THE WISDOM OF AVOIDANCE

The Quran commands believers to thoroughly verify the correctness of news brought by an evil-doer to avoid unintentionally harming others and later regretting their actions (Quran, 49:6). When confronted with unfavourable news, it is natural to feel provoked and seek retaliation against the other party. However, the above Quranic verse explains that impulsive reactions in such situations do not align with Islamic principles. The Islamic approach encourages taking the news seriously, acting with understanding, and refraining from emotional outbursts. The more serious the case, the more cautious the analysis, as emphasized in the following Hadith: “Acting without haste is from God, and acting with haste is from Satan” (Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith No. 2012).

By the grace of God, I adhere to this Shariah rule. Therefore, when I came across the news regarding Salman Rushdie’s book, I took the initiative to obtain and read his original 547- page English book, ‘The Satanic Verses.’ Simultaneously, I revisited the Shariah ruling on this matter. Among various jurisprudential books, I acquired Allama Ibn Taymiyyah’s Arabic book, As-Sarim al-Maslul ‘ala Shatim ar-Rasul (The Open Sword against those Who Insult the Messenger), which comprises 600 pages and is considered the most comprehensive and detailed work available in the Islamic library on this subject. Following this necessary two-phased research, I began writing on the subject.

However, the haste and flawed manner in which some Muslim leaders expressed their statements suggests that they may have spoken and written vehemently against the book based solely on hearsay without reading the original text. I also observe a lack of responsibility among them to re-examine the Shariah ruling on the matter or to read Ibn Taymiyyah’s entire book before commencing their campaign.

An example of this haste can be seen in the case of Ayatollah Khomeini ordering the assassination of Salman Rushdie. Maulana Abul Hassan Ali Hasani Nadwi initially issued a statement in the Urdu newspaper ‘Qaumi Awaaz’ (February 20, 1989) endorsing Ayatollah Khomeini’s edict as the correct stance. However, a few days later, he published another statement in the magazine Ta’meer e Hayat (March 10, 1989), where he amended his previous statement, merely reporting the reaction of Muslims to Ayatollah Khomeini’s edict. While the first statement was a personal confirmation of the fatwa, the second statement served as a report on Muslim sentiments.

Similarly, former Amir of Jamaat-e-Islami, India, Maulana Abul Lais Islahi’s statement praising Ayatollah Khomeini’s edict calling for the assassination of Salman Rushdie was published in the weekly magazine ‘Nai Duniya’ (March 3-9, 1989). However, he later published a detailed statement in the newspaper ‘Dawat’ on March 28, 1989, in which his approach had changed entirely. If the first statement aligned with Ayatollah Khomeini’s position, the second statement resembled the unanimously adopted stance of the conference of 46 Muslim countries in Riyadh.

Considering these circumstances, it appears that Muslim religious leaders, concerning Salman Rushdie’s book, have violated God’s command. While Salman Rushdie’s book itself exposed him, its publication also exposed Muslims worldwide. According to the aforementioned Quranic injunction (49:6), Muslim leaders were obligated to thoroughly investigate the matter and make a decision considering all aspects. However, they displayed great irresponsibility and resorted to knee-jerk reactions by making strong statements against the book.

If Muslim leaders had thoroughly investigated the matter, they would have discovered that Salman Rushdie’s work is not only based on fiction but is also of sub-standard literary quality, rendering it unreadable. If the book had been ignored, it would have naturally faded away. However, the thoughtless uproar by Muslims needlessly revived its prominence. In the chaos, even those who would have never considered reading the book were inclined to purchase and read it.

Margareta du Rietz, a reader of Time Magazine, aptly commented on this issue. In an article published in TIME on March 20, 1989, she observed that the novel had received little attention until Khomeini’s intervention, which propelled it to worldwide fame. According to the New York Times, Salman Rushdie’s book became a best-seller in the United States.

Various publications in newspapers and magazines have discussed Salman Rushdie extensively. A letter by WM Sheikh, titled ‘Ignore Rushdie,’ was printed in the ‘The Times of India’ on November 9, 1988 as follows:

“I have read various comments on Salman Rushdie’s controversial novel, ‘The Satanic Verses,’ including his letter to our Prime Minister, and I believe that the decision to ban the book is both unfortunate and unnecessary. Some years ago, Mr. Rushdie wrote a novel called ‘Midnight’s Children,’ published in 1981, which brought him fame but not substantial wealth. Following this novel, Mr. Rushdie embarked on a lecture tour in India. I had the opportunity to attend two of his lectures, one at the University Hall and the other at the President Hotel. On both occasions, I found Mr. Rushdie to be a delightful intellectual.

However, over the years, Mr. Rushdie has become a shrewd businessman. He strategically revolves his novels around controversial themes. Immediately after ‘Midnight’s Children,’ he wrote the novel ‘Shame’ about Pakistan, which was promptly banned in the country. This was precisely Mr. Rushdie’s intention. Every literate individual in Pakistan likely paid exorbitant prices to purchase and read this novel.

This time, he has employed the same tactic in writing ‘The Satanic Verses.’ I am sure that every bookseller in India must be secretly selling or will sell this book to the Indian public at inflated prices, ensuring Mr. Rushdie’s financial success. Therefore, I urge my Muslim brethren in India and Pakistan not to be deceived by Mr. Rushdie’s cunning tricks and strategies.

His comments on the Prophet of Islam appear lukewarm compared to those written by men like Edward Gibbon. The writings of Christian authors about the Prophet of Islam, particularly during the aftermath of the Crusades, are filled with lies and clear defamation. Compared to those works, Mr. Rushdie’s writings should not deceive us. He can be considered a mediocre writer and, at worst, an unremarkable wordsmith. If we ignore his book, I am confident it will disappear naturally.” (The Times of India, 9 November 1988).

If Muslim leaders had followed the Quranic injunction in this matter and pondered on it before taking action, they would have undoubtedly realized that the appropriate response to this book is guided by a statement from the second caliph, Hazrat Umar Farooq, who said, “Destroy falsehood by remaining silent about it.” (Abu Nu’aym al-Asfahani, Hilyat al-Awliya, Vol. 1, p. 55)

This statement by Hazrat Umar Farooq carries great significance. It signifies that even if something appears false, engaging in a confrontation or fighting against it to eliminate it is unnecessary. Therefore, even if something is incorrect, there are times when it is essential to remain silent.

Proving falsehood to be false is more significant than killing the liar.This unique advantage is found in ignoring falsehood, as it inflicts a greater punishment on the perpetrator. However, ignorant individuals are unaware of this wisdom. They are accustomed to noise and fail to understand the language of silence.

The Prophet of Islam endured various hardships, yet he never commanded the killing of anyone who insulted him. The Quran frequently mentions persecution, but it never prescribes the killing of those who inflict it. Instead, the Quran encourages ignoring their hurtful words and placing trust in God (33:48).

This implies that the answer to humiliation and persecution does not lie in seeking revenge or punishing the offender. Instead, one of the successful responses is to rely on God and maintain silence. One should not take matters into one’s own hands but instead await the natural course of God’s law (nature).

This represents a unique wisdom of Islam, as described by Amir Mu’awiyah, the first Umayyad ruler: “Where my verbal warning is sufficient, I do not raise my sword. Where my silence suffices, I do not speak.” (Ibn Qutaybah al-Dinawari, Gharib al-Hadith, Vol. 2, p. 413)

Print Media, Electronic Media

Muslim leaders should have realized that their actions were not as straightforward as they believed. This directly challenged the core beliefs of the entire Western world. Mr. Edward Mortimer accurately pointed out, “While the religion of Muslims is Islam, our religion is also ‘freedom.’ Just as Muslims feel angered when their faith is insulted or attacked, we experience the same level of distress when our religion (freedom) is under attack. If insulting the Prophet is considered blasphemy to Muslims, then insulting freedom is equally blasphemous to us.” (The Times of India, February 28, 1989)

That is why, just like the Muslim world has protested against Salman Rushdie, the Western world has shown support for him by presenting arguments in his favour. The Western world’s backing of Salman Rushdie is not due to its “hostility towards Islam,” as claimed by Muslim leaders. Instead, it stems from defending their own religion, commonly called‘ freedom.’ Similar to how Muslims are motivated to protect their faith, the Western world is driven to safeguard their religion, also known as ‘freedom of expression.’

Consequently, this conflict has transformed from being a “Muslim vs. Rushdie” battle into a “Muslim vs. West” confrontation. As a result, the Western world once again finds itself filled with animosity and disdain towards Islam, reminiscent of the intense hatred that arose after the Crusades and persisted for centuries. However, the modern scientific revolution has vastly diminished this religious animosity, allowing for a more moderate environment where Europeans could become acquainted with Islam.

These circumstances became favourable, and following the Second World War, the propagation of the Islamic message began to occur naturally in Europe and the United States. However, this process experienced its first setback in 1979 with the so-called Islamic Revolution in Iran.The subsequent barbaric events perpetrated by the revolutionaries disgusted people worldwide, tarnishing the image of Islam. It is worth noting that the Iranian revolution was primarily an “anti- Shah revolution” rather than an indeed “Islamic revolution.” Islam could have been spared from disgrace if its leaders had labelled it as an “anti-Shah revolution.” Instead, by branding it as an Islamic revolution, Islam subsequently acquired a negative reputation.

Then, in 1989, Muslims initiated an incredibly irrational movement against Salman Rushdie—a movement that practically targeted the entire Western world, reigniting deep-seated animosity towards Islam throughout the West. Naturally, Muslims were unable to harm Salman Rushdie physically, but their senseless campaign that completely disregarded Islamic teachings ruined all opportunities for introducing Islam to people.

Through their impulsive actions, Muslim leaders created an unfavourable environment for Islamic outreach programs. They placed significant obstacles in its path. Under the natural order of things, it is solely up to God to create favourable conditions for spreading Islam. The blunder committed by Muslim leaders is unquestionably unforgivable. Their offence is undoubtedly far more grave than Salman Rushdie’s. In their pursuit of justice for Salman Rushdie, Muslim leaders have committed a more serious criminal act.

The first headline on the front page of the ‘The Times of India’ (March 9, 1989, Section 2) reads as follows: “’Verses’ Rekindle Islam-West Conflict.”

The Reuters report highlights that the political and military rivalry between Islam and the West, which had endured for thirteen centuries and resulted in bitterness, prejudice, and misunderstanding between the two, has been revived by Salman Rushdie’s novel. Following the so-called Iranian revolution in 1979, Rushdie’s book has become the second major catalyst for conflict between Islam and the West.

This historical conflict traces back to the Muslim invasion of Spain and France. Subsequently, during the Middle Ages, the Crusades and the subsequent European conquest of the Muslim world in the 19th century intensified hostilities, leading both sides to regard each other with animosity and suspicion. (“Verses Rekindle Islam-West Conflict,” ‘The Times of India’, March 9, 1989, p. 1).

According to the article, there exist latent sentiments of hatred and contempt between Islam and the West.

This report accurately reflects the existing animosity between Islam and the West, which has hindered the spread of Islam in the Western world for centuries. Despite the modern scientific revolution significantly diminishing the atmosphere of hatred by rendering religion less influential in the minds of modern individuals, underlying currents suggest that negative sentiments towards Islam persist among Western populations.

Now, the question arises: how should we respond in such a situation? Our duty, guided by the Quran and Sunnah, is to cultivate a favourable environment through ‘unilateral patience.’ This approach aims to create a moderate atmosphere once again, enabling the effective introduction of Islam to the people of the West.

The significance of establishing a conducive atmosphere for the propagation of Islam is so immense that the Prophet himself endured insults and persecution during the Hudaybiyyah agreement to open avenues for communicating the message of Islam. Despite its rightful position, he willingly omitted the title “Prophet of God” (Rasoolullah) as he came to the world with God’s message.

According to the teachings of the Prophet, Muslims should have completely disregarded Salman Rushdie’s book, allowing any non-Muslim interest in it to wane naturally. This approach would have had the advantage of preserving the opportunities for conveying the message of Islam emerging in the West. Eventually, a time would have arrived when the Western world would have begun studying Islam with an unbiased and objective mindset. Gradually, the Western world would have come under the blessings of God’s guidance.

It is a factual reality that, for various reasons, new opportunities for spreading the message of Islam have emerged in the Western world. However, it is equally valid that the current Muslim leaders have failed to recognize or utilize these modern possibilities. Just as some individuals are colour-blind and can only perceive one colour while remaining oblivious to others, Muslim leaders have demonstrated blindness toward the potential opportunities for spreading the message of Islam worldwide. They seem to observe everything else but fail to grasp the significance of inviting people to embrace God.

Muslim leaders remain oblivious to the opportunities for calling people to God, but when something tarnishes their communal reputation, they engage in un-Islamic actions as a means of seeking retribution for perceived insults. Their inability to recognize the unfolding prospects for spreading the message of Islam worldwide has led them to overlook all the avenues for inviting people to God. Consequently, their unjustifiable actions are polluting the world as they seek revenge.

According to the teachings of Islam, as revealed in the Quran and Hadith, the actions of Muslim leaders are indeed criminal rather than Islamic. If God’s religion is indeed as described in the Quran and Hadith, then the activities of Muslim leaders today are entirely contrary to Islamic teachings. These activities do not align with what God and His Messenger have prescribed. The fame and leadership that current Muslim leaders have attained through these unjustified activities have rendered them incapable of heeding any advice. However, the time is near when the truth will resonate throughout the heavens and the earth by the cry of an angel, and then they will have no choice but to accept it. Although, by that time, their acceptance will not benefit them.