• Rauff Hakeem was branded as a racist for upholding a religious right
• President’s counsel Ali Sabry too spoke apparently in support of burial
• Local Muslim community seem to be divided over burial/cremation issue

The disposal of remains of COVID-19 patients in Sri Lanka has turned into a hot topic among certain sections of Sri Lankan society while rekindling communal hatred against one another. Going by the manner in which the present debate over the issue is taking place, one has to look into the debate and the issue separately.  
Firstly, let’s delve into the debate. The authorities had first announced that only cremation would be permitted of those who succumb to the deadly coronavirus. However, on March 27, they had permitted burial as well, as another option to dispose of the dead bodies, reportedly following representations by certain religious groups. Director General of Health Services (DGHS), Dr. Anil Jasinghe also, while talking to media, confirmed that both options were permitted. The video is still tagged with the story in some websites.
However, the Ministry again reverted to its former stance on the issue in a new set of guidelines issued on March 31. This has hurt the Muslims in the country, as they never cremate dead bodies. When this matter was raised by Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) leader Rauff Hakeem with a plea to reconsider the government’s decision at a meeting headed by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, the appeal was politely rejected by the latter. Hakeem cited that the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines had permitted burial of bodies of COVID-19 patients but the Prime Minister replied that every decision in respect of combating COVID-19 threat has been taken on the advice of the experts of the health sector. 

Dr. Jasinghe, who had endorsed the burial earlier, cited a few reasons for the shift in government’s policy towards the issue. He stated that there is a possibility of soil being contaminated by burying dead bodies of coronavirus patients and further argued that nature of soil in various areas in the country is so varied that it would be difficult for the authorities to have a uniform stand on all parts of the country. 
Although Hakeem was not adamant on his demand at this meeting, he had cited the stand taken by the WHO on the matter in a statement as well. Subsequent to this, he has been subject to a virulent attack on the social media, describing him as a Muslim racist. The attackers posted various vitriol statements arguing that burial is dangerous. Some of their remarks were sheer racial onslaughts while others merit consideration. 
Yet, the motive behind most of these social media posts and opposition to the burial seems to be questionable, in the light of the concerned people’s uncanny silence when the Health Ministry with its earlier guidelines accepted burial too as an option to dispose of coronavirus patients’ remains.  

"Dr. Jasinghe stated that there is a possibility of soil being contaminated by burying dead bodies of coronavirus patients"

Secondly, on April 2, President’s Counsel Ali Sabry, a strong loyalist of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was interviewed by Indeewari Amuwatte of Derana 24 Channel on the issue and he too spoke apparently in support of burial. However, his views were unnoticed by those who described Hakeem as a racist for demanding a religious right, despite Sabry too belonged to the same community.
Thirdly, after the meeting headed by the Prime Minister, the Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA) on April 3, wrote to the DGHS suggesting him to consult a team of experts in relevant areas including soil analysis and decide the best course of action with regard to the disposal of the remains of those who die of COVID-19. According to the April 3 edition of Daily FT e-paper, the GMOA had stated that the WHO guidelines and the Quarantine Act allowed the option of both cremation and burial. 

The premier organization of the country’s physicians which seemed to be supportive of burial option, had opened up the debate again despite Hakeem’s plea was rejected. However, nobody thus far challenged their stance either. 
The weird silence on the part of those against burial in these three occasions questions the rationale behind their attack against Hakeem. Had their opposition to the burial of dead bodies of coronavirus patients based on scientific grounds they must be similarly ferocious at those three occasions as well. 
Immediately prior to the government’s second set of guidelines that specified only cremation being issued, clusters of COVID-19 cases caused by quarantine evaders were reported from four Muslim-dominated areas within a few consecutive days, leading to Muslims on the whole being accused of spreading the virus. Hence, as a group of civil society activists pointed out in a statement that there is a possibility of at least a section of Muslims perceiving the government’s decision on cremation as a punitive measure. 

"Islam is flexible in extra-ordinary situations, as cited in the Holy Qur’an and in respect of a dreadful pandemic like the killer COVID-19, Muslims should not risk the lives of people who are alive in the name of fulfilling religious obligations"

When it comes to the real issue on the ground, Muslims believe that the entire local Muslim community would be sinners unless at least a few of them fulfilled four obligations assigned by the Almighty God to the community on a dead person; bathing, dressing, praying and burying. Cremation of a body of a Muslim is hence totally out of the question. This is the rationale behind the strong concern by Muslims over the cremation of bodies of Muslims dying of COVID-19. 
Nevertheless, Muslims in Sri Lanka seem to be divided over this; with one group strongly advocating burial, despite the practicability being still unclear while another group hesitantly being agreeable to the current procedure, the cremation. Even if burial is allowed, given the extreme precautionary measures followed during cremations, one cannot expect the health authorities to permit two of the above four Islamic religious obligations, washing and dressing dead bodies.  

Another school of thought is that Islam is flexible in extra-ordinary situations, as cited in the Holy Qur’an and in respect of a dreadful pandemic like the killer COVID-19, Muslims should not risk the lives of people who are alive in the name of fulfilling religious obligations. Usthaz M.A.M.Mansoor, the only Sri Lankan Islamic theologian who has written interpretations to many verses of the Holy Qur’an, also argued in supportive of the notion of flexibility under extra-ordinary circumstances, in an audio clip on the current debate. Besides, he contended that even if Muslims do not accept the government’s stance, they would not be held responsible by the God for the decisions of the rulers of the country. 
However, this is not a time for splitting hair on various theories. The best thing is to take the highest possible precaution while adhering to one’s beliefs as much as possible; since this is a calamity befell the entire humankind, irrespective of race, religion, caste, colour or political party. An inadvertent mistake such as the one involving the “patient 31” in South Korea might wreak havoc even at the national or global level.