The Danger Persists

SALMAN Rushdie seems to be out of the iron clutches of the late Imam Khomeini's fatwa against him. Before the recent revocation of it by the Iranian government, he has, no doubt, suffered much. He now feels like a free bird, with the sword of death no longer hanging over him. But is that really so? I doubt it. The Iranian government's dissociation with the execution of the fatwa may have given him a breather, but there are others who appear determined to carry out the fatwa faithfully. Those who might have done the job for the lure of money may no longer be interested for none of the other offers of reward are backed by a bank guarantee. However, a Muslim charged with religious zeal could still be adamant to carry out its objective. Therein lies the danger to Rushdie's life. He has not ceased to be vulnerable. His killing may make his assassin believe that his place in paradise will be assured; he will not mind thereafter facing the gallows on earth.

Does fatwa enjoin on a faithful a religious obligation to carry it out? In the first place a fatwa is not, by itself, a decree or a ruling, its literal meaning is clarification. It becomes legally enforceable only when a Muslim judge (kazi) or a ruler ratifies it. Fatwa then becomes qada, or a legal order. In Rushdie's case, Tehran had ratified the Khomeini fatwa; that was the reason Rushdie had to be so heavily guarded.

Until accepted by a court or a ruler, a fatwa is an opinion by a respected theologian, well-versed in Islamic jurisprudence. He is known as a mufti, who replies to questions posed to him by an individual or a court or an institution, official or non-official. Fatwa Daral Ulum of Deoband has mentioned that fatwa is expressed in answer to a question on "an issue concerning law and religion". The issue can be religious or secular. It is to be answered in the light of the Quran and the Traditions of the Prophet.

There is a difference between a fatwa by a Shia mufti and a Sunni one. Shia fatwa has much more religious sanction, especially if it is issued by an Imam. Shias recognise priesthood while the Sunnis do not. Even in the case of the Khomeini edict, it received no recognition from the Sunni muftis; in fact, Jam-al-Azhar of Cairo, which is the highest centre of theological learning in the Sunni world, publicly dissociated itself from it. They declared that even an apostle could not be killed arbitrarily, he had to be given a fair trial.

In medieval times under Muslim rulers, Shia or Sunni, muftis were made a part of the judicial system. Their fatwas were, therefore, given a binding force. The various Caliphates attached permanent muftis to the courts, whose fatwas were honoured by the judges and carried out by the executive. The Mughals in India followed this system. In the 19th century, under the Ottoman Turks, there was a hierarchy of muftis, headed by Shaikul Islam, who alone was authorised to issue fatwas which were then executed by the state. In recent times, most Muslim countries have abolished the posts of muftis. The judges hear and give their ruling in accordance with their abilities and in the light of their understanding of the Quranic texts and the sunna.

Some unscrupulous elements have also been misusing fatwas to discredit opponents. They deliberately misrepresent, misinterpret or distort scriptures to achieve their objective. This was often resorted to by some medieval rulers for their selfish ends. More recently, fanatics, posing as defenders of Islam, have taken advantage of this powerful weapon to coerce the faithful to trim their beards or even wear pyjamas to a specified length. By this process they have in fact, made a mockery of their religion. It has not only throttled in many cases individual freedom to which the Prophet had given the highest consideration but also undermined the dynamic nature of Islam.

HOWEVER, a fatwa by a venerated imam or mufti has a certain sanctity as well as emotional appeal. Hence the person giving it is as important as the contents of his edict. Some countries have resorted to a "war of fat-was" against each other by utilising the services of their self-appointed muftis. There has also been a manipulation of fatwas for political purpose, good or bad. For instance, in the case of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of Aligarh Muslim University, his detractors obtained a fatwa against him from the grand mufti of Mecca to eliminate his leadership of Indian Muslims. The fatwa given by one of the greatest Shia Mujtahid, Mirza Hasan Shirazi, to boycott smoking succeeded in ending British monopoly of tobacco in Iran. On the other hand, some of the daring poems of the eminent poet/philosopher Allama Iqbal invoked a fatwa of excommunication. But many such fatwas proved abortive.

This cannot be said of the fatwa against Rushdie as it was pronounced by no less an authority than Khomeini, the supreme spiritual leader of Shias. Further, Rushdie's Satanic Verses has deeply wounded religious sentiments of Muslims everywhere; he has neither apologised nor withdrawn the book. On the contrary, he has gloated over the freedom he feels he has now won as a result of the compromise arrived at between Britain and Iran. Therefore, the danger to his life cannot be said to have totally disappeared.

(An Islamic scholar, Rafiq Zakaria is author of the acclaimed book, 'Muhammad and the Quran' )