BECOMING THE SUBJECT OF RIDICULE
According to the Anglican Church, Christianity is the official religion of England. In ancient times, England had a law that punished blasphemy against religion, established in the 17th century. This law was based on the idea that an attack on religion would be seen as an attack on the State (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 2, p. 75).
Currently, this law pertains explicitly to Christianity. However, some British Muslims, particularly some Indian Muslims residing in Britain, have been advocating for its extension to include Islam. The purpose would be to enable a legal case against Salman Rushdie to be brought before a British court.
The writer perceives this demand as entirely absurd and devoid of genuine leadership. Those who call for such a case to be registered know that such laws hold no practical value in the present circumstances.
Furthermore, it represents a clear example of shallow thinking. Muslim countries already have laws against the desecration of Islamic figures and Islam itself. Should Muslims then broaden the scope of these laws to include Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, allowing adherents of these religions to file lawsuits against Muslims for insulting their faith? If Muslims themselves cannot grant this right to others within their own countries, it is illogical to expect it in other nations. Such thinking undoubtedly reflects the shallow mindset of our leaders, lacking any basis in the teachings of Islam.
Far from safeguarding the sanctity of Islam, this unfounded campaign has undeniably contributed to distorting the image of the religion. As an example, certain self- proclaimed Muslim leaders in Britain wrote a letter to the British government demanding the extension of this law’s scope to include Islam. In response, John Patten, the Minister of State in the British Home Office, sent them a letter published on the last page of ‘The Times of India’ on July 6, 1989, p. 10.
PTI has sent this report from London. “In his reply to prominent British Muslim leaders, Mr. Patten stated that legal mechanisms were unsuitable for addressing faith and individual beliefs. He further noted that the Christian faith no longer relied on such mechanisms and recognized that the strength of one’s belief served as the best defence.”
The words of the British Christian Home Secretary hold a deep satirical meaning for Muslims. They suggest that their religion, Christianity, is robust enough to deem such a law unnecessary, even though they have legislation against blasphemy. Conversely, his words imply that the state of Islam is such that the sanctity of the religion can only be protected when there is a law in place to guard it.
Salman Rushdie is a British citizen and can only be prosecuted under British law, not under the laws of Iran or Pakistan. Offering a reward or making emotional appeals to kill him amounts to justifying international anarchy. Islam is exempt from such actions.
Salman Rushdie’s book did not cause any actual harm or damage to Islam. However, the reactions from the Muslim World have unquestionably inflicted significant harm upon Islam. Through their actions, these Muslim clerics have conveyed to the world that Islam is a religion associated with terror and barbarism. It is natural for individuals to be hesitant to objectively study a religion whose image has been tarnished in such a manner.
The greatest transgression of present-day Muslim leaders is their repeated actions that serve their leadership interests but ultimately undermine the cause of Islam. Undoubtedly, this stands as the greatest tragedy in the history of Islam.
