by Mohammad El Sahliy | Staff Writer
History has always been a discipline which has impacted modern views and traditions in a radical manner. Our conception of the past, despite popular belief, continues to be highly relevant, sometimes even dangerous. Nowhere is this more relevant than in Islamic history, which remains a highly controversial topic in its findings and modern conduct. One such event in Islamic history, which has inspired centuries of debate, and has recently emerged into the media, is the topic of the Satanic verses. The way historians and scholars have addressed this particular incident remains subject to contestation, and adaptations have nearly killed someone.
The Satanic verses incidents came to my attention only recently. Simply speaking, the Prophet was receiving the verses for Surat Al-Najm and allegedly mistook some of them for endorsement for three pagan goddesses from the Jahiliya era in Islam. Gradually, the verses were expunged from the Quran, and the Prophet was portrayed as having been led on by the Devil. The initial scholarly consensus among Muslims was that the incident did indeed happen, but beginning in the 4th Hijri century, the consensus changed tack and denied the incident’s occurrence.
As I read more work and literature on the topic, specifically Shahab Ahmed’s landmark work on the topic, “Before Orthodoxy”, in which all possible arguments on the debate were listed, my curiosity and confusion mushroomed. It seemed to me that this important episode is not given enough credit. The switch in consensus confused me the most: how can an opinion upheld by the major names of early Muslim scholarship be overturned so abruptly and unquestioningly? Why was there no debate on the implications of the assenting opinion and what it could mean for the Prophet and the ensuing controversial events?
The story entered public discourse with the publication of Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” in 1988. The novel faced a great deal of public backlash, and matters took a sinister turn when Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s death which continues to be upheld. For decades, Rushdie lived in the dark, traveling under false names and heavy security. Unfortunately, a Lebanese almost assassinated Rushdie last August as he was due to give a speech outside New York. This reignited the debate on the novel, and by consequence, the topic itself after being dormant.
How this is considered normal, by anyone, is beyond me. Is our knowledge of Islam and its history to be cowed by subversive and murderous actors who want a monopoly on historical narratives? Topics which arouse similar emotions abound in Islamic history: for example, the matter of succession after the Prophet, and what it means for subsequent Islamic states, has literally caused the Sunni-Shia schism, which persists to this day. Such topics are not only the providence of scholars and academics, but they also unfortunately translate into wars and divisions which have caused serious harm and damage in the Middle East overall.
Islamic history has been a taboo topic, especially among Muslims. Matters which have heavily polarized popular and scholarly consensus remain a matter of guesswork and conjecture by many people. The absence of genuine and peaceful debate and scholarship in the region, on this subject, is bound to keep us prisoners of a past that may or may not be true. The history of Islam is in need of some serious work, and Muslims should lead the way in actually opening up this debate to the general public, as heirs and heiresses of a rich and colorful past rarely seen otherwise.