Since early 2020, our Motherland has been facing one of the most terrifying health-related crises of recent times which has had and will continue to have life-threatening effects, directly or indirectly, on all of it’s citizens over a relatively long period of time. Covid-19 is here to stay and the steps that we take now, severally and collectively, will determine as to how effectively we manage the disease in the future. The changes that we will be compelled to make to our own lifestyles for the greater good of all citizens, not just for our own good, will result in what is being increasingly referred to as the ‘new normal’. For this purpose a sine qua non is that the different communities must of their own volition suspend their rights based on race, religion, caste and creed in the best interests of the Country, so that they could stand shoulder-to-shoulder when facing the ‘common enemy’. Not to do so smacks of selfishness, self-centeredness and arrogance of the highest order.
Covid-19 is a new virus. The whole world including the WHO is still very much on the learning curve with regard to this disease. Just last week, the World was shocked to learn that Denmark had decided to cull 17 million Minks because a mutated form of Coronavirus had been detected in this animal. The advocates of burial base their case on the fact that all the Covid-affected countries, except for Sri Lanka, bury their dead and that to date there have been no adverse after-effects reported in these 189 countries. Unfortunately, these persons appear not to be aware that possible ill-effects, if any, could occur in the short-term, medium-term or long-term. Bear in mind that the deadly Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) didn’t emerge overnight in our Country. The absence of evidence of ill-effects in the short-term should not be misconstrued as evidence of the absence of long-term effects. As a Nation, we cannot afford to take such a risk. Simply put, there is no credible empirical evidence at this point in time, to prove that burial will not have long-term adverse consequences. When making decisions regarding steps that should be taken to ensure the protection of all it’s citizens, the GOSL quite correctly must choose to err on the side of caution rather than risk the lives of it’s people.
In March 2020, the Provisional Guidelines for Clinical Management of Covid-10 issued by the Ministry of Health, clearly stated that in the event of the death of Covid-19 patients, the disposal of the remains must be exclusively by cremation.
Quite naturally, this created a huge furore amongst the members of the Muslim community since Islam describes cremation as a haram (forbidden) act for Muslims. The Muslims did not for a moment ask themselves a simple question : The dead person did not ask to be cremated, his/her family did not ask for the body to be cremated and thirdly, there were no muslims involved in the decision to cremate the body. So who then is guilty in the eyes of the Almighty of engaging in this ‘haram’ act ?
Instead, the minority (10%) Muslims have been quick to invoke their ‘right-to-an-Islamic burial’. Shouldn’t they also be equally sensitive to the rights of the non-Muslim majority, who may insist that the GOSL take every measure to ensure their ‘right-to-life’ by obviating the possible resurgence of the killer virus from every avenue ? Making a health-related decision, especially in the light of imperfect information, is fraught with danger. The wrong decision could easily put thousands of lives at risk. By insisting on cremation only, the GOSL has effectively neutralized the possibility of the Covid virus resurging via dead bodies. Maybe in time it may prove to be an ‘over-kill’ on the part of the GOSL, but faced with a merciless, non-discriminating killer virus, can one really blame the resource-strapped GOSL for adopting this measure to protect all it’s citizens (including the Muslims) ?
It is written in the Holy Quran “Why should ye not eat of (meats) on which Allah’s name hath been pronounced, when He hath explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you ― except under compulsion of necessity? But many do mislead (men) by their appetites unchecked by knowledge. Thy Lord knoweth best those who transgress.” (Sura 6, Verse 119).
“He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Sura 2, Verse 173)
According to Hadith, Abu Dharr reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Verily, Allah has pardoned my nation for their mistakes, their forgetfulness, and what they are coerced into doing.” Source: Sunan Ibn Mājah 2043. Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani.
Thus it is evident that Islam has provided all the safeguards to it’s followers, through the Holy Quran and the Prophetic Traditions, which will enable and empower them to face any situation which compels them to commit a forbidden act. In short, ‘Necessity overrules Prohibition‘ in Islamic Jurispurdence.
[Quote] The Doctrine of Necessity very broadly states that if under exceptional circumstances a Muslim is compelled to engage in a haram act, then he/she will not be punished for committing a sin. A contemporary jurist, Ali Hayder, has defined ‘Necessity’ as “… a compelling situation where one has to commit an illegal act”. Al-darurat tubih al-mahzurat is a legal maxim that translates as ‘necessities overrule prohibitions’ and that allows a Muslim in extreme circumstances to do something that would normally be haram to save his own or another’s life. The state of necessity is not caused only by starvation. It might be caused also by compulsion, aggression, or change in circumstances in contracts. Compulsion has been defined as pressurizing a person without right to do something wrong to which he does not consent. Some of the varieties of compulsion bring about a state of necessity and some of them do not. [Unquote] (M.Z.Al Mutairi)
However, this does not in any way imply that the Muslim community should remain passive to the imposition of cremation as the only method of disposal of the victims of Covid-19 among it’s members.
But the methods the Muslim Community adopted to convey their objections to the Health Ministry guidelines were unfortunately based on emotion and selfishness and centered around the violation of their basic rights as Muslims. They did not even for a moment consider the fact that the decision to cremate all Covid-related deaths could have been made in the best interests of all Sri Lankans (including the Muslims) – thereby ensuring the basic right of all Sri Lankans to be protected from possible future harm from the virus-infected cadavers.
Led by individuals and groups of Muslims who perceived this official order by the GOSL as yet another ‘anti-Muslim’ act against the community, the Muslims came out with both barrels firing. Critical articles and comments on social and mainstream media, interviews with Muslim Health and Legal Professionals, statements from international organizations like the OIC and from UN officials, local politicians and journalists – all aimed at pressurizing the GOSL to amend the cremation order.
The knee jerk responses of the Muslim community to the cremation issue have only served to provide the anti-Muslim groups with an opportunity to indulge in more Muslim-bashing and to thereby exacerbate the Muslim – Buddhist divide in the Island by sharpening the ‘Us vs Them’ syndrome.
Rather that raise a hue-and-cry over the cremation issue locally and overseas, if they wanted the cremation order by the Ministry of Health rescinded, the better option for the Muslim community would have been to join forces with the other religious communities who were also affected (though less so) by this order and to initiate a joint national effort towards this end by engaging with the relevant authorities quietly and without any publicity, thereby preventing the issue from escalating into a zero-sum game. Confrontationism, perceived or real, only creates space for the emergence of extremism on all sides of the divide.
Issuing a fatwa in March 2020 on the subject of the Cremation of Muslims due to an epidemic , a reputed foreign Mufthi (who I consulted on this subject) having re-iterated the fact that cremation is forbidden in Islam, however stated in conclusion that “We would like to warn our Muslim brothers in the countries that may issue orders for the cremation of the victims to adhere to wisdom when dealing with the official authorities and to avoid collision as much as possible in order to avoid potential Fitnah (tribulation) which may incur graver evil and harm on Muslims.” Offering such advice to the local Muslims was akin to pouring water on a duck’s back.
What do our local Ulema (Scholars) have to say on this issue ? Are they even aware of the Doctrine of Necessity and of the relevant verses in the Quran and Hadith ? Why do they choose to remain silent at a time when the community needs their guidance and advice on this subject ? Sadly, some of the so-called ‘Islamic Scholars’ are at the very forefront of the anti-cremation issue.
[In writing this article, one paragraph of the Ph.D Thesis of Mansour Z. Almutairi titled ‘Necessity in Islam’ (19197) has been reproduced in full.
Reference was also made to the article ‘Doctrine of Necessity (in Islamic Jurisprudence) by Jafar Samdani published in the Global Journal of Human-Social Science, (1997)]
Bisthan Batcha 