Guido Steinberg – The Origin of the Defamation?
(Article by Farhad Qarar. The article is reproduced here only in summary form – English translation)
Summary of the Article
As early as 2019, Farhad Qarar addressed in an article how he had been publicly portrayed by Dr. Guido Steinberg. The starting point is an accusation by Steinberg that had been cited for many years, in which Qarar was mentioned by name and assigned to a group defined by Steinberg. Qarar rejects this assignment of his person and further criticises the fact that this assignment is connected with the accusation that adherents of this group would recklessly accuse other Muslims of unbelief, exclude them from the community of believers, and legitimise their killing.
Qarar vehemently rejects this portrayal. He explains that there is no statement by him in which he formulates such a mass exclusion of Muslims or a legitimisation of killing. Qarar presents this point as the core of the dispute: what is decisive is not the mere use or discussion of theological terms, but the question of whether concrete statements exist from which a legitimisation of violence actually emerges.
A substantial section of the article criticises Steinberg's approach as a violation of basic scholarly rules. Qarar objects that no reliable passage from his own publications or lectures is cited for such a grave assertion. An attribution that connects a person with the legitimisation of killing or mass violence must undoubtedly be concretely substantiated.
The article then addresses the legal significance of such assertions. Qarar refers to Section 297 of the Austrian Criminal Code concerning the offence of defamation, in which the following is stated:
"(1) Whoever exposes another person to the risk of official prosecution by falsely suspecting him of an act punishable by law and prosecutable ex officio, or of the violation of an official or professional duty, shall, if he knows (§ 5 para. 3) that the suspicion is false, be punished with imprisonment for up to one year or with a fine of up to 720 daily rates; however, if the falsely attributed act is punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year, he shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to five years."
The section therefore concerns cases in which someone knowingly falsely suspects another person of a criminal act and thereby exposes that person to the risk of official prosecution. Qarar cites this section in order to make clear that serious false suspicions may not only be scientifically and morally problematic, but also legally significant.
In addition, Qarar refers in the article to Section 111 of the Austrian Criminal Code concerning the offence of defamation:
"(1) Whoever, in a manner perceptible to a third party, accuses another person of a contemptible quality or attitude, or accuses him of dishonourable conduct or of conduct contrary to public morals, which is capable of making him contemptible or lowering him in public opinion, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to six months or with a fine of up to 360 daily rates.
(2) Whoever commits the act in a printed work, in broadcasting, or otherwise in a manner by which the defamation becomes accessible to a broad public, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to one year or with a fine of up to 720 daily rates."
This therefore concerns attributions that are capable of lowering a person in public opinion, especially if they are made accessible to a broad public in a printed work or in another manner. The article uses these legal references to mark the boundary that even publicly recognised authors, scholars, or expert witnesses must substantiate grave assertions about other persons.
Another part of the article concerns an earlier contact made by Qarar with Steinberg. The article points out that Qarar had already drawn Steinberg's attention to this false portrayal by e-mail in 2015 and requested a correction. In the e-mail quoted by him, Qarar in particular denied that a connection between theological classification and legitimisation of killing can be derived from his books or lectures. The article sets out that this contact was ignored by Steinberg. It also explains that Steinberg later continued to adhere to his portrayals and never took Qarar's argumentation and written responses into account in his later statements.
From this, the text develops a broader critique of political-scientific and expert-witness portrayals of Islamic-theological contents, especially when such portrayals enter into legal or public assessments without precise evidence.
In summary, the article is an early public rebuttal by F. Qarar to the portrayal by Dr. Guido Steinberg. At the centre is the concrete objection that Steinberg made a grave classification without citing reliable statements from his texts and did not depart from it even after several clear indications.