Commission on Easter Sunday attacks: Inaccurate narratives will be wrongfully exploited in global fora

By M.M. Zuhair, Latheef Farook, Mass L. Usuf and Mansoor Dahlan

The Easter Sunday Commission has said (at page 471): “The thowheed (Wahhabis) ideology is at the core of the Islamic extremism prevalent in the country. This was further fermented by Buddhist extremism which was not checked at an early stage.” 

In our view these are unacceptable observations, because as pointed out in our earlier statement we do not subscribe to the Western right wing extremist propagandist narrative of naming and shaming Islam or Buddhism for the extremist views or conduct of a few amongst their respective followers. Erroneous narratives such as “Islamic” extremism or “Buddhist” extremism will be wrongfully exploited before international fora for attack by anti-Sri Lankan interest groups. 

There are in our country, majoritarian extremism as well as minoritarian extremism, adverted to in the Commission’s report but incorrectly and inappropriately stereotyped as “Islamic” and “Buddhist” extremism.

We also do not accept that ‘thouheed’ or ‘thouheed ideology’ is at the core of extremism prevalent in the country. No doubt there had been differences of opinion within the Muslim community on methodology and ritualistic practices at different times in the country. There had been similar rifts amongst followers of other religions as well. This is a common phenomenon amongst followers of all religions. 

But it is noteworthy that the 21/4 attacks were never against any segment of the Muslims by other Muslims. Majoritarian extremism, intolerance and inciting anti-minority hatred and failure on the part of the authorities to prosecute according to law, some of which have been referred to though inadequately in the report, had led to the violent extremist terrorist attacks of 21/4. 

We do not accept the Commission’s observations above referred to for the reason that incorrect reasoning and erroneous actions thereon may not help the country to avoid a recurrence of similar attacks. Blind implementation of some of the recommendations, we fear may provoke radicalization and communal conflicts. On the other hand actions to be taken, must prevent and not be the new causes for the recurrence of another despicable 21/4.

It must be pointed out that the composition of the five-member Commission was exclusively pan-Sinhala. The 32-member Commission staff was pan-Sinhala. The Attorney General’s team which assisted the fact finding Commission erroneously described in the report as the “Prosecution” team was pan-Sinhala. The investigation team of 44, except for one retired SSP was pan-Sinhala.

Nevertheless the Commission had been forthright (A) to blame (at page 15) extremist groups in the majority community for ‘nourishing Islamic’ extremist groups; (B) to pointedly refer (at page 464) to the rise of “Buddhist” extremism between 2012 and 2015 though blamed only on the BBS; (C) to advert to (at page 361) Buddhist extremist organisations such as BBS as “vocal critics of Islamic extremism and wahhabism in particular”; (D) that the BBS “went beyond targeting the Muslim community in general with hate speech” and identifying two speeches one at Maharagama on 17 February 2013 and the other at Aluthgama in June 2014 containing “without any doubt hate speech”; (E) that the Attorney General file charges against the hate speech maker; (F) in naming Sihala Rawaya, Mahasohon Balakaya, Sinhale Jathika Balamuluwa and Sinhale Jathika Sanvidanaya among others as “anti-social Sinhala Buddhist Movements” and recommending action.  

Furthermore the Commission report states (at page 29) that the Sufi group “believes that one of their leaders is God”. This is shockingly false. Sufis believe Allah alone as God. We need to remember that Sufism is a well-recognised facet of Islam. So is ‘Thouheed’ which means monotheism or ‘oneness’ of Allah. It is clearly distinguished from the Christian concept of ‘trinity’. Every Muslim believes in the oneness of Allah. 

Sufis as well as ‘Muwahhideens’ who are called by their critics as ‘Wahhabis’ too believe in the oneness of Allah (as opposed to multiple Gods). Though every Sufi and ‘Muwahhideen’ (‘wahabi’) is a believer in the ‘oneness’ or ‘singleness’ of Allah or ‘thowheed’, not every Muslim is required or compelled to practice Sufism or follow the 18th century (1703-1787) scholar Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s thoughts. 

Muslims follow the Quran and the Sunnah, meaning the sayings and practices of the Prophet Mohammed. The views of Islamic jurists and scholars may be followed, in given situations, if they are not in conflict with the Quran. We must take care to avoid attacks on Islam, because that will be globally resisted and exploited by interest groups at international fora.

(M.M. Zuhair PC is a former MP; Latheef Farook is a journalist and author; Mass L. Usuf is an Attorney-at-Law and advocacy columnist; Mansoor Dahlan is a theology scholar.)