Actually, it is quite interesting to see how Stevens deals in his stumbling way with this difficult issue.   He is faced with the problem that all religious communities have when crucial tenets of their faith are not allowed by Western law. Western law deliberately refuses to let religious law have precedence, because of the religious wars of the 15-17th centuries.   There is little doubt that the Satanic Verses are blasphemous, Rushdie pretty deliberately set out to make the book blasphemous by picking on one of the "untidy" little threads in what was supposed to be an infallible book. The question then becomes: what do you do about it? In the West, we have separated out church and state, i.e. the churches have become fairly feeble (though the way things are going, one cannot be sure), and people are no longer burned at the stake for blasphemy -- but that was not so long ago in history.   If Christianity or Islam or any religion were back in charge of a state, then we can be pretty sure that blasphemy would be a death sentence.

The press release is interesting. To repeat it:

After confirming that Islamic Law considers Blasphemy without repentance as a capital offence, I stated clearly, "Under the Islamic law, Muslims are bound to keep within the limits of the law of the country in which they live, providing that it does not restrict the freedom to worship and serve God and fulfil their basic religious duties (Fard 'Ayn). One must not forget the ruling in Islam is also very clear about adultery, stealing and murder, but that doesn't mean that British Muslims will go about lynching and stoning adulterers, thieves and murders. If we can't get satisfaction within the present limits of the law, like a ban on this blasphemous book, 'Satanic Verses' which insults God and His Prophets – including those Prophets honoured by Christians, Jews as well as Muslims – this does not mean that we should step outside of the law to find redress. No. If Mrs Thatcher and her Government are unwilling to listen to our pleas, if our demonstrations and peaceful lobbying does not work, then perhaps the only alternative is for Muslims to get more involved in the political process of this country. It seems to be the only way left for us."

He notes that Islam is clear about stoning adulterers. Is he in favour of this? Does he consider this part of Islam? Do Christians consider all the dreadful rules in Deuteronomy and Leviticus to be part of Christianity? So the question boils down to the subservience of Islam (serve God) to the local laws of the land.   If you are a follower of Islam, this must be seen as only a temporary subservience, just as the same is true for other religions. They are putting up with secular law until the whole world belongs to X, and then! But what if Islam becomes the law of the land? (Stevens gives the answer that people need to go into the political process, but to do what? Make Islam the law of the land? Or simply stop Rushdie?)

His more recent response to this is that one cannot take the interpretation of the Koran into one's own hands. Which is actually somewhat radical in much of Islam. It raises all sorts of other questions about who gets to say what the Koran means. But this is not a solution to the dilemma -- he is essentially stuck.    He cannot bring himself to say that religious law is wrong, nor can he say that it is unimportant, which is what Western law currently says.

It seems to me that, contrary to what he says, his statement only clarified the dilemma. A dilemma which (cf. Danish cartoons), does not seem to be going away.

Theologically, the answer is to stop taking religious speech as always concrete, and to see it as historically based. But that is a big problem for lots of people.

yours,

Peter T.