Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Benefit Behind Salman Rushdie Fatwa

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When Salman Rushdie wrote the Satanic Verses it was indeed a very disingenuous effort on his part to wrongfully depict the Holy Prophet in such a manner which is indeed devoid of any truth whatsoever

It still had side-effects. It is frequently used in non-Muslim rhetoric, and it solidifies in the non-Muslim's mind that Islam is barbaric, Iran is "terrorist regime", free speech good, Western values

This is a provocateur type thread. Recommend locking.

  • Veteran Member

Note on Rushdie:

l have been going through some old stuff and found this, inshallah.

lRNA 31Oct99  10:58

Tehran Times opined in sync with clerics that issued a fatwa condemning the playwrite of the blasphemous "Corpus Christi" to death.

This paper also opined that this writer is in the same apostate designation as Rushdie.

https://www.irna.com/cgi-bin/tmpget_news.pl?09105829.f09 

Note: These fatwas cannot be implemented as per policy if lRl and western law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/13/2020 at 1:24 AM, Mohammad313Ali said:

When Salman Rushdie wrote the Satanic Verses it was indeed a very disingenuous effort on his part to wrongfully depict the Holy Prophet in such a manner which is indeed devoid of any truth whatsoever pertaining to his sublime character, unfortunately when questioned he would remark that Bukhari was used as a reference for his vile act. Now I understand as painful as it may be to lay idle as one man insults, slanders, and seeks to defame a figure which over 1.7 billion individuals revere greatly, however, I as a layman and Shia Muslim see that there served no benefit from the fatwa which called for the death of not only Salman Rushdie, but all those who aided in the configuration, translation, and in anyway shape or form contributed to the completion of the book. 

I see this as an issue which was downright counter intuitive, for it served to highlight to the world that as Muslims we do not tolerate any form of criticism (although dishonest). I am confident that it would have been a more beneficial and greater approach to the matter in not only the eyes of the public, but Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) as well, if instead of issuing a fatwa which would depict us as individuals who are against free speech to instead use that same method of media in producing a book which would show in every way shape or form how the Prophet is nothing like what was depicted in the satanic verses.

Sharing the same battlefield as the enemy and in a more civil and equitable means, for if they sought to draw their pens and defame us with falsehood we can indeed draw our pens of truth and vanquish whatever feeble attempts they may have had in their dishonest endeavors. With the publicity that the Islamic Government had at the time and the profound thinkers who have published phenomenal works, could they not had done such a thing and publicized a book which annihilates the foundation which was structured around the Satanic Verses.

Now one may say it would have affected the unity behind the Muslim Ummah as it could be a sort of stab at Bukhari, but I am sure the capability of the intellectuals could conjure a message which seeks to convey the pure sense of Islam without attacking the literature of the Sunni brothers. Instead of simply publicizing the book even more and depicting the Muslims as individuals who are intolerant, at a time when tolerance is especially needed for the good image of Islam, considering the book was written outside the jurisdiction of the Islamic state which is a very important point.

Blood is not something which I consider to be cheap, and the sanctity of human life within Islam is greatly considered. I don't think that mere translators whose job was simply to translate books many of whom they were ignorant to the context of the book and perhaps saw it as another fictional tale like any other fictitious book which was far from any political sense. To call for their blood to be shed righteously in Japan and elsewhere was inconsiderate to innocent blood. This fatwa did not benefit Islam and the Muslims and I am prepared to read attentively your remarks.

@Mahdavist @A_A @habib e najjaar @313 Seeker @AmirioTheMuzzy @Ashvazdanghe @The Green Knight

Salaam brother, 

I would call it a great thread. But I do oppose your objection. I feel the fatwa was appropriate and support it completely. I don't know it's current condition. I don't even know how many muslims follow it. But it was essential at that time. Though I am not a fanatic and can add some reasons to it from my point of view. 
Since the fall of the Ottomans, muslims were constantly on backfoot in the entire world. We were getting attacked by enemies from all sides. From front and from behind also. After the fall of Ottomans several incidents happened against muslims:
1. Palestine
2. Partition of India resulting in the disintegration of Muslims.
3. Then again the division of Pakistan
4. Empowerment of Extremists groups within Muslims

Back to back defeats in wars. Imperialist- imposed dictators in all the muslim nations. And theft of important natural resources in the middle-east by the west. Their are many other events but let us focus on the main point. All of this was humiliating for the muslims and silence in the muslim world gave more confidence to the opponents. So, this fatwa on Salman Rushdie:

1. Became a reason to unite the divided Muslims
2. A way to answer the imperialists that 'it's enough'

We needed a strong response and a violent response at that time. Because they were not objecting or criticizing us. They were not even attacking us but rather mocking us. That book was a message to the Muslims that: "We will defame you and your prophet and you can't do a thing about it." So, a fatwa like that was the most appropriate response to the mockers. If Salman Rushdie had acted as a critique, then I would support your point of answering in an objective fashion. But it was just another attack by imperialists like the occupation of Quds, the creation of extremist groups etc. We were weaker in position at that time and the fatwa was a gesture of strength, toughness and mobility from the side of Muslims. A warning to the enemy that their attacks won't go unanswered.
Writing a book as an answer won't work because muslims were lagging a good media support needed to promote the book. Further, publishing the book in western publications would always be a toug BBC task. So, in the 1980s, a book (that too from Iran which was already hated because of Hostage crisis and war) would go completely ignored in the west. Although muslims would read it but that is not important. 

Now, another point you raised that it added more fuel to the fire and became a reason to defame Islam and the muslims. No my friend. Do you think that as a true devout muslim you will ever earn a good image among the imperialists? They mislead the people by spreading false information about our leaders. Taking anything out of context would mislead the west about us. How many times they depict Sayyed Nasrallah as a 'terrorist' and Ayatullah Khamenei as a 'dictator' without even showing their messages and stances. I agree that it led to a bit of defamation but that was nothing in comparison to what could have happened if the fatwa was not in place.

If Ayatullah Khomeini had not given that Fatwa, everyone would have read that book in the west (as Rushdie is a popular writer) and it would tear down the image of our Prophet (SAWW). The objective and genuine people in the west would have never found a popular reaction to it. This could be a humility for Islam and for Muslims that would be really difficult to bring down. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Zainuu said:

Salaam brother, 

I would call it a great thread. But I do oppose your objection. I feel the fatwa was appropriate and support it completely. I don't know it's current condition. I don't even know how many muslims follow it. But it was essential at that time. Though I am not a fanatic and can add some reasons to it from my point of view. 
Since the fall of the Ottomans, muslims were constantly on backfoot in the entire world. We were getting attacked by enemies from all sides. From front and from behind also. After the fall of Ottomans several incidents happened against muslims:
1. Palestine
2. Partition of India resulting in the disintegration of Muslims.
3. Then again the division of Pakistan
4. Empowerment of Extremists groups within Muslims

Back to back defeats in wars. Imperialist- imposed dictators in all the muslim nations. And theft of important natural resources in the middle-east by the west. Their are many other events but let us focus on the main point. All of this was humiliating for the muslims and silence in the muslim world gave more confidence to the opponents. So, this fatwa on Salman Rushdie:

1. Became a reason to unite the divided Muslims
2. A way to answer the imperialists that 'it's enough'

We needed a strong response and a violent response at that time. Because they were not objecting or criticizing us. They were not even attacking us but rather mocking us. That book was a message to the Muslims that: "We will defame you and your prophet and you can't do a thing about it." So, a fatwa like that was the most appropriate response to the mockers. If Salman Rushdie had acted as a critique, then I would support your point of answering in an objective fashion. But it was just another attack by imperialists like the occupation of Quds, the creation of extremist groups etc. We were weaker in position at that time and the fatwa was a gesture of strength, toughness and mobility from the side of Muslims. A warning to the enemy that their attacks won't go unanswered.
Writing a book as an answer won't work because muslims were lagging a good media support needed to promote the book. Further, publishing the book in western publications would always be a toug BBC task. So, in the 1980s, a book (that too from Iran which was already hated because of Hostage crisis and war) would go completely ignored in the west. Although muslims would read it but that is not important. 

Now, another point you raised that it added more fuel to the fire and became a reason to defame Islam and the muslims. No my friend. Do you think that as a true devout muslim you will ever earn a good image among the imperialists? They mislead the people by spreading false information about our leaders. Taking anything out of context would mislead the west about us. How many times they depict Sayyed Nasrallah as a 'terrorist' and Ayatullah Khamenei as a 'dictator' without even showing their messages and stances. I agree that it led to a bit of defamation but that was nothing in comparison to what could have happened if the fatwa was not in place.

If Ayatullah Khomeini had not given that Fatwa, everyone would have read that book in the west (as Rushdie is a popular writer) and it would tear down the image of our Prophet (SAWW). The objective and genuine people in the west would have never found a popular reaction to it. This could be a humility for Islam and for Muslims that would be really difficult to bring down. 

Also,  want to add. Now, their is no need of such a step. And therefore, constructive efforts are done everytime to combat this. Muslim world is in a far better state than 1980s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

Thank you for your appreciated response brother @Zainuu from the time I created this thread until today, I believe a good portion of my concerns regarding this fatwa have been rectified, however, one final issue remains which is the inclusion of the translators among those who are to be killed. It may act as a deterrent to those who would possibly embark on such an endeavor - translating a defaming book in reference to the Prophet or another sacred figure - however, the issue is, the individuals who may have been killed are those who had no genuine intent on harming the Prophet, because they (most likely) viewed the satanic verses as another factitious novel. Such is the case of the Japanese translator who was killed. Would it be fair to say that they indeed were those who were caught in the crossfire of such a fatwa? Or perhaps it would have been best to simply include Rushdie and his likes - those with a clear agenda within the ruling. Severing the head (Rushdie) instead of a group of involuntary limbs (the translators). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Thank you for your appreciated response brother @Zainuu from the time I created this thread until today, I believe a good portion of my concerns regarding this fatwa have been rectified, however, one final issue remains which is the inclusion of the translators among those who are to be killed. It may act as a deterrent to those who would possibly embark on such an endeavor - translating a defaming book in reference to the Prophet or another sacred figure - however, the issue is, the individuals who may have been killed are those who had no genuine intent on harming the Prophet, because they (most likely) viewed the satanic verses as another factitious novel. Such is the case of the Japanese translator who was killed. Would it be fair to say that they indeed were those who were caught in the crossfire of such a fatwa? Or perhaps it would have been best to simply include Rushdie and his likes - those with a clear agenda within the ruling. Severing the head (Rushdie) instead of a group of involuntary limbs (the translators). 

Nice. The question is important. I have not read the entire fatwa and I'm not providing anything factual. Just my own observation on the matter. So, let us take the case. 

1. If Rushdie and all associated with the book include it's publisher, it's promoter and other who were the stakeholders (which is a likely possibility). Then, their is no question on it's accuracy. Because as I quoted before, it was an imperialist plot and not a 'one man job'. Rushdie was not the only one responsible.

2. If Rushdie and all associated also include those who translated it from one language to another or who sold it on their bookshops or kept in their library, then, I feel that some of them were guilty while to the other it becomes extreme. It might also be the case that some muslims misinterpreted the fatwa and associated those people with it who had no intent but had a small involvement. 

Elaborating my second point. I said that some of them might be wrong.  Here comes the example you said. A Japenese translator. I believe that a translator can likely have an active involvement in converting a book. 

Let me ask you a question. In the story of Karbala, is it that all the soldiers in Yazeed's Army were willing to kill Imam Husayn (عليه السلام)? No, so why all should be punished. Because many of them were simply employs of Yazeed. Some of them were even greedy about money so they didn't question anything. In short, they were simply unaware and it was just because of their ignorance. But all belong to the same category. All are the worst people, the murderers of Imam Husayn (عليه السلام). So, a translator in this case is involved in the character assassination of The Holy Prophet (SAWW). I mean he is translating the book. He knows two languages, how can he be so ignorant to not understand the context of the book? So, I believe that most of the translators translated the book either with full intention, as a job or in the greed of money. 

To conclude, a translator is responsible and has done wrong. Though, I don't think he deserves a fatwa. Maybe the muslims interpreted it badly and comprehension got mixed with emotions which led to assumption.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
7 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Nice. The question is important. I have not read the entire fatwa and I'm not providing anything factual. Just my own observation on the matter. So, let us take the case. 

1. If Rushdie and all associated with the book include it's publisher, it's promoter and other who were the stakeholders (which is a likely possibility). Then, their is no question on it's accuracy. Because as I quoted before, it was an imperialist plot and not a 'one man job'. Rushdie was not the only one responsible.

2. If Rushdie and all associated also include those who translated it from one language to another or who sold it on their bookshops or kept in their library, then, I feel that some of them were guilty while to the other it becomes extreme. It might also be the case that some muslims misinterpreted the fatwa and associated those people with it who had no intent but had a small involvement. 

Elaborating my second point. I said that some of them might be wrong.  Here comes the example you said. A Japenese translator. I believe that a translator can likely have an active involvement in converting a book. 

Let me ask you a question. In the story of Karbala, is it that all the soldiers in Yazeed's Army were willing to kill Imam Husayn (عليه السلام)? No, so why all should be punished. Because many of them were simply employs of Yazeed. Some of them were even greedy about money so they didn't question anything. In short, they were simply unaware and it was just because of their ignorance. But all belong to the same category. All are the worst people, the murderers of Imam Husayn (عليه السلام). So, a translator in this case is involved in the character assassination of The Holy Prophet (SAWW). I mean he is translating the book. He knows two languages, how can he be so ignorant to not understand the context of the book? So, I believe that most of the translators translated the book either with full intention, as a job or in the greed of money. 

To conclude, a translator is responsible and has done wrong. Though, I don't think he deserves a fatwa. Maybe the muslims interpreted it badly and comprehension got mixed with emotions which led to assumption.

I genuinely appreciate your input and I believe the points you raised are quite solid Mashallah, thank you for your clarification brother. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you and your family. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I genuinely appreciate your input and I believe the points you raised are quite solid Mashallah, thank you for your clarification brother. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you and your family. 

May Allah bless you and ypur family too brother. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The people who are raising the banners of free speech when it comes to insulting of holy prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).s why are they  ready to jail, imprison people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.. They also share the same freedom of expression 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...