Al-Qur’an Importation Ban: Political Amnesia and Convenient Outrage
The controversy over the importation of the Al-Qur’an into Sri Lanka did not begin in 2026, nor in the tenure of the current administration. It traces back to a specific regulatory intervention during the presidency of Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
The Origin of the Regulation
In the aftermath of the 2019 Easter attacks, the Rajapaksa administration introduced a series of national security–driven controls. Among them was a regulation requiring prior approval from the Ministry of Defence for the importation of religious texts, including the Al-Qur’an. At the time, Ali Sabry, who was serving as Minister of Justice, was part of the Cabinet that oversaw this framework.
The rationale advanced then was security vetting — to ensure that printed materials entering the country did not contain extremist annotations, politically charged commentary, or unauthorized translations. Whether one agreed or disagreed with the policy, it was unmistakably a Rajapaksa-era measure.
Yet, fast forward to 2024–2026, and the political narrative has shifted.
Political Amnesia and Convenient Outrage
When the NPP government assumed power in September 2024, it inherited a regulatory architecture shaped by previous administrations. The Al-Qur’an importation control mechanism was part of that inheritance.
Recently, Rishad Bathiudeen raised the matter in Parliament, alleging that Qur’ans were unavailable in shops and that prices had escalated. He questioned why the NPP government had not lifted what he framed as a restrictive ban.
The political irony is striking. The regulation was introduced under the Rajapaksa presidency. Those who were either silent at the time — or directly involved in the Cabinet that approved the measure — now question why it remains.
A fundamental legal question arises:
Why was judicial review not sought when the regulation was first introduced?
If the measure was unconstitutional or discriminatory, Sri Lanka’s courts were available. Public interest litigation could have been initiated. Constitutional relief could have been pursued. Yet, there was no sustained legal challenge during the Rajapaksa administration.
The Internal Religious Complexity
The issue is not merely administrative; it is intra-community.
Sri Lanka’s Muslim religious governance structure is influenced by the All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama (ACJU), which has historically played a central role in certifying translations and approving religious publications.
Competing theological and organizational interests complicate the matter:
-
Certain factions advocate exclusive importation of Kuwait-printed editions.
-
Groups such as Tawheed Jamaat have preferred specific publishers.
-
Other Sufi-oriented Tharikas, including Buhari and Alaviya orders, have their own textual preferences.
-
The ACJU itself has endorsed specific Sinhalese translations that have been permitted domestically.
In effect, what is presented publicly as a “ban” is also a contest over interpretive authority and distribution control.
NPP’s Current Position
According to government sources, the NPP administration is studying mechanisms to:
-
Establish a neutral import licensing framework.
-
Prevent monopolistic control by any single religious body.
-
Ensure security vetting without unnecessary bureaucratic obstruction.
-
Allow importation from multiple countries under standardized compliance rules.
This is a regulatory balancing act between:
-
Religious freedom (Article 10 & 14 rights),
-
National security,
-
Market fairness,
-
And intra-community pluralism.
It is administratively complex — and politically sensitive.
The Public Rhetoric
In Parliament, Rishad Bathiudeen claimed that he personally attempted to purchase an Al-Qur’an and found shortages and inflated prices. That claim now forms part of a broader narrative framing the NPP government as obstructing religious practice.
However, political credibility matters.
If one wishes to invoke the sanctity of the Al-Qur’an in a parliamentary confrontation, it is reasonable for the public to ask questions about integrity, transparency, and consistency. Calls for moral authority must be matched by demonstrable adherence to ethical standards in public life.
The debate, therefore, should not descend into theatrical confrontation. It should focus on:
-
When the regulation was introduced.
-
Who was responsible.
-
Why it was not legally challenged at inception.
-
And how to construct a sustainable, non-monopolistic import policy going forward.
The Core Issue
The present controversy is less about access to scripture and more about:
-
Political repositioning.
-
Selective memory.
-
And intra-religious institutional competition.
Blaming the current government for a regulatory framework created under a previous presidency without acknowledging historical responsibility distorts the public record.
If reform is required, it must be addressed through transparent administrative revision — not parliamentary spectacle.
The importation of sacred texts is too sensitive a matter to be weaponized for short-term political gain.