THOSE WHO RIDICULE THE PROPHET

History proves that the Prophet of Islam faced ridicule like other prophets before him. Numerous incidents highlighting this can be found in the books of Hadith and Seerah. Therefore, the Prophet serves as a role model for us in every aspect of life. In this case, we should follow the example set by the Prophet of Islam through his actions.

A thorough examination of these events in the books of Hadith and Seerah reveals that the Prophet viewed such incidents as challenges rather than mere insults. When we perceive an incident as challenging, our minds naturally seek solutions. Conversely, if we perceive it as insolence, it only fuels a desire for revenge.

The study of the Prophet’s life demonstrates that he never regarded such incidents as acts of insolence or contempt. He never sought revenge. Instead, he approached them as problems to be addressed, employing wisdom in his responses. This is why we find various approaches to dealing with such matters, as different situations require different methods.

1. One notable aspect to mention is that the Prophet never resorted to the method of protesting and holding public agitations against those who insulted him, a method that some Muslims adopt today in response to instances of ‘insolence.’ Despite facing repeated insults and humiliation during his lifetime, the Prophet did not protest publicly against those responsible.

The reason for this is quite evident. Making blasphemy a subject of public agitation would only serve to amplify the words of the abuser, bringing them to the attention of more people, especially in today’s world where media can quickly spread such information. In such cases, public agitation proves to be counterproductive.

An example of this is the case of Salman Rushdie’s book, ‘The Satanic Verses.’ Considered by many as an absurd book, it would have likely been read by only a few thousand people under normal circumstances. However, due to the misguided agitation caused by some Muslims, it gained significant attention and became a bestseller among English books. ‘The Times of India’ (March 17, 1989) and the New York Dateline reported that, according to a review in The New York Times, ‘The Satanic Verses’ had reached the top spot on The New York Times best-seller list for hardcover fiction.

TIME Magazine featured a report on Rushdie’s book in its February 27, 1989 issue. Consequently, TIME received 240 letters, one of which was from Margareta du Rietz, stating, “Very few people took notice of this novel. Now, thanks to Khomeini, it has become world-famous.”

Salman Rushdie expresses his controversial ideas solely in his book. However, due to the uproar caused by some Muslims, his ideas gained widespread coverage in newspapers and magazines worldwide. Consequently, many people became unnecessarily interested in reading his book. It has now been translated into more than 20 languages and was published in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, and other countries, enabling non-English speakers to read this ‘famous’ book. Regrettably, the foolish actions of some Muslims led to chaos in the name of “Kill Salman Rushdie,” resulting in the loss of Muslim lives and injuries numbering in the dozens and hundreds. Meanwhile, Salman Rushdie has become a literary figure and is currently under the protection of the British royal authorities.

2. Statements made by Muslim leaders regarding these incidents often mention that the book has offended the sentiments of millions of Muslims. This phrase, however, has no basis in Islamic teachings. The Prophet never used such words when faced with a similar situation. Additionally, there is no provision in the Islamic “Criminal Code” that declares hurting the feelings of Muslims as a criminal offence punishable by death. It is undoubtedly an innovation (bid’aa) in Islamic law. Making such statements is a greater offence than the act of blasphemy committed by the offender.

3. As mentioned earlier, the Prophet of Islam’s response in such cases was not to initiate a public outcry against the ‘insolent’ but to seek a resolution to the problem. Depending on the circumstances, he employed different approaches to address the issue.

A common solution to such situations was to ignore the offensive remarks. In this regard, the Quran commands believers:

“Do not yield to the unbelievers and the hypocrites: ignore their hurtful talk. Instead, put your trust in God; God is your all-sufficient guardian.” (33:48)

This verse is explained in Al-Tafsir Al-Mazhari, quoting Abdullah bin Abbas and Qatada, that God commands believers, particularly those addressing the Prophet, to exercise patience in the face of hurtful talk and to ignore the harm caused by it. Therefore, believers are advised not to be bothered or afraid of such remarks and (according to Abu Ishaq al-Zajjaj, a Commentator of the Quran) not to engage in arguments or debates with the offenders. Instead, they are encouraged to place their trust in God, who will surely suffice them. (Vol. 7, p. 355)

There is a prophetic tradition narrated by Umar Farooq, stating: “Solve the problem of falsehood by remaining silent about it.” (Hilyatul Awliya wa Tabaqatul Asfiya, Vol. 1, p. 55) This highlights the importance of not engaging in unnecessary debates or discussions that may perpetuate falsehood.

By adopting such an approach, falsehood naturally loses its power. Therefore, there is no need to use force or aggression when dealing with something that can be effectively addressed without it.

4. One of the methods observed in the life of the Prophet is responding to opponents’ words through logical arguments. In ancient times, poetry held a similar status to journalism in the present era. Journalism serves to spread information to a broader audience today, while poetry served that purpose in ancient times.

During the time of the Prophet, his opponents would express their condemnation through poetic verses. For example, Umm Jamil, the wife of Abu Lahab, a polytheist, would recite such poems against him. One such verse can be found in the Prophet’s biography, where she expresses, “Muhammad is the condemned one, we reject him. We do not obey his orders. And we hate his religion.” (Ibn Hisham, Al-Sirah, Volume 1, p. 379)

In the Makkan period, the Prophet Muhammad did not respond to such matters. Instead, he remarked to his companion, ‘Are you not amazed at the persecution of the Quraysh? They insult and call me ‘Mudhamman (the condemned one),’ whereas I am Muhammad (the praised one).’ (Ibn Hisham, Al-Sirah, Vol. 1, p. 356) However, in the Madinan period, he appointed Hassan bin Thabit to respond to them through poetry. This method was employed by the Prophet, as recorded in the books of Seerah, which were written during the early period of Islam.

5. According to Ibn Ishaq, during the incident at Hunain, the Prophet gave some camels to Al-Abbas bin Mirdas. However, the number of camels was fewer than he expected. As a result, he became angry and expressed his frustration through a biting satire directed at the Prophet. In response, the Prophet said, “Go and cut off his tongue on my behalf.” Eventually, more camels were given to Al-Abbas bin Mirdas until he agreed. The narrator explains that the Prophet’s intention was the same when he asked the Companions to cut off his tongue. The Prophet meant to make him stop saying such a thing rather than physically cutting his tongue. That is why more camels were given to him until he agreed to give up his satire.

This example highlights that the Prophet’s objective was to punish the critic and silence him. Depending on the circumstances, he would employ different strategies to achieve this. For instance, if it seemed that providing money or goods would silence a person and end their unjustified criticism, the Prophet would give them the necessary resources to achieve that silence.

6. When Makkah was conquered, the Prophet gathered the Makkan polytheists who had committed various forms of aggression against him. They had subjected him to verbal abuse and engaged in practical acts of aggression, doing everything in their power to harm him. According to ancient customs, all of them could have been subject to capital punishment. However, the Prophet chose a different path. He unilaterally forgave them all, declaring, “Go, you are all free.” (Sunan Al-Kubra by Al-Baihaqi, Hadith No. 18276)

The narrator recounts how, when non-Muslims were brought before the Prophet at the Kabah, he chose not to take any action against them. Instead, he pardoned them all, declaring, ‘Go, you are all free.’ Hearing these words of general amnesty, they felt like they had been resurrected from their graves. This remarkable event led all these insolent Makkans to surrender and join the Prophet in his mission as his Companions. (Sunan Al-Kubra by Al-Bayhaqi, Hadith No. 18275)

The Sunnah of the Prophet teaches us that one way to respond to abuses is through forgiveness, even when one has complete control over the situation and even when the crime committed is so severe that capital punishment could be justified as per international law.

The conversion of these enemies to Islam after being granted general amnesty by the Prophet exemplifies the remarkable wisdom he demonstrated through his generous treatment. The Prophet displayed great wisdom by setting them free and winning their hearts. As a result, those who were once enemies of Islam became future friends and supporters of the faith.

The act of forgiving these individuals, who were confirmed criminals, essentially amounted to the psychological eradication of their prior rebellion and stubbornness. This special treatment served to undo the conditioning they had undergone. Their fabricated personas gave way to their inherent nature, and they became the Prophet’s followers.

The Bigger Culprit

The movement among Muslims against Salman Rushdie was purportedly carried out in the name of protecting the honour of the Prophet of Islam. However, regarding its outcomes, this movement has only undermined the Prophet’s honour. According to the Quran, the distinctive status of the Prophet of Islam is that of a Prophet of Mercy (21:107). Yet, this so-called movement centred around allegations of blasphemy has unfortunately portrayed him, God forbid, as a ‘Prophet of violence.’

The agitations led by Muslims against Salman Rushdie escalated into acts of violence in various locations, resulting in loss of life and property. Such actions are unlawful and tarnish the reputation of the Prophet of Islam. For instance, it was reported by London News that on the morning of July 2, 1989, one of the largest bookstores in central London, ‘Collet’s,’ was partially destroyed by a firebomb suspected to have been thrown by anti-Rushdie protesters (The Times of India, July 7, 1989, p.14).

This incident was reported by ‘The Times of India’ (July 7, 1989). ‘Qaumi Awaaz’ (July 7, 1989) also mentioned this news with this addition that no copies of “The Satanic Verses” had been sold from this London store since Christmas (p. 2).

Such incidents are seen as acts of barbarism in the modern world. If Muslims had engaged in such aggression in the name of their community, it would have been perceived as a communal issue. However, since they have carried out these actions in the name of the Prophet of Islam, naturally, it will be associated with the Prophet of Islam. As a result, people may assume that these actions reflect what the Prophet of Islam taught his followers. While Rushdie defamed himself through his writings in ‘The Satanic Verses,’ Muslims have inadvertently defamed the Prophet of Islam through their actions. It becomes clear who the bigger culprit is in this scenario.