AN INTERACTION

On February 25, 1989, two American Professors, Dr. Archie L. Nations, and Dr. Peggy Starkey came to our Centre in New Delhi to discuss various Islamic issues. As a gesture, we presented them with several English books.

Towards the end of our meeting, they sought my opinion on the matter involving Salman Rushdie and Ayatollah Khomeini. I expressed that while the Shiite Imam Ayatollah Khomeini issued the “fatwa” calling for Salman Rushdie’s assassination, Sunni scholars had also provided full support to it. Some scholars, like Maulana Abul Hassan Ali Nadvi, publicly endorsed this fatwa through press statements. Other scholars who remained silent on the matter could also be considered indirect supporters of the fatwa since their silence implies indirect support in such cases.

I firmly expressed my complete disagreement with this fatwa, considering it both unlawful and un-Islamic. Here is a summary of what I conveyed to them on this matter:

“Ayatollah Khomeini issued a call for the assassination of Salman Rushdie, the author of ‘The Satanic Verses.’ Many Sunni scholars, either directly or indirectly, have endorsed this call. However, from an Islamic standpoint, this is unequivocally incorrect.

1. Why did Muslims demand the killing of Salman Rushdie? The general reason cited is that he committed blasphemy against the Prophet and Islam. Salman Rushdie’s book portrays certain “events” in a fictional manner, such as the story of the false accusation involving Hazrat Ayesha (the wife of the Prophet) and Safwan bin Muattal. These stories are old narratives, and Salman Rushdie did not invent them. He incorporated these incidents into his novel in a fictionalized form. Since the actual originators of these stories were not subjected to the death penalty by the Prophet of Islam, why should the author of ‘Satanic Verses,’ who merely repeated them, be punished with death?
2. When Islam prescribes punishment for a crime, it does not imply that any individual can take it upon himself to implement it in an ad hoc manner. In Islam, every punishment is a judicial punishment. Let us assume that Salman Rushdie has committed a crime for which the death penalty is mandated under Islamic law. Even in such a case, an individual is not permitted to enforce the punishment arbitrarily, wielding a gun and shooting the person at their discretion. Even when a crime recognized by Shariah has been committed, necessary legal proceedings must be followed. It would be illegal and un-Islamic to kill someone without going through the required judicial process.

3. The punishments prescribed for various crimes in Islam can only be implemented within Muslim countries. For instance, Islam does have a sentence for theft. However, in practical terms, it can only be enforced within the jurisdiction of a Muslim Government. This does not mean that Muslims should travel to other countries to impose Islamic punishment on individuals they deem as thieves. Now, since Salman Rushdie is a citizen of the United Kingdom, a non-Muslim country, he falls outside the scope of Islamic punishment. Therefore, it would be un-Islamic for any Iranian or Pakistani to go to Britain, shoot Salman Rushdie there, and claim that they were following Islamic law. Such acts are acts of aggression rather than the enforcement of Islamic law.
4. If Muslims wish to respond to Salman Rushdie, their actions should remain within the peaceful domain. This may include countering his arguments with logical and scholarly articles or books, advocating a ban on its publication and distribution in Muslim countries, and seeking legal measures for its prohibition in other nations. However, any form of aggression is not permissible from an Islamic perspective. If Muslims adopt an aggressive stance in this matter, it will undoubtedly be seen as inviting God’s wrath.”

Having understood Islam’s view on this and other issues, the American Professors sent a letter upon their return to their homeland. It is being reproduced here.

Dr. Peggy Starkey
Dr. Archie L. Nations  
12228 Old Creedmoor Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27613

March 27, 1989

To:

Wahiduddin Khan, President, The Islamic Centre, C-29, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi-110 013, India

Dear Mr. Khan,

When we think of our time in Delhi, our minds immediately reflect on our visit with you and your son, Dr. Khan, who graciously assisted us while we were there. We are profoundly indebted to you for giving us time to talk with you and learn about India’s Muslim faith.

Most of all, we are encouraged by the fact that there are Muslim religious leaders like you whose wise counsel needs to be taken very seriously, not only by the Muslim people but also by persons of other religious traditions as well. We think the hope for intercultural and international understanding and peace lies in the directions charted by such wisdom. Therefore, we are most grateful for the opportunity to meet and talk with you. You have strengthened our resolve to continue our efforts in Muslim-Christian Dialogue in the U.S. with a view toward the dissemination of accurate knowledge of Islam and better relations with Muslims.

We appreciate you sharing your thoughts concerning the Rushdie controversy with us, and we thank you for providing us with the articles and pamphlets you have written. If there is some way that we might receive information about your future publications and how we might obtain them, we would be most grateful.

Sincerely Yours,

Peggy Starkey
Archie L. Nations

A Reply to a Letter

Dr. Muzaffar Shaheen from Rajouri (Jammu and Kashmir) expressed his thoughts in a lengthy letter: “Since the publication of Salman Rushdie’s book, it has garnered significant attention from newspapers and magazines. The entire Muslim world has reacted to it, and the leaders’ protests have led to riots in Islamabad, Srinagar, and Bombay. However, no Muslim scholar has tried to respond to this book with rational and scholarly arguments. Isn’t this book a challenge for our scholars rather than a general humiliation of Islam? Thus far, no reasoned refutation of this book has been presented by any Muslim scholar. Can our agitations rectify the erroneous impressions received by those who have read Rushdie’s book and been influenced by its statements?”

In response to this letter, I wrote that it is a significant issue that extends beyond Salman Rushdie’s book. It encompasses all similar situations. It has become a common practice for Muslim leaders and scholars that when a book or article is published, they issue strong emotional statements against it, leading to public agitation. However, they often fail to provide a reasoned response to the content in question.

I fully agree that each of these incidents should be taken as a challenge rather than an act of dishonouring Islam.

During the time of the Prophet, his opponents would employ provocative poetry to hurt the sentiments of Muslims, similar to how provocative events are reported in modern times. However, the Prophet and his Companions did not react in the same manner as present-day Muslim leaders. Instead, the Muslims of that time responded to provocation through poetry and oratory. This approach aligns with the Islamic way of addressing such matters, and contemporary Muslim leaders should follow the example set by the Prophet and his Companions.

Poetry served as the most powerful means of communication in ancient Arabia. Ideas intended for the masses were conveyed through poetry, allowing listeners to understand and memorize them easily. People then recite these verses on various occasions, ensuring the message spread far and wide.

However, with the advent of the printing press in modern times, the significance of poetry in communication has diminished. Journalism has become the primary source for conveying ideas to the masses. Thoughts and ideas meant to reach a broad audience are now published in newspapers, magazines, and digital media.

Just as early Muslims utilized ancient forms of communication, such as poetry, to prepare rebuttals, Muslims today should utilize contemporary resources, such as newspapers, books, and digital media, to present their views to the people. Muslim leaders must refrain from issuing hasty statements in response to such situations, labelling them as an ‘insult’ to Islam or disrespect to the Prophet. This approach represents an innovation (bid’aa) in Islam, as it only incites people without providing substantive answers to the objections raised.

This approach must be avoided. Instead, Muslim leaders should follow the Prophetic example of responding to claims through writing. In other words, if a question is raised in the media, the response should be given through newspapers, and if a question is raised in a book, the answer should be provided through books, and so on. Furthermore, these responses should be rooted in Islamic ethics and presented as scholarly arguments rather than resorting to retaliatory provocation. By adhering to this principle, Muslim leaders can better serve Islam.

Wrong Representation

Few instances in recent times have incited such a strong reaction from Muslims as the anger provoked by Salman Rushdie’s book. Numerous statements and articles have been published in Urdu, English, Arabic, and other languages to express opposition to his work.

The essence of all these reactions can be summarized by a Muslim spokesperson’s statement to ‘The Times of India’ (March 1, 1989), which reads as follows:

“We, as Muslims, like any human beings, should have the right to feel offended when our beloved ones are depicted as prostitutes.”

This statement, which uses the reaction of an ordinary person as a gauge to measure the response of Muslims, highlights an apparent misconception. The reaction of Muslims should be guided by the conduct of the Prophet of Islam rather than the behaviour of their fellow human beings. Therefore, since the parameters that govern the response of Muslims are religious, they should be evaluated in light of the Quran and Sunnah, not the actions of ordinary individuals.

In his book, Salman Rushdie ridiculed the Prophet for having multiple wives, referring to his household, God forbid, as a ‘brothel’ (p. 376). The author also propagated the false story of Safwan bin Muattal, which maligns the character of Hazrat Ayesha (p. 387).

This fictional tale concerning Umm Al-Muminin (the mother of the believers) is not a new fabrication. It was first concocted in Madinah 1400 years ago by Abdullah bin Ubayy, who claimed to be a Muslim. His deceitful act is mentioned in the Quran. Salman Rushdie exploited this story to serve his malicious intentions.

It is evident from this that the wrongful act committed by Salman Rushdie against Hazrat Ayesha was initially perpetrated during the lifetime of the Prophet of Islam himself. Furthermore, this offence occurred when the Prophet had full authority over Madinah and the absolute power to punish the offender. The life and conduct of the Prophet serve as a model for us in every aspect. Therefore, we should examine how the Prophet dealt with the person who committed this crime and strive to emulate his example.

Historical records testify that the first perpetrator, Abdullah bin Ubayy, was not punished for this crime. Despite Hazrat Umar Farooq and even Abdullah, the son of the culprit, seeking permission to execute him, the Prophet did not allow his killing. Thus, despite enduring immense pain and emotional distress and being aware of his guilt, the Prophet did not sanction his execution, and Abdullah bin Ubayy was left to face a natural death.

This is the precedent the Prophet of Islam sets for us to follow. We must tread in his footsteps. Justifying one’s anger by citing the behaviour of ordinary individuals amounts to rebellion and holds no connection with Islamic teachings. The model for Muslims lies in the actions of the Messenger of God, not in the actions of other human beings.

A Review

About the case of Salman Rushdie, an Arab scholar comments that when a Muslim becomes agitated upon the insult of their father or mother, it is only natural for them to feel anger towards the insult directed at the highest figure deserving their utmost love and loyalty, Prophet Muhammad (Al-Ba’ath al-Islami, June 1989, p. 85).

He further states that contemporary Muslims seem to have lost their religious pride and sense of honour, which is why we observe this unfortunate situation: despite Salman Rushdie committing such a grave crime of insulting the Prophet, Muslims are not displaying the level of anger and outrage that the incident warrants (page 93).

This style of emotional speech or writing holds no meaning. It lacks both reason and alignment with Islam. While incidents like these deeply disturbed individuals, a sincere person does not respond to humiliation by becoming enraged and plotting the death of the individual responsible for the insult. Such a reckless reaction is only a characteristic of an immature person. A purposeful individual always refrains from reacting to such provocation, understanding that it hinders their progress toward their goals.

In the case of Salman Rushdie’s book, Muslim writers and speakers, in general, have adopted a similar negative and emotional approach, as exemplified by the quote mentioned above. However, this approach is incorrect. While it is indeed profoundly hurtful to hear abusive words directed towards one’s mother, it does not mean that every time someone insults his mother, he should engage in a fight or seek to kill them. It is natural for a person to be affected by such verbal attacks, but it is unnatural and wrong to pray for that person to be condemned to Hell.

Jesus, for instance, was born without a human father from the womb of a woman. Despite facing accusations of illegitimacy and his mother being accused of adultery by the Jews in Palestine, Jesus did not order the execution of those who insulted him or his mother. Even though Jesus possessed miraculous powers to resurrect the dead, he did not initiate a campaign to kill those who had insulted him.

Likewise, in the early days of Islam, the hypocrites in Madinah falsely accused Hazrat Ayesha Siddiqua, the wife of the Prophet and the esteemed Umm Al-Muminin, of immorality. Despite having the authority to do so, Prophet Muhammad did not punish the criminals by severing their heads and displaying them on city walls for committing such a heinous crime. If the Prophet and his Companions did not resort to such actions, present-day Muslims have no right to engage in such behaviour.

According to the Quran, the Prophet is meant to be an example or “uswa” (33:21) to follow. Therefore, if we consider the Prophet a role model rather than a source of pride, it gives rise to the spirit of following his example.

This phenomenon of elevating the Prophet to a source of pride can be observed in Muslim communities worldwide. However, as mentioned in the Quran, the spirit of following the Prophet as a model seems to be lacking among them. Instead, by declaring him as the leader and king of the universe and the source of utmost pride, the sense of pride in the Prophet has grown to such an extent that people are always prepared to create a public uproar at the slightest sign of insolence towards him.

Some Muslims do not even hesitate to regard their Prophet as superior to God. Some express it indirectly, while others do so directly. For instance, a poet has written the following couplet:

“Allah ke palle mein wahdat ke siwa kya hai?

Jo kuchh hamein lena hai, le lenge Muhammad se.”

The English translation of the above is as follows:

“What is there in the ranks of Allah but monotheism? Whatever we want, we can obtain it from Muhammad.”

Due to this mindset among present-day Muslims, they do not seem to be affected by derogatory remarks about God. Such statements do not provoke them or hurt their emotions. However, if someone utters a disrespectful word about their Prophet, they immediately become ready to engage in conflict.

Pakistan’s Qudratullah Shahab has depicted the mindset of contemporary Muslims through two incidents from his early student days, as described in his book ‘Shahab Nama.’ We quote the incidents as follows:

“There was a solitary mystic (majzub), living away from human settlements, who would incessantly chant ‘Illallah,’ ‘Illallah.’ My Hindu friend and I would listen to him and imitate his chanting. To tease the mystic, my friend would add derogatory prefixes or suffixes to ‘Illallah.’ Although this mystic would reprimand us for disrespecting the name of Allah, we paid no heed to his words. One day, while we were both engrossed in mimicking his words, a passerby recited a few lines from a poem, one of which was as follows: ‘Had Muhammad not been born, the world would not have come to exist.’ My friend burst into loud laughter. Unfortunately, he also made insulting remarks about the Prophet. His words incited such anger within me that I grabbed a stone and struck the boy in the face with such force that half of his front teeth were broken.”

The author reflects on why his subconscious, which remained silent in response to jokes about God, became so enraged at the dishonour of the Prophet.

Most people become enraged when someone speaks ill of God’s Messenger, and some are even willing to make great sacrifices to protect his honour. However, it has been observed that those who give up their lives to defend the Prophet’s honour are not necessarily highly knowledgeable in religious matters or renowned for leading a devout life. The intensity and irrationality with which people are disturbed, consciously or unconsciously, and their eagerness to safeguard the Prophet’s honour stem from reverence rather than genuine faith. This often manifests as passionate fervour, which can escalate to madness among the masses (Shahab Nama, Delhi, 2003, p. 1202-03).

To be insensitive towards God and sensitive towards God’s Messenger is undoubtedly a deviation from Islam and has no connection with true guidance. Those who dwell in such baseless reverence will come to realize, on the Day of Judgment, that their actions were based on their inventions and had nothing to do with the religion sent by God.

There is the religion of Islam, and then there is the religion of ‘hero worship.’ If a person truly follows the religion of Islam, their relationship with God and His Messenger will be similar. Therefore, they will be devoted to both God and the Prophet.

However, the religion practiced by many modern-day Muslims is not Islam but rather a form of ‘hero worship.’ They have not truly made God their ultimate focus; instead, they have elevated the Prophet to a ‘hero.’ This is why they remain silent when God is insulted but become immediately enraged if anyone speaks disparagingly about the Messenger.

Muslims may find contentment in their self-created version of religion. However, they need to recognize that the Quran explicitly states a punishment, not a reward, for those who differentiate between God and His Messenger (4:150).

The Politics of the Procession

Muslims across various parts of India, including Srinagar and Bombay, staged protests against Salman Rushdie (February 1989). However, in these protests, many Muslims became enraged for various reasons and resorted to violent actions. They broke the law and even threw stones at the police, resulting in the police opening fire and causing the loss of precious lives.

These acts of violence were undeniably absurd. It is important to note that India was the first country to ban Rushdie’s book, even before Pakistan and Iran did so legally. With the practical ban already in place, one may question the rationale behind protesting against the book in India.

The leaders of these agitations naively claimed that their procession was not against India but against Britain, stating their intention to file a written complaint with the British High Commission.

This excuse only further highlights the incompetence of these leaders. It demonstrates their lack of wisdom while seeking to assume leadership roles. It is a recurring pattern during such processions or rallies that the individuals involved are not in a normal state of mind. They tend to overestimate their power and are driven by “mob psychology.”

Because of this, those who participate in these agitations in large numbers often develop a sense of superiority, viewing themselves as the “kings of the streets.” Consequently, they become easily provoked, even by minor incidents. They may engage in conflicts with the police, assuming that their numbers surpass those of law enforcement, resulting in most processions inevitably turning violent and leading to bloodshed.

Considering this, it was highly inappropriate to organize a procession concerning the issue of Salman Rushdie. If individuals wished to express their protest to the British Government, they could have done so through means such as postal mail or telegram. A small delegation could have visited the British High Commission to convey their message if a personal delivery was deemed necessary.

Some Important Comments

King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia (without explicitly mentioning Salman Rushdie) expressed his perspective, emphasizing that the conveyance of the Divine Message should be done most effectively and persuasively. He stressed the importance of convincing other nations that Islam is a religion of love and peace rather than violence and terrorism. (Akhbar al-Alam al-Islami, Makkah, 22 May, 1989.)

The Ruler of Kuwait, Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, expressed that neither Salman Rushdie nor individuals like him from around the world can harm the true religion of Allah with their anti-Islam writings.

Dr. Sushil Kumar Srivastava, a Professor of History at Allahabad University, shared a similar sentiment: “Islam is not a weak religion. Countless books like ‘The Satanic Verses’ cannot shake it.” (Akhbar e Nau, 17-23 March 1989)

Islam possesses a rich and glorious history spanning over a thousand years, which has endowed it with such steadfastness that neither individuals nor large groups can inflict even the slightest damage to it through their writings. This perspective was echoed by Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who remarked: “Great religions should be strong enough to withstand such criticisms as presented in the book.” (The Guardian, London, March 4, 1989)

Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, expressed her confusion regarding the benefit Muslims would derive from prolonging the issue. She emphasized that repeating the words of blasphemy is as grave a sin as committing it oneself. Bhutto believed that the fundamentalists who publicized Rushdie’s novel and its objectionable content were committing the same crime as Rushdie himself.