Mohammed Yunus, 15 January 2010

on: The Complicated Craft on Enlightenment, by Lewis Gropp The biggest problem with Muslim scholars and theologians is that on one hand they regard the Qur’an as the infallible word of God and ultimate font of wisdom and guidance, and on the other, they claim the divinity/integrity of their theological discourses that evolved by the human agency in the early centuries of Islam. The case of Satanic verses is a glaring example. The episode was first put together from oral accounts by Ibn Ishaq (d. 768), one of the earliest biographers of Muhammad (d. 632). Al-Tabari (d. 926), one of the earliest and most renowned exegetes, drew on Ibn Ishaq’s manuscript (not preserved for later times) to relate the story, which suggests that as Muhammad was preaching to an elite (Quraysh) audience, a revelation came down venerating the three most popular pagan deities (Lat, Uzza and Manat) in these words: "Have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza (53:19), and another, the third (goddess), Manat (53:20). These are the exalted birds whose intercession is approved.” The story further suggests that the venerating words (underlined) were later expunged from the Qur'an and replaced with what we find in the Qur'an today: “What! For you the male sex and for Him the female (53:21)? Behold, such would indeed be the most unfair division” (53:22)? Ibn Hisham (d. 834), who edited and published Ibn Ishaq’s work, and the early compilers of the traditions (Hadith) who all succeeded Ibn Ishaq and preceded al-Tabari, make no mention of this episode, indicating their suspicion of its genuineness. More importantly, the story is not substantiated by the Qur’an and, in fact, contradicts its repeated assertion on the incorruptibility of its text (6:34, 6:115, 18:27, 41:42, 85:22), and is therefore not tenebale. Some Muslim scholars have, however, made a sweeping connection of this episode with the Qur’anic generic verses 22:52/53, which relate to Satan’s influencing the desires (tamanna) of the prophets and messengers in general and not to Satan’s tampering with the revelation. Salman Rushdie has treated the episode as a fantasy, as it veritably deserves. Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdi might have been prompted by personal revenge, as Lewis Gropp observes, but it might as well have aimed at pre-empting enlightened scholarship from digging into the Islamic theology. As with all major religions, Islamic theological discourses are embedded with legends, fantasies and embellishments that were characteristic of the era in which they evolved. The problem with Muslim theologians is their veneration of these discourses and their reverential remoteness from the Qur’an. Thus for example, if the Muslims only knew the contents of the following two verses, they would refrain from any violent outburst over journalistic, scholarly or artistic works that overtly or covertly lampoon their Prophet: “Thus we made for every messenger an enemy - Satans from among men and jinn, some of them inspiring others with seductive talk (in order to) deceive (them), and had your Lord pleased, they would not have done it. Therefore, leave them and what they forge” (6:112). “Thus we made for every messenger an enemy among the criminals - but enough is your Lord (O Muhammad,) as a Guide and Helper” (25:31). It is high time that the Muslims are made cognizant of these clear Qur’anic declarations. The medieval Christian Literature has singled out Muhammad for hurling all kinds of satires, diatribes, and abuses and given the freedom of expression in the West, some writers and journalists may find an easy way to popularity and gains by picking from these materials to peck at Muhammad. The way things are moving against Islam, it will not be long before some audacious journalist takes to print a graphic version of Dante’s hell, for example, on the front page of any popular print media. Unless the tolerance threshold of the Muslims is sufficiently raised in good time, they can go to any extent to vindicate their anger against such veritable assassination of their Prophet’s character in the name of freedom of expression, and the consequences could be disruptive of peace and harmony. Since, for many Muslims, faith dominates even the fear of death, the foregoing injunctions of the Qur’an would stand far more effective than secular intellectual discourses or sermons of international human rights to bracing them against potential provocations, and to pre-empt Europe’s convulsions. Finally, it may be added that probably Western world’s unremitting hatred of Muhammad - implicit, explicit or vicarious, in crude vocabulary or classical scholarship - stems from the same psyche as drives the Muslims to hate all that is Western: a strong inferiority complex (in spiritual/material domain). In historical perspective, the largely Christian West seems to be still seething with anger at Muhammad, perceived as a lecher, a debouch and an uncouth man of the most lowly character, deserving of the lowest pits of the hell and the company of the lowliest of beasts, who plagiarized the Bible to produce a patchy, unreadable book, sold it as a divine litany of unparalleled beauty to his gullible followers, found a faith and an empire that wrested away the Eastern domains of the Christian World, and has been casting long shadow across the centuries to this very era by winning admirers and converts including many luminaries from their very camp, and inspiring a fourth of humanity this very day to regard him as their most loved Prophet.