Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sustharapuncha" data-source="post: 14524376" data-attributes="member: 383427">Buddhist rule in ancient times The Sinhala Buddhist kings that ruled Sri Lanka on the basis of the   Laws of Manu and customary Buddhist laws which upheld the Buddhist   precepts that all living beings are to be protected with reverence for   life was promoted being the basis of advice given by Arahat Mahinda   Thero to King Dewanampiyatiss. The governing rules of law were clearly articulated, boundaries   defined and drawn so that the people knew how to respect and live in   peaceful co-existence. The place of Buddhism in the country’s landscape   was inviolable and that place was also guaranteed in the Kandyan   Convention of 1815 “the religion of the Buddha professed by the chief   and inhabitants of these provinces is declared inviolable and its rites,   ministers (monks), and places of worship are to be maintained and   protected”. Sri Lanka is the birthright of the Sinhala Buddhists – it is their heritage and their place of refuge. Mr. Karim’s claims that Muslims want to live in peaceful co-existence   is not seen in the manner the Muslim Congress issued the Oluvil   Declaration seeking autonomy, or in the manner Muslims insist on halal   labels, or that Muslims view tolerance as a one-way street because when   people oppose loudspeakers that even the Supreme Court has issued an   interim order that the noise must be directed inward and not outward and   the Government has even dedicated a separate channel to listen to  Azan,  that is a flagrant violation of a fundamental right of every  citizen  i.e. the Right to Silence? This is by any definition indecent  conduct.  Respect for the neighbour’s rights is the hall mark of  decency. Use of  loudspeakers constitute an abuse of freedom of religion  and trespass of  the rights of neighbours. We are bringing these issues to the forefront because we view the   Oluvil Declaration similar to the Vaddukoddai Resolution and we are also   well aware that our politicians are late reactionaries and by that  time  the damage has been done and we have already attracted unwanted   elements that lead the situation to far worse corners. In his last reply Mr. Karim states that Sri Lanka was taken to the   world by the Muslims. It is a canard and can easily be nullified because   Sri Lanka was having links to all corners of the world encompassing   trade, diplomatic deals and spread of Buddhism far before the Prophet   was even born and the writings of Prof. Sirima Kiribamuna, Prof. Tikiri   Abeysinghe, Prof. Wimala Wijesuriya will prove so. Moreover, the   architectural, man-made irrigational marvels of Anuradhapura that no   other civilization has matched were built long before Islam even   originated. First Arabs in Sri Lanka not Muslims History must be corrected to clarify that the Arabs that arrived in   Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean were initially not Muslims nor did they   follow Islam. Arabs and even Persians converted to Islam only after the   Islamic conquests though there are millions of Christian Arabs too. Similarly that Sri Lanka’s Muslims do not speak Arabic will show that   most of them actually came from the Islamized Arabs who went to South   India married South Indian women and thereafter travelled to Sri Lanka.   That is why a large number are dark-skinned and their original dress   reflected South Indian rather than Sinhala influence. All Muslims in Sri   Lanka do not speak Arabic – they speak in Tamil and even the Koran is   written in Tamil. There is no Sinhala blood or lineage of an  appreciable  number – those that disagree should prove so. The Yonas that Mr. Karim refered to during the time of King   Pandukabaya were not Islam. King Pandukabaya did offer Yonaka   sabhagawattu (areas set aside for Yonaka people). But, these Yonakas   were NOT MUSLIMS because Islam had not come into existence in this   period. Islam came about 350 years after Christ. Christianity appeared   as a religion only 200 years after the birth of Christ and during   Constantine’s reign in the 4th century. Muslims could own land only after 1832 The Muslims never owned land (thus called hulanbadda) during the  times  of the Buddhist kings nor during the times of the colonials until  1832  when the British legally allowed them to own land. The writings of   Robert Knox and Queiroz <a href="http://www.sinhalaheritage.org/De_Queyroz.html" target="_blank">http://www.sinhalaheritage.org/De_Queyroz.html</a>   gives these details to precision. “Besides the Dutch who possess, as I   judg, about one fourth of the Island, there are Malabars, that are free   Denizons and pay duty to the King for the Land they enjoy, as the Kings   natural Subjects do; there are also Moors, who are like Strangers, and   hold no Land, but live by carrying goods to the Sea-Ports, which now  are  in the Hollanders hands.” (Robert Knox) Its difficult to see evidence of Muslim tolerance when in the West   demands have forced towns to not have Christmas decorations, banks do   not give “piggy banks”, “Sharia Zones” and in Switzerland there are   demands to change its national anthem because it does not include other   faiths! No animal slaughter during ancient times In Sri Lanka, it is noteworthy to remember that during the time of  the  Sinhala Buddhist Kings slaughter of animals were forbidden because  the  Royalty and the public followed the doctrine of no harm to all  living  beings and encapsulated in the Buddhist First Precept and several  other  Buddhist injunctions. Prior to the arrival of colonials even  Muslims  were prohibited from slaughtering animals or indulging in animal   sacrifice. The Muslims of this time adjusted themselves to prevailing   Buddhist ethos and the Governing law. Kirti Sri Nissankamalla, promulgated a remarkable decree, which he   publicized in six of his famous inscriptions, forbidding the killing of   all living beings in the irrigation lakes of the entire country.   Mahavansa also records how King Elara (200BC) had punished his own son   for running over a calf! John Doyly’s Book – Sketch of the Constitution of the Kandyan Kingdom   confirms that under Sinhala Law hunting and killing of animals was   declared unlawful. Animal killing first started with the arrival of the Portuguese. They   were the first to introduce liquor too. It was the British that   legalized slaughter of cattle and now Muslims as stated by Mr. Zubair   says that animal sacrifice will continue whatever others say – no Muslim   would have disagreed in times of the Sinhala Buddhist Kings! In spite of the place given to man, flora and fauna by successive   Sinhala Kings, Sri Lanka’s Parliament has failed to implement the Animal   Welfare Bill! Clearly the place of Buddhism has waned since colonial   times to present ceremonial only status. In spite of the high place given to man, flora and fauna by  successive  Sinhala Kings, Sri Lanka’s Parliament has failed to enact the  Animal  Welfare Bill and still allows a 1907 British colonial statute  i.e.  Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance to be the governing   legislation with a ridiculous low amount of Rs. 100 as the maximum   penalty for the most heinous crime committed against an animal. If the   World were to judge our commitment to rule of law on the basis of   effectiveness of our animal welfare laws we will be taken to the   cleaners. In this respect we are very close to many Muslim countries   which do not provide legislative protection to animals. This is another good example of the waning of the place of Buddhism since colonial times to present ceremonial only status. However, we realize things are today far different. We are not living   in times of history but that does not mean we need to turn our back on   the good that prevailed in our country’s past. Currently the world is in   turmoil because of incursions taking place and since those that govern   the nations have failed to clearly demarcate boundaries and define  what  is right and wrong where the older culture and its traditions do  not get  compromised or pushed into the background. What we see happening in the world and the subtle incursions take in   place in Sri Lanka makes us compare, analyze and evaluate nations and we   see frightening comparisons – non-Muslims in Muslim nations are fast   declining (look at the Christian statistics in the Middle East, Iraq,   Syria, Bangladesh and in Maldives all the Buddhists were converted to   Islam around 1153AD, their places of worship are falling to ruin because   Muslim laws dictate no new construction and non-Muslim statues are   destroyed because it runs against Muslim belief to worship any God other   than Allah. Mr. Karim and Mr. Zubair if they continue to insist there   is equality can in their next reply give names of Churches, Synagogues,   Kovils and Buddhist temples built in Muslim majority nations in the   lasts 100 years! The kovil Mr. Karim mentioned no longer exists as it   was razed to the ground in 2005. Buddhism does not define non-Buddhists, nor define how to treat   non-Buddhists yet we are defined as Infidels and further divided as   Zimmis (Christians and Jews) and Kafirs (Buddhists, Hindus, Jains) and   Kafirs are the worst of the two. We have arrived at a critical juncture in our history. To be able to   live in peace it is important to realize that there is and has been an   older culture in existence over the past 2600 years. It is not healthy   for newer cultures to be demanding how the older culture should function   or dictate or define how the older culture must conduct itself. The new incursions of halal certificates/labels, usage of  loudspeakers  inspite of Azan being relayed over the radio, animal  sacrifice which  many regard as brutal, alarming increase of mosques  which even Muslims  do not agree to and the encroachment of sacred lands  and areas need to  be reviewed and those that want to live in peaceful  co-existence must  realize that it is these incursions that have upset  the older culture  and has awoken the Buddhists into realizing that the  other nations who  have faced these obstacles have at extreme levels  ended up becoming  totally Islamized – Maldives is an example that  continues to keep the  Buddhists awake. I am not going to be unsettled by accusations of racism. I am  engaging  in this debate because countries are beholden to protect the  older  culture – Sri Lanka should be no different. It is countries that  do not  have such a rich culture to protect that always push liberal  theories  through multiculturalism. The gradual diminution of the place held by Buddhism is what has   finally awoken the Buddhists of Sri Lanka. The politicians have chosen   to side with the vociferous demands made by minorities because it comes   with various tags that lure politicians towards appeasing their wishes   ignoring the silent majority and taking them for granted as well as   ignoring their own duty towards preserving the Buddhist history of Sri   Lanka. We now need the injustices to be addressed and rectified because   since colonial times and for 508years now a 2600 year Buddhist   civilization has been put into the background and it is time to restore   the status quo of Buddhism and Buddhist culture as it existed in the   pre-colonial era. Buddhist ethos stress the need to establish a compassionate society   where both man and animal exist side by side in peaceful co – existence.   In such a society violence is eschewed and non – violence and Ahimsa  is  promoted towards all living beings. Ideally this should be the moral   aim of Sri Lanka. It is a perfect way for all the people in Sri Lanka  to  move forward. The Buddhist moral community embraces all living  beings.  This is the message of the Buddha. Our forefathers embraced it.  We are  morally bound to follow this noble tradition. All that we now  ask is for  people to reflect and conclude that this path is the best  path to  follow which ensures lasting peace and peaceful co-existence.</blockquote>

Verification: Hata thunen beduwama keeyada? (60 bedeema thuna)

Top Bottom