PUBLISHER’S NOTE
On 17th February 1989, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie for having insulted the Prophet in his novel ‘Satanic Verses.’ The ‘Islamic’ Government of Iran announced a reward of 2.6 million dollars for Rushdie’s would-be assassin if he were an Iranian, the sum being reduced to 1 million dollars if he were of some other nationality. Two days later, Rushdie issued an apology, saying, ‘Living in a world of many faiths, the experience has served to remind us that we must all be conscious of the sensibilities of others.’ Khomeini did not accept his apology, however, and as quoted in ‘The Times of India’, insisted, ‘Even if Salman Rushdie repents and becomes the most pious man, it is incumbent on every Muslim to employ everything he’s got, his life and wealth, to send him to hell.’
Soon after this, several Sunni Ulama, too, came out in full support of Khomeini’s fatwa. They declared that Rushdie had engaged in the most extreme form of blasphemy, and that, therefore, he deserved nothing less than the death penalty.
Khomeini’s fatwa angered vast numbers of non-Muslims across the world. They protested against the fatwa, challenging the right of a citizen of one country to order the death of a person living in, and a citizen of, another country.
They felt that the fatwa and the agitation that it spurred, were a dangerous form of intimidation, a menacing danger to free speech. In short, they began to feel that the very presence of Islam in their societies was a threat to their lives and that Muslims were simply uncivilized people. It is ironic how, when Islam, properly understood, is a religion of peace, and when the Prophet Muhammad is referred to in the Quran as a mercy for all mankind (21:107), the image of this religion has been made such that many non- Muslims feel it to be a threat to their lives.
Undoubtedly, Rushdie’s novel was absurd and scandalous, but the reaction of Shia and Sunni Ulama and other Muslim leaders to it was certainly even more absurd. If Salman Rushdie had insulted the Prophet, it is also the case that Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters among the Muslim Ulama were guilty of insulting Islam. This is because their reaction, and the violent agitations that it triggered, helped create an image of Islam as a barbaric and uncivilized religion. Rushdie authored his novel in the name of secularism, while the Shia and Sunni Ulama reacted to it in the name of Islam. If Rushdie gave a bad name to secularism, the Shia and Sunni Ulama gave Islam a bad name throughout the world.
In the present book, the author takes a look at the issue of blasphemy from the Islamic point of view to clear misconceptions about Islam. In the book, it has been explained that in Islam, blasphemy is a subject of intellectual discussion rather than condemnation, protest, and retaliation. Several verses in the Quran show that ‘abuse of the Prophet’ is not a subject of punishment. Instead, sound arguments should be presented to address the mind of the blasphemer.
God sent more than one lakh prophets to different regions. Their contemporaries almost always responded negatively by using abusive language. (Quran, 36:30, 16:101, 7:66) However, the Quran does not prescribe physical punishment for them. Rather the Quran commands the Prophet to refrain from using abusive language in retaliation:
“But do not revile those they invoke instead of God, lest they, in their hostility, revile God out of ignorance.” (6:108)
Many such verses in the Quran show that we have to abstain from negative reactions until the last moment in such situations.
Incidents that are termed today as abusing the Prophet were prevalent during the life of the Prophet as well. When the Prophet presented his message before the Arabs, they misbehaved with him. Here are some of the epithets given to prophets as mentioned in the Quran: “a liar” (40:24), “possessed” (15:6), “a fabricator” (16:101), and “a foolish man” (7:66). However, nowhere does the Quran prescribe any physical punishment for these offences.
It clearly shows that ‘abuse of the Prophet’ is not a subject of condemnation or seeking punishment; rather, it is a subject of removing their misunderstanding through sound arguments to address their minds. In other words, peaceful persuasion should be used to help the person understand the truth of the matter rather than trying to punish him. There is ample evidence that tells us what to do in such cases.
Zaid bin Sa’nah, a Jewish scholar, noted that according to the Torah, two notable signs of the Prophet of Islam were:
“His forbearance outpaces his ignorance, and increased ignorance only heightens his forbearance.”
To test this, Zaid bin Sa’nah loaned money to the Prophet of Islam during a time of need, then prematurely demanded repayment, speaking harshly. He recounted, “I seized the collar of his shirt and cloak, looked at him sternly, and demanded, ‘Will you not pay me my due?’”
In response, rather than reacting harshly, the Prophet of Islam chose a gentle approach and repaid him more than the owed amount. Witnessing this act of exceeding generosity, Zaid became convinced that Muhammad was indeed a true prophet and subsequently became his follower. (Al-Mu’jam al-Kabir by Al-Tabarani, Hadith No. 14954)
It is interesting to note the response of the Prophet and his Companions on such occasions. They never indulged in aggressive activities against non-Muslims. Instead, they prayed for them and tried to remove their misconceptions by engaging in discussion with them, adopting a peaceful method.
In ancient times, people generally gave expression to their thoughts in poetry. The opponents of the Prophet used to recite abusive couplets directed against him. To counter such couplets or poems, the Prophet would ask one Hassan bin Thabit, whom Encyclopaedia Britannica calls ‘poetic defender,’ to counter literary attacks on him in the form of couplets. Hassan was Islam’s first religious poet.
We find many such incidents in the life of the Prophet. The Prophet peacefully countered their arguments with arguments. He attempted to satisfy the other party at an intellectual level. With these examples of the Prophet and his Companions, can resorting to violence be justified? Muslims, therefore, must deal with such cases by reasoned arguments rather than seeking to mete out punishment.
All Islamic teachings are based on reason and argument. As per this Islamic injunction, if a person commits ‘blasphemy,’ the responsibility of Muslims is to meet the concerned person and try to remove his misunderstanding by peaceful means. If they fail to understand, then according to the teachings of the Prophet, Muslims are left only with one option, that is, to pray for them in all sincerity.
Publisher
New Delhi
Dated: May 10, 2024
