down operations in the country — citing lack of priority or challenges in working with the Sri Lankan government.

It seems that the government is also keen on keeping its cards close to its chest, which could be interpreted as either a lack of political will or based on an already negative perception and poor confidence in the NGO community;  a lack of willingness to engage with them. The most common excuse has been that they want to “avoid the same mistakes post-tsunami”. This is a reference to the influx of agencies into the country post-tsunami that largely worked unregulated and without much accountability; such that questions are still being asked today about the amount of money that flowed into the country versus what was done in the post-tsunami venture.

Evidence of the lack of confidence in NGOs is present with the government; the private sector and now the military is being engaged in post conflict reconstruction and welfare in parts of the north and east of Sri Lanka.

Somewhere between these two arguments is probably the truth, as is often the case in scenarios of past experience. In addition to this is the fact that, despite the publication of the LLRC, it appears that the government has been reluctant to move forward on some of the key issues — especially on a comprehensive plan for resettlement. This reluctance has now been made worse by the fact that the Government of Sri Lanka has now withdrawn from public domain the LLRC report citing “completion of work”, according to a Twitter Q&A session conducted with the president, yesterday. This confirms fears that the LLRC will now rest in the annals of Sri Lankan history and disappear from any practical implementation, as has been evidenced by the lack of mention in any public space by representatives of the government

Where to?

However, if we are to be truly honest, it would be very surprising if anything detailed has been drawn up because the task is huge and should not be underestimated. The issue is not confined to resettling the estimated 300,000 people who were displaced as a result of the end of the conflict. The issue is potentially resettling people from south India, as well as people who have been displaced over the last 20 years.

With large sections of the Muslim community, who were displaced from Jaffna and the north in 1990 by the LTTE, there are now new challenges that will need to be understood before these people go back. For most of the people who have been living in welfare camps for the last 20 years, they will not want to go back to the north and stay in camps there. Most of them want fully developed houses, schools, roads and other infrastructure before they move back. In short, they want new towns and livelihoods.

We are now talking about two or three generations as families have expanded. Where there was one family and one house, you now have three families and three houses.  The other issue concerns the generation that grew up in welfare camps with only a tacit knowledge of the north. Many of them have expressed a desire not to move back — as have many of those who were initially displaced. Hence, there will need to be resettlement plans made in areas where people are already residing.

Reconciliation

The mental challenges, however, outweigh the physical challenges. How will the Muslims and Tamils be able to reconcile after being separate for 20 years? If one goes to Jaffna today, there are only remnants of the Muslim presence there; many of the houses that were occupied by Muslims have been taken over by Tamils. Already, a plan initiated by the Indian government to re-house displaced Tamils in the north has come under criticism for not including Muslims in its quota.

One of my friends who is a priest in Jaffna remarked candidly to me: “Before the Tamils reconcile with the Muslims, we have to reconcile between ourselves. We will have to also reconcile why we allowed the Muslims to be kicked out in the first place.”

There is much truth to this statement. Jaffna is testimony to the challenge of reconstruction and reconciliation. Despite being in government controlled hands for at least a decade, it still bears the hallmarks of a town very much recovering from the conflict. The internal rivalry between Tamil political groups is as serious as the need to reconcile between communities. There will need to be a supreme effort from all sides in order for this to happen.

The real test for Sri Lanka and all its citizens (regardless of their affiliation) will be the planned and complete rehabilitation and reconstruction of the war affected areas and its people.

This originally appeared on Fair Observer

Post Conflict challenges for Sri Lanka - a Buddhist Muslim dilemma

On 18 May 2009, the prolonged separatist conflict in Sri Lanka between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) came to an end with the death of the LTTE Leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran (VP).

The demise of the LTTE, one of most ruthless terrorist groups in the world signalled the conclusion of one of the most turbulent periods of Sri Lanka’s history. The LTTE had been a powerful military force, and had controlled territory running a civil administration in the north and east of Sri Lanka for many years.   The Muslims in particular had suffered at the hands of the LTTE in the late eighties and early nineties with the mosque massacres in the east of the country and being expelled from the north. Thus its end symbolized an opening of a window of opportunity, albeit with some uncertainty, for the country’s future, in terms of trust building and reconciliation between increasingly suspicious and polarized communities.  

The 28 year old conflict extenuated already fragile cracks between the different ethnic groups, along faith lines, such that identity was strengthened not only by an insecurity of religious affiliation but a religious affiliation that is borne from a sense of the ‘other’ who is not only someone of a different ethnicity but someone of a different religion. Like many post-colonial societies, Sri Lanka drew on pre-colonial culture, including religion, to form a national identity after gaining independence.  These post colonial identities subsequently contributed to the conflict and have been abused and manipulated by the political elites to justify certain actions. This insecurity of identity has been felt on all sides, but the Sinhala Buddhist, who form the majority of the population, exhibit the most extreme of strains.     In particular the ideological strand of Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka has undergone a massive change and reinterpretation of its doctrines not only as a result of the conflict, but also by the political and social climate which has resulted in the steady growth of political activism on the part of a new generation of Buddhist monks.  This  means that the Sinhala Buddhist has become more militant, violent and ultimately intolerant towards other ethnicities and religions, largely led by the clergy.  The past three and a half years has seen a rise of violence against religious sites and members of religious communities, with a number of incidents including mob attacks on places of worship; robberies and vandalism; the killing of clergy; protests against communities and the proliferation of hate speech on social media, the internet and via the audio – visual media.   In particular once again it seems to be the Muslim community that is the  main target from both a commercial, social and religious perspective with some high profile cases such as the attack on a mosque in Dambulla in Sri Lanka in 2012.  In addition there have been many more incidents that have received little or no attention, either locally or internationally.  Of the accounted reports, there are 65 cases of attacks on places of religious worship with all the minority religious communities bearing the brunt of  the violence, the majority being from the Christian community (mostly against the non-traditional churches accused of forced conversion); Buddhist temples from the non Theravada sect; Hindu places of worship and the Muslim community.  At the front of this coordinated hate campaign is   an extreme Sinhalese Buddhist organisation called Bodhu Bala Sena (BBS), enjoying tacit support from the Government.   This  rising anti Muslim rhetoric over the last few years have involved public meetings, the distribution of pamphlets and articles in mainstream Sinhala and English papers which have ‘borrowed’ rhetoric being used globally to demonise and stereotype Muslims (especially by Islamophobes in the west).   There are also rumours that on a recent visit to the USA, the BBS were scheduled to have met Pamela Geller as well.

It is an irony that this anti Muslim movement are  oblivious to the lived experience of the Sri Lankan Muslim society which has over 1000 years of coexistence in the country and contributing at all levels of the State.  However it is clear that the movement is aimed at hitting the Muslim community in areas that aim to ‘decrease’ their visibility and thereby the ‘threat’ to Sinhala identity and ultimately Sri Lanka (in the eyes of the protagonists).  By declaring Sri Lanka as a ‘Sinhala only’ country, those perpetrating this mindless rhetoric of Sinhala supremacism presuppose the acceptance of Sri Lanka as a land sacred to Buddhism with Sinhala Buddhists as its chosen people. According to this vision, minorities, including Sinhala Christians are not co-owners or even guests (because guests have to be given certain privileges and rights) but they are second class serfs (untouchables) who should thank the benevolent majority for being given the chance to live there.  In so doing, these organisations have completely rewritten the rich history of a country whose mosaic is made up of different ethnicities, faith and culture. They have chosen to rewrite a history of the accumulation of unfinished business, the piling up of debts and the stacking up of fortunes and misfortunes.  Whilst it is true that Sri Lanka is the only place in which there are Sinhalese and where the Sinhalese language is spoken, this doesn’t equate to ownership of the island solely by one race or another nor does it speak of the rich inter mingling of all races and faiths that influence much of Sri Lankan culture, food, art and music today.  It also does a huge disservice to the Buddhist way of life which is about peace, tranquillity and tolerance of others.  Declaring Sri Lanka Buddhist doesn’t preclude it from having minorities of other faiths and ethnicities coexisting with equal rights.

Of course, questions need to be also asked of the Muslim community in terms of their isolationist attitudes which have led to large misperceptions about them and their practices.  Despite a history of coexistence, the past 30 years have seen more communities living in parallel to each other.  The BBS movement have brought to the fore basic ignorance about the rituals and  practice of Muslims.  In addition the inability of the community to define a home grown organic identity and instead adopting more of an identity similar to that found in the Middle East caused a lot more questions.  One such question that the Muslim community will have to discuss and deliberate on is the whole issue of a national identity vs. religious obligations.  Their commitment to the process of reconciliation of Sri Lanka should not be questioned at the expense of their identity.

The Muslim issue in particular adds an additional significant challenge to Sri Lanka’s external relationships especially as in the recent and distant past; it has been the Muslim world which has been supportive of the country on the international sphere.  In addition, with the significant amount of income coming from Sri Lankans employed in the Middle East, the destination for Sri Lankan exports and Middle East tourism, the challenges faced by the Muslim community will only serve to deteriorate Sri Lanka’s international standing even further.

Thus for Sri Lanka to move forward, it will need to have some serious deliberations on the path it chooses to take.  The Muslim community themselves have a role to play in this, but will have to exorcise some internal demons as well.

A tale of two countries

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way….”

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Over the past year, one can be forgiven if one thought that in fact that there were two countries called Sri Lanka or at least two visions for a country called Sri Lanka.  Both have seemingly emerged out of the shadows of the end of the bloody 26 year old conflict when Sri Lanka faced a cross roads in terms of moving forward cleansed of the past and with a chance to develop a common vision shared by all towards collective nation building and prosperity.  One version of that vision for the country has emerged of a nation struggling to rebuild, reconstruct and reconcile.  It is one where economic and infrastructure development whilst not being matched by good governance or the creation of a secure environment of equity and social justice, still provides some hope for what might come.  The second version of the vision for the country is one of extreme nationalism and ethnic and religious hatred; being pushed forward by a small minority speaking on behalf of the majority Sinhala Buddhist who are intent on propagating the spirit of separatism, oblivious to the disastrous consequences from the past and for the future. With the lens of the latter vision,  Sri Lanka is seen through a singular lens of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ attitude which perpetuates deeply delusive and divisive assumptions of single exclusive identities by these sectarian activists, who want people to ignore all affiliation and loyalties in support of one specific ‘religious’ identity. Such exclusive identities stress difference rather than belonging and ‘opposition to’ rather than ‘support for’ a Sri Lanka that follows the first vision. The result is that these conflicts manifest themselves into rumour, hearsay and generalization which are the first steps towards the stereotyping of people (their faith, their culture and identity) and the denial of a diverse, lived reality, the opposite of respect, understanding and acceptance. It thus describes a vision where hope begins to fade for the country to move forward.  As a result, the gap between these two visions for Sri Lanka seems as stark and vivid as Dicken’s account of two capitals in his Tale of Two Cities.

The rising anti Muslim rhetoric over the last 4 years, led by Buddhist monks, is symptomatic of the second vision and have involved public meetings, the distribution of pamphlets and articles in mainstream Sinhala and English papers which have ‘borrowed’ rhetoric being used globally to demonise and stereotype Muslims (especially by Islamophobes in the west).  It is an irony that the same anti Muslim movement are as dismissive of the west as they are of the Muslim community but use rhetoric available from the west to justify their stances,  oblivious to the lived experience of Sri Lankan Muslim society and the context in which the rhetoric is being used in the west.  The Dambulla Mosque incident of April 2012 and the recent proclamation of the halal boycott are aimed at hitting the Muslim community in areas that aim to ‘decrease’ their visibility and thereby the ‘threat’ to Sinhala identity and ultimately Sri Lanka (in the eyes of the protagonists).  This is in line with many of the right wing racist and conservative movements in the US, UK and Europe such as Geert Wilders (from the Netherlands) or Pamela Geller (from the US) who are intent on limiting the presence of migrants and especially Muslim migrants.

These types of views in Sri Lanka would be laughable in this day and age, given the fact that those targeting Muslims in the west use the issue of immigration to stop their communities becoming heterogeneous (in culture and colour) whilst in Sri Lanka, we are talking about people from the same country, if the potential consequences were not so tragic and dangerous.  The views are not only factually wrong but employ a level of ignorance, naivety and immaturity with respect not only to international relations but also actually to history.  By perpetuating these anti Muslim sentiments, there is also a sense of ingratitude to the fact that large parts of the Muslim world (and domestically the Muslim community) have been supportive of Sri Lanka in many international fora and during the times of the conflict and continue to do so despite the international pressure and scrutiny. However future support from such countries could be questionable given the sentiments being expressed in the country.

By declaring Sri Lanka as a ‘Sinhala only’ country, those perpetrating this mindless rhetoric of Sinhala supremacism presuppose the acceptance of Sri Lanka as a land sacred to Buddhism with Sinhala Buddhists as its chosen people. According to this vision, minorities, including Sinhala Christians are not co-owners or even guests (because guests have to be given certain privileges and rights) but they are second-class serfs (untouchables) who should thank the benevolent majority for being given the chance to live there.  In so doing, these organisations have completely rewritten the rich history of a country whose mosaic is made up of different ethnicities, faith and culture. They have chosen to rewrite a history of the accumulation of unfinished business, the piling up of debts and the stacking up of fortunes and misfortunes.  Whilst it is true that Sri Lanka is the only place in which there are Sinhalese and where the Sinhalese language is spoken, this doesn’t equate to ownership of the island solely by one race or another nor does it speak of the rich inter mingling of all races and faiths that influence much of Sri Lankan culture, food, art and music today.  It also does a huge disservice to the Buddhist way of life which is about peace, tranquillity and tolerance of others.  Declaring Sri Lanka Buddhist doesn’t preclude it from having minorities of other faiths and ethnicities coexisting with equal rights.

As a country under scrutiny for its treatment of minorities, these actions provide ample fodder for those anxious to paint the incident as one more infraction of an increasingly intolerant country.  The forces that have been anti Sri Lanka have wasted no time in rejoicing in the public relations victory that had been handed to them by this stupid and mindless ignorant group, made even worse by the muddled responses emanating from the Government.

However for me what has been even more disappointing has been not only the deafening silence of many prominent  Sinhalese activists, a large number of them friends, but the actual support for some of these  statements and actions by a lot of educated people worldwide. I have been especially disappointed that those who vociferously campaign in the interests of the country’s unity have been so far quiet as this rhetoric threatens to set off events that could lead to another July ’83, and even more inter ethnic conflicts.  It is the tragedy as Martin Luther King said, ‘that it is not the bad people are very loud but the good people are very quiet’.  For too long, incidents across history in Sri Lanka have happened because a lot of good people were very quiet and this has condemned the country to the state that it is in today.  If we want a semblance of the first vision for the country, as outlined above, this can no longer be the case.

I say this as a Muslim and a person with a shared Sri Lankan heritage – if we want to cohesively move forward, we must be prepared to condemn those unjust acts perpetrated by our co-religionists or from the same ethnic background supposedly in our name.  As a Muslim, I am continuously challenged on this for incidents my co-religionists have done globally.  I choose to do that not because I am solely a Muslim, but because it is about speaking out against injustice and oppression and being a voice for the voiceless no matter who they are.  Hence we do not and should not respond because we are Sinhalese or because someone has said something in favour of Tamils or we are Muslim.  We respond because we are Sri Lankan and we believe in justice and equality even if it is against our own community and society.  This is the sign of a mature and intellectual community.  This is also the sign of a society that has learnt from past mistakes where silence has meant complicity for what the country has suffered in its entirety.

So where do we go from here?  What are the possible lessons we can derive from the past that can help us out of this abyss we as a nation are staring into?

Firstly, the rise of such rhetoric is a wakeup call to those who are engaging in reconciliation work in Sri Lanka that a lot more needs to be done at the grass roots level.  It is fine to talk about political solutions but if people at the grass roots still do not trust each other or even know each other, then political solutions will just be a band-aid to a deep burn.  The vitriolic rhetoric that has been bombarded around is testimony to the fact that we need to start once again from scratch in developing a discussion that is not only top down but bottom up.  There needs to be parallel efforts to build trust between people and communities through multi faith interactions and crossing ethnic divides.   This is the role that the civil society and in particular the religious leaders should be playing  in order to bring out about reconciliation that rebuilds trust though reducing suspicion and  infusing human values with an understanding of the need to move away from apportioning blame for deceit and destruction.   Trust can only be rebuilt when a space is created for effective dialogue and understanding.  This space is one that starts at community levels with community organisations, leaders and intellectuals.  It is not just the sole responsibility of the political establishment but of everyone interested in this endeavour. Rebuilding trust is about honouring unity and celebrating diversity, working towards equity and justice and ensuring the eradication of social prejudices in building a collective identity.  We cannot abrogate our individual responsibilities in this task.  The simple question to ask ourselves, is how much do we know of and understand  our friends / colleagues (who come from a different faith and ethnicity)?  By knowing, understanding and respecting each other’s faith and community, we move from just tolerance to acceptance.  These are  the first signs of a mature diverse society and democracy.  It is the first part in accepting the social contract of citizenship of a nation.

Secondly solutions are needed for the restitution of a fractured polity which involves a healthy acceptance of the minorities. Dayan Jayatilleka goes further in saying that the minorities (like the Muslims, Tamils, Hindus, Christians) are the bridges between the Sinhalese and the outside world “and if those bridges are burned the Sinhala heartland will find itself isolated– which ironically, is exactly the situation in which those hostile to Sri Lanka want to place the State and the Sinhalese!”.  Hence there must be legal and constitutional structures that not only guarantee equal rights for citizens and freedom of religion but legislates against incitement for racial and religious hatred and discrimination.  No one argues about removing the privileged place of Buddhism in the country or doing away with rights of the majority, but it is expected that the spirit of Buddhism has to ensure a tolerance and respect for the other with legal safeguards in place to enforce this.

Sri Lanka is now staring into an abyss of uncertainty with bitter interethnic rivalries fanned by divisive politics. It is in the choices that are made and actions that are taken that will determine whether its inhabitants will be able to live in peace and harmony.  Transparency, accountability and social justice are the pillars of a mature democratic society.  Sri Lanka’s journey is still very early in trying to achieve this, but nevertheless it has started. The rise in anti Muslim hatred is not helpful in this journey as it sets the country back decades.

Constitutional amendments and projected development though are not enough to make hearts to forget or forgive. It needs a platform for genuine and objective discussion in the hope of moving forward towards achieving reconciliation and a new direction for the country.  This has to start at the grass roots and involve all aspects of society.  Reconciliation has to ultimately work through the hearts of individuals who harbour pains from the long years of their inability to meet basic human aspirations or from loss of loved ones and properties as they became innocent victims of calculated and indiscriminate violent attacks between fighting forces.

We are twenty years on from those horrible riots that sent the country down a treacherous path because it is exactly the same scenario where toxic Anti Tamil propaganda was pumped out in the years preceding the final riots of July ’83.  Lessons should be taken from history.   However it is obvious as Georg Wilhelm Hegh said “what experience and history teach is this – that people and governments never have learnt anything from history or acted on principles deduced from it.”  If we want to aspire to the first vision for the country (as articulated above), then the challenge for us is to actually learn from what has happened in order to have a county that respects its diversity and is united in its principles and values (that are influenced by Buddhism); otherwise we condemn future generations to the vicious cycle of hated, intolerance and violence that can only destroy the country and not unite it.

This originally appeared in Groundviews

The Limitations of Free Speech

For those of us working in the field of intercultural dialogue and understanding, it has been a frustrating few weeks.  Just as you think progress is being made between communities, global events peg you back displaying once again the vulnerability of human endeavours in trying to achieve peaceful coexistence and showing the very challenges that need to be overcome in order to ensure that the wheels are kept on the track.

For me this past two weeks has shown two different perspectives on the issue of the Freedom of Speech and how difficult it is to draw acceptable boundaries of such freedoms that people can readily and wholeheartedly agree on.

The first perspective of course has been the production of a so called film that insults the Prophet Muhammed (Peace Be Upon Him - PBUH) which has evoked much heated debate on all sides of the spectrum.   The riots across the globe aimed seemingly at this miniscule inflammatory film, has shown an outrage over the insult of the Prophet and a slight on the entire religion of Islam.    For those on the outside, it is not easy to understand the reverence that Muslims have for the Prophet (PBUH) in particular.   It is hard to explain in words but suffice to  say that any insult on the person or character of the Prophet (or indeed any of the other Prophets before)  goes to very heart of denigrating the very nature and identity of Islam and Muslims. Whilst the overall response was largely civil, groups here and there went on rampages and caused damage to public buildings, burnt flags and in the case of Bengazi in Libya, killed the US Ambassador and 3 other embassy staff. As is to and should always be expected, those small groups ultimately monopolized the media coverage, and it has been portrayed that the entire Arab/Muslim populations went on the rampage and engaged in a violent reaction to the film, when actually the truth was different.  This has been pounced upon by apologists for the film, who use the Freedom of Speech as an excuse, to show that  Muslims are either anti Freedom of Speech, or only supportive of such freedoms unless it affects them. 

The second perspective which perhaps has been missed globally but has certainly occupied headlines here in the UK has been the incidents related to the production of photos of the Duchess of Cambridge sunbathing topless.  Here again there have been small incidents of protest and in fact a quick reaction from the Royal Family who  have been quick to portray this as an invasion of privacy and brought about legal proceedings to end it.

In the wake of the current debate in the UK  on privacy and the role of the media these two seemingly different incidents throw interesting issues to discuss and debate.

The first is the issue of the freedom of speech which has been used in both the cases.  The argument goes is that we are free to say and do whatever (as long as it is not incitement to hatred or violence) and this includes things that we would find distasteful.  However how true is that statement?   In the UK over the last two weeks, there have been  two cases of things being posted on Facebook which have been deemed offensive and insulting resulting in the questioning and the imprisonment of those responsible.  The case with the royal family is about the right to privacy.  So there emerges from this a sense of some moral and ethical boundaries which are put in place by society and cannot be crossed without there being some legal or judicial implications.  So whilst it is deemed ‘proper’ to insult a religion or one of its holiest people / practices in the name of free speech regardless of whether it offends and insults the very private beliefs of its adherents, it is not ‘acceptable’ to publish photos of a topless Duchess or talk in a derogatory manner about the deaths of policewomen or soldiers killed in combat. 

One of the real issues for me that arises from this whole series of sad incidents is the fact that we need to collectively redraw the moral and ethical boundaries of free speech that takes into account the growing role of religion in the public sphere and that society doesn’t feel pushes them into.  Where does religious thought lie?  By insulting the very fabric of faith, do you somehow invade the privacy of people?  Is that acceptable? How can we have a conversation that can criticise without offending people?  How do we address the concept of freedom of speech, when something is done deliberately to insult and provoke?  The film which was a pathetic, poorly produced, cheap and highly insulting piece of work has been unanimously described as far from being an extremely poor production with no relation to art, no artistic or cultural message and has been agreed that the film aimed to insult, offend and maybe even stir problems and bring about violence and riots in the manner that we unfortunately saw.  Whilst the objective of inciting hatred and insulting was undeniable, can it still be defended under the freedom of speech?  What if something that denied the Holocaust was produced in the same lines?

The second issue is perhaps a little bit more subtle and deserves some deeper reflection.  Whilst at the very base level, the protests have reflected real anger at an insult to the Prophet (PBUH) and by extension an insult to Islam, it would also be naive to analyse what happened last week with the same lens and to not consider the concept of context.

 In almost all the countries were the riots took place and where it became violent, one cannot ignore the aspect of power dynamics and issues of governance.  Underlying all of these protests and riots is a deep sense of frustration and tiredness of an oppressed people who have been subjugated to trials and tribulations where their only identity and escape has been their faith and belief.  As Myriam Francois wrote “Broken by poverty, threatened by drones, caught in the war between al Qaida and the US, to many ‎Arab Muslims, the film represents an attack on the last shelter of dignity - sacred beliefs - when all ‎else has been desecrated”. 

The protests mirror similar protests held in the early twentieth century in India against British colonial powers when it was felt that the occupying colonial power was denigrating the beliefs and identity of its subjects ( as situation that led to the infamous Indian Mutiny).  Hence in order to understand the reason for the protests, one must not forget the context that has contributed to a mass dehumanisation of a group of people who feel that  an insult to their religion is just another step in their colonial and neo colonial subjugation.

The issue thus becomes that these debates of the freedom of speech has to be considered within the wider and more complex and evolving social and cultural context where class, race and faith are central. Lacking access to a public forum, often these protestors are seeking alternative means to make their voices heard and have their cultural and religious sensibilities recognised in the public sphere as a means of also protesting against the very nature of their current plights.

This was originally published in State of Formation