THE STORY OF RUSHDIE

Salman Rushdie, an English author born in Mumbai, has written numerous works in English, including the renowned book “Midnight’s Children,” published in 1981. Another book, ‘The Satanic Verses,’ was published by British publisher Viking Press on September 26, 1988, in London. The book’s title refers to its main character, “Mahound,” a distorted version of the name of Prophet Muhammad.

On February 14, 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, issued a fatwa (edict) calling for the death of Rushdie and his publishers, citing blasphemy as the reason.

Sunni scholars also joined this movement under the banner of ‘Islamic Jihad,’ as reported in the Daily Qaumi Awaz on February 20, 1989. Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (d.1999), the then Director of Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama, justified Ayatollah Khomeini’s edict. He stated that Salman Rushdie, the author of ‘The Satanic Verses,’ had insulted the religion of Islam, causing outrage among Muslims worldwide, and that Muslims expressed satisfaction with the Shia leader’s decree.

Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi further asserted that Islam dictates that those who insult the Prophet must be punished with death, a viewpoint agreed upon by all Muslim scholars, jurists, and theologians. Numerous statements, letters, and articles were published in newspapers on this matter.

Muslim writers and orators fervently called for the death of Salman Rushdie, with the Muslim communities of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh taking the lead in this campaign. Protests were also organized on the streets of London. However, the majority of the Muslim world did not actively participate in this self-proclaimed jihad. Even in Iran, besides Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers, the general public did not display significant enthusiasm for joining this campaign.

The Urdu Newspaper “Qaumi Awaz” (February 23, 1989) reported a scholars’ meeting in Makkah. During the meeting, Dr Abdullah Umar Naseef stated that Salman Rushdie was an apostate and that apostasy in Islam carried the punishment of death. He called for legal proceedings to be initiated against Salman Rushdie in an Islamic country in absentia. Dr. Naseef further asserted that Rushdie’s work did not fall under the category of freedom of speech but was instead a criminal act disguised as such. However, the Muslim World League was not enthusiastic about this campaign.

On March 7, 1989, the Iranian government severed diplomatic relations with Britain and recalled its diplomatic and ambassadorial staff from London, as ‘The Times of India’ reported on March 8, 1989.

Counter Reward

‘The Times of India’, in its news item titled “For a civilised Khomeini,” published on February 20, 1989, Section 2, page 1, reported that the British newspaper magnate Mr. Robert Maxwell had pledged 16 million ($10.6 million) as a reward to anyone who could “civilise” Ayatollah Khomeini, the Iranian ruler. “The People,” a London weekly tabloid, stated that the money would be given to anyone who could convince Ayatollah Khomeini to repent and publicly recite the sixth and ninth commandments from the Christian Bible, which are “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

Mr. Robert Maxwell’s statement is seen as a satire, presenting Islam as a religion associated with violence while portraying Christianity as a religion characterized by compassion and tolerance.

Distorting the Image of Islam

The TIME magazine featured a cover story on February 27, 1989, discussing Ayatollah Khomeini’s condemnation of the book ‘The Satanic Verses’ as being against Islam. The report also touched upon the reaction of political leaders in the West, expressing their outrage at one country calling for the death penalty on citizens of another country. It raised concerns about how free societies can effectively protect themselves and their citizens against such intense and unpredictable intimidation (p. 6).

As depicted in the TIME report, the perception of the people in the West indirectly impacts Islam. In other words, it suggests that the West, which has established an environment of free movement within their countries, views the entry of Islam into their society as a serious threat to their way of life. This perception stems from regarding it as the introduction of uncivilized individuals into a civilized society. It is indeed perplexing that Islam, a religion of peace with a Prophet who came as a mercy to humanity, is perceived as a societal threat by some individuals.

The Verdict of the Riyadh Conference

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) held a meeting in Riyadh from March 16 to March 19, 1989. The conference was attended by the foreign ministers of 46 Muslim countries. Alongside the issue of Afghanistan, the topic of Salman Rushdie was one of the most sensitive matters on the agenda. The conference began with an inaugural speech by the Saudi ruler, Shah Fahad. Over three days, the representatives of the Muslim countries deliberated on various aspects of the issue. On March 16, 1989, a joint verdict from all countries participating in the conference (except Iran) was issued, firmly rejecting Ayatollah Khomeini’s death fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Diplomats considered the rejection of the Iranian fatwas to be a significant step. The conference declared Salman Rushdie’s book as an act of maligning Islam and urged the international community to avoid offending the sentiments of representatives from different religions. In his inauguration speech, Shah Fahad emphasized the importance of allowing wrongdoers to repent and called for moderation in addressing such issues (Qaumi Awaz, March 17, 1989).

This verdict indicates that the self-proclaimed Islamic Government of Iran stands as an exception in advocating for the assassination of Rushdie. At the official level, the other Muslim countries believe that while Rushdie has written a highly objectionable book, it does not justify the issuance of a religious fatwa to incite Muslims worldwide to kill Rushdie wherever he may be found. They emphasize peaceful rebuttal rather than resorting to violence with bombs and bullets.

A Fallacy

The articles advocating for the death of Salman Rushdie attempted to justify their stance by claiming that Rushdie had offended the sentiments of one billion Muslims worldwide. However, these claims lack factual basis. Evidence shows that over 99% of the letters and articles published on this matter were written by Muslims from India and Pakistan. Additionally, Urdu-speaking Muslims from the subcontinent displayed greater enthusiasm in their participation. The demonstrations organized in foreign countries were primarily led by the Indian and Pakistani diaspora, with Arabs and non-Arab Muslims residing in these countries playing a minor role in the protests.

On April 3, 1989, ‘The Times of India’ featured a news item on its last page titled “Anti Verses Stir Intensified in the U.K.” The report highlighted that Muslims living in Britain had decided to escalate their agitation against ‘The Satanic Verses’ and were even willing to defy British laws to sustain their campaign. This announcement was made during a conference held under the auspices of the Muslim Institute, led by Dr. Kalim Siddiqi (d. April 13, 1996), an Urdu-speaking Muslim migrant from India who had settled in England.

As reported in “Qaumi Awaz” (May 2, 1989 edition), another demonstration organized by Muslims from the Indian subcontinent took place in London, led by Moinuddin Chowdhary, a migrant from Bangladesh. Approximately 20,000 Muslims participated in this protest against Salman Rushdie’s book and engaged in acts of violence and vandalism.

From this, it can be reasonably inferred that the protest campaigns in foreign countries, carried out in the name of Muslims worldwide, were led by a few individuals from the Indian subcontinent rather than representing the entire global Muslim population.

Muslims from countries such as Arabia, Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia were not prominently involved in these protests. Even in India and Pakistan, only Urdu-speaking Muslims were at the forefront, while non-Urdu speakers, such as Muslims from South India, did not significantly participate in the campaign. This fact serves as evidence that this is a campaign driven by a small minority within the Islamic world, unrealistically considering itself the sole representative of Islam.

A Ridiculous Reaction

Salman Rushdie’s book is undoubtedly absurd. However, the reaction of Shia and Sunni scholars towards it was even more absurd. If Salman Rushdie insulted the Prophet, then Ayatollah Khomeini and the supporting Ulama are also guilty of insulting Islam.

Their actions misrepresented Islam to the world, portraying it as a violent and uncivilized religion. Rushdie wrote his book in the name of secularism, but Muslim scholars reacted in the name of Islam, resulting in a global defamation of the religion.

Those who have read Salman Rushdie’s book can attest to its superfluous writing style, lacking any literary charm for the reader. Several reviewers have criticized the book, claiming that it is a below-average academic work and that Rushdie is not a proficient English writer. Auberon Waugh, a renowned British literary critic, even went as far as to state that “Mr. Salman Rushdie deserves to be punished for bad English.” Serious commentators in the West have used terms like ‘dense,’ ‘impenetrable,’ and ‘unreadable’ to describe it. Khushwant Singh, in his review, remarked, “Even as a novel, ‘The Satanic Verses’ is not readable.”

However, given the substandard nature of the book, it would have been better to ignore it, allowing it to fade away naturally.

Dr. Abdul Karim Mohd. Al-Hasan Bakkar has expressed in his writing that the best criticism of Salman Rushdie’s book would have been to ignore it simply. Salih al-Qasim, a well-known writer from Jordan, also made a valid point that many books in the past have been ignored by religious scholars, allowing Islam to remain strong and revered, while books that blasphemed against Islam faded into obscurity. The same principle of ignoring should have been applied to Rushdie’s book.

The title of Salman Rushdie’s book is based on a false story that originated during the fifth year of the Hijri calendar when chapter 53 of the Quran, An-Najm (The Setting Star), was revealed to Prophet Muhammad. The fabrication of false stories is a crime that others have committed in the past, similar to Rushdie’s actions. However, the Prophet and his Companions did not impose capital punishment on those fabricators, unlike the Shia and Sunni scholars from Iran and India who demanded it for Rushdie. If the punishment for this crime were as advocated by these scholars, the Prophet and his Companions would have imposed it in Makkah. However, they did not do so, indicating that the fatwa issued by these scholars is based on personal inclination rather than the teachings of the Quran and Hadith.

Salman Rushdie used the term ‘Mahound’ to refer to Prophet Muhammad in his book, which is undeniably blasphemous and highly provocative. The term combines ‘Hound,’ which refers to a dog in English, with ‘M,’ a shortened form of ‘Mine.’ This suggests Rushdie intended ‘Mahound’ to mean ‘My dog’ (God forbid).

It is important to note that this blasphemous and absurd name for the Prophet is not an invention of Salman Rushdie. It originated in Europe after the Crusades (1096-1271) when European Christian nations failed to defeat them despite their two centuries of crusading against Muslims. In their efforts to malign Islam and the Prophet, the Crusaders resorted to various tactics, including distorting the name of the Prophet. However, in the past 700 years, no one has ever been punished with death for coining such a name, nor has any fatwa been issued for such an offence.

Furthermore, the basis of Salman Rushdie’s book was a fabricated story that emerged in Makkah in the 5th year after Hijra (AH). However, the Prophet Muhammad did not impose a death penalty on the fabricators of this story.

Abdullah bin Ubayy of Madinah was the first person to spread fabrications similar to those used by Salman Rushdie against the wives of the Prophet. However, despite people’s insistence, the Prophet of Islam prohibited his killing. In his “Divine Comedy,” Dante of Italy (1265-1321) referred to Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet in Hell.* Sultan Usman Ghazi (1258-1324), the founder of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey, was a contemporary of Dante. However, he did not issue a decree offering a reward for anyone who would behead Dante. Shakespeare (1564-1616) portrayed the Prophet of Islam as a ‘false prophet’ in one of his plays. Shah Jahan (1592-1666) was a contemporary of Shakespeare, but Indian religious scholars did not advise Shah Jahan to send armed men to England to kill Shakespeare.

The reason behind this restraint was not the insensitivity of believers or the past kings; instead, they considered such provocations meaningless. They understood that if a dog

* Based on the principle of “Naql e kufr, kufr na bashad,” quoting disbelief for clarification or illustration does not equate to disbelief.

barked at an elephant, the best and most effective response for the elephant would be to ignore it and move on.

Established Greatness

According to the Quran, the Prophet of Islam has been granted the position of Mahmud—a station of praise and glory (17:79). In other words, his prophethood is scientifically and historically established. His status of prophethood has been eternally established for the whole world. Every propaganda against such a Prophet is false. Therefore, it can never harm anyone.

If someone were to say, “The Himalayas are just a small mound,” no one in the world would doubt the greatness of the Himalayas. Similarly, no article or book written against the Prophet of Islam would, to any degree, diminish his dignity and glory.

Let us consider an example to illustrate this point. ‘The Times of India’ (February 24, 1989) published a detailed letter by Mrs. Zahida Khan from New Delhi in which she narrated her experience with Salman Rushdie’s book, ‘The Satanic Verses.’ She wrote, “The offending book was brought to India by a visitor, and during her stay here, I read it. But I assure you and my community leaders that my faith in the Prophet Mohammad has been strengthened.” (The Times of India, February 24, 1989, p.8)

If Muslims become enraged by a statement against a Prophet whose greatness is so well established, they only demonstrate their narrow-mindedness. Such activities do not in any way diminish the greatness of the Prophet.