CRYSTAL KOELMEYER
COLOMBO : “ If we are going to play a game of cherrypicking scripture to make Islam seem noble – which it perhaps is – I am not interested: there’s plenty I can cite to disprove you but what’s the point? You will do one or all of following: say I am misquoting, blame me for taking things out of context or, very predictably, cry ‘islamaphobia’.
I have no interest defending Cardinal’s politics; what I am defending here is his right to speech, right to criticize, right to call to question. He’s a human thus fallibility is in his nature as was with your Prophet who supposedly married a minor which I understand you will go out of the way, do any amount of contextual gymnastics, to defend. You can believe whatever you want to – it’s your right to do so, though, such rights are often not afforded to religious minorities in lands governed by your divinely inspired laws, which, you take issue with the Cardinal for critiquing.
Let’s focus on the matter at hand – your refusal to admit, firstly, some violence is religiously inspired. It indeed is. How you ask? Because, even out of context, such justifications are situatable in scripture. And this is not a one-off lone shooter like in NZ. What happened there is condemned with contempt but if you have an active internet connection and read anything besides Scripture you will see that his attack was more racially motivated than religious; was a white supremacist, a fan of Pewdiepie. And, indeed, it only took ONE instance of violence citing Pewdiepie to ‘cancel’ the Youtuber but after hundreds of thousands of lives lost in vain due to religious fanaticism/radicalism we are still not supposed to call the ideology to question because your feelings get hurt? Get over yourself, sir.
Also, you cited LTTE – of course nobody could blame the Bhagavad Gita or a singular ideology for LTTE because they were a racially motivated terror outfit, not religious which makes your argument moot. The ‘Eelm’ they wanted is very different to the ‘caliphate’ jihadists are relentlessly pursuing.
No ideology must be above scrutiny in a democracy. It might be in places like Pakistan and Iran where the Shariah which Cardinal called to question are followed to the T, but, here in Sri Lanka, we will exercise the right to free speech while we still can. And as such, I am sorry your feelings are hurt along with that of “billions” – your statistics, not mine — other Muslims but that should not stop people from having an opinion about something that concerns them: the Easter attack was carried out by religiously motivated radicals; I’ve a right to have an opinion because it happened in my backyard. As does the Cardinal and I will defend his speech even if I disagree with his politics.
The incumbent regime may have benefitted from Easter Attack but squarely blaming it on them, the Rajapaksas, is convenient yet laughable. Is it then also the Rajapaksas to blame for Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, ISIS and a long list of other terror organizations that call themselves Islamic? Of course I am not generalizing *all* Muslims as being one thing or the other (though Islam likes to generalize the ‘other’ as worse than cattle) – I don’t believe in an eye for eye. I believe you’re emotional and well intentioned, but, my problem is I do not think your ideology must somehow be immune from scrutiny because it’s divine, or sacred, to you personally. It’s not how things should work in a progressive, civilized & secular society which I thank GOD, every day, rather paradoxically, for having me born into rather than someplace governed by “immutable divine laws”.
You can write a reply to this reply to your reply if you find the time to. I am very much for discourse over mindless killing over caricatures and opinions. God bless!”
