Religious freedom in Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia
May 10, 2013
Against the backdrop of religious violence in Burma and growing pressure against Muslim minority in Sri Lanka, an incident of grave concern occurred. This is none other than whipping and subsequent deporting of a Sri Lankan migrant worker in Saudi Arabia on charges of idol worship. A quick walkthrough through some popular Sri Lankan websites made me realize that whipping a person for idol worshiping in Saudi Arabia is used by some in order to justify the recent attacks against Muslim community. They seem to practice tit for tat. This is my own interpretation of the incident.
Population of Saudi Arabia is 100% Muslim. Every non-Muslim happened to be in Saudi Arabia is either a migrant worker or a tourist. This makes every Saudi a Muslim. On the other hand, Sri Lanka is a multi-religious, multi-ethnic country. Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, and Muslims for long have been citizens of Sri Lanka. The government is responsible for the protection of its citizens. By the constitution, a government binds itself to protect its people.
This contrast makes it unfair to compare Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government also has the responsibility to protect its own people. With all citizens being Muslims, it completely bans any idol worship. Building and worshiping idols is a crime under their law irrespective of what religion or belief is associated with it. Such a law in nothing wrong for a country with a 100% Muslim population. But if at least one non-Muslim happened to be a citizen, such a law will certainly be wrong.
.jpg)
I would like to extend this whole matter of protecting the citizen even further. It's a well-known fact that in Saudi Arabia, women should entirely cover themselves when in public. Due to that matter, female migrant workers arriving at the Saudi airport wear hijab covering them. Once when the Queen of England visited, she was also seen wearing a hijab. When one migrates for work, he or she is just a worker under an agreement. It's hilarious to see that some don't realize the difference between a contractor and a citizen! A citizen is bound to be protected by the government. A contactor signs an agreement and comes to work. He is deemed to be aware of the conditions laid down by the agreement. On what grounds can one say "If wearing hijab is compulsory in Saudi Arabia, we are going to ban hijab in Sri Lanka"? Muslims for long have been citizens of Sri Lanka and our constitution clearly states of the freedom to follow any religion and the government's obligation to protect its citizens.
It is noteworthy that in countries like Bahrain, where non-Muslims are also citizens, there is no such a ban on idol worship. This scenario can't be generalized as that of Muslim countries or even as that of the Middle East. It just happens in Saudi.
Countries which call themselves "Islamic republic", for example Pakistan and Iran don't prohibit religions other than Islam. They don't even impose laws on hijab. There is a Buddhists minority in Iran and they are not bared form practicing Buddhism. What happens in Saudi should not be generalized as Islam.
Finally my point is, Government of Sri Lanka should not by any means curtail the right to practice any religion. Government is obliged to protect its people by the constitution. All Saudis may be Muslims. But all Muslims are not Saudis. We are Sri Lankans by all means. We deserved to live as Sri Lankans. Muslims may be a minority religion here. But still, we are citizens. Not tourists or migrant workers.
