brand logo

The slippery slope of banning thought

26 Feb 2021

  • A dispassionate look at the Easter report's recommendations to ban Bodu Bala Sena, Wahhabism and Thowheed orgs 

  The final report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) appointed to look into the Easter Sunday attacks of 21 April 2019 is this week’s hottest topic, and the political arena is filled with varying opinions about the report’s contents. The report, as expected, contained a plethora of recommendations, some of which are long-term actions that are likely to take a significant amount of time, resources, and collective effort. One such recommendation is the action proposed in the PCoI’s report regarding regulating and monitoring certain religious organisations and movements, in a bid to curtail extremist religious ideologies and inter-religious tensions. After the Easter Sunday attacks, which were carried out by a group of religious extremists, a discourse emerged about Islamist extremism in Sri Lanka, including the practice of Wahhabism. Wahhabism is a conservative movement within Islam and is named after its founder, Theologian Mohamed ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who was born in the Middle East in the 18th Century. It advocates a return to a purer form of Islam. The PCoI, in its final report, recommended that the ideology of Wahhabism be banned, in addition to Thowheed organisations, as well as the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) organisation. This begs the question – how practical is it to ban an ideology, which exists more in believers’ minds than in books? Laws and regulations can stop people from physically practicing an ideology, but who can see their minds?    Can a thought be banned? To discuss the banning of an ideology, The Morning spoke to Prof. Subhangi Herath of the Colombo University Sociology Department, who said that when it comes to the idea of banning an ideology, the only thing that can be done is banning the practice of that particular ideology, as an ideology is something that exists in people’s minds. Prof. Herath added that a mere ban cannot remove an ideology from people’s minds, and that if certain people believe in that particular ideology, it continues. She also noted that what does and does not constitute an extremist ideology is subjective, and that certain things (ideologies) a person considers to be extreme may be perceived by another person as not extreme. She explained: “We can determine whether a certain ideology is extreme, only by assessing the extent to which it may be harmful to people’s existence. If a certain ideology is considered to be extremist and it is likely to cause imminent damage, such as the mass suicide incident which happened in Jonestown in Guyana, a ban may be useful.  “For example, even Jainism can be considered extremist, although not harmful. The only factor that determines whether an ideology is extreme, is by evaluating whether it is likely to cause any harm to a country and/or people. Otherwise, we cannot label, because people view the same ideology in different ways, depending on their thinking patterns.” Speaking of the results of banning an ideology, she added that even though a ban cannot stop people from believing in something, it can, however, limit the extent to which it reaches the people. “If certain cultural practices are being held openly, people easily adapt to such. If such practices cannot be held openly, the possibility of people embracing such practices and ideologies can be relatively low. At the same time, sometimes, the more that something is banned, the more people are attracted to it. “It happened with the Islamic State (IS). It is banned due to it being extremist and dangerous but various methods are used to attract youth. In many countries, including in so-called developed countries, youth joined the IS organisation as they were attracted by its ideology. When something is banned, it becomes an attraction,” she noted. When questioned as to what would be an effective method to address extremist ideologies, if imposing a ban is not, she added: “Imposing a ban is unlikely to help in removing an idea from people’s minds, and what needs to be done is openly discussing the contents of that ideology. Certain religious ideologies are usually not taken for open discussion, because certain religions take such things for granted.  “We can question a theory or a science, but people do not tend to question something they believe, particularly when it has been passed on to them from an early age. The best way to show the pros and cons of anything is discussing it openly. There is also a lack of room to discuss various ideologies in Sri Lanka. Even if discussed, no one is bound to respond.”   Banning Wahhabism crucial; more long-term steps needed As various extremist ideologies have been identified to be behind terror attacks, The Morning also looked into the relationship between extremist ideologies and violent activities. Speaking to The Morning, Trainer on Counter-terrorism Dr. Malkanthi Hettiarachchi said that banning Wahhabism is a first and necessary step, while adding that for long-term results, more policy and legal decisions can be taken. She added: “Laws and recommendations on banning do not come into being without studying the impact of a particular ideology or group's activity based on an ideology, and on the freedom and wellbeing of the community. Emphasis is particularly given to ideologies that instigate and or promote violence.  “When it comes to banning an ideology, it is banned because it is an extremist ideology. It may not be violent, but the potential to instigate and prepare the community for violence and mobilise the community into violence exists. Radical thinking alone is not extremism, but radical thinking that relates to extremism and exclusivism is what leads to violence.” She also emphasised that policies, regulations, and laws are needed to quell and limit the spread of extremist ideologies, and that responsible governments globally will not allow their countries to be contaminated. She added: “Governments must and will study the impact of that ideology on fracturing the community. We restrict their ability to damage society and collect funds and create narratives that damage youth.  “That is why banning is important – if you do not ban it, you allow the spread of exclusive extremist ideologies. Wherever Wahhabism has spread in Arab countries, we have witnessed extremism that has led to communal and ethnic disharmony, fractured cultural, ethnic and religious communities, and the destabilisation of the existing harmonious environment.  “Even though Wahhabism exists in the Arab world, particularly in Saudi Arabia, which is largely a mono-religious Islamic nation, it cannot co-exist in other places where people of diverse identities and faiths exist. Wahhabism clearly has no place in a multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country like Sri Lanka.” Speaking of the spread of the abovementioned ideologies, Dr. Hettiarachchi added that such ideologies being in Sri Lanka, and being allowed to grow, is damaging to the entire culture, and also impacts on all ethnic communities such as Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and especially Muslims who are moderate.  “In fact, more than non-Muslims, the Muslim community has expressed opposition to such ideologies damaging the peaceful image of Islam. One of the documents prepared after the Easter Sunday attacks, by Muslim civil society organisations, mentions dealing with Wahhabism as one of their recommendations. They say that the ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism do not belong to Islam.” Speaking of the global situation concerning the relationship between extremist ideologies and violence, Dr. Hettiarachchi added that every mainstream extremist group, such as Al Qaeda and the IS, have a strategy of involving and targeting people who do understand this concept, and getting them to be the mouthpieces for their extremism-based campaigns. She added: “The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) had the same strategy. Even now, individuals overseas who are inspired by separatism and also such persons in Sri Lanka are using the local community, basically the non-Tamil community, to campaign for the separatist agenda, because they feel that their credibility is high when they get non-Tamils to campaign for separatism and non-Muslims to campaign for Wahhabism under the guise of freedom of expression.  “Here is how they do it: You take one charismatic person, give them an ideology, and they take it forward by using the grievances of their communities. A lot of people are unsuspecting of these ideologies, and all mainstream global terrorist moments have such ideologies and practices.  “It is what happened with the LTTE as well. LTTE Leader V. Prabhakaran was convinced by a certain person to take up his agenda, and then he took it up and ran with it. All his speeches are a replica of Nazi Leader Adolf Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf (My Struggle). This has been written about by a few, and those who worked with Prabhakaran have given interviews about it. But nobody talks about it openly, because if they do it, they cannot maintain a movement. A lot of things the LTTE did are actually a replica of the Nazi movement.” Adding that extremist ideologies can exist in any ethnic or religious community, Dr. Hettiarahchi added that extremist Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus should not be allowed. She also said that while not allowing extremist ideologies to come into the country, all communities need to work on establishing harmony. She added: “In this way, we should be very careful of the extremist trap – that is, how they trap agencies and organisations to comment on it, because it generates a lot of conversation around it, and then people get divided based on who is best at arguing the case.  “So to begin with, I would say that banning is the first step. If you do not ban extremism and violence-inspiring ideologies to prevent them from coming into a country, it will poison the minds and destroy the country. One of the countries that have done it straightforwardly without trying to be politically correct, is Singapore, and they are very firm about it. I believe that a country like Sri Lanka has to also be firm and direct and say no to extremist ideologies – this is where we draw the line.” The second step after banning, according to Dr. Hettiarachchi, is raising awareness. She added that Sri Lanka can start with schools, children, families, educationalists, and the office culture, and that teacher trainers are also important in this process. She opined that when appointing teachers, it is necessary to ensure good standards and ensure also that they do not spread any kind of extremism or such thinking trends. She added: “Other long-term solutions after banning should be implementing a Harmony Act and ensuring ethnic harmony. Long-term steps are needed because these extremist ideologies such as Wahhabism did not come to Sri Lanka overnight; they have been creeping in for a long time – some since the 2004 tsunami era, and some since the 1990s.  “If we actually look at the trend taking place today, it was set in the 1960s. They are trying to legitimise these ideologies claiming that there is disharmony, when in reality, it is not the actual reason. When it comes to banning radical ideologies, Sri Lanka does not have to reinvent the wheel. Other countries have done it; and we have to learn from how other countries have safeguarded themselves from extremist ideologues and their ideologies.  “One thing is certain, we cannot have a dialogue with Wahhabism, as other Muslim majority countries have done this and moved on. Strong governance and strict laws are necessary as the first step.”   Extremist groups not part of the larger community   To inquire about the Muslim community’s opinion about Wahhabism, The Morning spoke to Ustaz Sabry of the Mishkath Research Institute. He emphasised that the larger Muslim community does not support extremist ideologies or follow any ideology to an extreme level. He also noted that when it comes to ideologies, there are a number of misunderstandings about certain ideologies, and that those following Wahhabism do not represent the general Muslim community.  According to Sabry, there are those following Wahhabism to minimal, moderate, and extreme levels, and that therefore, they cannot be identified under one category. He also stressed that those going to extreme levels of such ideologies constitute only a small fraction of the larger Muslim community. Sri Lanka is a country that has suffered more than enough due to people going to extremes, the latest one being the Easter Sunday attacks. The question now is taking meaningful and effective steps to address these concerns, without resorting to mere legal reforms. After all, countering extremist ideologies is tantamount to fighting with people’s minds.


More News..