A Critique on “The Salman Rushdie Case: An Islamic View” by Dr. Khalid Zaheer (Other (Not Listed) Sample)

Muhammad Mumtaz 2018-10-0281 Aamna Khalid SS-100 (Sec-11) 25 November 2015 A Critique on "The Salman Rushdie Case: An Islamic View" by Dr. Khalid Zaheer Dr. Khalid Zaheer, an Islamic scholar and liberal and religious extremism critic, believes that Islam clearly provides the remedy for this plague by preaching, and ideology of pluralistic society that is neither Liberal nor it is extremist. An article, "The Salman Rushdie Case: An Islamic view" was published on his official website in 2007 regarding Salman Rushdie's controversial book. "The Satanic Verses" for Muslims Community accused Salman of blasphemy against their holy prophet and apostasy and his head was demanded. Dr. Khalid claimed on credible religious evidence and made arguments that Muslim Community demand for Rushdie's execution was un-Islamic, and it had no accordance with Islamic law. He made a claim that Islamic law never suggests death punishment in case of blasphemy and apostasy (irtidad). The effective use of credible Islamic sources and logical sequence along with rhetorical devices efficiently develops his argument and persuades his readers. However, the reliability of his assertion is questioned by the reader because of occasional fallacious reasoning and overlooking of significant details. Dr. denies that offences like apostasy and blasphemy beg execution of the convict and make an appeal to the religious sentiments of the reader to strengthen his claim and logically proves that Muslim Community demand for Rushdie's head is conclusively contrary to Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) as the punishment for blasphemy and apostasy in nowhere mentioned in Quran and Sunnah. Dr. Khalid inculcates reliability and credibility in his claim and his personality as well by the assertion of allusion from reliable Islamic texts. As Muslins Community is a firm believer of the everlastingness of God and His Word, "The Holy Quran", building clever arguments, Dr. Khalid makes an argument on these sources to assert his message in a more effective way to an extent that is possible. He is citing instances from the Holy Quran such as, "Believers, be steadfast for the sake of Allah in pursuing justice and let not the enmity of a nation dissuade you from being fair; be fair, that is the closest to piety. And fear Allah; indeed Allah knows what you do" and "When the people of the book, the Jews and the Christians, criminally denied the prophet's message, they too became eligible for the divine punishment. However, in their case the punishment was relaxed not to necessitate death for them. Instead they were forced to live the life of second-rate citizens in the Muslim society on paying Jizya, the non-Muslim tax", persuading his readers, that fair trail is a fundamental right to everyone by the Holy Quran and death punishment has never been mentioned or suggested in divine book, "The Holy Quran" for blasphemers of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).Even in the age of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), the execution has never been a penalty for blasphemers. Conclusively, the execution of death penalty of Rushdie without any kind judicial procedures is a digression from Islamic Educations and Islamic Law. In a similar way. In a similar way, the use of epithets by Dr. Khalid like "our" and "Alai his salam" as in "Blaspheming against the prophet, Alai his salaam, did not amount to creating mischief on earth because the latter crime has been described by the Almighty Himself in these words: "Those who fight against Allah and His messenger and create mischief on earth." (Qur'an; 5:33)" and in "The very reputation of our faith and the sincerity of our attachment to it are also under strict scrutiny" clearly shows that he is trying his best to pretend himself to be a reliable and Islamic personality and is not about to leave any room for his readers to doubt his fairness and sincerity in presenting and Islamic View of ‘The Salman Rushdie Case'. Islamic context and references to Islamic text, used to gain the confidence of his readers, is basic technique according to author and his point of view. Along with articulated procedures, Dr. Zaheer attempts to make his argument more compelling with a sequence of logical statements and periodical structure of ideas and grabs his reader's interest. Firstly, he acknowledges the argument of opposition and mitigates their strength by reprehending their presume validity. After his stage set up, he goes to Islamic history and Islamic sources to refute fundamental premises of his argumentative sequence by a linkage of his articulations to the Holy Quran and Sunnah. After that, he concludes by a linkage of rebuttal to his stance and apprises those demanding head of Salman Rushdie of the "barbaric" consequence of such demands. An organized statement followed by a smooth flow of argumentative statements have a central role in coaxing his readers. Furthermore, Zaheer is repeatedly using rhetorical appeal to invoke the religious sentiments of his readers, and dramatic insertion of rhetorical questions have an effect on his stance and force his readers to think and make a decision. Having a look at protests and recurring demand of Rushdie's execution by Muslims, Dr. says it is not that "It is not that the life of an individual is at stake. The very reputation of our faith and its sincerity of our attachment to it is also under strict scrutiny", and in this way, he has an immediate question on the reader by evoking his religious sentiments. At another point, the smart assertion of rhetorical point, "by so demanding the head of Rushdie, Muslims are creating an impression in the minds of people that Islam was a barbaric religion. The Muslim demand for Rushdie's head by hook or by crook is a far cry from the approach of the prophet of peace (Islam)" followed by an incident to the life of the prophet warns those who demanded capital punishment for Salman Rushdie as demands like this assert a negative and barbaric image of Islam, such a religion that is fundamentally based upon peace, love, equity, egalitarianism and bilateralism. This kind of emotional appeal used intentionally has an adverse impact on the mind of readers that make readers question the validity and reliability of author's stance. However, these types of appeals have an important and pivotal role helping the author achieve his purposes and prove his positions to be valid. Author's espousal of rhetorical strategies to fortify his claim have an important and central role in portraying his arguments and making the audience affirm his stance. Nevertheless, Dr. Kahlid's occasional fallacious arguments deteriorate the strength of his case and make the reader question the credibility of his assertion. In the defense of Rushdie, he says, "In fact, Rushdie has not even come anywhere close to what some of the other modern writers have done against Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. Should all of them -- all thousands (if not hundreds and thousands) of them -- be declared equally guilty of such crims punishable by an immediate, extra-judicial execution no matter wherever all of them were living? He is arguing that since the execution of all of the blasphemers is realistically impossible, Salman must also not be punished with capital punishment for his alleged offence. This argument contain fallacy since it is the illogical conclusion if a court cannot execute many people, it must refrain from killing a single accused eve he falls under jurisdiction. Defining "Fasaad fil earth"(mischief in the earth), Dr. Khalid narrows down the scope of the vague phrase by statement, "a crime in which the perpetrators of it were causing the life, property, or honor of the ordinary people to be at the stake of their nefarious designs" and eventually concludes from this self-definition that Salman Rushdie cannot be accused of mischief because his offence neither of these (Killing someone and mischief in the earth). But, Muslim Community is proud of their Holy Text, "The Holy Quran" and firmly believes in the innocence of their Holy Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, if the person who blasphemes against Prophet Muhammad or dishonor Holy Quran, it is considered own disgraceful in countries with Muslim majority. Fallacies like this render a critical reader question the viability of this case. In addition to fallacious reasoning, the writers have used some citations from the Holy Quran out of context. "Believers, be steadfast for the sake of Allah in pursuing justice and let not the enmity of a nation dissuade you from being fair; be fair, that is the closest to piety. And fear Allah; indeed Allah knows what you do" (Qur'an; 5:...