A CONVERSATION
The New York Times, January 27, 2012
This interview, originally featured in The New York Times, has been published on their website along with the following note: “Following the controversy surrounding author Salman Rushdie’s appearance at the Jaipur Literature Festival (Jan 20-24, 2012), which culminated in the cancellation of even a planned video conference with Mr. Rushdie, India Ink spoke with Muslim leaders to discuss the situation. They shared their thoughts on Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’ and explored whether political factors were involved. Malavika Vyawahare interviewed Maulana Wahiduddin Khan at his residence in New Delhi to gather his opinion on the matter.” Excerpts from the interview are presented below:
Q. What is your reaction to the protests against Salman Rushdie’s participation in the Jaipur Literature Festival?
A. These protests were by a tiny minority, who are not representative of the Muslim community.
The protesters were utterly wrong in doing what they did. Salman Rushdie has every right to come to this country. I heard his interview after the video conference was cancelled, and I agreed with him when he said that all other freedoms rest on freedom of expression. If you abolish the freedom of expression, all other liberties will cease.
According to Islam, you have to counter a book with a book and a statement with a statement. Countering a statement with violence is not correct. It is un-Islamic. Protest and argument are two different kinds of reactions. The Prophet of Islam faced many negative situations and abuses, but he never protested. The Prophet’s life is a model for Muslims; thus, violent protest of this nature is against the spirit of Islam.
Q. What is it about Mr. Rushdie’s work that has offended you personally and is offensive to the Muslim community?
A. I have read the ‘Satanic Verses.’ The book is not based on historical facts. This author quoted an event that did not happen and was fabricated. He has misconstrued the events described in Chapter 53, Verse 19 of the Quran. He has relied on those words as being part of the Quran, which are, in fact, not; some non-believers misreport them.
Also, he has referred to the existence of harems and the Prophet having many wives as the existence of brothels. In Islam, it is an accepted practice to have more than one wife; he could have referred to the fact as polygamy or even harems, but to call them brothel is wrong and offensive. It has a negative connotation, which the other words do not have.
Q. Do you think that it was right for Muslims to take issue with Mr. Rushdie’s appearance, even via video conference?
A. Islamic law does not recognize violent protest; the word itself does not exist. In terms of democracy, the protesters may have been right, but not in terms of Islam. I do think Salman Rushdie abused his right to expression in the book, but Islam recognizes the right to disseminate your ideas if one expresses one’s ideas in an entirely peaceful manner.
Islam does not require that the author should take into consideration the sentiments of his audience, but Salman Rushdie has misquoted history, which he has no right to do. Muslims could protest peacefully and counter an argument with an argument.
Q. How did the government handle the issue? Do you think the Muslim community has been given a fair hearing in all this?
A. I do not blame the government of India. Those who say that there was discrimination against how Muslim protests are dealt with and how protests by other communities are dealt with are wrong. There is no discrimination against Muslims.
