A few weeks ago, infamous author Salman
Rushdie published an article, which was carried by various media, in which
he attempted to explain his personal theory of Islamism and its relevance
to the events of the past two months. Perhaps feeling vindicated for the
1989 fatwa issued against him, and hurriedly jumping on the
warhorse bandwagon of "Strike Against Terror", Rushdie has once stirred
the pot of controversy.
Firstly, it is prudent to question why
Rushdie has taken it upon himself to explain to the rest of us illiterates
what the nature of Islam truly is. Having briefly, yet meticulously
read through Rushdie’s C.V. and scholastic background I saw no mention of
his record (nor acclaim) as a scholar of Islam, so-called Islamic
fundamentalism, Islamic Law, sociology, or anthropology. It was,
therefore, quite amusing to see Rushdie propose order from the rubble of
the chaos of the past two months.
After a 1968 graduation from King’s
College, Rushdie returned to work in broadcasting in Pakistan. This was
followed by stints as an actor with a theatre group at Oval House in
Kennington and from 1971 to 1981 Rushdie was a freelance copywriter for
Ogilvy and Mather and Charles Barker. By this time, Rushdie had published
Grimus and Shame, two early novels.
Let’s fast-forward to November 2001; in
an article titled Islam Versus Islamism, Rushdie asks "Why the routine
anti-Semitism of the much-repeated Islamic slander that "the Jews"
arranged the hits on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon...". The
question is valid; the ‘Islamic slander’ terminology is not. In essence,
it equates anything Islamic, or with the Islamic prefix, to be rooted in
slander. It also exposes the distate that Rushdie has for the entire faith
of Islam; hardly the stance of an intellectual looking from within rather
than an unabashedly biased opinion.
Rushdie goes on to state that "For a
vast number of "believing" Muslim men, "Islam" stands, in a jumbled,
half-examined way, not only for the fear of God - the fear more than the
love, one suspects - but also for a cluster of customs, opinions and
prejudices that include their dietary practices, the sequestration or
near-sequestration of "their" women, the sermons delivered by their mullah
of choice, a loathing of modern society in general, riddled as it is with
music, godlessness and sex, and a more particularised loathing (and fear)
of the prospect that their own immediate surroundings could be taken over
- "westoxicated" - by the liberal, western-style way of life."
This is profound literature indeed. I
do not remember reading that Rushdie is an expert on Islamic tradition or
that he has lived and openly engaged Muslims in theological debate,
whether they be practising or non-practising adherents.
At this point, the objective reader,
having already questioned Rushdie’s expertise in Islam, begins to wonder
why there is so much hate-spewing in Rushdie’s article. Perhaps, it has to
do with Rushdie’s illustrious past.
Rushdie labels Islam a paranoid faith.
The sense of paranoia, however, plays quite the prominent role in
Rushdie’s life. Take for example the quotes below, taken from a PBS
interview with David Frost: "I don't think there is a need for an entity
like God in my life," says Rushdie, followed by "What is freedom of
expression? Without the freedom to offend, it cease to exist." I am sure
that this welcome advice to such proponents of the United Nations Charter
or the Unites States Constitution. Freedom is the right to offend. Then we
are to understand that when President Bush tells Arab allies that they are
engaged in a war to save freedom; what he is really saying is that he
wants the freedom to tell the Japanese they talk funny, the Arabs are
ragheads, and the Brits have poor hygiene. An interesting smell Rushdie
has discovered.
However, it far from ends there. In a
letter to Bangladeshi-born Taslima Nasrin, condemned for speaking out
against treatment of women in Islam, Rushdie says "How sad it must be to
believe in a God of blood! What an Islam they have made, these apostles of
death, and how important it is to have the courage to dissent from it!"
One must pause here and make note that
it is not Rushdie’s opinion that is scrutinized, but rather the platform
from which he incites racism and hatred against Islam and its followers.
This is not journalism, nor is it constructive discourse. When one is in a
position of scholarly fortitude, it is unbecoming to engage in
name-calling and slander. Debate and exchange of differing opinions are
the pediments of social and intellectual development.
According to a critique by John
Esposito, Rushdie insulted and slandered 1.2 billion Muslims with passages
in The Satanic Verses "that questioned the authenticity of the
Quran, ridiculed the Prophet and the contents of the Quran and referred to
Muhammad as "Mahound," a term used in the past by Christian authors to
vilify Muhammad. The book also had prostitutes assuming the identity and
names of Muhammad's wives, and the very Quranic symbol for their seclusion
and protection, "the Curtain," is transformed into the image of a brothel,
which men circumambulate as worshipers do the sacred shrine (Kaaba)
during the pilgrimage to Mecca. "
Is this literature or simple
Islamphobia? I am reminded of the artistic rendering of Mary using
elephant faeces in the Met in New York in 1998. Then-Mayor Guiliani saw it
as highly provocative and an insult to the Catholic community and had it
removed. I am also reminded of the incessant ridicule and harassment
mitigated to anyone who questions the Holocaust. Why then is it an
expression of freedom when Rushdie so intricately defames the entire
notion of Islam?
In 1997, famed auteur-extraordinaire
John le Carré criticised Rushdie’s attacks on Islam when he stated; "My
position was that there is no law in life or nature that says great
religions may be insulted with impunity." Rushdie responded to le Carré by
calling him a pompous ass and that any defense of the Islamic outcry is a
"philistine, reductionist, radical Islamist line that The Satanic
Verses was no more than an "insult," and ... anyone who displeases
philistine, reductionist, radical Islamist folk loses his right to live in
safety."
In 1993, prolific religious studies
author Karen Armstrong is quoted as saying; "Up came all these
neo-crusaders defending the cause of free speech, but from a standpoint of
ignorance. They were protesting against the burning of the Satanic
Verses as if the Christians had never ever set fire to books with
which they disagreed. I was forced to ask my friends why the blasphemy
laws in England only applied to Christianity."
Perhaps Rushdie would like to ‘respond’
to Armstrong in the same tone.
Consequently, it is apparent that
Rushdie does not maintain an air of objectivity. He does not consider the
Islamic community from a sociological or anthropological point of view but
from a personal bias. Rushdie is on a mission and with an agenda. I would
favor to say that Rushdie and Bin Laden are sociopathic twins: both have a
hatred for other people, both speak in vile terms and extort racism and
prejudice. Where Bin Laden directly advocates murder, Rushdie performs the
task indirectly by inciting hatred and bigotry against people simply for
the faith they follow. While Bin Laden wields a sword, Rushdie wields the
pen; equally destructive.
History must not be forgiving of those
who encourage hatred. To name a few: Timothy McVeigh, who showed no
remorse for killing scores in the explosion at the U.S. federal building
in Oklahoma. Zionists like the late Meir Kahane, who made a holy mission
out of pushing every Muslim out of Israel and the Israeli-occupied
territories. The list is far too long to discuss here.
A Postscript: Kudos to Former President
Bill Clinton: On November 7th, Clinton in a speech to nearly
1,000 students at Georgetown University's ornate Gaston Hall said:"In the
first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first
burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it and proceeded to kill every woman
and child who was a Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that story
is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for
it."
It is best to accept responsibility for
all inhuman acts of violence and aggression, be they Christian, Muslim,
Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist.
