For Rushdie

It finally happened. After 33 years of living in the shadow of a theocratic death warrant, the celebrated author and stalwart champion of the freedom of speech, Sir Salman Rushdie, was viciously attacked and stabbed multiple times by an Islamist fanatic. The attempt on his life occurred at a literary festival in New York, where Mr Rushdie was about to lecture on artistic freedom and America's role as a sanctuary for persecuted writers. What a brutal irony.  

The clash of ideologies, on the one hand, the liberal tradition of openly discussing matters of public import, including and especially religion, and on the other hand, the intransigent hierocratic absolutism of Islam against depictions of its Prophet, or any semblance of criticism of the same, were laid bare for the first time, in the most public and menacing fashion possible, with the reaction to Mr Rushdie's 1988 novel The Satanic Verses. 

The international wrath of Muslims towards a fictional novel surprised the vast majority of Western observers. Mr Rushdie's book was written in English, not Arabic, Urdu, Farsi or any other native tongue of most Muslims. It was never published nor sold in Muslim-majority countries. The Satanic Verses is a dense, complex novel unlikely to appeal to the average reader. That is highly instructive. Millions of Muslims worldwide became incensed at the publication of a fictional novel in foreign jurisdictions, a novel they could not and would never read, simply because they heard or believed that specific passages were "blasphemous". It was not enough that they could not read the book or the fact that they could publicly and vociferously criticise it and its author - not even remotely sufficient. The author and its publishers should be punished for a work of fiction, and no one anywhere in the world should have the right to read such a "sacrilegious" work. 

This was a brazen demand for a worldwide, perpetual injunction against anything remotely critical of Islam or its Prophet, as arbitrarily determined by offended Muslims and their leaders. For the first time in modern history, the West's eyes were opened to an ideology antithetical to any concept of free thought and liberty; an unadulterated, unfiltered beast of religious fascism. I refuse to outline the various elements of the novel that incensed Muslims across the world because that elides the real issue at hand: 

 

It is never ever morally acceptable to resort to violence or threats of violence because of speech that offends you. 

 

Any decent person ought to feel moral outrage that such virulence was directed at another human being, let alone an author, for a work of fiction. Since the obvious does not appear to be so obvious, even if we are dealing with the odious, deliberately provocative speech of hideous Anti-Semites, Klansmen, Neo-Nazis, misogynists, homophobes or any other bigots, there is absolutely no room for exceptions to the rule:

 

Responding with violence or threats of violence to speech, even if it is vile, intolerable or hateful, is never ever morally acceptable. 

 

Even in cases where the speech uttered is illegal, there is no room for adjustment:

 

Responding with violence or the threat of violence to speech, even illegal and harmful speech, is unacceptable. 

 

We are not animals living in the jungle; we have institutional structures to deal with legal wrongs. In cases where speech offends specific individuals, they are free to ignore it, walk away, or peacefully respond with counter-speech. This should be a trite observation, yet it is not. Let this be a lesson to those who riot and disrupt speeches across college and university campuses - you are following the exact pattern of manufactured victimhood as those religious fanatics who burn books, threaten and kill at the mere thought of "insulting" speech against their creed. Your transgressions may not be of the same moral gravity, but if you are somewhere on the same moral spectrum as religious extremists, you are doing something egregiously wrong. 

It is imperative to recount some of the critical reactions that followed the publication of The Satanic Verses in September 1988. 

1. (1988) - Mere days after the book was published in the United Kingdom, death threats began piling up against Mr Rushdie, compelling him to cancel trips and seek the protection of a bodyguard at times. The book's publisher, Viking Press, began receiving tens of thousands of menacing letters. 
2. (1988) - The novel is banned in India, South Africa, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia and Qatar. 
3. (1988) - The Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK wrote to the British government, demanding a ban of the novel under then-existing blasphemy laws. 
4. (1988) - The first book burning of The Satanic Verses in the UK, where 7,000 Muslims attend the burning of the city of Bolton. 
5. (1989) - 6 people were killed and a further 100 injured when 10,000 people attacked the American Cultural Center in Islamabad in protests against Mr Rushdie and his book. 
6. (1989) - Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, sends Mr Rushdie a special Valentine's Day surprise by issuing a fatwa, calling on all Muslims to execute all those involved in the publication of the novel; this was reinforced by hefty bounties offered by various Islamic organisations. Mr Rushdie was forced to enter into the protection of the British government. 
7. (1989) - Various bookstore chains in the United States declared that they would no longer sell the book out of fear of reprisals. 
8. (1989) - Bookstores in California were firebombed for selling the novel. Firebombs destroyed the offices of Riverdale Press in the Bronx; a caller to 911 said the bombing was retaliation for an editorial defending the right to read the novel and criticising the chain stores that stopped selling it. 
9. (1989) - Iran officially broke diplomatic relations with Britain. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference called on its 46 member governments to prohibit the novel. Following the call, many nations with sizeable Muslim populations, such as Malaysia, Thailand and Sri Lanka, imposed heavy penalties and, in some cases, imprisonment for the mere possession of the book. 
10. (1989) - In the small Northern Italian city of Reggio Emilia, unknown attackers smashed the windows of four bookstores that had displayed The Satanic Verses. Back in London, up to 20,000 Muslims gathered in Parliament Square, in a scene resembling a medieval horror novel, to burn effigies of Mr Rushdie and call again for the novel's banning. 
11. (1991) - Hitoshi Igarashi, the novel's Japanese translator, was stabbed to death, and Ettore Capriolo, its Italian translator, was seriously wounded after being stabbed multiple times. 
12. (1993) - 37 Turkish intellectuals participating in a literary festival were killed when a mob burned down their hotel in Turkey. Why? Because one of the participants was Azis Nesin, who had previously announced that he would get the book translated and published. The mob demanded that Mr Nesin be handed over for summary execution. After he was not turned over, the mob set the hotel alight, though Mr Nesin managed to escape. 

 

The immediate reaction to the Rushdie Affair also revealed cancer in the West, a malignant tumour metastasising into a liberal apologia. You would think that a death warrant against an author, book burnings, terroristic intimidation, bombings, violent riots, and the death of countless innocent lives would have precipitated an unambiguous, unwavering defence of the freedom of speech and an excoriation of violence and threats of violence against those who dare to think and speak freely. The response was disappointing and often spineless - a half-baked denunciation of brutality and lunacy, but with a cowardly qualification that the author insulted millions upon millions of devout followers, engaging in a toxic moral relativisation. 

Shortly after the Ayatollah's fatwa, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, found it an appropriate occasion to demand the British government expand its blasphemy to cover other religions, including Islam. Through its newspaper, L' Osservatore Romano, the Vatican placed most of the blame on Mr Rushdie. Most of the paper's commentary focused on criticism of The Satanic Verses, not the international death warrant sanctioned by the spiritual leader of a repressive theocracy. Nor was it clear whether anyone writing for the Vatican newspaper had bothered to read the novel. All the Holy See's article could muster was the sanctimonious statement that:

 

"The very attachment to our faith induces us to deplore that which is irreverent and blasphemous in the book's contents."

 

Less than a month after the Ayatollah's fatwa was issued, Jimmy Carter published a statement through the Carter Center. The title of the piece was Rushdie's Book Is An Insult. That a former American President, the leader of a Constitutional Republic that boasts the First Amendment, would deem that title appropriate, especially when Mr Rushdie was hiding due to a mark on his life, was utterly deplorable. The 39th President spent the vast majority of his piece reminding us of the grave insult occasioned on innocent Muslims - the overwhelming majority of which did not, could not and never would read The Satanic Verses, let alone comprehend the "offending passages" within the novel. President Carter, who did not profess whether he had read the novel, indicted it for vilifying the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran. Since Mr Rushdie was a well-versed analyst of Muslim beliefs, he, therefore, "must have anticipated the horrified reaction throughout the Islamic world." This is akin to saying: 

 

Well, you knew these people would be upset, and start burning things, bombing buildings, wanting to kill you and your publishers, so what did you expect? 

 

Mr Carter conflated and elided the real issue at hand by briefly acknowledging the fatwa as an "abhorrent response", but "we should be sensitive to the concern and anger that prevails among the more moderate Moslems." That's a hell of a thing to say after an international campaign of terror because some religious fanatics went into homicidal hysteria about a work of fiction. What would have been Carter's proposal? Seeking preclearance from the Grand Imam of Mecca or the Ayatollah of Iran to clarify what is permissible to write, speak or sing? Do we survey the opinions of heads of state of Muslim-majority nations as to how upsetting a particular concept, idea, or opinion may be to their populace before going ahead with publication? 

At the height of the controversy, following the issuing of the death warrant, the British press singularly failed to publish any of the "offending passages" or write anything which evinced any understanding of the novel or that the reporters themselves had read it. Nor did the media challenge any Muslim spokespersons to precisely identify the supposed transgressions committed by Mr Rushdie in his novel. 

This liberal apologia in the West, which was present again and again after the Denmark Cartoon Controversy and after the horrific attack on Charlie Hebdo, is a hideous betrayal of our fundamental values and our proudest liberties. These liberties distinguish us (or ought to) from Banana Republics and Tin-Pot Dictatorships across the world. Furthermore, such craven spinelessness is a slap-in-the-face and utter betrayal of those writers, journalists, essayists, novelists, comedians and intellectuals who are strangulated in oppressive States such as Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, who seek nothing more than a basic right to think, write and speak freely. It should be no surprise that 91 preeminent Arab and Muslim writers wrote a collection of poems, essays and letters supporting freedom of expression in repressive regimes and urged solidarity with the exiled Rushdie. The compendium was published in 1994 with the title For Rushdie.

In 2007, the Queen knighted Salman Rushdie for his exemplary services to literature. The decision of the Honours Committee in Westminster as to whom to recommend for the Annual Honours List became the subject of international hysteria. On June 19th 2007, Pakistan and Iran's governments, in shameless arrogance and self-entitlement, summoned their British Ambassadors to protest against the award and demand an explanation. There were protests and outcries across the Muslim world again. Cognisant of the babyish hysteria, the Foreign Secretary of Her Majesty's Government, a duly elected public official by the citizens of Britain, expressed that the country was "sorry" if people were upset over the knighthood bestowed on Mr Rushdie but sought to explain that it was given for his literary canon. What else would it be awarded for? Mr Rushdie's athletic prowess? His good looks? 

What a despicable statement: Sorry. Sorry for what? Sorry that religious zealots and repressive governments were insulted by a decision of a sovereign state to bestow an honour on one of its citizens? Sorry for having freedom of expression and freedom of the press not subject to approval by religious councils? I am sorry for the subjugation of women in Pakistan, enforced child marriages in Afghanistan, and madrassas in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that indoctrinate children and poison their minds; the vicious Anti-Semitic and Anti-Israeli propaganda disseminated by Islamic governments across the Middle East pumped out ad nauseum daily. I feel great sympathy for religious minorities, homosexuals, writers, comedians, and journalists, amongst others, that are asphyxiated by the heavy hand of governmental oppression in Muslim-majority countries. I am also sorry that we live in a climate of fear, where every publisher, writer, editor and broadcaster must weigh the possibility of a violent reaction to anything written or said that may offend Muslim sensibilities. But sorry for still living in a relatively free country that does not execute writers for blasphemy? Never.

The greatest struggles against mind-control and vapid dogmatism began with enlightened thinkers facing charges of blasphemy and heresy. Socrates was sentenced to death for asking politico-philosophical questions of his students, which led to charges of asebeia (impiety) and the corruption of the youth of Athens. Galileo faced the wrath of the Church and was charged with heresy for his remarkable scientific papers that challenged the cosmologically erroneous view that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. 

Hopefully, Mr Rushdie makes the swiftest and fullest recovery. His body may be ravaged, but his fearless spirit will hopefully reemerge undisturbed. More than ever, the lesson must be this: never give an inch to fanatics. You will never satisfy them. They always come back asking for more. And never, ever qualify condemnation of violence or threats resulting from speech. 

 

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."

                                                                                                                             - Sir Salman Rushdie