HASSAN AL-MUSTAFA

August 24, 2022

Short Url

Investigations are continuing into Hadi Matar, the 24-year-old American of Lebanese origin accused of repeatedly stabbing the novelist Salman Rushdie in an attack at a New York literary event.

With reports suggesting Matar was motivated by a fatwa issued by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 calling for the author’s death, the attack brings to the fore important issues concerning the underlying roots of violence in Islamic heritage, the law of apostasy, and fatwas for killing those labeled heretics or apostates.

If what Rushdie wrote in “The Satanic Verses” can be categorized as contempt of religion, the correct process would be to resort to the law and file a judicial complaint in the country in which the incident occurred. We cannot restrict freedom of expression, no matter how painful it is for us or contrary to our opinions. We cannot view the person with an opposing thought as an enemy who must be killed.

In the Arab world, many articles were published about the attack on Rushdie, and many took on a political polemic nature. Few noted the issue of “takfir” and “call for death” in the scriptural heritage of many Muslim scholars, a heritage that must be disposed of, because it is not true religion and not true Islam, but rather the understanding of these people of religion.

The Lebanese intellectual Radwan Al-Sayyed wrote an important article on the Asas Media website, entitled “The Rushdie Issue in which neither fairness nor impartiality is possible.” Al-Sayyed emphasized that Khomeini’s fatwa “was not appropriate or wise despite its justifications. Otherwise, we would have been obligated to kill every prominent person who attacked our religion or our Messenger, and they are many today. It is contrary to wisdom because it does not consider the negative effects on Muslims in the West.”

At the same time, Al-Sayyed raised a fundamental question: “How can we reconcile freedom of expression with the feelings of the general believers? Some want the general public to remain calm and reassured about what they are accustomed to, without violating their sanctities, and some believe that creativity, even if it is absurd, is the guarantee of liberation and change.”

Al-Sayyed did not discuss the attack on Rushdie with an emotional or political bias, but rather tried to raise questions and express frank and direct ideas, questioning the Muslim public and politicians in the West, as well as intellectuals and supporters of freedom of expression.

It is easy to condemn Khomeini’s fatwa. Some Shiite Muslim scholars have opposed “killing the apostate,” including the Iraqi religious scholar Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir Al-Sadr, who was executed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 1980.

Al-Sadr, despite being a supporter of the Iranian revolution, did not issue a fatwa to kill the apostate. There is also the late Lebanese scholar Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, who took a different position from Khomeini’s fatwa toward Rushdie. Sheikh Hussein Al-Khashin followed the same approach as Fadlallah, who believes that “the main legislative and dogmatic reference in Islam, which is the Holy Qur’an, did not include any reference to the ruling on killing the apostate, even though it refers to the issue of apostasy in many verses.” Likewise, the Saudi jurist Abd Al-Hadi Al-Fadhli, a religious scholar and former professor at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, believes apostates should not be killed.

However, while some Muslim scholars oppose killing apostates, the human Islamic heritage, which was replete with violence, the fierce passion of Muslims, as well as the use of religion for political interests in previous eras, made killing those who disagree with the prevailing opinion possible.

Emirati researcher Mansour Al-Nogaidan tweeted on Aug. 13: “Saladin killed the philosopher Suhrawardi, and Lisan Al-Din Ibn Al-Khatib was killed at the instigation of some scholars. They strangled him and burned his body. Al-Mahdi killed many on charges of heresy. Some Muslim scholars declared Ibn Rushd to be an infidel and burned his books and others declared Ibn Taymiyyah to be an infidel and called for his death. Some scholars issued dozens of fatwas accusing many writers and thinkers of blasphemy and calling for their death.”

If what Rushdie wrote in “The Satanic Verses” can be categorized as contempt of religion, the correct process would be to resort to the law and file a judicial complaint in the country in which the incident occurred.

Hassan Al-Mustafa

Al-Nogaidan added: “Some of the Sunni scholars accused Al-Ghazali of blasphemy. Ibn Taymiyyah accused Ibn Arabi and Avicenna of blasphemy. Some scholars accused Abu Al-Walid Al-Baji, who was an Islamic scholar, of blasphemy. Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab accused thousands of blasphemy and called for their death and their money to be taken away, and he himself was declared an infidel by some Muslim scholars who considered him a heretic and called for his death.”

Al-Nogaidan was explicit and direct in his reference to a tough history of violence, blood, incitement and takfir, in which religion was used as a tool for influence, domination and oppression.

We should not look at this history with reverence nor consider it an example to be followed. Rather, we should criticize and transcend it, and dare to point out its faults, so that no one will respond again to the word with a bullet or consider himself a defender of God while he distorts His image and kills people.

• Hassan Al-Mustafa is a Saudi writer and researcher interested in Islamic movements, the development of religious discourse and the relationship between the Gulf Cooperation Council states and Iran. Twitter: @Halmustafa

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News’ point of view

source https://www.arabnews.com/node/2149651