THE WAY FORWARD

The articles included in this book were written shortly after the emergence of Salman Rushdie’s controversy. Some of them were also published in the monthly Al-Risala. The entire collection was compiled into a book in 1989 and was ready for publication. However, unforeseen circumstances prevented it from being published on time. Eventually, after a significant delay, it was published in late 1996.

As a result of this delay, it became possible to include this concluding chapter at the end of the book, which was written much later in June 1996. If this book had been published in 1989, it would have lacked this important chapter.

Support of Islam by the West

Muslim writers and speakers often perceive Salman Rushdie as a part of the conspiracy orchestrated by the “enemies of Islam.” They believe it to be a plot hatched by Western powers against Islam, with Salman Rushdie’s book serving as its manifestation. However, the author holds the view that such allegations are entirely unfounded. The fact is that Salman Rushdie’s book is an individual act by the author and not the result of a collective plan devised by Western nations.

The so-called modern Muslim press has been publishing articles that claim the United States (and the West) has designated Islam as its new enemy since the end of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. They argue that just as the West targeted Communism before the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has now turned its focus on Islam. In essence, they propose that the West needed a new enemy for its survival and discovered Islam as their enemy to fulfill that role. This theory suggests that Western civilization thrives on competition and requires a rival to sustain it.

However, these assumptions are unfounded. One evidence against the validity of this theory is that even today, thousands of people in Western countries are willingly embracing Islam. Furthermore, individuals from the West have authored outstanding books highlighting Islam’s greatness in modern times. (Refer to the author’s book ‘Fikr-e-Islami,’ pp. 70-72)

It is a fact that certain Western groups have engaged in propaganda against Islam, using print and electronic media to distort its image. It is also a fact that someWestern thinkers and writers have provided the most compelling response to these attempts to tarnish Islam’s image. One noteworthy book, spanning 280 pages, titled “Muhammad: A Western Attempt to Understand Islam” by Karen Armstrong, was first published in 1991 in London by Victor Gollancz Ltd.

Another recent publication in London aims to dispel the myth that the West began presenting Islam as its enemy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Interestingly, this myth is more prevalent in the Muslim world than in the West. The book, titled “Islam and the Myth of Confrontation” by Fred Halliday, initially published in 1995, offers valuable insights and is highly recommended for those interested in understanding the history of enmity. The book has also been translated and published in Arabic.

The Retraction of the Fatwa by Muslim Scholars

The incident surrounding Salman Rushdie exposed a grave weakness among Muslim scholars and intellectuals. Their immediate and uninvestigated reaction to such news often leads to humiliation. This impulsive response is unquestionably unIslamic. The Quran and Hadith explicitly forbid believers from hastily responding to reports without verifying their accuracy, as it may unwittingly harm others, leading to subsequent regret (Quran, 49:6).

Engaging in hasty actions against evil goes against God’s plan and ultimately results in remorse. Unfortunately, in the case of Salman Rushdie, the majority of the Muslim world fell prey to this ignorance. Upon hearing news of the controversy through the media, without conducting proper research or seeking consultation, many individuals engaged in verbal jihad. However, in the end, they had to retreat in regret and repentance.

1. Indian scholars, such as Maulana Syed Abu Al Hasan Ali Nadvi (former Rector, Nadwatul Ulema Lucknow) and Maulana Abul Lais Islahi (former Amir of Jamaat-e-Islami, India), initially issued statements in support of the fatwa. However, subsequent developments revealed that their initial support was incorrect. As a result, both scholars revised their previous statements and published a second statement in the newspaper (refer to page 76-77 of the book under review).

2. In the early stages of this incident, a meeting of Muslim leaders took place in Makkah under the auspices of the Muslim World League (Rabitat al-Alam al-Islami). During this meeting, these officials proclaimed Salman Rushdie as an apostate, and according to Islamic law, the punishment for apostasy was death (refer to page 47 of the book under review).

Following this, a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference was held in Riyadh, attended by high- ranking officials from 46 Muslim countries. During this Conference, the initial statement was corrected, and a unanimous opposite statement was released, rejecting Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa (refer to page 49 of the book under review).

3. Dr. Abdullah Omar Nasseef, a prominent Muslim scholar from Saudi Arabia, initially supported the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, which called for Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie. However, he later reconsidered his extremist stance. In early 1993, Dr. Abdullah Omar Naseef visited Rome, Italy, where he met with Pope John Paul II. During his visit, he granted an interview to World News Link, a global agency. In that interview, one of the questions posed to him was regarding his opinion on the death penalty imposed on Salman Rushdie by Iran’s religious leaders. His response, as reported, was as follows:

“Q. What is your opinion on the death penalty imposed on the British author Salman Rushdie by Iran’s religious leaders?

A. Some people, in emotion, pass these resolutions. I think that today, we must promote human rights. The death penalty should be only for criminals who commit the crime of killing people. Otherwise, human rights should be given to everybody.” (Newstime, Hyderabad, 17 February 1993)

4. In a similar vein, the Iranian leaders initially proclaimed the death sentence for Salman Rushdie with much fanfare. However, due to the global backlash against the fatwa, they could not take any practical steps to execute it. Subsequently, there were reports that the Iranian leaders were retracting the fatwa, calling for the assassination of Salman Rushdie.

Finally, on March 12, 1996, the headline in the ‘Abu Dhabi Dateline’ read: “Iran drops death sentence on Rushdie.”

The following day, newspapers published editorial notes stating Iran had withdrawn the “uncivilized” fatwa a year later. The Hindustan Times (March 13, 1996), in its editorial note titled “End of a fatwa,” concluded with the following words:

“The Iranian decision must be welcomed with the hope that the twentieth-century world will turn a leaf on the medieval practices of burning books and sending their authors to the stake.” (Hindustan Times, March 13, 1996)