Opinion

Need to rescue Muslims from Islamists

Published

4 years ago

2021/11/15

By RISHVIN ISMATH

One witnessed that certain media portrayed the attackers, merely as Muslims, while they were reporting about an attack a few days ago in Stuttgart, Germany; when a group of activists were commemorating the death anniversary of French school teacher Samuel Paty, who was murdered in 2020, for the allegation of displaying a picture of Prophet Mohamed in the classroom.

The news reporting of the Stuttgart attack was an ample example of the common ambiguity among the precise meaning of the terms Muslims, Islamists and Jihadists. The ambiguous usage of these terms can widely be witnessed on public space, such as political, media and social media platforms. Improper usage of such sensitive terms can clearly lead to hatred against the innocents. Muslims are ordinary people, just like others, following Islam as their religion. Muslims live the same as every other ordinary people, other than the specific instances when they do their religious rituals. They make up the majority of those who are commonly identified as ‘Muslims’ in the censuses. Some of them pray five times a day, some others pray once or twice a day, there are still others who pray only on Fridays, while some others pray twice or thrice a year. Regardless of the interval in which they engage in religious rituals, all of them are identified as Muslims in general. According to them, their day-to-day life is not dominated by religion in toto.

There’s a small dominant group within the Muslim community that uses hegemonic powers to control the community. The small dominant group is identified as ‘Islamists’. The facts about them are still hardly exposed to the public. Islamists hold threatening and dangerous hidden ideas such as, ‘Only Islam should rule the whole world — Islam is the only solution to all the problems in the world — every activity in the world should be carried out according to the Islamic teachings — all Muslims should follow Islam in toto — Islam should be propagated to everyone in the world — Jihad should be declared against the people who do not accept Islam — sacrificing the lives for the sake of Islam is the greatest honour, etc. They work in different platforms, performing different roles with long-term agendas. It is wrong to imagine that all such people have long bushy beards and are dressed in Arabian attires. Most of them present themselves in stylish appearances, and they intrude various fields and platforms methodically. They do not normally directly involve in violence and terrorism, however, they are well capable of producing persons who can engage in direct violence and terrorism. They possess the ability to engage in violence and in terrorism, only when it is highly necessary for them to do so. They are so subtle as to use the leftists and the progressive forces, which are concerned about the oppression of Muslims, to achieve their own targets as well as for political lobbying.The Islamists are well capable of subtly justifying violence, sexual discrimination, scientific contradictions and superstitious beliefs, etc., found in Islamic scriptures, with appealing words and tactics; they believe that they do Jihad by the pen. Whenever the Jihadists carry out terrorist attacks, Islamists take a well-analyzed stand to suit the developing circumstances and the emotions of the masses. They would design their stand in accordance with public opinion. ‘Islam has nothing to do with this’ is one of their widely used rhetoric for cover-ups. They do not hesitate to exemplify freedom struggles to justify terrorist attacks, when they decide to do vise-versa. They are mostly highly skilled in carrying out the tasks they are assigned according to the long-term agenda. Their intrusion into the country’s key sectors such as education, administration, media, non-government organisations, etc., is a well-planned, and methodically executed one. Insertion of extremist and harmful materials into the school textbooks that are capable of creating hatred and spreading violence, accreditation obtained by Sri Lanka Jamaat E Islami’s students wing from the government department for the residential training, conducted by them under various bogus titles, to establish an Islamic State in Sri Lanka, and permission obtained by Sri Lanka Jamaat E Islami’s student wing to use the state emblem for the above said residential trainings, are some visible examples of the results of the methodical intrusion by Islamists into the key state sectors.

The third group, ‘Jihadists,’ generally evolves from among the Islamists. Jihadists are the people who use violence, terror and assault weapons to achieve what the Islamists believe, and what Islamists ploy to achieve through long-term agendas. Jihadists remain to be Islamists until they are prepared to carry-out terror attacks. ‘A non-Islamist Muslim’ directly becoming a Jihadist, is a very rare phenomenon. A Jihadi suicide bomber can blow himself up only one time, but every single Islamist is capable of creating a countless number of Jihadi suicide bombers.

I do continue to expose Islamists and their secret ploys until this very day within my capacity, but I do not mean that they will blast bombs immediately. They, too, will take their own time and act only when the right time comes. Therefore, it cannot be predicted to happen immediately. I made my first detailed statement to the intelligence about Zahran and his ISIS affiliation in July 2016, but nothing happened straightaway. It took nearly three years for Zahran and his bunch of terrorists to launch the suicide attacks on Easter Sunday in 2019. It is not easy to predict when Islamists of the present day will carry out attacks. I am not aware of any official records that mention anyone else has made a statement to law enforcement regarding Zahran’s ISIS affiliation, prior to my statement registered in July 2016.

Immediately after the Easter Sunday attacks, a number of Islamists deleted their previous posts on social media platforms, such as Facebook, and suddenly started to share anti-Zahran posts with the idea of hoodwinking the law enforcement and the public, to pose that they too were opposed to Islamic terrorism. When Mohamed Thaslim was shot in Mawanella following the destruction of the Buddha statues in the area, I exposed the background of the attackers via Facebook, but individuals connected to Sri Lanka Jamaat E Islami tried to silence me. Sri Lanka Jamathe Islami is a Jihadist as well as an Islamist Organisation that operates in Sri Lanka with a long-term agenda. They are the pioneers in sending Sri Lankan Muslim youth to places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir for Jihad fighting and Jihad training. Most of the Islamists who are currently operating in Sri Lanka, were trained and moulded by Sri Lanka Jamaat E Islami. Even though the fact that the ordinary Muslims and the Islamists are not the same, the Islamists never allow the fact to be known by the public. The Islamists prefer to mingle and hide among the Muslims, pretending to be part of the Muslim community. The Islamists are well experienced and very proficient in using the term ‘Islamophobia’ very effectively, to silence the criticism and questions against them.

The ‘Islamic State’ was part of the statement of Hajjul Akbar, former leader of Sri Lanka Jamaat E Islami, before the Presidential Commission of Inquiry on 26th October 2020. Sri Lanka Jamaat E Islami works with a secret long-term agenda to form an Islamic State in Sri Lanka. When Hajjul Akbar was questioned about the secret agenda of Sri Lanka Jamaat E Islami, he made the above statement in response. The above statement of Hajjul Akbar can be considered as an attempt to portray their own secret agenda, as the agenda of Sri Lankan Muslim community, at a point when their agenda was exposed and questioned. This statement is a good example of how Islamists try to make Muslims a scapegoat for protecting themselves and their own interests.

This is the main reason that the Islamists do not want the world to know that Muslims, Islamists and Jihadists are not the same. Islamists are well aware that their survival solely depends on as long as they are mingled together with Muslims. Regardless of the subtle attempts of the Islamists, the Muslim Community should become strong enough to come forward to identify, expose and expel the Islamists. Otherwise the Muslim Community may face hardships over and again.

A popular belief has been forming among the Sri Lankans, following the Easter Sunday Suicide attacks, that Sufi Muslims are peaceful people and there’s no danger to the country from them. Hence nowadays, many Islamists attempt to disguise themselves as Sufi Muslims and share the quotes of famous Sufi Saints like Moulana Rumi, on social media. All parties, including Sufi Muslims, should be vigilant about this chameleon attitude of the Islamists.

As an ex-Muslim and ex-Islamist, exposing secrets about Islamists that have not yet been exposed to public is life threatening to me, but I will not become silent unless I am silenced. I will continue to expose Islamists, jihadists, terrorists, extremists and their secret agendas, plans and teachings and will continue to strive for it until my last breath. During the eras when the Muslim community was led by Muslim leaders, it achieved and gained many successes and privileges in the fields such as law, education, employment, industry and sports. Many of the privileges and rights enjoyed by the Muslim community at present were bestowed during the period of Muslim leaders. Muslims were highly respected by other communities during that period. But when the Islamists began to highjack the leadership of the Muslim community from the Muslim leaders, the Muslim community has become a community looked down on by suspicion and hated by others.

When it comes to the leadership of Islamists, indoctrination of extremist ideology, brainwashing Muslim youth to introduce international Islamic terrorism, exposing the Muslim youth to international terrorist organisations and creation of Islamic terrorism within them were the many harmful things Islamist leadership feed to the community. Islam had been practised as a peaceful religion, until the arrival of Islamist leadership; once the Islamist leadership took control of the community, it reintroduced Islam as a fascist ideology that thinks it should rule the whole world alone, by destroying all other political, religious and social ideologies.

As long as Islam was practised only as a religion in a peaceful way, things were calm, but Muslims and others lost their peace of mind from the moment when Islamists started to present Islam as a fascist ideology.

It is the responsibility of all those who love humanity to rescue Muslims from Islamists. It is unfortunate that many leftists and progressive thinkers do not understand, or do not want to understand, the difference between Islamists and Muslims. Therefore, those who claim to be in support of the Muslim minority, are actually helping promote the cause of Islamists, who oppress the Muslims. Let’s come back to the Stuttgart incident, with the understanding of the differences between the said three groups for the conclusion of this article. It is appropriate to call the murderer of French school teacher Samuel Paty as a jihadi, and to call those who attacked the participants of the commemoration of Samuel Paty as either jihadists or Islamists. It would be entirely wrong to generalise such people as Muslims, and it would lead to the making of Muslim hatred or Muslimophobia. Therefore, it would be appropriate to use the terms ‘jihadist’ and ‘Islamist’ in proper context, instead of generally referring to them as Muslims.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

War with Iran and unravelling of the global order – II

Published

2 days ago

2026/04/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

A US airstrike on Iran

Broader Strategic Consequences

One of the most significant strategic consequences of the war is the accelerated erosion of U.S. political and moral hegemony. This is not a sudden phenomenon precipitated solely by the present conflict; rather, the war has served to illuminate an already evolving global reality—that the era of uncontested U.S. dominance is in decline. The resurgence of Donald Trump and the reassertion of his “America First” doctrine reflect deep-seated domestic economic and political challenges within the United States. These internal pressures have, in turn, shaped a more unilateral and inward-looking foreign policy posture, further constraining Washington’s capacity to exercise global leadership.

Moreover, the conduct of the war has significantly undermined the political and moral authority of the United States. Perceived violations of international humanitarian law, coupled with the selective application of international norms, have weakened the credibility of U.S. advocacy for a “rules-based international order.” Such inconsistencies have reinforced perceptions of double standards, particularly among states in the Global South. Skepticism toward Western normative leadership is expected to deepen, contributing to the gradual fragmentation of the international system. In this broader context, the ongoing crisis can be seen as symptomatic of a more fundamental transformation: the progressive waning of a global order historically anchored in U.S. hegemony and the emergence of a more contested and pluralistic international landscape.

The regional implications of the crisis are likely to be profound, particularly given the centrality of the Persian Gulf to the global political economy. As a critical hub of energy production and maritime trade, instability in this region carries systemic consequences that extend far beyond its immediate geography. Whatever may be the outcome, whether through the decisive weakening of Iran or the inability of external powers to dismantle its leadership and strategic capabilities, the post-conflict regional order will differ markedly from its pre-war configuration. In this evolving context, traditional power hierarchies, alliance structures, and deterrence dynamics are likely to undergo significant recalibration.

A key lesson underscored by the war is the deep interconnectivity of the contemporary global economic order. In an era of highly integrated production networks and supply chains, disruptions in a single strategic node can generate cascading effects across the global system. As such, regional conflicts increasingly assume global significance. The structural realities of globalisation make it difficult to contain economic and strategic shocks within regional boundaries, as impacts rapidly transmit through trade, energy, and financial networks. In this context, peace and stability are no longer purely regional concerns but global public goods, essential to the functioning and resilience of the international system

The conflict highlights the emergence of a new paradigm of warfare shaped by the integration of artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, and unmanned systems. The extensive use of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs)—a trend previously demonstrated in the Russia–Ukraine War—has been further validated in this theatre. However, unlike the Ukraine conflict, where Western powers have provided sustained military, technological, and financial backing, the present confrontation reflects a more direct asymmetry between a dominant global hegemon and a Global South state. Iran’s deployment of drone swarms and AI-enabled targeting systems illustrates that key elements of Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) warfare are no longer confined to technologically advanced Western states. These capabilities are increasingly accessible to Global South actors, lowering barriers to entry and significantly enhancing their capacity to wage effective asymmetric warfare. In this evolving context, technological diffusion is reshaping the strategic landscape, challenging traditional military hierarchies and altering the balance between conventional superiority and innovative, cost-effective combat strategies.

The war further exposed and deepened the weakening of global governance institutions, particularly the United Nations. Many of these institutions were established in 1945, reflecting the balance of power and geopolitical realities of the immediate post-Second World War era. However, the profound transformations in the international system since then have rendered aspects of this institutional architecture increasingly outdated and less effective.

The war has underscored the urgent need for comprehensive international governance reforms to ensure that international institutions remain credible, representative, and capable of addressing contemporary security challenges. The perceived ineffectiveness of UN human rights mechanisms in responding to violations of international humanitarian law—particularly in contexts such as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and more recently in Iran—has amplified calls for institutional renewal or the development of alternative frameworks for maintaining international peace and security. Moreover, the selective enforcement of international law and the persistent paralysis in conflict resolution mechanisms risk accelerating the fragmentation of global norms. If sustained, this trajectory would signal not merely the weakening but the possible demise of the so-called liberal international order, accelerating the erosion of both the legitimacy and the effective authority of existing multilateral institutions, and deepening the crisis of global governance.

Historically, major wars have often served as harbingers of new eras in international politics, marking painful yet decisive transitions from one order to another. Periods of systemic decline are typically accompanied by instability, uncertainty, and profound disruption; yet, it is through such crises that the contours of an emerging order begin to take shape. The present conflict appears to reflect such a moment of transition, where the strains within the existing global system are becoming increasingly visible.

Notably, key European powers are exhibiting a gradual shift away from exclusive reliance on the U.S. security umbrella, seeking instead a more autonomous and assertive role in global affairs. At the same time, the war is likely to create strategic space for China to expand its influence. As the United States becomes more deeply entangled militarily and politically, China may consolidate its position as a stabilising economic actor and an alternative strategic partner. This could be reflected in intensified energy diplomacy, expanded infrastructure investments, and a more proactive role in regional conflict management, advancing Beijing’s long-term objective of reshaping global governance structures.

However, this transition does not imply a simple replacement of Pax Americana with Pax Sinica. Rather, the emerging global order is likely to be more diffuse, pluralistic, and multilateral in character. In this sense, the ongoing transformation aligns with broader narratives of an “Asian Century,” in which power is redistributed across multiple centers rather than concentrated in a single hegemon. The war, therefore, may ultimately be understood not merely as a geopolitical crisis, but as a defining inflection point in the reconfiguration of the global order.

Conclusion: A New Era on the Horizon

History shows that major wars often signal the birth of new eras—painful, disruptive, yet transformative. The present conflict is no exception. It has exposed the vulnerabilities of the existing world order, challenged U.S. dominance, and revealed the limits of established global governance.

European powers are beginning to chart a more independent course, reducing reliance on the U.S. security umbrella, while China is poised to expand its influence as an economic stabiliser and strategic partner. Through energy diplomacy, infrastructure investments, and active engagement in regional conflicts, Beijing is quietly shaping the contours of a more multipolar world. Yet this is not the rise of Pax Sinica replacing Pax Americana. The emerging order is likely to be multilateral, fluid, and competitive—a world in which multiple powers, old and new, share the stage. The war, in all its turbulence, may therefore mark the dawn of a genuinely new global era, one where uncertainty coexists with opportunity, and where the next chapter of international politics is being written before our eyes.

by Gamini Keerawella
(First part of this article appeared yesterday (08 April)

Opinion

University admission crisis: Academics must lead the way

Published

3 days ago

2026/04/8

Sahan Weerasooriya

130,000 students are left out each year—academics hold the key

Each year, Sri Lanka’s G.C.E. Advanced Level examination produces a wave of hope—this year, nearly 175,000 students qualified for university entrance. Yet only 45,000 will be admitted to state universities. That leaves more than 130,000 young people stranded—qualified, ambitious, but excluded. This is not just a statistic; it is a national crisis. And while policymakers debate infrastructure and funding, the country’s academics must step forward as catalysts of change.

Beyond the Numbers: A National Responsibility

Education is the backbone of Sri Lanka’s development. Denying access to tens of thousands of qualified students risks wasting talent, fueling inequality, and undermining national progress. The gap is not simply about seats in lecture halls—it is about the future of a generation. Academics, as custodians of knowledge, cannot remain passive observers. They must reimagine the delivery of higher education to ensure opportunity is not a privilege for the few.

Expanding Pathways, Not Just Campuses

The traditional model of four-year degrees in brick-and-mortar universities cannot absorb the demand. Academics can design short-term diplomas and certificate programmes that provide immediate access to learning. These programmes, focused on employable skills, would allow thousands to continue their education while easing pressure on degree programmes. Equally important is the digital transformation of education. Online and blended learning modules can extend access to rural students, breaking the monopoly of physical campuses. With academic leadership, Sri Lanka can build a reliable system of credit transfers, enabling students to begin their studies at affiliated institutions and later transfer to state universities.

Partnerships That Protect Quality

Private universities and vocational institutes already absorb many students who miss out on state admissions. But concerns about quality and recognition persist. Academics can bridge this divide by providing quality assurance and standardised curricula, supervising joint degree programmes, and expanding the Open University system. These partnerships would ensure that students outside the state system receive affordable, credible, and internationally recognised education.

Research and Advocacy: Shaping Policy

Academics are not only teachers—they are researchers and thought leaders. By conducting labour market studies, they can align higher education expansion with employability. Evidence-based recommendations to the University Grants Commission (UGC) can guide strategic intake increases, regional university expansion, and government investment in digital infrastructure. In this way, academics can ensure reforms are not reactive, but visionary.

Industry Engagement: Learning Beyond the Classroom

Sri Lanka’s universities must become entrepreneurship hubs and innovation labs. Academics can design programmes that connect students directly with industries, offering internship-based learning and applied research opportunities. This approach reduces reliance on classroom capacity while equipping students with practical skills. It also reframes education as a partnership between universities and the economy, rather than a closed system.

Making the Most of What We Have

Even within existing constraints, academics can expand capacity. Training junior lecturers and adjunct faculty, sharing facilities across universities, and building international collaborations for joint programmes and scholarships are practical steps. These measures maximise resources while opening new avenues for students.

A Call to Action

Sri Lanka’s university admission crisis is not just about numbers—it is about fairness, opportunity, and national development. Academics must lead the way in transforming exclusion into empowerment. By expanding pathways, strengthening partnerships, advocating for policy reform, engaging with industry, and optimizing resources, they can ensure that qualified students are not left behind.

“Education for all, not just the fortunate few.”

Dr. Arosh Bandula (Ph.D. Nottingham), Senior Lecturer, Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna

by Dr. Arosh Bandula

Opinion

Post-Easter Sri Lanka: Between memory, narrative, and National security

Published

4 days ago

2026/04/7

Sahan Weerasooriya

As Sri Lanka approaches the seventh commemoration of the Easter Sunday attacks, the national mood is once again marked by grief, reflection, and an enduring sense of incompleteness. Nearly seven years later, the tragedy continues to cast a long shadow not only over the victims and their families, but over the institutions and narratives that have since emerged.

Commemoration, however, must go beyond ritual. It must be anchored in clarity, accountability, and restraint. What is increasingly evident in the post-Easter landscape is not merely a search for truth, but a contest over how that truth is framed, interpreted, and presented to the public.

In recent times, public discourse has been shaped by book launches, panel discussions, and media interventions that claim to offer new insights into the attacks. While such contributions are not inherently problematic, the manner in which certain narratives are advanced raises legitimate concerns. The selective disclosure of information particularly when it touches on intelligence operations demands careful scrutiny.

Sri Lanka’s legal and institutional framework is clear on the sensitivity of such matters. The Official Secrets Act (No. 32 of 1955) places strict obligations on the handling of information related to national security. Similarly, the Police Ordinance and internal administrative regulations governing intelligence units emphasize confidentiality, chain of command, and the responsible use of information. These are not mere formalities; they exist to safeguard both operational integrity and national interest.

When individual particularly those with prior access to intelligence structures enter the public domain with claims that are not subject to verification, it raises critical questions. Are these disclosures contributing to justice and accountability, or are they inadvertently compromising institutional credibility and future operational capacity?

The challenge lies in distinguishing between constructive transparency and selective exposure.

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the Easter Sunday Attacks provided one of the most comprehensive official examinations of the attacks. Its findings highlighted a complex web of failures: lapses in intelligence sharing, breakdowns in inter-agency coordination, and serious deficiencies in political oversight. Importantly, it underscored that the attacks were not the result of a single point of failure, but a systemic collapse across multiple levels of governance.

Yet, despite the existence of such detailed institutional findings, public discourse often gravitates toward simplified narratives. There is a tendency to identify singular “masterminds” or to attribute responsibility in ways that align with prevailing political or ideological positions. While such narratives may be compelling, they risk obscuring the deeper structural issues that enabled the attacks to occur.

Equally significant is the broader socio-political context in which these narratives are unfolding. Sri Lanka today remains a society marked by fragile intercommunal relations. The aftermath of the Easter attacks saw heightened suspicion, polarisation, and, in some instances, collective blame directed at entire communities. Although there have been efforts toward reconciliation, these fault lines have not entirely disappeared.

In this environment, the language and tone of public discourse carry immense weight. The framing of terrorism whether as a localized phenomenon or as part of a broader ideological construct must be handled with precision and responsibility. Overgeneralization or the uncritical use of labels can have far-reaching consequences, including the marginalization of communities and the erosion of social cohesion.

At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge that the global discourse on terrorism is itself contested. Competing narratives, geopolitical interests, and selective historiography often shape how events are interpreted. For Sri Lanka, the challenge is to avoid becoming a passive recipient of external frameworks that may not fully reflect its own realities.

A professional and unbiased approach requires a commitment to evidence-based analysis. This includes:

· Engaging with primary sources, including official reports and judicial findings
·

· Cross-referencing claims with verifiable data
·

· Recognizing the limits of publicly available information, particularly in intelligence matters

It also requires intellectual discipline the willingness to question assumptions, to resist convenient conclusions, and to remain open to complexity.

The role of former officials and subject-matter experts in this discourse is particularly important. Their experience can provide valuable insights, but it also carries a responsibility. Public interventions must be guided by professional ethics, respect for institutional boundaries, and an awareness of the potential impact on national security.

There is a fine balance to be maintained. On one hand, democratic societies require transparency and accountability. On the other, the premature or uncontextualized release of sensitive information can undermine the very systems that are meant to protect the public.

As Sri Lanka reflects on the events of April 2019, it must resist the temptation to reduce a national tragedy into competing narratives or political instruments. The pursuit of truth must be methodical, inclusive, and grounded in law.

Easter is not only a moment of remembrance. It is a test of institutional maturity and societal resilience.

The real question is not whether new narratives will emerge they inevitably will. The question is whether Sri Lanka has the capacity to engage with them critically, responsibly, and in a manner that strengthens, rather than weakens, the foundations of its national security and social harmony.

In the end, justice is not served by noise or conjecture. It is served by patience, rigor, and an unwavering commitment to truth.

Mahil Dole is a former senior law enforcement officer and national security analyst, with over four decades of experience in policing and intelligence, including serving as Head of Counter-Intelligence at the State Intelligence Service of Sri Lanka and a graduate of the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawai, USA.

by Mahil Dole
Former Senior Law Enforcement Officer National Security Analyst; Former Head of Counter-Intelligence, State Intelligence Service)