ACJU Secretary General Takes Legal Action for Rs. 50 Million: A Question of Approach and Islamic Principle
In a recent development that has sparked considerable debate, Ash-Sheikh Arkam Nooramith, the General Secretary of the All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama (ACJU), has initiated legal proceedings against retired diplomat and former Director of the Department of Muslim Religious and Cultural Affairs, Ibrahim Ansar.
A Letter of Demand has been sent to Mr. Ansar, seeking Rs. 50 million in damages over statements made during an interview with ShortNews on January 10. The letter, sent via Attorney Hashitha Udugamakoralla on June 17, alleges that Mr. Ansar made false and defamatory statements regarding a committee reviewing Islamic texts, specifically claiming that members received Rs. 2,600 per meeting and that a member suggested using "Tippex" to erase matters related to Jihad
However, the core of the contention appears to be a discrepancy: the Letter of Demand clarifies that Ash-Sheikh Arkam Nooramith did not receive any such allowance, despite the claims made in the interview
A Critical Question of Approach
The decision to pursue a civil lawsuit and a substantial monetary claim raises significant questions. If the primary grievance is the false assertion that service was rendered for payment, one must ask: why is the legal focus on suing the party who alleged payment, rather than pursuing the payment itself?
By all accounts, Ash-Sheikh Arkam Nooramith did not receive the Rs. 2,600 allowance. Rather than issuing a Letter of Demand against the former Director for defamation—a move that shifts the narrative to reputation and damages—it appears that the immediate resolution could have been to clarify the record and seek the outstanding dues from the relevant department, if any.
Islamic Jurisprudence and Conflict Resolution
From a legal and ethical standpoint, the path of civil litigation in this matter appears to contradict the broader Islamic principles of dispute resolution. The Islamic tradition strongly encourages reconciliation, patience, and the avoidance of public scandal.
The utilization of secular civil courts and a demand for a massive sum (Rs. 50 million) stands in stark contrast to the Islamic injunctions regarding resolving disputes among believers. Islamic law (Shariah) emphasizes amicable settlement (Sulh) and arbitration. Subjecting a fellow Muslim, particularly a retired diplomat and scholar, to the rigors of a public civil suit for alleged defamation might be viewed as a departure from the prophetic tradition of overlooking faults and seeking forgiveness.
Furthermore, demanding a public apology via social media under threat of litigation might be perceived as coercive, rather than a genuine attempt at reconciliation.
While the ACJU Secretary General is well within his legal rights to defend his reputation, the methodology employed is arguably contradictory to the very principles the ACJU stands to uphold. A more measured approach—perhaps a direct clarification, a request for a retraction, or an internal mediation process—might have served the cause of justice and Islamic ethics better than the heavy-handed threat of a Rs. 50 million lawsuit. By seemingly prioritizing legal redress over reconciliation, this action risks setting a precedent that favors litigation over the Islamic ethos of resolving disputes with mercy and understanding.