THE OBEDIENCE OR
DISOBEDIENCE OF
GOD’S COMMAND

I have read Salman Rushdie’s book, ‘The Satanic Verses.’ There is no doubt that this book is absurd. My opinion regarding its language and content aligns with that of others. However, my viewpoint differs from those Muslims who advocate for the killing of Rushdie and consigning him to hell.

What Salman Rushdie presents in his book is not something new. Such statements and narratives have been circulated for centuries, even during the time of Prophet Muhammad. Understanding the approach taken by the Prophet of Islam in such situations can help guide us in similar circumstances. The Islamic perspective asserts that there is no need for independent reasoning (ijtihad) or analogy (qiyas) in matters where we have the example of the Prophet Muhammad to guide us. Let us explore this with a few examples.

1. One of the claims made in Salman Rushdie’s book is that the Quran included verses brought by the angel Gabriel as well as verses brought by Satan, which is why he titled his book ‘The Satanic Verses.’ Rushdie’s theory is based on the story of Gharaniq, which specific individuals fabricated while the Prophet Muhammad was in Makkah. However, when Makkah was conquered in 8 AH (After Hijrah), the Prophet Muhammad gained complete authority over the polytheists who had propagated this story. Yet, he did not declare that these individuals had invented the false tale of Gharaniq and deserved to be killed or condemned to hell. On the contrary, the Prophet forgave them and said, “Go, you are all free” (Ibn Kathir, Al-Sirah, Vol. 3, p. 570).

In this matter, the Prophet relied on the ideological power of Islam rather than the power of the sword. Through the ideological influence of Islam, the opponents were conquered. Once granted freedom, they were deeply impacted by Islam’s faith and the prophet’s noble character. Consequently, they wasted no time embracing Islam and becoming devoted servants of God.

2. In his book, Salman Rushdie derisively refers to the Prophet of Islam as ‘Mahound’ in an attempt to distort his image. This name originated in Europe after the Crusades (1095-1291).

Another example of such malicious behaviour during the Prophet’s time is narrated in the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) and Seerah (biography of the Prophet). Although the Prophet’s grandfather, Abdul Muttalib, had named him Muhammad, meaning ‘the praiseworthy,’ the Quraysh of Makkah mockingly referred to him as Mudhamman, which means ‘the condemned’. Abu Lahab’s wife, Umm Jamil, a poetess, composed a poem using the term ‘mudhammam’ (condemned person) and recited it with disdain. The verse went as follows: “Mudhamman asaina, wa amruhu abaina, wa dinuhu qalaina” (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Vol. 10, p. 269), which translates to: “We disobeyed a condemnable person. We rejected his message and detested his religion.”

Once again, we witness that the Prophet of Islam did not declare that these individuals had committed an unforgivable crime deserving of death. On the contrary, he redirected his Companions’ attention from human words to the word of God. He emphasized that it held no significance if these people condemned and oppressed him. The Lord of all humanity and the universe had eternally elevated him to the esteemed position of Muhammad, meaning ‘praiseworthy.’

3. Salman Rushdie has committed another highly outrageous act in his book. He depicts the wife of the Prophet as a wicked woman, which is undeniably provocative. No Muslim can read this part of the book without being deeply disturbed.

However, it is crucial to note that Rushdie is not the first to commit this crime of character assassination against the Mothers of the Believers. This vile act had already occurred during the time of the Prophet himself. Some hypocrites in Madinah falsely fabricated an incident involving Safwan bin Muattal, causing immense distress to the Prophet.

This fabricated tale spread extensively, impacting even sincere Muslims. For a month, the atmosphere in Madinah was saturated with rumours. This distressing situation only ended when God intervened by revealing the truth in the Quran. The Quranic revelation declared that this fabrication was utterly baseless, a false propaganda without any foundation. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 2661)

Nevertheless, the Prophet did not issue an order to kill all those involved in this false campaign of immorality. Although some Companions offered to take action against them, the Prophet did not permit it. Consequently, the perpetrators of the false tale of immorality were left alive. Their leader passed away naturally in Madinah.

This sets the precedent established by the Prophet. Islam does not prescribe capital punishment for individuals who blaspheme the Prophet. It is important to emphasize that “hurting the sentiments of Muslims” is not a provision within Islamic criminal law. If Muslims choose to take such actions, they do so in direct disobedience to the teachings of the Prophet. Furthermore, if they carry out these actions in the name of Islam, they must realize that their attempts to punish the offender make them even more culpable in the eyes of God than the offender himself.  Present- day Muslims who engage in such behaviour are driven by their own desires rather than obeying the will of God and following the guidance of His Messenger. Their actions reflect disobedience to the teachings of Islam.

Writing and Speaking without Considering Reason, Law, and Shariah

A Muslim scholar authored an article published in the ‘The Times of India’ (March 1, 1989) addressing the issue of blasphemy. This article also appeared in Urdu newspapers. The writer referenced Abdul Qadir Oudah’s book, At-Tashri’ al-Jina’i al-Islami (Criminal Law of Islam), which discussed “enforcing Islamic punishment outside one’s country.”

The writer conveyed the belief held by many Muslim jurists (Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanbali) that Islamic law applies to every Muslim, regardless of their place of residence, due to the principle of internationalism. However, the Hanafi school of thought holds the belief that Islamic punishments would not apply to Muslims residing outside the Muslim-majority lands since an Islamic government cannot enforce its laws there (At-Tashri’ al-Jina’i al-Islami, Vol. 1, p. 278).

By referring to this source, the author aims to demonstrate that, according to most Muslim jurists, the concept of “national borders” is not relevant when it comes to implementing Islamic punishment. Therefore, the author suggests that if Salman Rushdie, a UK resident, were in a foreign country, he could still be subject to Islamic punishment, as it would be considered an Islamic act.

However, this argument is a complete fallacy and lacks conviction among jurists. The referenced source has no connection to the theory of “international enforcement of punishment.” Instead, it pertains to the jurisprudential debate between Dar al-Islam (lands under Muslim rule) and Dar al-Harb (lands at war with Muslim countries). It addresses the question of whether a Muslim’s life and property are safeguarded based on their adherence to Islam or their geographic location. Here is the translation of the relevant passage from Abdul Qadir Oudah’s book, At-Tashri’ al-Jina’i al-Islami:

“According to the opinions of Maliki, Shafi’i, and Ahmad, the status of a Muslim residing in Dar al- Harb who has not migrated to Dar al-Islam is similar to that of other Muslims residing in Dar al-Islam. By embracing Islam, they have preserved their lives and wealth, regardless of how long they remain in Dar al-Harb. They are not prohibited from entering Dar al-Islam whenever they wish. Conversely, Abu Hanifa’s view is that a Muslim residing in Dar al-Harb who has not migrated to Dar al-Islam does not enjoy infallibility or protection despite being a Muslim. According to Abu Hanifa, infallibility (‘ismah) is not only related to Islam but also to the land.” (At-Tashri’ al-Jina’i al-Islami, Vol. 1, p. 278)

The quoted passage above has no relevance to the issue of insulting the Prophet. It solely addresses a specific aspect of the Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb debate. These two scenarios are distinct from the matter at hand.

During the war between two countries, the lives and property of individuals may become permissible targets. Abdul Qadir Oudah states in his book that the bloodshed of a person living in Dar al-Harb becomes permissible upon entering Dar al-Islam without permission. Similarly, the bloodshed of both Muslims and Dhimmis (protected non- Muslim communities) becomes permissible when they enter Dar al-Harb without permission or official order. However, their lives are protected if they enter with permission and under the guarantee of safety. (At-Tashri’ al-Jina’i al-Islami, Vol. 1, p. 278)

One question arises regarding the country deemed Dar al- Harb, which is at war with Muslims. Should both Muslims and non-Muslims living there be legitimately killed? There is a difference of opinion among jurists on this matter. Some argue that both can be killed because the protection of life and property is related to the “Dar” or land. Therefore, every inhabitant of a country with which a state of war is established, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, should be considered subject to the laws of war unless they migrate to Dar al-Islam.

Another group of jurists distinguishes between the Muslim and non-Muslim populations residing in Dar al- Harb. According to their perspective, non-Muslims can be legitimately killed, but not Muslims. They believe that infallibility, the protection of life and property, is based on one’s religious belief, regardless of whether one resides in Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Harb.

These issues are discussed in the book mentioned earlier (page 278). However, it was unjustifiably linked to the issue of blasphemy, leading to the erroneous declaration that the blasphemer must be killed regardless of his place of residence.

The second point mentioned above is that being a Muslim, Salman Rushdie falls under the jurisdiction of Islamic law, which prescribes death as the punishment for apostasy. Furthermore, if an Islamic government fails to enforce this punishment, any Muslim can carry it out on the offender (Volume 1, page 535).

This implies that if someone travels from India or Pakistan to England and personally decides to shoot and kill Salman Rushdie, their action would be in accordance with Sharia (Islamic jurisprudence). However, the reference cited in support of this view does not substantiate this claim at all.

Abdul Qadir Oudah discusses a different matter in his writing. It pertains to the scenario where two countries are at war, one being a Muslim state where both Muslims and non-Muslims reside and the other being a non-Muslim state where both Muslims and non-Muslims reside.

However, the article’s writer presents Abdul Qadir Oudah’s writing in a flawed manner. He suggests that travelling to England to kill Salman Rushdie would be justified by Shariah. From an Islamic perspective, this is indeed an act of rebellion rather than of obedience to God.