Port Louis — The greatest disaster facing the Muslims is not the book of Sir Salman Rushdie, but their inability to answer questions raised by this book.

To get serious answers one needs to ask serious questions. The first serious question is whether the novel would have gained such a pre-eminent place in the heart of its proponents without the Ayatoollah's hukm. Let us not get lost in translation as to whether the Ayatoollah issued a fatwa or a hukm. No need to undermine the real issues at this point.

To arrive at some sensible conclusion about the whole thing, first let us consider the words of the author. He admitted to have written the book from a 'non-believer's point of view'. We cannot hold a grudge against him for being an apostate, he was born a Muslim, then began to question his faith. Islam is straightforward on this point. The Qur'an tells us that there should be no coercion in matters of faith.

Muslims have to, therefore, bear in mind that Rushdie has no authority on Islamic matters. The fact that he is the darling of the West should not intimidate us. Had he not been an apostate, his writings would have been rejected as they were before he shot to fame.

Any guesses as to what really made his fortune? It was not his "chutneyfication" of a migrant's perspective of the world. This was just coined up to hide the real vile intentions. Had he been sincere in writing about his 'dilemmas', he could have done so without vilifying the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and deconstructing the Qu'ran. For example, what possible link can exist between his personal misfortunes and the Prophet's wives? Do not tell me the guy is prudish to talk about his visits to brothels and has to use this technique to get his message to us. Not someone who uses the four letter words so abusively in his novel. Just plain charlatanism.

For someone who studied History at Cambridge, Rushdie would have been aware of how Christian missionaries used to ridicule the Prophet by calling Him Mahound. In the past Christians studied Islam to then question the authenticity of the Qu'ran, to spread myths about Muslims. The Jews were said to poison wells to try and kill Christians.

Throughout history there have been attacks on the Prophet (p.b.u.h.). This should not really be a surprise. Another historical practice which seems to have been grossly overlooked is that Islam did not invent censorship. I used to have doubts about the pen being mightier than the sword. However, taking into account what Rushdie's pen has achieved I have revised my opinion on this. Where once the four-letter word precipitated the death of an author, caused him numerous lawsuits and mental distress, Rushdie has been deemed fit for a knighthood. The guy has achieved what the English-born writer of Lady Chatterley's Lover could not have dreamed of. The four-letter word has been a place of pride in English language. What a great achievement indeed! That is not double-standard mind you, that is free speech versus Islam. Though come to think of it, all those who are prattling about intolerance and lack of free speech in Islam are disturbing the proverbial cup of tea here.

Who can deny the 'services to Literature' of Rushdie? He has revamped the chanson de geste practised by enemies of Islam. He has also paved the way for the likes of Taslima Nasreen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali to gain instant recognition, lucrative book deals, television shows and speeches.

That is why Muslims have to ask themselves whether they should have reacted in a different manner to prevent this book from gaining so much attention and money to its author. Is it not better to just read then use this as an opportunity to show the world that Jaahiliya is relative. That Muslims do not have terrorism encrypted in their DNA. Banning the book and giving in to the frenzy of political arsonists, who simply sit back and watch the fire they have started, is giving more fuel to those who have Rushdie-like dilemmas. It may be more economical to organise simultaneous readings and have some really constructive talks about the book. Analyse the intention of the author, whether he has been subtle in his real motives, I can think of so many things to look for to keep the guy busy writing for the rest of his life. Just give him what he wants.

So far, those who have read it in the Muslim world are silent. This somehow sends the wrong signal for a religion which started with the verse "Read". Why should you be ashamed if you have read it? If you can bear to be the laughing stock by starting Ramadhan according to the whims of X or Y, then this is just as easy I guess. Do not intimidate the intellectually dishonest who like to wrench things out of context. If you are ashamed of your ignorance, then take this as a chance to redress the situation. Then again, our leaders or lack of leadership who can guide us through this, is deeply felt here. Do not rely on others to dictate your actions. Knowledge is mandatory in Islam. It is hard to follow in the footsteps of the last Prophet (p.b.u.h.), but at least refrain from acting against his teachings. No matter what Rushdie and followers say to incite you, do not burn the Straw Man. Remember his arguments can be burned by your pen. With just one book, Rushdie has caused so much harm. Yet, he cannot be called seditious, or 'chamcha' of the West.

I know advice is the cheapest thing one can give. To those of you who have read the book and maybe missed a few details, I would advise to go on YouTube, search for How Rushdie Fooled the West by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat. It may lead to a few surprises especially to the fair sex. Do not worry, the Sheikh will not trick you. You are free to stop the videos from running if you feel offended at some point. As for those who are about to order the book on Amazon, I would definitely recommend Karen Armstrong's Muhammad: A biography of the Prophet. I have chosen Karen Armstrong as I do not want to 'coerce' non-Muslims by recommending the Qu'ran, Hadith or Sunnah. Though on second thought those who are brewing storms in tea-cups can do with some serious readings. You decide.

To conclude this, I would like to refer to Volume 1 of Al-Ihya where al-Ghazali says: «Over-enthusiasm is a mark of corrupted scholars, even when the case they are defending is true. By showing excessive enthusiasm for truth and their contempt for their opponents, the latter would be stimulated to retaliate and react in the same manner. They would be driven to stand for falsehood and to be true to the label attributed to them. If the champions of truth had spoken kindly to them avoiding publicity and humiliation they would have succeeded in winning them over. But as it is, a person who enjoys a place of prestige is strongly inclined to preserve his position by attracting followers, and the only way to that is to boast and to attack or curse adversaries.»

Do not poison the well of knowledge please.