It had become a fashion in most parts of the world, particularly the US and Europe, to link an individual Muslim’s crime with his religion. However, it is perhaps for the first time that Western governments have avoided identifying the criminal involved in an attack on Salman Rushdie on August 13 in New York with his religion, indicating a major change in perception of the Western and non-Muslim world about Islam and Muslims. Why this happened is a matter of study but the immediate reason seems to be a stiff resistance put by Muslim intellectuals the world over and Muslim heads of states against Islamophobia in Europe, the US, and other parts of the world, including India. Rushdie and Charlie Hebdo and other Islamophobic writers have portrayed Prophet Mohammed in a very contemptuous manner and misrepresented Islam, not supported by historical facts. It calls for redefining the meaning of free speech. Shall misrepresentation of religion, not substantiated by historical evidence, and mocking the religious personalities, be allowed under the pretext of freedom of speech?
Syed Khalique Ahmed
NEW DELHI—Several heads of state, renowned writers, journalists, and litterateurs from all over the world have condemned the brutal attack on the life of Salman Rushdie at an event in New York on August 12, Friday. However, he survived the attack but is still under treatment in a hospital.
The attacker has been identified as 24-year-old Hadi Matar of Lebanese origin.
Rushdie is infamous in Muslim societies the world over for his novel – The Satanic Verses – published for the first time in 1988. It is highly blasphemous to Prophet Mohammed and Islam. It has portrayed the Prophet in a highly contemptuous manner, lacking evidence from Islamic history.
No matter, how grave is the provocation, nobody has the right to take the law into his own hands. It is for the state and the governments to punish the guilty. The attack on Rushdie needs to be condemned in the strongest words.
It is a matter of great relief that no one from any part of the world, including French President Emmanuel Macron, linked the attack to the religion of Islam because such actions in the past have resulted in a war of words between Macron and heads of governments in several Muslim states.
World leaders restrain from linking Hadi Matar’s crime with his faith
Previously, it had become a fashion all over the world, particularly in the US, Christian Europe, and all the non-Muslim world to link any violence by an individual Muslim to his faith. Now, the non-Muslim world seems to have become mature or wiser not to link a crime by a Muslim with his religion. It is perhaps due to strong resistance to Islamophobia offered by Muslim intellectuals in general and Muslim heads of state like Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and others. This may also be the result of the efforts of the United Nations. The UN has declared March 15 every year as International Day to Combat Islamophobia with effect from 2022.
Western governments appease authors, and artists mocking Islam
It has become a craze among politicians, intellectuals, academicians, and those in authority in the government across the globe to criticize Muslim societies for the laws of blasphemy in Islam. They compared taking action against blasphemes with curtailing the freedom of expression.
Despite the fact that Rushdie’s novel mocked Prophet Mohammad hurting the sentiments of Muslims all over the world, the Queen of England, Elizabeth II, conferred knighthood on Rushdie in 2007. French President Emmanuel Macron openly supported Charlie Hebdo magazine for republishing the offensive caricatures of the Prophet. This indicates that global leaders, intoxicated with political, economic, and military power, don’t give a hoot about the sentiments of Muslims who are economically and militarily the weakest among all the religious and cultural civilizations of the world. What would be the reaction of the world leaders if someone from the Muslim world mocks the religious personalities or symbols of other faiths who have control over the largest armies in the world? Will it be allowed under the pretext of free speech? But Muslims have always avoided it because the Quran prohibits Muslims from making fun of or abusing the religious symbols and personalities revered or worshipped by non-Muslims.
Muslims and Christians in India face charges of blasphemy against Hinduism
Muslims and Christians in India have been facing violence related to charges of blasphemy against Hinduism for decades and it has escalated since BJP came to power in 2014 with former Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi as prime minister. Muslims are often attacked and booked on charges of cow slaughter. Cow slaughter is an offence in India and there is a severe punishment that includes imprisonment for up to 10 years in some states if anyone is found involved in slaughter or abetment to the slaughter or killing of cows. The anti-cow slaughter law has been framed in various states because a cow is held as a sacred animal by a large section of the Hindu population. So, the violence against cow slaughter is nothing but violence related to blasphemy against Hindu beliefs. There is a huge army of cow vigilantes in different states who have become a law unto themselves and resort to physical attacks when they suspect someone trading and transporting the cows for slaughter. Though no exact data is available about cow vigilante attacks, a Reuters report says that “a total of 63 cow vigilante attacks had occurred in India between 2010 and mid-2017, most after Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014. In these attacks between 2010 and June 2017, 28 Indians – 24 of them Muslims – were killed and 124 injured.” But the world does not take note of it because the authorities in India do not register such crimes related to blasphemy against Hinduism. Vigilantes even enter the Muslim houses to conduct searches in refrigerators and kitchens to find if they had stored cow meat or cooked cow meat. Police in Haryana’s Mewat region, on several occasions, seized ‘biryani’ (a mix of meat and rice) on the suspicion that cow meat was used for cooking the ‘biryani’. The most glaring example is that of Mohammed Akhlaq of Dadri who was lynched by a mob on suspicion of storing beef in his refrigerator in 2015
The Indian Express editorial “Words Will Win”, “The scorching truth of Rushdie’s ordeal” by former diplomat and governor Gopalkrishna Gandhi in Hindustan Times, and “The Meaning of Salman Rushdie” by novelist and critic Amit Chaudhuri in The Times of India, in their editions of August 15, 2022, have strongly supported the freedom of speech. Nobody would disagree with them about the right to free speech. But does the freedom of speech also extend to abusing religious personalities and the holy books of various faiths from the top of one’s house? While critical analysis of the contents of the scriptures or the works of the personalities held in respect by their followers is a different thing, ill-treating, misrepresenting, and portraying them in an insulting manner by taking advantage of the right to freedom of speech is certainly highly condemnable like the physical attack on Salman Rushdie or any other author. There is a need to redefine if free speech means to abuse religious personalities and mock religious texts. This is important because the governments in the United States and many countries in the Western world like France have been allowing to ridicule Islam and its Prophet openly resulting in a threat to law and order. This also resulted in the worsening of diplomatic relations between France and Turkey as also several other Muslim countries. The governments, as well as authors, must understand the sensibilities of the people.
Several books blasphemous to Hinduism banned in India
There are several books that were banned in India or were withdrawn from the market on the ground of their contents being blasphemous. The first book banned in independent India was The Ramayana by Aubrey Menen, in 1954. Another book banned was Shivaji – Hindu King in Muslim India by James Laine. Though the ban was lifted in 2010 by the Supreme Court, the book is still not available in India.
The copies of a book titled “The Hindus An Alternative History” by Wendy Doniger, anAmerican Indologist, were withdrawn from the market in 2014 and all the remaining copies with the publisher were pulped after a court case filed by one Dinanath Batra. The allegation was that it portrayed Hindu Gods in a humorous manner. This was a classic case of curtailment of freedom of speech but no one from the world of authors raised any objection.
Similarly, “The Da Vinci Code”, a book by Don Brown was banned by the Nagaland government after Christian groups accused it of speculations and misrepresentation of the core aspects of Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church. The Tamil Nadu government in 2013 banned a film based on the Da Vinci Code after criticism from the Christian community.
The other books banned in India include Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence by former External Affairs Minister the late Jaswant Singh for being sympathetic toward Jinnah, The Price of Power by Seymour Hersh for suggesting Morarji Desai was a CIA informant, An Area of Darkness by V.S. Naipaul for portraying India in a contemptuous manner, The Heart of India by Alexander Campbell for being offensive to India’s politics and economic policies, and The Polyester Prince: The Rise of Dhirubhai Ambani by Hamish McDonald for allegedly tarnishing the image of Dhirubhai Ambani.
Were Arrests of journalists not a violation of free speech?
In the last few years, several journalists and social media users were arrested in Uttar Pradesh and other places simply because they had uploaded videos and cartoons considered to be insulting to PM Modi and UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath. Did these actions not amount to curtailment of freedom of speech? Where are the authors who criticize Muslim communities for objecting to the depiction of their religion in poor light based on falsehoods but remain silent on the arrest of journalists and social media users?
