Muslims Have No Answers to the Diatribe against the Prophet
By
Arshad Alam, New Age Islam
31 August
2022
The Only
Answer Is To Silence People with Sar Tan Se Juda Slogan
Main
Points:
1. Anyone
dishonouring the prophet has to be killed, this is the dominant position within
Islamic theology.
2. The Hadith
literature and biographies of the prophet are replete with examples that such
was the practice during the prophetic times.
3. It does not
serve the Muslim cause to obfuscate the matter; they should be dealing with it
in a more reasonable way.
4. The first
act should be to question parts of Islamic scripture which sanctions such
killings.
5. But for that
to happen, Muslims have to first get rid of the erroneous notion that their
scriptures are divine and infallible.
------
Every time
there is a perceived or real insult on the prophet of Islam, Muslims in India
and elsewhere react with the slogans like Sar Tan Se Juda (A call to
behead the offender). Thankfully, the call to action behind the slogan is not
enacted, in majority of cases. But at times, the intention behind the slogan,
which is to behead anyone insulting the prophet of Islam, is carried out in
full horror. The Udaipur and Maharashtra killings are part of a pattern which
has a long history. Salman Rushdie was lucky but the motivation of the young
Muslim who attacked him emanated from the same source: avenging the insult of
their dear prophet.
After any
such attack, it is customary for Muslims to argue that such acts are not
sanctioned by Islamic teachings; that Islam teaches love and tolerance and
promotes peaceful co-existence between different communities. Some dig into the
biography of the prophet to argue that he forgave his own tormentors. But is
the Islamic theology really what they proclaim it is? Or are parts of Islamic
theology sanction such violence against anyone who insults the prophet?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Read:
Blasphemy, Islam and
Free Speech
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hadith
and biographies of the prophet cite examples wherein people were killed simply
for insulting the prophet. The poets who used to ‘dishonour’ him by composing
poetry that were critical of his claim of being a prophet were summarily executed.
Even a slave woman was killed by her own owner, a blind Muslim, for the reason
that she did not stop the disparaging of the prophet. The case was brought to
the prophet and he approved of the killing. This Hadith is narrated on the
authority of Ibn Abbas and hence is considered authentic by most Islamic
scholars. It is important to underline that the Medinan state had already been
formed by then but the blind Muslim man did not take the case to the nascent
state. He decided to execute the woman himself and the prophet did not take
action against him. This shows that any Muslim can avenge the insult to the
prophet and that it does not require the sanction of the state, as some have
argued. This woman had borne two sons for this Muslim man. But then, the devotion
to Muhammad is such that it breaks apart the most natural of bonds.
It is true
that the Quran does not prescribe the death sentence for blasphemy. But it
certainly calls anyone insulting the prophet to be condemned. It prescribes
eternal damnations for such people, both in this world and in the next. It also
announces that such people will not be the neighbours of Muslims for long,
advising them in a way to expel such people. The Quran in the same verse
proclaims that such people will be seized and killed [33:59]. The verses,
revealed in 627, which is before the conquest of Mecca, anticipate what is
going to happen after the conquest in 630. Indeed, the satirical poets were all
ordered killed, even while they were within the sacred sanctuary where violence
was forbidden. Those having a different view of Prophethood were at times
killed, at times exiled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Read:
Islam and Free
Speech: A Reply to A. Faizur Rahman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is
dishonest to argue that these people were killed because of political reasons
rather than religious. Prominent biographers like Ibn Ishaq do not cite that as
a reason. Neither do prominent Hadith collectors like Bukhari. They all record
the narration as one in which the honour of the prophet was at stake. But
sections of Muslims are keen to rescue Islam from the label of intolerance and
hence they will go to any lengths to argue that such killings are not part of
Islam and were done for reasons which had nothing to do with religion. In a
world which has become sensitive to the crushing of those who have an
alternative opinion, it is understandable that some Muslims would feel ashamed
of blasphemy related killings. But in trying to paint a picture of Islam that
is compatible with modernity, they tie themselves in knots. More importantly
though, they end up covering up what is written in our theology. This
intellectual dishonesty does not allow such subjects to be widely debated
within by Muslims.
Or is it
that Muslims are positively ashamed of what is written in their theology,
especially with regard to their prophet? Precisely because they know about it
and are too embarrassed by some of its contents, hence, they do not want
others, especially non-Muslims to either know or discuss about it. Anyone who
breaches this Muslim rule is either persecuted, forced to live in fear or is
eventually killed. But does this strategy really work? In today’s day and age,
is it really possible to stop anyone from accessing any written text? They are
widely available, in many cases free, over the internet and other resources.
So, if Muslims want to hide their religious literature, they will never be
successful. People, both Muslims and non-Muslims, would be able to read them
and arrive at their own understanding of Islam, some of which might not be
charitable to Muslim sensibilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Read:
The False Binary of
the Secular versus Islamic Needs to Be Broken
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More
importantly though, why are the Muslims embarrassed about what is written about
the prophet? In many ways, it is not so different from Jewish and Christian religious
texts. If they are not embarrassed about the instances of polygamy and slavery
within their texts, why do Muslims feel differently? Perhaps the answer lies in
the status accorded to these religious texts. No one in the Jewish or the
Christian community argues that their holy text was sent down by God Himself.
They were written by men and hence carry the sensibilities of the times in
which they were composed. The Quran claims a very different narrative for
itself. Muslims believe that it is the very Word of God. And hence it is
relevant for posterity. But things don’t stop there. Muslims treat even the
Hadith as equivalent to holy books despite the fact that they were compiled by
mortals more than two hundred years after the death of the prophet. And yes,
these texts record in vivid details the enslavement of men and women, murder
and loot, in which the prophet himself participated. How do we extricate
ourselves from such a characterization of the prophet which is encoded in our
own literature?
Muslims do
not have an answer to this question. The violent reaction and the slogan of Sar
Tan Se Juda is precisely because they do not have an answer when
uncomfortable questions are thrown at them. The only response they know is to
shut up those asking such questions. But can there be another response?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Read: Can Islamism Be
Regarded as The Root Cause of Extremism?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For
Muslims, a rational approach to the situation could be to declare the
inapplicability of parts of their religious texts in the current context. After
all, what is the point of reading about jihad and slavery when majority of
Muslims are themselves not enamoured of such ideas anymore. Why should our
madrasas teach how slaves should be bought and sold when most Muslims do not
indulge in such practice anyways? But for this to happen, we have to first
declare that our religious texts are not infallible; that they are not
comparable to divinity itself. Are we ready to take this plunge?
-----
A
regular contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Arshad Alam is a writer and researcher
on Islam and Muslims in South Asia.
URL: https://newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/muslims-diatribe-prophet-blasphemy/d/127840
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism