What is common between Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie and early biographers of Islam’s Prophet? Fiction. 
At the core of the controversy over Rushdie’s 1988 book, Satanic Verses, is an alleged incident a few early biographers of Prophet Muhammad had recorded without verification. Both the Sunni and Shiite streams of Islam have rejected the incident as outright fabrication or Apocrypha. 

The alleged incident refers to the whispering of Satan while the Prophet was reciting a chapter from the Quran after it was revealed to him by Archangel Jibreel or Gabriel. When he was reciting verse 19 of the chapter titled ‘The Star’, it is alleged that the prophet fell victim to Satan’s whispering and changed the recitation to give the meaning that the three famous pagan goddesses -- Lat, Uzza and Manat -- could intercede with God.  In other words, the story goes that the prophet compromised his monotheistic ministry to please the pagan leaders. The story has another version that says that it was Satan who recited the alleged verse in praise of the pagan deities. 
The story is recorded in Ibn Ishaq’s Seerat Rasulallah (Biography of God’s Messenger). Ibn Ishaq was born in Madina about 74 years after the Prophet’s demise. Imam Malik ibn Anas, one of the highly respected early Islamic scholars and a contemporary, accused Ibn Ishaq of being a liar and of not fact-checking or verifying the incidents he included in the biography. Tabari, another Islamic historian, also records the alleged incident. But he, too, was not known to be a strict fact-checker. Ibn Ishaq, Tabari and the likes would not stand the grilling of a Viva by a modern-day doctoral-thesis panel. 

Throughout history, to insult the prophet and spurn the Quran, Islam’s opponents, like Rushdie, have pounced on the alleged incident and similar fabricated stories that have crept into the secondary sources of Islam.
A fact-checked version of the incident is recorded in Imam Bukhary’s collection of Hadith or prophetic traditions, but it says nothing about Satan’s whisper. The Bukhari version says the Prophet inspired by Archangel Jibreel (Gabriel) recited the chapter till the end and then prostrated in veneration of Allah. Both the believers and non-believers who were listening to him did the same. There was no mention of the prophet glorifying the pagan deities to appease the idolaters 

However, Rushdie thought it fit to take the fabricated story and superimpose it on the fictional character Mahound, a prophet in a desert city called Jahiliya. That’s the reason the book was named Satanic Verses. 
Rushdie earned the wrath of the world Muslims not only for resuscitating a story Islamic scholars worldwide had long rejected as an utter fabrication and an affront to Quran and the prophet’s mission. More deliberately than otherwise, he denigrated in his book many personalities Muslims hold in the highest esteem. Muslims accuse Rushdie of defaming the Prophet Muhammad’s wives, whom the Quran honours as Ummahathul Mu’mineen or ‘Mothers of the Believers’. The book also defiles Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham), Archangel Gabriel, and the legendary Islamic hero Salahuddin (Saladin). 

The book also speaks ill of Rama and Sita, the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the Blacks and the Londoners. It also talks about the copulating British Queen. If we were to deconstruct the text, the author would stand accused of willfully insulting Islam and selecting a path to fame through blasphemy and a worldwide controversy.

The book remains banned not only in Muslim-majority countries but also in Sri Lanka and India. However, the ban created a heated debate in Sri Lankan literary circles also in 1988. The Sunday Times, a sister publication of the Daily Mirror, carried several articles pro and against the ban when the controversy raged, especially in the aftermath of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa that Rushdie should be put to death for his blasphemy. 

Rushdie is in the news once again and Satanic Verses became a best-seller once again after an American Muslim of Lebanese origin stabbed him several times at a literary function in New York on Friday. The award-winning author is recovering from serious injuries and has spoken to investigators about the attack that shook the literary world and drew worldwide condemnation. 

Many human rights activists and literaties have come to Rushdie’s defence, interpreting the right to free speech in absolute terms. But only those who are familiar with Islamic terms and the Urdu or Hindi language including the slang and swear words can judge the book by its content and understand the fury the book has generated among the Muslims. For instance, the book’s two main characters Jibreel Farishta and Saldin Chamcha may sound like two Muslim names for non-Muslim Westerners, but the Indian sub-continent people, especially Muslims, will recognize the mischief from the word go. 

The Satanic Verses controversy exposes the selective nature of the West’s defence of the right to free speech. While the right to free speech is liberally invoked to defend authors who insult Islam, no such defence of the right is seen when in the West academics are kicked out of universities – some have even been sent to jail -- and politicians are penalised for criticizing Israel. On Wednesday, while in Germany, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was censured for equating Israel’s massacre of Palestinians to the Holocaust. None came to defend his freedom of speech. 

While the then British government scoffed at the calls to ban Satanic Verses, it had just about the same time banned Spycatcher, a book by Peter Wright, a senior intelligence officer who worked for Britain’s MI5. In his book, he reveals the dirty secrets of the spy agency and a plot to kill Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. After a long legal battle, the ban was reversed. 
Rushdie famously asked “What is freedom of expression?” and went on to add that without the freedom to offend, freedom of expression ceases to exist. So, he offended the world’s two billion Muslims and used his pen to stab them in the heart.

His definition of free speech is in conflict with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It says the exercise of the right to free speech carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may, therefore, be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others; for the protection of national security, public order, public health, or morals.

When in January 2015, the French magazine Charlie Hebdo was attacked by terrorists for carrying derogatory cartoons of the prophet, Pope Francis said there were limits to freedom of expression when religion was insulted. However, he also pointed out that killing in God’s name was an ‘absurdity’.
A person’s freedom to stretch his or her hand ends where another person’s nose begins. He or she has no right to grope. 

Similarly, free speech is not absolute. It should be exercised within the perimeters of human decency which, among other things, demands that one should not deliberately cause pain of mind to another. Rights are linked to responsibilities and free expression is subjected to laws dealing with tort, defamation, hate speech and security.