Be Careful With Muhammad PDF

BE CAREFUL WITH
MUHAMMAD!
The Salman Rushdie Affair
Shabbir Akhtar
Contents
Preface vii
1 Be Careful with Muhammad! 1
2 Art or Literary Terrorism? 13
3 The Liberal Inquisition 37
4 From Teheran with Love 64
5 What's Wrong with Fundamentalism? 95
6 Faith and Power 107
Epilogue: The Summer of Discontent 129
Preface
An illiterate woman in Bradford went to see her teenage

daughter's schoolteacher, who said to her: 'The Satanic Verses
is brilliant! In Britain we like to read great literature.' She
remained silent and returned home. This book is an attempt
to explain that inarticulate believer's anguish. If it achieves
anything more, it will be a bonus.
1 have written this book in difficult conditions. We were in
the midst of the campaign against The Satanic Verses; and
success was not in sight. But many people have, in widely
different ways, helped me to survive:
Ishtiaq Ahmed. Naila Ahmed. Zamir Akhtar, Arfana
Amin. Shahida Bano. Ib Bellew. David Caute. Kenneth
Cragg, Courtney Gibson. Balbir Kaur. Fazlun Khalid. Rashid
Mufti. Bhikhu Parekh. Andrew Robinson, Mohammed Sad-
dique, Ziauddin Sardar. Ahmed Versi. and Riffat Yusuf, to
mention but a few.
I also wish to thank Rehana Ahmed for cheerfully and
accurately typing the manuscript with such dispatch: and.
finally, someone very close to me who always reminds me
that every human being has the right to fail.
Shabbir Akhtar
Bradford, August 1989
1 Be Careful with
Muhammad!
1
•Believers! Be resolute in the doing of justice,
'Say what you like about God—but be careful with Muham
as witnesses to God, even though it be
mad!' is an old slogan of Western caution about Islam, but
against your own souls, your parents or your
one which we might well take seriously in the wake of the
relatives, and whether it concerns the rich or
controversy surrounding the publication of Salman Rushdie's
the poor. For in the eyes of God neither
The Satanic Verses. The missionaries and other Christians
wealth nor poverty carry any weight. Do not
who preached the Gospel in Islamic lands often found Mus
follow your own desires and thereby pervert
lims to be obstinate in their religious convictions and protec
the truth. Yet if you decide to act in bias and
tive about their Prophet. While Muslims tended to accept
prejudice, God is well aware of the things you
some forms of satire or parody of the divine ways, they rarely
do.'
tolerated insults to Muhammad and his family. Belief in God
Koran. The Women, v. 135
was common to Jews. Christians and Muslims. But endorse
ment of Muhammad's prophethood was the distinguishing
feature of the Muslim outlook. It was the responsibility of
Muslims, therefore, to guard the honour of their Prophet, the
Arabian messenger who had brought them guidance from
Note It is customary for Muslim writers to God.
place the pious expression 'Peace be upon Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses is seen by Muslims as
him' after every mention of the name a calculated attempt to vilify and slander the Prophet of Islam.
Muhammad, especially in devotional Not only has Rushdie said what he pleased about God, he
contexts. The author hopes that it does not has also taken liberties with Muhammad. The reaction of the
seem unduly irreverent to omit this Muslim communities world-wide has been loud and clear.
expression in a primarily argumentative work. The only recent event to have triggered off Muslim emotion
on a scale even remotely comparable to the Rushdie affair
was the attempt to destroy the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem
two decades ago. It will not be our task here to recall all the
many dimensions of the Rushdie saga that have crowded the
world's headlines for many months. But it will be our task to
see why so many Muslims have been willing to spill much
more than merely ink over The Satanic Verses.
Muhammad ibn Abdullah is, on every score of influence
and achievement, a decisive figure in the history of theistic
1
Be Careful with Muhammad! Be Careful with Muhammad!
religion. His contribution to the human quest for the holy of al-Azhar, from the village women of the Third World to
cannot be reasonably denied. Even so. someone might the sophisticates of Western female society.
wonder, why the caution? Why should one be careful with Muhammad is dead. But he is dead only in the least signifi
Muhammad? Is he any different from any other historical cant sense. For he is ideologically alive—and well. The Rush
figure? After all. Moses and Jesus also have vast ideological die affair has demonstrated the extent of Muslim enthusiasm
legacies but the same demand for caution, especially these about their messenger and. in doing so. the quality of their
days, seems unnecessary. allegiance to the ideals he preached. The fact is that the
Moses. Jesus and Muhammad are all seminal figures in the Prophet of Islam is resurrected daily in what must be the
history of Western theism. But Muslims jealously guard the greatest triumph over the limitations of physical extinction.
reputation of their Prophet in a manner that looks odd even It is therefore unsurprising that any attempt to prostitute his
to Jews and Christians, let alone to secularists and rejectors. reputation should have met with such resolute and uncompro
In the Jewish case, disrespect towards Moses and other mising opposition.
Hebrew prophets is tolerated. In fact, blasphemy is restricted
to cursing the Lord; insulting Moses is. strictly speaking, not
blasphemous: 'Say what you like about Moses—but be careful 2
with God.' As for Jesus, wanton attacks on his personality In chapter 33 (verse 21), the Koran describes the life of
and the associated Christian convictions have been common Muhammad as 'a beautiful exemplar' (uswatan hasanah).
place in recent decades in secular Western societies. In gen Elsewhere in the sacred volume, the Prophet is also extolled
eral. Christians have tolerated these affronts; the character as the model of righteousness, the perfect individual. His
assassination of Jesus has been carried out with impunity. actions and ambitions are held to be worthy of our close
Muhammad is unique in the respect and honour afforded scrutiny and imitation. Naturally, for the Muslim conscience
him by his followers. Though not regarded as divine. Muham the imitation of the Prophet becomes a morally excellent
mad is held in the highest possible esteem. No pictorial rep action. Conversely, any attack on this holy pattern is already
resentations are allowed; mention of his name warrants, an attack on a Muslim's own professed ideals.
among the pious, the invocation of divine blessing on him, It is in this context that we need to give a brief summary
his family and companions. His wives are seen as the mothers of the contents of The Satanic Verses and offer concisely a
of the faithful. Every detail of his biography has been pre Muslim rejoinder. The brevity of these introductory remarks
served and countless millions seek to imitate him daily in is not intended to imply any undue dogmatism or foreclosing
every aspect of their lives. of issues. All of the worries set out here will be carried
The reason for the caution, then, is what may be called forward into several subsequent chapters; this account should
'the posthumous authority of Muhammad'. The influence of be read as foreshadowing the fuller ones that follow.
the Arabian Prophet on the lives of millions, through the The plot of The Satanic Verses, in so far as it is intelligible,
patterns of his biography daily imitated, is without parallel in is centred around the lives of two ageing Indian actors.
the whole of history, religious or secular. The imitation of Gibreel Farishta (Gabriel the Angel) and Saladin Chamcha
Muhammad is, unlike the imitation of Christ, an accepted (Saladin 'the Yes man’). Miraculously, they survive the fall
obligation, a routine occurrence. It is the ideal not only for when a plane is blown up in a terrorist attack. Upon descent,
the saints-but for all Muslims, from the beggars in the slums they turn into fantastic embodiments of good and evil, with
of India to the spectacularly wealthy sheikhs of Saudi Arabia, Chamcha, an Anglophile, representing evil. True to their
from the illiterate peasants of Pakistan to the erudite scholars names, Chamcha grows horns and begins to resemble the
2 3
Devil while his angelic companion acquires a halo. Though its status as merely fictional. Muhammad was called Mahound
Chamcha is humiliated as a beast and betrayed by his com by Western polemicists; the episode of the satanic verses is,
panions, he is eventually redeemed by re-adopting his Eastern according to many learned authorities in Islam, an authentic
identity. Gibreel, by contrast, loses his mind, fails as a human one in the history of the revelation of the Arabic Koran;
being, and eventually commits suicide. Rushdie’s Mahound has wives and companions who bear
The story of their lives is inextricably linked to and rede names identical to the names of Muhammad's wives and com
fined in terms of a background narrative about the Prophet panions. Rushdie does not explore, in a fictional context, the
Mahound who lives in the hedonistic metropolis of Jahilia religious mind or religious attitudes in general. He explores
(literally, ignorance)—the pre-Islamic name for Mecca. Now the Muslim mind—the 'Muhammadan' mind. The characters
Mahound was, as Rushdie explains in the book, a derogatory in The Satanic Verses are real historical personalities of the
name for the Prophet Muhammad, used in medieval Christen Islamic tradition —redefined, re-assessed, their motives and
dom. More precisely, Mahound was, in Christian mythology, actions radically if imaginatively reinterpreted. That is why it
an evil personality who joined forces with the Devil and King is fair to note, as Gerald Priestland docs (Sunday Times. 6
Herod. Mahound believes that he is the recipient of divine
November 1988), that Rushdie's book is indeed 'a parody of
revelations which authorise him to preach and propagate a
the prophet Muhammad', and. therefore, one should add. of
new monotheistic religion. According to Rushdie. Mahound,
Islam and the derivative Islamic tradition.
a 'businessman-tumed-prophet' is, in an attempt to attract
The details of the parody must await the next chapter. Only
more followers, ready to entertain the pagan proposal that
a few comments are in order here. The title itself does not
three Meccan goddesses share divine status with the supreme
reflect the dominant theme or content; the name Mahound
being, Allah. At first. Mahound believes that the proposal is
divinely inspired; afterwards he realises that the Devil inter is chosen without adequate literary reason. The character
fered in his reception of the divine message. Though assassination of the Arabian Prophet is here earned out with
Mahound decides to eradicate from his holy book these a precision and ferocity that would shock any decent human
'satanic verses'—from which Rushdie's novel takes its title— being, let alone a Muslim. There are serious allegations:
Mahound's book is in general a value-blind collection in which Muhammad is an unscrupulous politician—‘a smart bastard'
good is routinely confused with evil, divine with diabolic. in Rushdie’s phrase—whose enemies, particularly ideological
The two chapters ‘Mahound’ and 'Return to Jahilia'. con ones, arc the victims of a ruthless anger discrepant with his
taining Gibreel's coherent dreams, are in effect Rushdie's official professions of mercy; the book he claims to bring from
attempt to rewrite chronologically the history of early Islam. God is really just a confused catalogue of trivial rules about
Taken together, along with some subsidiary material in other sexual activity and excretion. Muhammad, according to The
chapters, these sections of the book proffer an alternative Satanic Verses, was a debauched sensualist with 'God's per
biography of Muhammad, his wives and companions. mission to fuck as many women as he pleased'; his household
Someone might immediately query the assumption that is portrayed in pornographic scenes in a brothel incongruously
dream sequences in a novel can reasonably be interpreted to called 'The Veil'—the symbol of female modesty and chastity
be an alternative historical account. But. as the Hindu writer in the Islamic ethical outlook.
Bhikhu Parekh has so ably shown (New Statesman <4 Society, A man who brought a book that directly inspired a major
23 March 1989). the events and characters in The Satanic world civilisation is here portrayed as an insincere impostor
Verses bear so striking a resemblance to actual events and with purely political ambitions. The revered Prophet of an
characters in Islamic history that one has grounds to doubt established and ancient faith re-emerges as a man motivated
4 5
by purely and irredeemably evil impulses. Muslim anger and established historical records or even that he has written a
resentment are easy to understand. satire about things sacred. There are wider issues too which
Had the voice of mockery in The Satanic Verses been even hinge on the fact that we live in a society that is often
slightly more subdued, there would have been grounds for described as multi-racial (or rather, multi-cultural, for there
restraint and forbearance. But an authentic Muslim is bound is only one race, the human race). It is unwise for us, in such
to feel intolerably outraged by the book's claims, for Rushdie a context, casually to allow our idolatry of art to obscure
writes with all the knowledge of an insider. This is not to issues of great social and political concern. One would think
deny his right to explore, in fiction, the great parameters of that, in a plural democracy, we should all generate respect
life, sexuality, mortality and the existence (or non-existence) rather than hatred for opposed yet conscientiously held con
of deity. But Muslims must and do take issue with his choice victions. To be sure, there will be conflicts; and writers have
of idiom and the temper it serves. His treatment is uniformly the right to identify and condemn evil and injustice wherever
supercilious and dismissive; his reservations are shallow, they find them without being unduly shackled by fear of giving
playful, predictable, unoriginal. One looks in vain in his offence. But these frictions and differences are containable
unprincipled prose for the reverent yet iconoclastic doubt in a mature democracy so long as we do not tolerate, let
which might set the agenda for the Islamic Enlightenment. alone encourage, a form of ridicule that breeds resentment
There is nothing in The Satanic Verses which helps to bring to the point of frustration and hence personal and social
Islam into a fruitful confrontation with modernity, nothing dislocation. It can never be right to defend, in the name of
that brings it into thoughtful contact with contemporary secu liberalism, works that demean and humiliate human nature
larly and ideological pluralism. Rushdie’s scepticism fails to and tradition in any of their established forms. Militant evil
teach the ignorant, disturb the orthodox, agitate and educate has enough sponsors already without liberal society lending
the indifferent. Sceptics there have been and always will be. another helping hand.
What matters is the quality and integrity of their reservations.
Let me introduce an autobiographical note here. Ever since
the publication of The Satanic Verses in September 1988. my 3
name has been associated with the campaign for its with The question of Rushdie is inseparable from the question of
drawal. Though there arc pressures of professional diplomacy Muhammad and his faith. The Prophet has been the target
in public contexts. 1 wish to make my position perfectly clear. of Western animus periodically for onc-and-a-half millennia.
I believe that The Satanic Verses is a calculated attempt to The current debate has. at this late hour, virtually nothing to
vilify and slander Muhammad. It is my conviction that while do with Rushdie or his book, let alone with freedom of
freedoms of belief, expression, conscience, and dissent are speech. For these latter debates are containable and indeed
rightly valued in a liberal democratic society, it is immoral to resolvable given the modesty of the Muslim demand and the
defend, in the name of these freedoms, wanton attacks on capacity of Western governments to fulfil it. The Rushdie
established religious (and indeed humanist) traditions. There affair retains its momentum largely because of the incidence
is all the difference in the world between sound historical of deep psychic tensions within a Western conscience con
criticism that is legitimate and ought to be taken seriously, fronting an authentically Islamic temper. Part of the concern
on the one hand, and scurrilous imaginative writing which here is fuelled by the contemporary fear, in itself absurdly
should be resolutely rejected and withdrawn from public cir unrealistic, that Muslim immigrant populations want to build
culation. a theocracy in the heart of a European country. But, more
What matters here is not simply that Rushdie has falsified plausibly, for complex historical reasons, Islam has always
6 7
been a threatening presence on and around Western fron the Believers, films such as Harem and Strike Force—all
tiers-and not merely on account of its geographical proxim convey the same picture of an intolerant and cruel faith whose
ity. Indeed the threat has been to the whole of 'the West' votaries cling to bygone certainties. Nor are these portraits
in the ideological (rather than geographical) sense of the of Islam in serious conflict with Western academic scholar
civilisation created, through world-wide colonial exploitation, ship. On the contrary, there is a whole host of disciplines,
by the peoples of Europe. It is not surprising that the faith engaging countless ‘experts', all united in their biased opinion
of the Arabian Prophet is increasingly a major variable in the of Islam. This negative image of Muslims and their faith is
ideological calculations of Christian missionaries and Western perpetuated with a consistency and vigour that makes at least
apologists. one conspiracy theory appear close to the mark.
The parody of Muhammad and the Muslim tradition in The There are. of course, many grounds for the sustained West
Satanic Verses has clear echoes of the worst brand of oriental ern animus against Islam. For one thing Islam was originally
ist sentiment for which the term 'prejudice' is decidedly leni and has remained, for the Western Christian conscience, a
ent. Even if we leave aside the evil and unjust polemic of a religious puzzle. Why Muhammad and the Koran after Christ
Dante in the Middle Ages, there is plenty of animus in works had walked among men as God incarnate and proffered ulti
published in the heyday of Western Christian imperialism. mate salvation? Muslims, with much reason, regard Islam
Washington Irving's Mahomet and His Successors has. on its as the culmination of the Hebrew style of religiosity with
title page, an imaginary painting of the Prophet with a sword Christianity as essentially an aberration. At any rate, the
in one hand and a Koran in the other. His nineteenth-century very existence of Islam in the world implies that the Judaeo-
contemporary Sir William Muir is more explicit: 'The sword Christian faith complex does not exhaust the Western mono
of Mahomet, and the Coran are the most fatal enemies of theistic tradition.
civilization, liberty and truth which the world has yet known.’ The problem of Islam has always been much more than
Little has changed over the centuries. Though some recent merely 'religious’—if only because Muslims have always seen
academic scholarship has moved in the direction of objectivity Islam as a unified enterprise of faith and power. Christians
and imaginative sympathy, there has been no substantial shift could hardly ignore the political potential of a religious ideol
in opinion. As for the popular mind, the old prejudices cer ogy that has to its credit the fastest permanent conquest of
tainly prevail. Barbaric, fanatical, out-dated, exotic, oppres recorded military history. To the medieval mind, nothing
sive. sensual—all are contemporary Western descriptions of could explain the phenomenal success of the new faith other
Islam. Predictably the monotheism of Muhammad emerges than as the work of the Devil. In later centuries the ambitions
as the natural habitat of all the base passions—extravagant of Islamic imperialism continued to exercise Western apolo
sensuality, bloodthirstiness and fanaticism. Islam is the lower gists. who were themselves no strangers to that impulse.
unbridled nature of man. motivated by impulses which Chris Western apologists have always wanted to believe that
tianity and civilisation together tame and control. Even the Islam is an inferior and unoriginal faith and have always had
sacred personalities of the Islamic tradition, including difficulty in believing it. That Muhammad was an insincere
Muhammad, are seen as fanatical and irredeemably evil, their impostor—*a smart bastard' as Rushdie would say—has
humanity overwhelmed by their lust for power. always been hard to reconcile with his manifest achievements
There is a great deal of popular fiction and journalism to as a religious reformer. Islamic civilisation, based on a
perpetuate these and related assessments. Novels such as religiously sanctioned respect for literacy and scholarship, has
Leon Uris's Haj. social critiques such as John Laffin's The since its inception remained a serious intellectual rival to
Dagger of Islam, travelogues such as V. S. Naipaul's Among the Christian outlook. Indeed Islam itself has been a great
8 9
temptation to Christian believers; the rate of conversion from all too easy and tempting to misuse these words. To call a
Christianity to Islam is the highest of any inter-faith move movement ‘fundamentalist’ is. with many writers, already to
ments, often attracting highly distinguished individuals. discredit it. It is high time that we questioned the assumption
prevalent in both academic and popular contexts, that funda
mentalist options in religion necessarily lack intellectual cre
4 dentials.
Under the impact of increased tensions in the Muslim world The insistence on a proper terminology is part of the larger
in the last two decades there has been an attempt, quite concern to question stereotypical assessments. The dominant
deliberate and perhaps even co-ordinated, to construct an view of Islam among unsympathetic Christian and Marxist
influential stereotype of contemporary 'fundamentalist' Islam. thinkers is that Islam is essentially a false religion with danger
It is a stereotype that feeds on indelible images of apparently ous political potential. It is not surprising that their accounts
motiveless malice and terror. Hardly a day passes without employ a loaded terminology which betrays not only misun
some report of political violence in Iran. Lebanon, and derstandings but often deliberate misrepresentations of the
Israel's Occupied Territories. And it is almost always themes under discussion.
fundamentalist Islam, according to the newscasters, that is Take, for example, the old myth of Islam as an anti-intcllcc-
agitating the Muslim masses. tualist creed. Rushdie revives the view that the Koran radi
Contemporary Western attitudes towards militant Islam are cally vetoes scholarship, for it already contains all of it. ‘Bum
well reflected in the titles of recent books. The Dagger of the books and trust the Book!' Rushdie's Imam, who has set
Islam. Sacred Rage. The Holy Killers of Islam, and television his face against progress and knowledge, becomes the perfect
documentaries, 'The Sword of Islam’. ‘The Fire of Islam', to Muslim. Yet the view is clearly laughable. For the scripture
mention but a few. It is rare that one comes across a widely of Islam can claim the unique privilege of having directly
available work whose author resists the temptation to sen inspired a major world civilisation based on a religiously sanc
sationalism and opts for modest titles or sub-titles. Every tioned respect for literacy and learning. The early Muslims
where violent language like ■terror’, 'rage’, 'dagger', spices developed a great rational philosophical tradition which was
the title and triggers off reactions, variously, of withdrawal, itself part of the inspiration for both the Renaissance and the
anger, fear and contempt by readers located firmly within the European Enlightenment. That Rushdie should choose to be
Western constituency, in virtue of geography as well as of a literary terrorist is itself a fitting tribute to the intelligent
ideology and prejudice. It is revealing that many libraries earnestness of Islam as a faith of the pen.
innocently stock books on fundamentalist Islam under 'War Islam is an influential and suggestive view of the world and
and Terrorism'. of our place in it. Whether coherent or not. whether true or
Where partisan political passion, whether for Islam or false, it has guided, and continues to guide, the lives of milli
against it. is so firmly linked to scholarship, objectivity is hard ons in a universal political constituency. Like any major ideol
to come by. Yet objectivity is something we desperately need. ogy, it is a powerful vision with ambiguous potentialities—
In their discussions of Islamic fundamentalism, both Muslims producing both moral greatness and enlightenment as well as
and their opponents need to re-assess emotive terminology appalling obscurantism and restriction of human sympathies.
and the negative images it conveys. For the choice of vocabu On every score, it deserves to be understood and properly
lary is politically consequential. Part of the task here is to assessed.
rescue terms such as 'militant Islam' and ‘religious fundamen
talism’ from the disrepute into which they have fallen. It is
10 11
Be Careful with Muhammad!
5
Muhammad is easily the most maligned religious personality
2 Art or Literary Terrorism?
in the whole of history. But he is also. I would argue, the
most influential. Indeed the Rushdie affair is a conclusive
confirmation cf the extent of his posthumous authority for
Muslims.
'Be careful with Muhammad', runs the cautionary maxim. 1
It is as well to heed it. In 1924 a Hindu religionist in Lahore
ignored the advice and published his iconoclastic Rangila 'The way in which art changes society', said Salman Rushdie
Rasul (-The Meny Messenger' or 'The Playboy Prophet'). He in an interview in the autumn of 1988. 'is never in a broad
insisted that Muhammad was a libertine whose religion was sweep . . . —you write a book and governments fall—that
fit only for villains and impostors. The author was murdered
never happens.' Doesn't it?
by a Muslim: and the Muslim was hanged by the British There are works of the pen —admittedly not novels—which
authorities in India. One certainly had to be careful with
topple dynasties. The Bible, the Koran, and Das Kapital are
all books which have, in their different ways, undermined
Muhammad.
entire power structures that have resisted their revolutionary
The life of the Arabian Prophet is of great interest to many
thinkers and historians, whether Muslim, Jewish. Hindu or proposals. And in Rushdie's novel Mahound wrote a book
and many governments-in fact two whole empires—fell. The
secular. It is also valid territory for imaginative reconstruc
tion; after all even historical events are the subject of specu pen can be mightier than the sword not least when its ink is
lation and controversial interpretation. But neither historical used to praise it.
nor fictional exploration of his biography can. with impunity, Let us turn now directly to Rushdie's novel. The Satanic
lapse into abuse and slander. Rushdie relishes scandalous Verses is, on every score of influence and publicity, a work
suggestion and pejorative language. His account is uniformly which assures Rushdie a place in literary history and, accord
self-indulgent, calculated to shock and humiliate Muslim sen ing to Michael Foot, an honourable place in general history.
sibilities. It is unwise to ignore the role of provocation and In this chapter 1 shall review the book, examine its salient
polemic in exciting hatred and anger to the point of physical themes, and set down, rather starkly, the central objections
that a Muslim conscience must necessarily raise.
confrontation. In The Satanic Verses. Rushdie is handling the
I should say to begin with that Muslim critics of the work
ultimate love and passion of millions. If one handles precious
have been accused of taking the allegedly offending material
things, one does well to handle them with care.
out of context and throwing it about as, in Bhikhu Parekh's
apt phrase, ‘polemical hand grenades'. (New Statesman and
Society. 23 March 1989). That many Muslim leaders have not
read the whole book is true enough. But those who classify
themselves as critics certainly have. To discuss some selected
pieces out of a lengthy work is not in itself tantamount to
ignoring the total context. A fair critic needs to be aware of
the overall context and make clear its connection or signifi
cantly its lack of connection with the selected passages. That
will be my procedure in the coming pages.
12 13
Be Careful with Muhammad! Art or Literary Terrorism?
2 entitled 'Ayesha' and 'The Parting of the Arabian Sea' deal

with a superstitious peasant girl in Rushdie's India who plans
The Satanic Verses opens with a terrorist bomb that blows its a pilgrimage, through the Arabian Sea, to Mecca. Given that
two central characters out of the jumbo jet carrying them Ayesha was. in real life, the Arabian Prophet's young wife
from Bombay to London (p.2), Gibreel Farishta and Saladin and that a character by the same name appears in a brothel
Chamcha—‘us wogs' in Rushdie's phrase (p.51)-survive to scene set in Muhammad's Mecca (pp.384 ff.) we cannot
represent a symbolic angel and devil respectively. Gibreel assume that these two chapters are irrelevant to Muslim reser
Farishta. an Indian film star, identified by some readers with vations about the novel.
the hugely popular real-life movie idol Amitabh Bachchan. is
running away from his obligations in Bombay. He is forty
when the story begins and very upset about his declining 3
career. In the past Gibreel has often played Hindu deities in Several sections of the book arc set in modem London.
the Indian cinema. His illness creates, credibly, a national Though it will not be our task to examine these in detail, a
crisis and elicits even Rajiv Gandhi's sympathies (p.28). few general comments are necessary to establish their
Our other protagonist. Saladin Chamcha, is a middle-class relationship to the allegedly offensive material. Rushdie
Anglophile who wants to return to London after a theatrical explores the difficulties of life in a multi-ethnic Western city,
season in India, during which his identity as a proper English the meaning of migration, the dislocation both physical and
gentleman has become difficult to sustain. As the son of a psychological that the act of travelling entails. How do men
wealthy businessman. Saladin had the means to migrate to and women cope with migration? (How did Mahound cope
England early on in life. He found work as an actor and with his migration—hijra—from Mecca to Medina?)
eventually as a dubber on commercials (p.60). Like his rich In a sense The Satanic Verses is a tale of three cities—
father. Saladin is thoroughly secular in his outlook (pp.43. London. Bombay, and Jahilia. Indeed the three places are.
531). After falling from the aeroplane Saladin has acquired says Rushdie in an interview reprinted in the Bookseller
horns and hooves. (Autumn 1988). 'really the same place’. And, accordingly.
The narrative, in so far as it is coherent and intelligible, Rushdie writes as if they were. On one level, this simply
proceeds through a system of flashbacks on a variety of levels. means that the story of Mahound is told in a modern idiom —
For our purposes here, it is Gibreel’s dream sequences in a mixture of journalese and irreverent Bombay diction. The
chapters 2 and 6 that need to be carefully examined. In them, whole ethos of Jahilia is distinctly Indian (as opposed to
the interaction between the good and the evil characters is Arabian) with countless idioms, including swear-words,
defined and fleshed out in terms of a background story of whose insinuations are lost upon Western readers. On the
Rushdie's Prophet. Mahound. who founds a new religion in face of it. this makes The Satanic Verses seem peculiar and
the city of Jahilia—the pre-lslamic name for Islam's holy city. unconvincing.
Chapters 2 and 6 together offer, in Muslim eyes, a crude But there is a much more powerful strain on credibility and
caricature of the classic biography of Muhammad. Rushdie, it is one that relates directly to the larger question of the
through Gibreel’s serial dreaming, offers an alternative coherence of the magical realist' method in general. Is it
account of the Prophet's activities in Mecca and, after the indeed a coherent assumption that cities as historically and
migration (hijra), in Medina. Parts of Chapter 6 supplement geographically diverse as Bombay. London and Jahilia are
this narrative as Rushdie discusses the varied roles of God, really the same place? For even places made contemporary
Satan and the archangel Gabriel. The chapters 4 and 8 by history may fail to be contemporary in ethos. And how
14 15
much more must thev fail in this respect if they also fail to Having said this, it is also worth saying that many parts of
be contemporary in time? If Bqmbay and London, tn the The Satanic Verses defy comprehension and tire even the
same century, have little in common, neither Bombay nor sympathetic reader. Of course, there can be integrity in a
London is likely to have much that is significantly in common fictional style mixing fantasy and unreality with truth and fact.
with a seventh-century Arabian metropolis. And it is also sometimes necessary to educate contemporary
This is not to deny sympathy with the aim behind the sensibility by an appeal to the past. But the strains both on
assumption; it is to question its coherence and validity. The credibility and coherence are massive. The Satanic Verses
transference of an incident-its leading out. as it were-from visibly buckles under the pressure; and Rushdie does little to
one century indifferently to another—may be meant to illus alleviate it. On the contrary, he is often self-indulgent, caring
trate the timelcssness of moral norm and the human actions little for the reader puzzled by the complexity or incoher
it shapes. Jahilia for Muslims, like Babylon for Christians, is ence—whichever sounds better—in some of the passages.
a symbol of an irreligious and corrupt urban environment. There is nothing wrong, in principle, in the attempt to explore
How different then is Mahound's Jahilia from our Bombay? the relationship between an uprooted modern religious sen
Isn’t the human condition much the same in all places at all sibility and the sacred record on which it feeds. But the
times? The answer is, of course, both in the affirmative and obligation to maintain intelligibility (if not reverence) is surely
in the negative. In one sense, all the events in the world, in paramount.
all places and at all times, are the same. Why? All the things
we do, whether they unite us or divide us. are bound to unite
us because all the actors are human. Even where there is 4
rivalry in a game the players are united because the game Rushdie has a fine insight into the deep, almost unjust, pos
they play is the same. In the human game, there is perversity, sessive love Indian mothers experience for their sons.
weakness, failure and sometimes triumph, whether the play Gibreel's mother lovingly refers to her dreamer son as both
ers be in London, Bombay, Jahilia or indeed anywhere else. an angel and a devil. How revealing is this hint about the
But it is surely questionable whether or not one can meaning value-blindness of a mother’s love! But equally, how unhelp
fully explore, beyond a certain point, our modern predica ful an implication it is on the metaphysical level. For devils
ment in terms of seventh-century settings. It is a remarkable are not angels; and good is not evil. Gibreel interiorises his
irony that Muslims eager to interpret the Koran for the benefit mother’s love and swallows with it, so to speak, the ambiguity
of modem audiences are frequently reminded that its ancient of its motivation. In the process he becomes confused about
context renders it irrelevant to the twentieth century and its his own identity.
dilemmas. The confusion of the sacred and the profane, the good and
This is not meant to be a conclusive objection to the method the evil, allegedly revealed truth and purely human truth,
of The Satanic Verses. Attempts to explore, in fiction, the supplies the central metaphysical theme of the novel. Both
notion of cultural displacement do not easily succeed. And the internal ambiguity in each of these categories and their
Rushdie does manage to convey something of the sense of dependence on each other interest Rushdie. Is Gibreel Fari-
guilt and creative doubt such displacement causes for the shta really an angel? Or is he insane? What is the true nature
immigrant in general. The return from exile, the return to of good? If Gibreel’s opposite number, Saladin Chamcha,
faith is not simply a once-and-for-all event in the past; it is appears to be the Devil, does that imply a radical increase in
part of a continuous present which renews and sustains a his capacity for evil? How much more evil is Chamcha than
hybrid identity combining the past and the present. Gibreel or, for that matter, than you and I?
16 17
Be Careful with Muhammad.' Art or Literary Terrorism?
Rushdie takes the incident of the satanic verses' from early bound to be invalid. Our failure to attain either pure good
Islamic history in order to give dramatic form to the central, or pure evil in our lives does not imply that there is no
rather abstract, metaphysical theme of his work. Before we distinction between good and evil. As for Rushdie’s obscure
turn to an examination of that incident, it is worth noting metaphysical claim that good and evil have a common origin,
Rushdie's own professed aims and assessing how far he suc it is difficult even to grasp its meaning. In any case, having
ceeds, In a pre-publication interview. Rushdie remarked that a common origin need not entail any subsequent lack of
in The Satanic Verses he 'wanted to work out some kind of distinction: the fact that men and women have a common
ethic of impurity'. He went on to say that his Islam was 'not origin in their mother's wombs does not entail that there is
at all the pure faith of a Pakistani Muslim'. Rushdie's brand of no real distinction between the sexes.
klam had been 'infiltrated by Hinduism. Sikhism, Christianity
and other beliefs' one finds in a cosmopolitan multi-faith
society such as India. His comment is interesting in the light 5
of the Bradford Pakistani Muslims' decision to bum his book Rushdie takes the incident of 'the satanic verses' as a basis
in January 1989. which could be seen as an attempt to avoid for exploring the temptation to opportunism and compromise
any contamination of their faithful heritage. Rushdie has his in the advocacy of religious creed. According to two early
reasons for opposing the purists: 'Most of our problems begin learned authorities, ibn Sa'd and a Persian historian at Tabari.
when people try to define the world in terms of a stark Satan successfully interfered in the reception of the revealed
opposition between good and evil, or in terms of racial or text on one occasion. During the revelation of the 53rd chap
national purity.' (Bookseller). ter, the divinely revealed verses 19 and 20 (‘Have you con
This is certainly a salutary reminder. But surely it cannot sidered al-Lat and al-TJzza and Manat, the third, the other?’)
be an apologia for deliberately making things impure. There were followed by two additional verses inspired by the Devil:
are two separate issues here: one is the purity and integrity 'These are the exalted birds whose intercession is to be
of an ideal (such as Islam or humanism). The other is the desired.' Since the three idols mentioned were regarded as
purity of those who espouse it. The fact that we all fail to deities by the pagan Meccans—in fact as daughters of the
live up to our professed ideals—a part of the failings of our supreme being, Allah—these satanic verses were wrongly
common humanity—is not a reason for diluting the ideal. The thought to authorise their claim to divinity. So Muhammad’s
fact that each of us. Muslim or non-Muslim. is a mixture of God had accepted the gods of the Meccans as having equal
good and evil impulses, does not by itself imply that the divine status: the audience, both Muslim and pagan, fell down
metaphysical distinction between good and evil is somehow in prostration, united for once. The Prophet was pleased to
only relative rather than absolute. note a dramatic increase in the number of adherents to the
I labour this point because the dispute is over the issue of new faith. A subsequent revelation, however, in chapter 17
the integrity of the distinction between good and evil. Thcists (w. 73-5) indicates that the passages warranting acceptance
believe that the created world is endowed with this integrity of the pagan goddesses were inspired by Satan. Accordingly,
by God’s own decree or fiat. The plot of Rushdie's novel the satanic contribution was removed from the sacred corpus;
involves a radical questioning both of that integrity and of and the resulting canon has, from the earliest times, enjoyed
the allegedly divine procedure for maintaining it in the real universal currency.
world, It questions both by noting the failure of men and The incident has been disputed by many Muslims both in
women to attain either complete evil or complete good in the past and the present and even by one or two non-Muslims,
their lives. Put in this way. one can see that the argument is most notably the great Italian Islamicist Caetani. But the
18 19
Koran itself, notably in chapter 22 (v. 52) recognises the risks about 'every damn thing' (p.363) issued by a God who
and liabilities of divine revelatioq. Consequently, recitations ■sounded so much like a businessman’ (p.364). The recipient
of the Koran, both in public and in private, are always pref of the revelations was 'no angel, you understand' (p.366), the
aced by a declaration seeking divine immunity from diabolic occasions of the revelations well timed to suit his personal
influence. wishes and the political requirements of his situation (p.364).
Though many Muslims reject its authenticity, the incident Among its many honourable titles, the Koran describes
of the satanic verses is actually a tribute both to the scrupulous itself as 'the criterion'. The sacred volume sets out a standard
honestv of a Muslim tradition that recorded such a potentially of right and wrong, distinguishes between guidance and error
damaging event and also to the integrity and sincerity of (Koran, chapter 2, v.256). The Muslim conscience, schooled
Muhammad as God's spokesman. For elsewhere, in recog in its idioms, adopts its iconoclastic temper as its own on
nition of Muhammad's illiteracy and lack of mental indepen every occasion. Muhammad, as the paradigmatic Muslim, is
dence in the face of divine revelation, the Koran counsels counselled to enjoin what is right and forbid what is evil
him to recite exactly what the angel shows him. According to throughout his prophetic career. Rushdie's attack on the auth
Islamic orthodoxy, rightly or wrongly. Muhammad's role in oritative integrity of a fallible Koran is therefore part of a
the reception of the revelation was that of a robot. His own much larger indictment of Islam as a faith which routinely
faculties were suspended, there being no conscious author and regularly confuses good with evil, divine with diabolic
ship. In the case of the controversial chapter 53. the Prophet imperative. And yet with respect to a religion that uniquely
was following the Koran's own advice about his role in the continues to distinguish itself for its totally uncompromising
human reception of the divine word. emphasis on the distinction between right and wrong, such
According to Rushdie (pp. 112-24), the satanic revelation an indictment is at once ridiculously ironic and radically
is self-induced by Mahound in order to please his arch-enemy, offensive.
the disbelieving Abu Simbal—or historically. Abu Sufyan,
identifiable on account of Rushdie's reference to his wife
Hind. Mahound's own disciples. Khalid. Hamza. Salman,
and Bilal are disappointed by the concessions implied in 'the 6
satanic verses'. Rushdie insinuates that the Abyssinian slave There are a number of historical inaccuracies in The Satanic
Bilal, who converted to Islam, was a more committed mono Verses. One of them is hugely significant. In the novel Rush
theist than Mahound. Indeed Abu Simbal's passionate die makes his namesake. Salman—the first Persian convert
spouse. Hind, emerges as more unaimpromising in her idol to Islam—embrace the new faith in Mecca. Salman becomes
atry than Mahound in his Islam. Impressed by the severity of the illiterate Prophet Mahound's trusted scribe; dissatisfied
the pagan conscience, Mahound decides to reject his earlier with the sacred writ. Salman decides to test the authenticity
compromise and invents a new version compatible with his of the alleged revelations by interweaving his own work with
strict Islamic monotheism. Rushdie's Prophet Mahound that of Mahound’s God. ‘I was writing the Revelation and
emerges, then, as an insincere pragmatist willing to sacrifice nobody was noticing' (p.368). First he changes minor
his principles to attract followers. details—and Mahound fails to notice; Salman subsequently
Rushdie takes an arguably real incident in the history of makes major changes in law and doctrine—and Mahound still
the revelation of the Arabic Koran and makes it into the basis fails to notice the alterations. Disillusioned with the Prophet
of sweeping and gratuitous accusations. The sacred scripture and the puritanical Muslim culture of Medina, Salman
of Islam is reduced to a value-blind catalogue of trivial rules becomes an apostate, goes back to the hedonistic metropolis
20 21
of Jahilia and launches a bitter ideological assault on the not Rushdie, who does so (p.95). But such a defence is con
ungrateful Mahound and his absurdly evil teachings. siderably weaker in the case of Rushdie's namesake Salman.
Rushdie takes considerable liberties with the biography For Salman seems to have been created specifically to parody
of the historical character Salman al-Farsi. Salman actually the principles of Islam.
converted to Islam in the early part of the Prophet's ministry Salman tells the anti-Islamic poet Baal about his experience
in Medina and remained loyal to Muhammad all his life. with Muhammad that 'the closer you are to a conjurer, the
Muhammad was unduly fond of Salman, often referring to easier to spot the trick'. And again on the same page,
him as his family, though Salman was not an Arab. ■Mahound has no time for scruples ... no qualms about ends
Thus, according to Rushdie. Salman the Persian, for whom and means' (p.363). Mahound ‘laid down the law and the
Arabic was a foreign tongue, writes the Koran as he pleases angels would confirm it afterwards' (p.365). Salman detests
and no one notices the changes. Muslim indignation is not the comprehensive rules of the Shari'ah (Islamic law); laws
altogether unjustified. (Ironically. Rushdie, through his for everything, ‘all those revelations of convenience' (p.365).
namesake Salman, predicts his own fate at the hands of out Rushdie, through Salman, invents a few new rules himself
raged Muslims, for Salman knows that blasphemy cannot go (pp.363-5): ‘Sodomy and the missionary position were
unpunished.) Muslim sensibilities have been sharply pro approved of by the archangel, whereas the forbidden postures
voked by Rushdie's allegations about the textual impurity of included all those in which the female was on top' (p.364).
the Koran. No piece of sacred literature has been so carefully The angel Gibreel lists forbidden and permitted topics of
preserved in its original language as the Arabic Koran. The conversation, and specifies parts of the body which should
early community felt, with reverence and awe. that these never be scratched even if these itch uncomfortably, and so
revelations vouchsafed to Muhammad were inimitably mir on.
aculous—the literal and infallible word of Allah, to be care
fully preserved and transmitted to future generations. The
canon of the Koran was already established at the time of 7
Muhammad's death and. unlike the Bible, it has not under Good writers exercise integrity not only in their choice of
gone even the smallest change. Indeed even unintelligible theme but also once they have chosen it. Rushdie fails on the
letters, prefixed to certain chapters, are scrupulously repro latter score. The theme of revelation is central to Islam; and
duced as part of the revealed text up to this day. Rushdie has every right to give ‘a secular, humanist vision of
Why does Rushdie create the character Salman by a total the birth of a great world religion'. Indeed a plausible secular
reversal of the biography of the historical character Salman account of revelation would be an indispensable part of any
al-Farsi? Some apocryphal sources suggest that Muhammad radical reservation about the Islamic outlook. But The Satanic
did employ an amanuensis who subsequently doubted the Verses fails to offer a convincing account of the prophetic
revelations and became an apostate. Could Rushdie be con experience interpreted from a disbelieving perspective.
flating two different historical characters? At any rate, it is Rushdie does not necessarily intend to deny the power of
hard to resist the suspicion that Rushdie invents a mouthpiece revealed messages. His central aim is to explain—and perhaps
to launch a bitter diatribe against Islam and all things Islamic. explain away—the prophetic experience. In a pre-publication
In Gibrecl's drcams, it is Salman who utters the most profane interview. Rushdie conceded that, as a disbeliever, he
and vulgar remarks about Mahound and his religion. Muslims rejected the traditional model of the divine word descending
have often complained that Rushdie calls Abraham a bastard; on an illiterate prophet. Yet Rushdie claims that he does not
to which defenders of Rushdie have retorted that it is Hagar, wish to dismiss the recipient as a straightforward liar. How,
22 23
then, is the allegedly sacred experience to be interpreted? Is 8

it simply self-deception? Can one have a perceptive secular
account of revelation that takes it seriously yet denies the The Satanic Verses is written in a language that is at times
recipient’s own claim about its supernatural origins and caus gratuitously obscene and wounding. In the controversial sec
ation? Predictably Rushdie opts for the view that the revel tions about Mahound. the locales Rushdie selects arc almost
atory act is ultimately one extremely fertile form of the purely always sexually suggestive in an immoral way and sometimes
human imagination. To explore that form in a literary context even degrade human nature. Much of the abuse, though, is
is part of his professed task in The Satanic Verses. straightforwardly explicit. Bilal. Khalid and Salman, who are
If these are Rushdie's aims, there can be no question that three of .Mahound's most distinguished companions, emerge
he fails to achieve them. Mahound, the recipient of the sacred as drunkards, idlers, and fools, 'the trinity of scum', 'that
message, emerges as an insincere impostor who self-induccs bunch of riff raff, 'fucking clowns', (pp.101, 117. 374).
revelation whenever it suits him. He is a calculating opportun Mahound himself is portrayed as a debauched sensualist, a
ist devoid of conscience, making and breaking rules as he drunkard given to self-indulgence (p.120). He is depicted
pleases, confusing (or perhaps deliberately identifying) good lying naked and unconscious in Hind’s tent with a hangover
with evil as the mood takes him. Yet this clever and unscrupu (pp.119-21). There are provocative scenes with Mahound and
lous 'prophet' is easily fooled by his secretary who manages Hind (p. 120). and with Mahound and the angel of revelation
to contaminate the allegedly revealed message with a purely (p.122), with Baal and Mahound's wives in a brothel
human contribution. (pp.379-88).
This is hardly a plausible or convincing account of the Rushdie, like many modern authors, clearly rejects the
experience of a seminal prophetic figure. For it raises far traditional literary convention which authorises only the use
more questions than it resolves. Can an insincere man be the of soft and domesticated language even in descriptions of a
founder of a major religious and moral tradition that outlives harsh, ugly, or otherwise disturbing reality. But even if we
him? If Muhammad had been seen, by those who began to make allowances for that, the choice of idiom remains both
follow him. as cynical and unscrupulous, would Islam ever unsuited to the theme and at times unnecessarily self-
have achieved prominence on the stage of world history? Is indulgent.
an insincere Muhammad more convincing than a sincere one? It is Rushdie's use of medieval Christian terminology that
Is an insincere and mistaken Muhammad more convincing has most deeply outraged Muslim sensibilities. In the Middle
than a sincere but mistaken one? Ages, Mahound was a devil believed to have composed the
Rushdie's failure to achieve the more ambitious metaphys Arabic Koran. Muhammad was often referred to as Mahound
ical goals is much more evident. The Satanic Verses falls short because Christians took him to be a false prophet. Here is
of convincing us that revelation cannot set out plausible moral Rushdie’s justification for his use of Mahound: To turn insults
norms for the human world. In Mahound's book, good and into strengths, whigs, lories, and blacks all chose to wear
evil are indistinguishable. But we have only Rushdie's word with pride the names they were given in scorn; likewise, our
for it. To show that good and evil are, as Nietzsche would mountain-climbing prophet-motivated solitary is to be the
say. merely prejudices, albeit God's prejudices, requires far medieval baby-frightener. The Devil’s synonym: Mahound.’
more than merely a dramatic dogmatism. (P-93).
Let us examine Rushdie's contention. Now it is possible to
accept, even with pride, that one is for example black, but it
is harder to endorse a self-description such as 'black bastard'
24 25
since the word •bastard’ is no mere description. It is a term homosexuals given to gay orgies in the Garden of
of abuse. Similarly, at least ot\ the face of it, it seems that Gethsemane.
one cannot, with understanding, wear the name Mahound
with justified pride. For it is morally unintelligible for any
9
self-respecting individual to see himself as the Devil.
The point is important. Take, for example, George Bernard Though much of The Satanic Verses is incoherent and appar
Shaw’s play The Devil's Disciple. Here the central character ently unmotivated, the dream sequences, in which the tenets
proudly calls himself ’the Devil’s disciple’. But Shaw uses this of Islam are ridiculed, retain complexity, motivation, and
as a shock tactic-to question the empty religiosity and self- coherence. Here Rushdie freely adds to the existing stock of
righteousness of the ‘Christian’ protagonists. Theirs is a Western prejudices against the religion of the Arabian Pro
worship due to fear, not love. At least the Devil is brave phet. Most of the unoriginal biases of traditional Christian
enough to stand up to God—in order to assert his integrity polemic are resurrected in one form or another. Thus, for
as a dissenting critic of the Almighty and his mysterious ways. example, the myth of Muhammad's epilepsy —motivated his
•The Devil's disciple’ emerges in the play as the truly religious torically by Christian fanaticism—is transferred unaccount
man: he is charitable and willing to sacrifice his life in the ably to Ayesha, the namesake of the Prophet’s favourite wife.
hour of trial. The allegedly religious people come out very And there is slander too. Rushdie has Gibreel confirming that
badly—craving for comfort and security. In The Satanic a man will never walk on the moon—which is reminiscent of
Verses, however, Mahound has no redeeming qualities. He is the old Western fabrication about Muhammad preposterously
not merely mistakenly thought to be evil; he is actually evil requesting a mountain to come to him.
through and through. For Muslims Mecca was a city of ignorance before the light
In his perceptive review of Rushdie's novel, Ali Mazrui of the new faith; for Rushdie it remains more decidedly a city
quite rightly denies the usual parallel drawn between The of ignorance after Islam (p.95). Under Mahound’s rule the
Satanic Verses and The Last Temptation of Christ (Ithaca metropolis is steeped in sexual puritanism. Fascism, and
Times, 2-8 March 1989). The film ’accepts Christ as holy, hypocrisy. The converts to the new religion are insincere
respects the essential goodness of Jesus, then sees his godness opportunists. Mahound outlaws all thought: whores, writers
(sic) competing with his humanity.’ Mazrui goes on to say and poets will never be forgiven, according to his book.
that this may amount to blasphemy for the Christian viewer There is a sustained attack on values such as chastity and
but it is not necessarily abusive. The Satanic Verses, however, modesty too. In a brothel, provocatively called The Veil
portrays Muhammad as fundamentally evil. No good impulses (pp.379-88). the prostitutes assume the names and roles of
redeem his evil inclinations. (Think here of Machado de Mahound’s wives. The anti-lsiamic poet Baal becomes the
Assis’s profound story 'The Devil's Church’ in which Satan husband of the wives of the ’businessman prophet’. The pros
fails to find a perfect disciple since even the most corrupt titutes comically enact the domestic and political life of
human beings have some good in them.) The Last Temptation Mahound : ’the allegiances in the brothel came to mirror the
of Christ would be analogous to Rushdie's book if. for exam political cliques at the Yathrib mosque’ (p.382).
ple. the Virgin Mary were portrayed as a prostitute and Jesus The brothel scene is of course purely imaginary; even Chris
as an illegitimate child who grew up to exult in his own tian polemicists have drawn the line at this kind of insult.
wickedness; or indeed if, as the Muslim writer T. B. Irving Unlike his Western supporters, Rushdie himself writes with
suggests in his review (Impact International. 23 June-13 July an insider's awareness of the outrage such a portrayal would
1989), the disciples of Jesus were to be depicted as a gang of cause. Muhammad’s spouses are instructed, by the Koran, to
26 27
remain unmarried after their husband's death so that they techniques of empirical science claim greater reasonableness.
can assume the honorific title. 'Qie mothers of the believers'. The fictional account is based on the real Hawkes Bay tragedy
Muslims have reacted to what they interpret to be a straight of 1983 in Karachi. Pakistan. A Shi’ite woman believed that
forwardly personal attack. she had received a revelation commanding her to cross the
The Muslim anger at the brothel scenes is not properly Arabian sea on foot to perform a pilgrimage to Shi ah holy
explicable as being due to mere prudery. It is not as though precincts in Iraq. The woman and her disciples were drowned.
we have over a million Mary Whitehouses among us. Islam Rushdie ably uses the incident to condemn the impotence
is not an anti-sensual faith; and sexual appetite has always of religion in an age in which experimental science yields
been regarded as wholesome and good within certain limits. techniques independent of transcendent miracle and super
But Muslims are rightly troubled by Rushdie’s speculations natural aid. It is also a powerfully relevant comment on the
because these reinforce a stereotypical and false picture of prostitution of religion, particularly in cult form, which can
Muslim sexuality. The West has produced its own fantastic lead to social catastrophe.
and romanticised portrait of the sexual dimension of Islamic Though Rushdie’s exploration here is largely fair, one still
civilisation, a portrait that in turn feeds the very fantasies that needs to take exception to the possible implication that all
helped to create it. Rushdie is merely exploiting the Western religion is essentially superstition. For the distinction between
image of Muslim sexuality as exotic and untamed. true religion and false religion is available within a reflective
One has every right to be sceptical about the authenticity religion. It is not in general necessary for believers to convert
of the Koranic revelations vouchsafed to Muhammad. And to socialism in order to see their own failings. There arc
there are valid doubts about the fairness of certain Islamic resources internal to faith for sifting superstition from auth
social norms, particularly those governing the lives of women. entic conviction.
But slander or libel are not adequate substitutes for critique or The Muslim may fairly object that Islam is not some cult
reverent reservation. And no individual, much less a universal or short-lived illusion. To be sure, some cynic might reply: it
community, can be expected to remain silent in the face of was a cult oned upon a time, and it is a permanent illusion.
such provocation. Perhaps. But it is now an established religious tradition of
proven and profound genius and vitality. It has been sifted
by experience and history; it has antiquity of tradition, moral
10 appeal, and countless adherents. Islam clearly satisfies deep
In one of its rare tender moments. The Satanic Verses gives human needs and produces a characteristic quality of
us a profound insight into the dangers of a false religion. The allegiance. Only prejudice could deny that this religion has
chapters entitled *Ayesha' and 'Parting of the Arabian Sea’ produced some men and women of character. None of this
deal with a superstitious Indian prophetess, 'the girl of the entails that Islam is true: and. to be sure. Islam has also
butterflies', who wields charismatic authority over her devo produced superstition, narrow-hearted dogma and appalling
tees. This epileptic orphan called Ayesha—the namesake of obscurantism. Rushdie has every right—indeed a duty—to
the Prophet's favourite spouse—believes that she is divinely take Muslims to task on this score. He has the right to observe
authorised to lead her entire village on a miraculous pilgrim how such deplorable consequences are not merely due to the
age on foot through the sea to Mecca. The sea fails to part; failings of Muslim humanity but are also perhaps implicit in
the believing crowd is drowned. Islamic dogma as enshrined in the Koran and the Muhamma
This is Rushdie’s comment on superstitious religious con dan exemplar.
viction coming to grief in a modem world in which the rational
28 29
anger on behalf of a sincere if frustrated humanitarianism.

11 The quality and motivation of our quarrel with others matters.
Theistic religion is a fundamental and fertile aspect of human Is it out of love or malice? Rushdie may well be motivated
life and thought, and has been so throughout recorded his by sympathy for these misguided fellow human beings. But
tory. It is no coincidence that so many significant-including we can hardly guide others if we lose the way ourselves.
Nobel prize winning-works of fiction have dealt with themes Rushdie cannot flatter himself with the conceit that he has
such as God. the Devil, good and evil. Among Muslim wri properly indulged the sceptical temper, although one would
ters. Najib Mahfuz's The Children of the Man of the Mountain indeed think, judging from the comments of his Western
is a landmark in the history of reverent scepticism about admirers, that he was ploughing a virgin field. Yet sceptics
Islamic conviction. Muhammad Kamil Hussain’s enigmatic there have been and always will be. What matters is the
The City of Evil is a highly original account of the events of quality and integrity of their doubts. A Job-like attempt,
Good Friday. reverent and sincere, to cut the gods down to our size, is
Within the Islamic world, there arc established traditions found in many Islamic thinkers and novelists, all the way
of controversialism and critique of traditional conviction, not from the great al-Ghazzali to our Muhammad Iqbal and Najib
withstanding the pressures from a rigid orthodoxy that often Mahfuz. Within Rushdie’s unprincipled prose, one looks in
outlaws enquiry and debate. But none of these traditions vain for the penetrating critique of a Mahfuz implying tragi
moves beyond legitimate satire and sustained criticism into cally that occasional divine tuition via messengership (in the
forms of parody and caricature wholly motivated by indig Islamic style) does not suffice, human perversity being invet
nation and hatred. There is a proper recognition, unavoidably erate as it is.
forced upon people in the Middle Eastern context, that At the end of the day. The Satanic Verses fails to raise the
religious, like sexual, themes are dangerously elemental. We truly central issues about a distinctively Muslim identity in
need to handle them with care and due understanding, though the contemporary world of varied voices and irreligious con
even a scepticism reverent in tone may be iconoclastic in its fidences. It fails to set the agenda for the Islamic Enlighten
content. ment—a Muslim response to modernity. That agenda can
To avoid the censorship of law or, more informally, the only properly be set by Muslim intellectuals who are believers
censorship of burning and. more extremely, the censorship and who are themselves disturbed by the widespread and
of assassination, one needs to exercise caution. But the cau apparently reasonable secular reservations about the religious
tion is not due to fear. It is due to courtesy. If one enters imagination in the age of reason.
other people’s sanctuary, it is as well to take off one's shoes.
Rushdie enters the mosque—but tactlessly refuses to take
off his shoes. (In one of the scenes in The Satanic Verses, the 12
characters are incongruously playing rock and roll music in 'When we are born’, says Rushdie movingly in an interview
the mosque!) But even as a strategy, it is wise to show cour in December 1988, 'we are not automatically human beings.
tesy. If we are to get people to understand the factors that We have to learn how to be human. Some of us get there
figure in their making, their anxieties, their hopes, it cannot and some of us don’t.' In The Satanic Verses, none of the
be right for us to ignore these factors ourselves. Rushdie Muslim characters gets there. Gibreel Farishta, the symbol
should enter the Islamic sanctuary with respect for his of the good, loses his faith and eventually commits suicide.
opponents as people, albeit people with false notions in their Chamcha, the unlikely hero of the novel, eventually makes
heads. Once in it, let him argue as he will. Let him even show it. Though he is the symbol of evil in much of the novel.
30 31
Chamcha acquires goodness because of a single act of brav and predictable. There is rarely an attempt to locate their
ery. He discovers himself truly when he re-adopts his Indian seriousness within the Islamic tradition itself. Instead one
identity by a pure act of the will. Chamcha gets there because, finds an uncritical acceptance of the results of Western specu
in Rushdie’s words, 'he faces up to the big things like love lation on these issues. A writer will typically flirt with Euro
and death'. Chamcha's father also emerges as a hero. He is centric traditions of radical atheism and endorse their philo
portrayed as a courageous life-long secularist who does not sophical claims wholesale. I myself have never come across a
contaminate his atheism even by a death-bed conversion to single human being, whether fictional or real, from an edu
Islam. cated dlite Third World background, who was a conscientious
A strong undercurrent in The Satanic Verses is the idealised atheist.
and totally unconvincing portrayal of atheists and secularists. This is of course entirely to be expected. For one must
This is in conscious contrast to crassly offensive images of experience the radical reservation for oneself, not merely
fundamentalists, particularly Muslim fundamentalists: the borrow it. so to speak, from others. Atheists in the West have
martyr Imam as a pure form of evil, devouring people like a forged a tradition of rejection; many Jews and Christians,
snake; the fundamentalist preacher in a Bombay mosque who often from pious backgrounds, have experienced conscien
encourages a mob to stone to death an innocent but illegiti tious doubts about the truth of traditional theism. This is not
mate infant; and the preacher in a Delhi mosque who incites true of atheists from a Muslim background. There has been
sectarian violence and is unusually fond of wealth. (Rushdie no attempt to know and experience two radically opposed
even drops the pretence in chapter 8 that some of these styles of living. For there is usually a strict commitment to
portraits are in Gibreel's dream sequences.) only one tradition—namely, that of European atheistic
All great writers achieve triumphs of portraiture whether humanism. One actually needs to feel the tension between a
comic, religious, or female—as in Dickens. Greene and genuine commitment to Islamic conviction and the opposed
Hardy respectively. There are no triumphs of religious demands of a lifestyle that seeks exemption from allegedly
portraiture in any of Rushdie’s novels. Chamcha is as uncon supernatural demands. The atheism of most writers and intel
vincing as Gibreel. Chamcha rejects Islam but this is not a lectuals from Third World backgrounds is due to an insincere
reflective or turbulent act; Islam was never a pan of his or and fashionable radicalism—and not, as they themselves
his family’s outlook. And Gibrccl Farishta simply loses his imagine, a costly and discerning intellectual passion.
faith when his prayers for a cure for his mysterious disease On 12 March 1989. the Observer published an anonymous
fail to be answered. And this as if religious conviction were letter, allegedly written by a Pakistani from Karachi who
straightforwardly an experimental matter. After a Western wanted to commit apostasy and who hailed Rushdie as his
education. Dr Aziz in Midnight's Children predictably hero. He complained that atheists were persecuted in Muslim
espouses atheism. There is an empty room where God once lands. Such a person is likely to belong to the wealthier
lived. But Rushdie fails to convince us that Dr Aziz’s loss of secularised classes who regularly commit apostasy with
traditional faith is conscientious, passionate, existentialist— impunity. The letter is almost certainly an attempt to gain
rather than merely fashionable and frivolous. sympathy from the Western reader by playing on his or her
’Hie question itself is among the most serious. Is there a ignorance of Pakistani society. At any rate, we would need
place in our hearts for the supernatural? Is there a godly some strong evidence to suggest that his atheism was consci
imprint on human nature? Explorations of these questions, entiously espoused.
whether in factual or imaginative contexts, by Westernised
Indian. Pakistani and Egyptian writers tend to be shallow
32 33
13 of racism for most ordinary Asians settled in the inner city

areas of Bradford or Birmingham.
There is a prevalent myth among Western reviewers that
somehow Rushdie is a deeply compassionate author, showing
misguided Muslims the truth about themselves. But if one is 14
to show people the mirror, to get them to understand the That The Satanic Verses is blasphemous should be, for the
elements of their own make-up, one does not do well to begin Muslim conscience, uncontroversial. There has been much
by ignoring them oneself. To get people to see themselves for talk, by confused Muslims and their non-Muslim mentors, of
what they really are-as power-conscious, status-conscious, the complexity of the Islamic tradition, of the variety of
weak-willed, hypocritical, and eventually, merely human, all proper responses to Rushdie's work. Given that the Koran is
too human-one needs to take them gently by the hand. In the book which defines the authentically Muslim outlook,
these matters of self-scrutiny, one has every right to take the there is no choice in the matter. And it is for Muslims to
horse to water; but one cannot make it drink. Rushdie is interpret the imperatives of their own religion. Any Muslim
wrong in thinking that shock tactics will do the trick. In the who fails to be offended by Rushdie's book ceases, on account
face of that, even the alert and thoughtful may withdraw into of that fact, to be a Muslim. The Satanic Verses has become
a more secure fortress of dogmatism and inherited security a litmus-paper test for distinguishing faith from rejection. The
of mind and will. test applies to all shades of opinion—orthodox, heretical,
It is in this context that we need to examine briefly the indifferent; it applies to all Muslims—good, bad, practising,
view that Rushdie is a distinguished anti-racist whose book is lapsed. The sacrilege of The Satanic Verses ought to be experi
a compassionate and passionate account of the problems of enced as offensive even by believers for whom Islam is merely
contemporary Asians in Britain. Such a compassion would, their idleness—or conscience—on Friday afternoons. These
it is argued, redeem Rushdie's allegedly harsh treatment of contentions are completely conclusive; there is no room here
Islam. Despite the prodigiously massive prestige that is for private sophistication rooted in hypocrisy and schooled in
attached to his name in anti-racist circles, 1 find it hard to dishonesty. And God is well aware of the things we do.
believe that Rushdie has any real understanding of the daily Rushdie leaves too many clues in The Satanic Verses to
headaches many ordinary blacks experience in this country. show that unprincipled abuse rather than disciplined critique
For one thing, it cannot be any part of his experience. He was his dominant intention. (This is why, incidentally, one
cannot take his novel seriously as a powerful work of art.)
came to an English public school, then Cambridge—hardly
For Muslims, the Rushdie affair is not a matter of Western
the experience of the people on whose behalf he campaigns.
freedom in conflict with Islamic control but rather Western
To be sure, one shouldn't exaggerate the importance of this
licence to ridicule in conflict with an Islamic emphasis on
limitation. For his sympathy could none the less be genuine disciplined and reverent criticism. The attempt to debase and
and discerning. But docs he understand the worries over, degrade sacred or deeply held convictions should be reso
say. DNA testing, laws that separate families, the poverty of lutely challenged.
immigrants newly arrived to an alien and hostile culture, Most Muslims have been critical of their own tradition and
the inarticulate blacks' helplessness with language? His own willing to enter into debate. This is a point that bears repe
experience of racism is the experience of privileged Asians tition. Muslim historians have been thorough recorders of
up against subtle forms of that evil—say at public school or their own tradition, honestly setting down all known facts and
an Oxbridge college. But that is certainly not the experience thus leaving a rich source of material for later critics, whether
34 35
Be Careful with Muhammad’
Muslim or non-Muslim. Even in the scholarly tradition, many
writers have interpreted the same material in radically 3 The Liberal Inquisition
opposed ways. No one has burnt orientalist treatises against
Islam, though many are inferior in their argument and typi
cally full of sentiments that border on hatred.
In bringing this chapter to a close, let us return to the theme
with which it opened. ’You write a book', says Rushdie, ’and
governments fall—that never happens.' Perhaps not. But one 1
can write a book-and people get killed. It would be absurd ‘Most of our problems begin', said Salman Rushdie in a pre
to suggest that The Satanic Verses directly caused the deaths publication interview, 'when people try to define the world
of Muslim demonstrators. But controversial writing can incite in terms of a stark opposition between good and evil.' This
anger, and such anger is a contributing factor in violent con is a perceptive comment that may well apply to the contro
flict. Polemical traditions have had accompanying wars in versy over his own book. From an early stage the entire
which the joint restraints of scholarship and civilisation have Western press stereotyped the peaceful Muslim protests as
been thrown off. Christian-Muslim rivalry is not restricted anti-intellectual, indeed Fascist, attempts to curtail demo
to academic journals; the streets of Beirut refute any such cratic freedoms of speech and thought dear to the Western
assumption. conscience. To be sure, there were many empty warnings
Controversial books can cause wars—not necessarily that, in W. L. Webb's words (Guardian. 17 February 1989),
because they preach in its favour but because even divinely the Rushdie affair must not be reduced 'to a simple neo
inspired doctrines, in frail human custody, are liable to be Victorian opposition between our light and their darkness'.
misunderstood. How much more so in the case of our human, But, in practice, virtually every Western commentator paid
all too human, writings. The pen, in the wrong hands, is no lip-service to this demand and succumbed to temptation. For
less dangerous than the sword. it is impossible, particularly in retrospect, to remain
unimpressed by the high and holy tones of those who wrote
in defence of Rushdie's rights, threatened by the encroach
ments of an allegedly barbaric and intolerant creed.
For several months, both Muslims and their opponents
were transported into a bygone age of passion and heresy.
Freedom crusades began in earnest and set out for the House
of Islam. Accusations and rejoinders abounded; the obscuran
tism of the Muslims had to be countered with Western enlight
enment. It was indeed our light and their darkness. There
could hardly have been a better setting for The Liberal
Inquisition.
2
Immediately after the publication of Rushdie's novel in late
September 1988 in London. Western Muslims began to write
36 37
Be Careful with Muhammad! The Liberal Inquisition
to Viking seeking an appointment. Petitions were sent to the outburst of sacred rage against Rushdie and Penguin
London and New York offices requesting a dialogue with die personnel.
publishers. I myself sent a lengthy Open Letter Concerning While Muslim groups and organisations met regularly to
Blasphemy', subsequently published in a British theological form committees that would formulate long-term strategies.
journal. The enquirers, whether Islamic organisations or indi Muslim writers, on both sides of the Atlantic, began to offer
vidual Muslims, all received the same response. In their letter. detailed critiques of The Satanic Verses. Few ever appeared
the publishers replied that the outrage and accusations of in print. The Western press had already firmly convinced
blasphemy were both due to a misunderstanding. The pass themselves that even peaceful written Muslim protests were,
ages involving Islam and the Prophet were all in drcam ironically, a threat to freedom of speech and conviction.
sequences, dreamt by a character often described as insane Accordingly, the media effectively endorsed an operative veto
and indeed destined for suicide. These dreams do not purport on any exploration of the grounds for 'fundamentalist’ options
to reflect real events in Muhammad's biography. The Satanic in Islam.
Verses. was. then, the Muslims were reassured, a fictional In the early days of the affair a few Muslims managed to
work of great profundity, wrapped in applause by Western have letters published in the national papers and to appear
literary critics. There was no question of negotiations, let on radio and television. To the charge that Muslims were
alone of a withdrawal or ban. opposed to freedom of speech. Muslims replied that such a
The response of Muslims the world over was reasoned and freedom. like any other democratic liberty, ought to be exer
unduly restrained. Countless individual believers and Islamic cised with due responsibility. The issue, properly speaking,
organisations wrote letters and petitions to Viking throughout the Muslims insisted, was not of freedom of speech versus
October and November 1988. Viking responded that they censorship but rather of legitimate scepticism versus obscenity
would not only continue to publish The Satanic Verses but and slander. More or less all the Western critics merely par
also had plans to translate it into nine other major languages. roted in response that freedom of speech was a very valuable
Several Muslim groups, prominently the Islamic Defence and hard-won liberty for which the Western conscience had
Council in London and the National Da'wah Committee of historically paid a high price. No one. Muslim or otherwise,
the USA in Chicago, pressed for an interview with the pub they continued, would ever be allowed to usurp this right.
lishers to explain the Muslim objections. But Viking turned Rushdie himself was meanwhile being lionised by the liter
a deaf ear to all such requests. ary establishment as well as by the ordinary freedom-loving
Muslims, unaware of finer points of the laws of the United peoples of the Western world. In many television and radio
Kingdom, began to threaten legal action against the pub programmes as well as in articles in the national dailies, he
lishers—or, if the publishers were indemnified, then against described himself (and was uncritically taken to be) a cour
Rushdie. There was talk of a financial boycott of all Penguin ageous and liberal Muslim daring to confront the obscuran
publications. In all major British cities with Muslim popu tism and rigid authoritarianism of a fundamentalist minority
lations, outraged Muslims met. argued, discussed and went currently agitating the Islamic masses throughout the globe.
back home frustrated. They met again and again. At the All criticism of his stance was silenced by the truly remark
Bradford Council of Mosques, we burnt the midnight oil— able rejoinder that no Muslim had read the book. Presumably
every night. A concerned leadership emphasised moderation there must be some Muslims in the world who can read and
and patience. Given that there was no single authority to who can appreciate literature. Suppose one had read the
supervise so populous and heterogeneous a community as the book, remarkable a feat as that is (though, to be sure, not
Muslims even in Britain, many influential Muslims feared an for the reasons Rushdie or his admirers might suggest). More-
38 39
over it is not a necessary condition of having knowledge of a ditions of the Prophet Muhammad, recommending charity
work that one should have read it, any more than it is necess and scholarship, were being cited to justify Rushdie's book.
ary for a judge to witness a murder in order to pass judge All Islamic doctrines suddenly became fair game; writers and
ment. The ordinary Muslim went by the verdict of those editors who confessed to know nothing about Islam freely
trusted religious and other learned authorities who had read threw away the restraints of objectivity and diplomacy: this
the whole book, much as a judge goes by the evidence sup intolerant and oppressive creed mutilated the rights of
plied by eye-witness accounts. That the liberal opponents of women, its penal code incorporated Draconian rulings that
the Muslim stance should resort to such weak and indeed shocked the civilised (an alternative for Western) conscience.
fallacious reasoning has always struck me as crucially revea Liberal resentment began to flood the publications. Every
ling. Western animus against Islam and all things Islamic runs where, everyone had the right to attack Islam and the Mus
deep indeed in the groove of cultural and historical memory. lims. After all, didn’t the Muslim reaction to Rushdie's book
No other artistic or intellectual issue of recent decades has justify this righteous indignation?
received so extensive a coverage from the mainstream British, For the media. Islam, particularly fundamentalist Islam, as
indeed Western, media as the Rushdie affair. At one time, they defined it, has long been a legitimate object of both
the matter received so much official attention that it became fascination and uncritical accusation. The Rushdie saga had
a point of daily conversation at all levels of society. Every an ideal recipe for excitement: a distinguished author driven
serious British (and French and American) publication has into hiding by a wicked Muslim fanatic, oil sheikhs, veiled
dealt with the Rushdie affair on its front pages and in its women, and newspaper secretaries hesitating over the kh in
editorials as well as making it the subject of many special Khomeini and other chaps with equally unspellable names.
features and articles. Yet for all that. Western commentary Unfortunately, however, fascination is not an adequate sub
can safely be seen, even by non-Muslims in retrospect, as stitute for knowledge.
shallow and extravagant. To be sure, some newspaper and Every evening, one came home to watch the news—and
television coverage was investigative and balanced. But over catch the name of a new expert on Islam. Christian experts,
whelmingly it was accusatory in its very format, inviting hasty Jewish experts. Hindu experts. Marxist experts, agnostic
and unoriginal judgement against the Muslims. In Britain, as experts, to name a few. Every kind of expert—except a
in France and the United States, the gutter press incited Muslim expert. Presumably Muslim fanatics cannot be
Westerners against Islam, using familiar racist and Fascist expected to attain the measure of detachment Westerners
methods of stereotypical depiction, presenting Rushdie's consider necessary for objectivity. It rarely occurred to
book as an accurate portrayal of the Islamic faith. Oddly anyone that those who reject Islam may also fail in their
enough, the quality papers differed from such papers as the obligation to be fair—for different reasons. After Khomeini's
Sun and the News of the World mainly in their choice of more intervention, one saw a new round of experts on 'Iranian
sophisticated language, since the content was substantially Islam'—whatever that expression is supposed to mean. All
identical. the experts were, unsurprisingly, Iranian exiles as well known
It was indeed a winter of discontent for the Muslims of for their atheism as for their hostility to Khomeini.
Britain. Countless writers, who might otherwise be credited Finally they came, the so-called Muslim expens. The
with a measure of compassion, began openly to mock and creators of Western opinion about the religion of Islam have
insult the beliefs and traditions of Islam —that exotic creed always displayed much ingenuity in finding allegedly Muslim
close yet far from the Christian West. The Koran was fre spokesmen whom authentic Muslims rightly reject as failing
quently being quoted out of context; liberal-sounding tra- to be even believers, let alone representatives of authoritative
40 41
opinion. Both in the media and the university departments, Muslims in the audience—one of whom fainted with anger.
the spokesmanship of the Muslim cause is almost invariably It became rapidly clear to the Bradford Council of Mosques
confined to liberal or Judaeo-Christian expertise. Where that only a dramatic ritual would ease the frustration and vent
Muslim representatives do appear they are, without excep the profound anger of the believing community. Accordingly
tion, either simplistic believers ignorant of (and therefore it was resolved that a copy of The Satanic Verses be burnt
incapable of challenging) Western traditions of thought or publicly in front of the Bradford City Hall.
else Third World champagne socialists passionately repudiat When Rushdie’s book was burnt in mid-January 1989
ing the faith of their forebears. Now that we had heard every hardly anyone thought the event was worth reporting. The
one, would anyone listen to the Muslims themselves? incident, however, was destined to become famous. Once
Khomeini had issued his edict calling for the execution of the
author and the publishers, a whole tribe of journalists sud
3 denly arrived in Bradford. It was only then that Westerners
Many of the consequences of the Muslim reaction to the were actively concerned to know why the Muslims had burnt
publication of The Satanic Verses have been unintended ones the book. In fact, an earlier burning in Bolton (on 2
which could not have reasonably been foreseen. For example, December 1988) was doomed to remain obscure and largely
the Rushdie affair has eventually generated a context in which unreported. Bradford had become, partly as an accident of
the age-old Western veto on any authentic representation of timing, the newly discovered citadel of Muslim radicalism.
Islam has been effectively broken—for the first time. It did The Bradford book-burning incident in mid-January
not happen overnight. But the days of the so-called experts acquired retrospective significance as Khomeini intervened
on Islam are indeed numbered; the spokesmanship for the one month later. How short the journey, mused Western
Islamic cause has finally fallen, at least partly and temporarily, moralists, between burning the book and burning the author!
into the hands and mouths of authentic and able Muslim It was a sad reminder of former days. In England, as recently
believers. as the end of the nineteenth century1, literature judged to be
The Liberal Inquisition was set to continue throughout the seditious or blasphemous was burned, in lieu of the author,
West for several months before serious debate could begin. by the public hangman. In a Daily Telegraph editorial (17
In the early days, notwithstanding loud professions of free January 1989) the Bradford book-burning was dubbed a reac
dom of speech, there were many editors who systematically tion 'in the fashion of the ayatollahs'. White liberal resent
prohibited all Muslim contributions to their publications. ment flooded the papers; the Nazi-stylc book-burning was
Anger and frustration among Muslims grew; a minority judged an act so dark and medieval that British Muslims
denied access to power and control finally resorted to public were invited to behave according to civilised contemporary
protest—itself a conclusive proof of powerlessness. Western standards. An old-age pensioner from Wales wrote
In December 1988 about 500 Muslims in Bradford gathered to the Bradford Council of Mosques a long letter (addressed,
to listen to the offending passages from The Satanic Verses, incidentally, to 'The Muslim Fanatics’) in which she reassured
I had sought a dispensation from the religionists that would us that her husband had not fought in two world wars in vain.
enable me to read the blasphemous sections without sin or The Muslims rightly retorted that the burning of offensive
guilt, purely for purposes of educating the .Muslim believers. literature was not invented by Muslims. At the height of the
Though I took great care to censor some of the more profane Rushdie affair. Poll Tax registration forms were burnt by
suggestions. I was physically prevented from reading even some left-wing groups, not to mention an earlier burning of
some of the censored materials by a number of outraged an immigration document by MPs. Even an effigy of the
42 43
Be Carefid with Muhammad! The Liberal Inquisition
Environment Secretary. Nicholas Ridley, was set alight at a in mid-February, Western resentment against Islam and the
time when white and liberal resentment singled out Muslims Muslims reached a peak. By late February, liberals and racists
for using uncivilised tactics in their campaign. Given that the had found a common target. The Commission for Racial
style of British Muslim protest was not uniquely barbaric, it Equality issued its first public statement wholeheartedly con
was fair to speculate that the resentment really centred demning Khomeini and the Muslim outrage without any cor
around the fact that these foreigners-blacks, Muhamma responding condemnation of the author or the publishers.
dans. immigrants—were taking liberties in someone else's The word 'Muslim' had become a term of abuse; there was
country. an increase in racial tension in schools and public places. In
Instead of asking, compassionately, why reasonable men Bradford, Sheffield, and London, mosques were stoned; there
and women can be so outraged by the written word, leading were minor incidents of racial violence.
articles even by otherwise thoughtful writers simply con Racist indignation flooded the daily papers; there were
demned the Muslims as Fascists and literary hooligans. even calls for bans on immigration from Muslim countries.
Instead of asking why Muslims resorted to such desperate There was talk of deporting Muslims who publicly supported
measures, the Liberal Inquisition turned its full fury on a Khomeini's fatwa. Muslims were regularly portrayed as trou
powerless minority. After the Rushdie episode. Muslims are ble-makers refusing to 'assimilate' while other ethnic groups
likely to harbour permanent doubts about the fairness and were appropriately applauded for their good sense and co
compassion of the liberal conscience. operation. Many leading writers openly began to doubt the
Those were tense days, but not without humour if one very possibility, let alone the wisdom, of creating a multi
looked carefully at the writing on the wall. Most of it is too cultural society in the first place. Britain had been too good,
cynical and unprintable. But some of it was revealing. One too kind, too tolerant of its Muslim minority. And the Mus
regularly saw variations of cartoons depicting worried mos lims were ungrateful in interpreting toleration as a weakness;
que-going Islamic fundamentalists incongruously in book they remained scornful of the majority's tolerance, unwilling
stores ordering. "Two copies of The Satanic Verses and a box to reciprocate the respect and forbearance of the host culture.
of matches'. A bad joke, of course, but how revealing in its That those who preferred Lran to Britain should promptly
implied commentary on the Muslims. leave was not an inference any Muslim ever needed to draw
It was a sad irony indeed. The prevalent image of Islam as for himself.
an anti-intellectualist faith is one of the several paradoxes The Liberal Inquisition was not restricted to the United
generated by the Rushdie episode. For Islam is, in fact, a Kingdom. The whole of the Western world was united in its
literary faith par excellence. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, rejection of Muslim demands for a state ban. The book was
it claims only one distinctive miracle—the Koran. For Mus published simultaneously in Britain and Canada in September
lims. the sacred scripture in Arabic is interpreted to be a 1988. Sales were temporarily suspended in Canada to investi
miracle of reason and speech which supersedes the earlier gate whether or not it contravened the country's hate laws.
‘sensual' miracles associated with the ministries of Muham As these laws were interpreted to be inapplicable to Muslims,
mad’s prophetic predecessors. References to the pen abound it was decided that the book was acceptable, and sales con
within the Koran; and Muslim civilisation has accordingly tinued despite large Muslim demonstrations in Toronto and
sanctioned a deep respect for scholarship. The ink of the Montreal in early March and smaller ones in other Canadian
scholar, as the Prophet famously said, is holier than the blood cities. Use of the Nathan Philip Square, the usual place for
of the martyr. rallies, was denied by the Toronto City Council; a $2 million
After Khomeini issued his famous religious decree (fatwa) insurance condition was imposed and no insurance company
44 45
was willing to offer such coverage. Many Canadian editorial Atlanta, Georgia, a reading of The Satanic Verses was held
writers openly condemned Islam and the Muslims; others in at the Public Library on 25 February amid great publicity.
the media even proposed a ban on Muslims airing their views Seven Muslim women in hijab (veil), and their three young
since Muslims wanted to deny Rushdie that right. The Can children, entered the reading session and denounced Rushdie
adian media gave the impression that Rushdie was a Canadian as a 'cultural pimp'.
citizen whom Muslim barbarians were hunting in the peaceful The French reaction is significant. With a large North Afri
streets of downtown Toronto or Montreal. Though the Can can Muslim population. Islam is the second largest faith in
adian population is comprised entirely of immigrant groups the country. The French press has been characterised by its
settling at different dates, Canadian racists were still telling passionately expressed and unconditional support for both The
the Muslims to go to Iran if they disliked living in Canada. Satanic Verses and its author. Khomeini —who once success
In Canada's big neighbour to the south, the book was fully sought political asylum in France—has been copiously
published in late February amid general condemnation of condemned at all levels of French society. Freedom of speech
Khomeini's fatwa and the Bradford book-burning. It had and conviction has been cited by virtually every French writer
already been reviewed in the New York Times Book Review as an overriding principle of a free and democratic culture.
in late January and in the Washington Times in mid-February. The first French newspaper to print excerpts from the book
The reviews were not favourable. The New York Times was the influential Figaro, which added an unusual disclaimer
reviewer wrote; 'How are we to understand the adoption — to appease Muslim anger. Translated, it reads:
by a writer bom Muslim—of so defamatory a name for the
Prophet of Islam?’ The Washington Times reviewer was even Figaro in publishing excerpts from Rushdie's book does not adopt
its ideas as its own. We publish these with the exclusive aim of
less sympathetic; keeping our readers informed. While Islam should be respected as
Bui having discovered no literary reason why Mr Rushdie chose are other religions such as Christianity and Judaism, so too should
to portray Muhammad's wives as prostitutes, the Koran as the the right of an author to express his freedom of expression be
work of Satan and the founders of the faith as roughnecks and respected.
cheats. I had to admit to a certain sympathy with the Islamic
leaders' complaints. True or not. slander hurts the slandered, Figaro published selections from The Satanic Verses in late
which makes 'The Satanic Verses' not simply a rambling and February. Within days, the weekly magazine Nouvel Obser-
trivia) book, but a nasty one as well. vateur followed suit as did the daily newspaper Liberation.
These moves to publish offending quotations may well have
In the American reaction, it was clear from the outset that been concerted—aiming to avoid Muslim reprisal against any
freedom of expression overrides the nature of the contents of single publication. Nouvel Observateur published a few inter
the book—variously admitted to be trivial, incoherent, and views with angry Muslims who opposed Rushdie's book,
even blasphemous. There followed a belligerent and con seeing it as a serious attack on Islam and its sacred personalit
certed campaign in favour of freedom of speech. Muslims ies. But the overwhelming majority of contributions betrayed
protested in large numbers throughout February and March a deep animus towards Islam and the Muslim stance on The
in New York, Washington. San Francisco, and other cities; Satanic Verses.
there were seminars and public lectures by Muslims in many The popular French papers such as France Soir and Paris
university campuses, notably Berkeley and Cornell. But to Match were also unequivocal in their condemnation of
no avail. It seemed that, for Americans, the freedom to blas Muslim, especially Iranian, attitudes as barbaric and wicked.
pheme Islam is as holy and sacred as any Islamic sanctity. In National indignation in France can perhaps only be appreci
46 47
ated if one adds in the balance the fact that French colonial Shusha Guppy, the Iranian exile. Fadia Faqir, the Jordanian
memories of Algerian and North African Islam have been feminist writer, and Aziz al-Azmeh, the Syrian Christian
dramatically revived by the Rushdie affair. teaching Islamic studies at Exeter University, all concurred
Le Monde devoted many articles to the Rushdie saga over a with the non-Muslim participants and added that a Muslim
number of days. Its editor-in-chief. Andr6 Fontaine, rejected need not be offended by the book. Dr Hcsham el-Assawy of
Muslim indignation as misguided, and declared Rushdie to the Society for the Promotion of Religious Toleration con
be a great and pioneering author, and The Satanic Verses a demned The Satanic Verses as a gratuitous provocation to
modem classic. This was. by and large, an unusual judgement. Muslim sensibilities but did not condone its burning or
The bulk of the extensive French coverage has been focussed removal from circulation. As the only fundamentalist Muslim
on the French and Western outcry against Muslim reaction in the debate. 1 was alone in condemning the book as an
and Khomeini’s fatwa, rather than on the contents of the inferior piece of hate literature which the Bradford Muslims
book or on the ability of its author. Many writers could had rightly burned and hoped to see banned by state legis
certainly condemn Khomeini's verdict and other Muslim lation. I ended my contribution with a plea to the media to
excesses without necessarily going to the extreme of endorsing lift its operative veto on any intellectual exploration of the
Fontaine's flattering judgement about the novel and its grounds for fundamentalist options in religion.
author. I was lucky. My articles on the Rushdie affair appeared in
In the months that followed Khomeini's intervention, the Guardian in late February and in the Observer on Easter
throughout the Western world The Satanic Verses was neither Sunday. In what have since been widely interpreted to be
condemned nor banned. There was scant sympathy for the apologias for Islamic fundamentalism. I argued for the posi
voiceless Muslim population resident in the West. In fact, the tion that The Satanic Verses should be banned because it
book was vehemently defended in the name of freedom of reinforces prejudice against an already maltreated religious
speech by everyone-liberals. Marxists. Christians, and Fasci minority. Islam, as a unified enterprise of faith and power,
sts alike. Throughout February and the months that followed was a charter for Muslim political life: it could not properly
there were plans to publish it in many European languages. be reduced to merely an item of personal piety in the private
France and Germany, along with some of the Scandinavian sector. The term 'fundamentalism' was. I argued, invariably
nations, went ahead despite initial fear and trembling. Spain used in a propagandist sense to discredit the Muslims' legiti
had a multi-imprint edition with several leading publishers mate political ambitions and impose upon them an alien kind
lending a helping hand. Brazil and Israel followed suit in the of piety, borrowed from the post-Enlightenment Christian
summer of 1989. The Liberal Inquisition was set to continue. model. Muslims had every right to defend their faithful heri
tage in an aggressively secular society that daily encroached
on religious sanctities. In such a context, any faith which
4 compromised its internal temper of constructive if militant
On 22 February 1989, Michael Ignatieff chaired a debate on wrath was destined for the dustbin of history.
the Rushdie affair for the BBC2 programme The Late Show, The reactions to my pieces on fundamentalism were very
The eight protagonists included Muslim and non-Muslim wri revealing. While some of the letters 1 received were thought
ters and campaigners. 1 was among them. There was a broad ful and probing, the majority of those who wrote suggested
range of opinion: all the Westerners—Edward Said, George that I leave the country. Several individuals referred to me
Steiner, Ian MacEwan. and Michael Ignatieff himself— vigor as a Fascist, the British Ayatollah seeking to establish a theo
ously defended Rushdie’s right to publish The Satanic Verses. cracy in the middle of Yorkshire with Iranian support. To
48 49
•The Ayatollah’s Bradford acolyte. Dr Shabbir Akhtar’ was Iran, suppress scholarship and creativity, and. here at home,
the only form of address on the envelope of one unsigned create tensions in an already strained multi-cultural British
letter of undisclosed origin which, thanks to the efficiency of society. I was branded simply as an apologist for an indefen
the postal system, arrived successfully at my house one morn sible outlook.
ing, It was a typical attack in which my claims were made to Behind the scenes, private uncertainty began to grow. Did
stand on their head. The next time there are gas chambers in the fundamentalist Muslims have a case after all? Were the
Europe, it will in fact be Dr Akhtar and the Ayatollahs Bradford Muslims really a bunch of ignorant peasants as the
who will be operating them—and the liberals and Rushdie’s moderate’ Muslims would have us believe? Wasn’t it high
supporters would be inside them! The writer of the letter, time that Muslims themselves were allowed to be spokesmen
like a quarter of all the correspondents, concealed his or her for their own cause? One began to hear authentic Muslim
identity and address because ‘unlike Rushdie, I won t take voices on the radio and see Muslim faces on the television
chances with my life’. with some regularity. The so-called moderate Muslims and
There were published responses too. Michael Foot's attack others whose orthodoxy was suspect were being gradually
(Guardian, 10 March 1989) in which he absurdly elevated phased out. The champagne socialists were more or less com
Rushdie to an historical figure, was influential and. paradoxi pletely discredited. It was the hour of the fundamentalists.
cally, written with the very temper of ‘militant wrath’ which
he condemned in my essay. In my response. I argued that
Foot was using ‘fundamentalist’ in a pejorative sense and that, 5
in any case, he was not sufficiently knowledgeable to judge After Khomeini issued his edict in mid-Fcbruary, non-Mus-
the merits of the Muslim case against Rushdie. As for the lims routinely suggested that Muslims wanted to kill Rushdie
Third World champagne socialists whom Foot so passionately because they couldn't argue with him. In fact, of course,
admired, these are. 1 maintained, ‘a people of low intelli Muslims can and indeed do argue—and argue well. The prob
gence. devoid of conscience’. It is a harsh judgement—but it lem is that liberal guilt rarely lasts long enough for any of
is wholly true. A conscientious and sincere atheism is worthy them to get a few pieces into the papers. In my own case,
of respect; a fashionable repudiation of Islam undertaken several interviews and features were pulled at the last moment
primarily to impress a liberal Anglo-European audience is as mysterious forces intervened. Editors of many important
not. One critic, thoroughly incensed by the admittedly arro newspapers and periodicals resolutely rejected my contri
gant lone of my response, wondered whether I had been butions. So much for our freedom of speech.
awarded a doctorate for a thesis on verbal abuse', 1 was Once the total veto on fundamentalist voices was broken,
not as richly rewarded as Salman Rushdie: Fay Weldon has a new kind of restriction emerged. A statistical veto, in Saba
recently canonised him for a similar talent. Khalid’s characteristically apt phrase, was imposed so that,
The range and quality of accusation varied. But both in say, for every dozen pieces strongly arguing against an Islamic
private correspondence and published response, several crit stance, one piece arguing for an Islamic stance would slip
ics condemned the logic of fundamentalist conviction and through the net. Even so, Muslims weren't complaining
ambition as ‘grotesque’. and my claims as essentially empty because beggars can't be choosers.
rhetoric designed to agitate Muslims and offend non-Muslims. At first all the editorials ritually rehearsed all the time-
There were blanket condemnations of militant fundamentalist honoured prejudices about Muslims, particularly their alleged
Islam as an intolerant creed designed to oppress women in fanaticism. That intolerant creed which had once tried to ruin
Muslim societies, deny basic human rights in countries like Europe was back again—this time as an apparently peaceful
50 51
presence within the West, abetted by dark external forces be remembered for a long time. And the Muslims are not in
and seconded by a financial network. The whole apparatus a hurry to forget.
of prejudice had to be painstakingly dismantled during the
Rushdie affair before anyone would even listen, let alone
agree with the Muslim position. To be sure, there were preju 6
dices in the Muslim camp too: the West is godless, passion By early May 1989 two simple claims had been established
less, faithless, corrupt to the bones. But there was little oppor beyond reasonable dispute: firstly, that Muslims of many
tunity to voice these claims in the mainstream media. Besides, shades of opinion had been genuinely and deeply offended
as we learn in the race relations industry, prejudice without by the contents of The Satanic Verses and. secondly, that
power can safely be ignored. freedom of speech was not absolute even in a liberal demo
Prejudices entertained by powerful groups and individuals cratic society. But the issue was by no means resolved. While
cannot safely be ignored. Fortunately there came a time, after even liberal writers were happy to concede that some of
months of campaigning by Muslims, when, privately at least, Rushdie's allusions to the Koran were clearly blasphemous
many individuals, including a few newspaper editors and tele (in Muslim eyes), they did not interpret this to be a ground
vision programme makers, began to fear that they had mis (let alone a decisive ground) for recommending a state ban.
judged the Muslims. Self-proclaimed defenders of freedom of Both the deadlock and the apparent disagreement of principle
speech as an absolute right began to see flaws in their argu behind it still remain and may indeed remain forever with us.
ments. Weren't there, after all. severe restrictions on such a A substantial number of those concerned to defend the
freedom in common and statute law? What precisely was the rights of Salman Rushdie have, even at this late hour, refused
rationale for curtailing the right to publish racist and obscene to concede that the Muslim outrage is authentic. There have
literature? A few pro-Rushdie writers and journalists have been many attempts to attribute purely political or strategic
recently been busy distancing themselves from their own earl motives to the Muslim campaigners. Indeed it has even been
ier derisory and dismissive comments made in the heat of the suggested, without any evidence at all. that Iran gave about
moment. a million dollars towards the costs of organising the anti
Bradford became a favourite shrine for repentant writers Rushdie demonstration in London on 27 May 1989. The
and journalists. A whole tribe of them have made the three Economist alleges that Saudi Arabia spent a quarter of a
hour journey from King's Cross to argue and debate in the million pounds encouraging Bradford Muslims to protest even
city of the book-burners —devout Muhammadan chaps who before the book-burning incident of mid-January. Maulana
speak English, read books, write books, and occasionally Abdal Husain Chaudhary of the Muslim Action Front (in
burn them. What has impressed them is that the long cam London) and Sher Azam of the Bradford Council of Mosques
paign by the Liberal Inquisition—its continuing intimi both vehemently denied that external powers were funding
dation—has not in any way stopped Muslims from protesting British Muslim anger. In the case of Bradford at any rate,
at the sacrilege of The Satanic Verses. Muslims have rightly one look at the run-down state of the Council of Mosques
condemned the regular use of double standards by Western premises is enough to remove doubts of Saudi funding.
commentators and the prejudicial rigour of their judgements 'Who funds you?' is a cynical question intended to rob
against Muslims. Thus, for example, several non-Muslims Muslims of their sincerity. Remember that it is, as David
have hinted that they would even defy any legal enactment Caute points out. only the other side of the 'conspiracy coin':
according to which The Satanic Verses was banned. It is this 'AU this Rushdie business is a Western conspiracy!' is coun
kind of attitude and the excesses it has sanctioned which will tered by 'All this Muslim outrage is due to Saudi funds!' In
52 53
fact of course Islamic activities in Britain were not sustained cede that at least those who have been killed in the demon
by donations from foreign powers whether Arab states or strations were sincere in their indignation. Again, with respect
Iran. ' to British Muslims, it may be possible to give many expla
As soon as Muslims arrived in the United Kingdom in the nations for the depth of outrage: the psychic insecurity felt
late 1950s and early 1960s. long before the oil boom in the by poorer immigrants struggling to attain a sense of identity,
Arab world, they contributed towards the costs of provision the minority status of Muslims, external funding of the cause,
of basic religious amenities, despite their poverty. Many and even a desire to impress each other and the non-Muslims.
houses were converted into simple places for prayer: none of But it is helpful to include in this list the possibility that the
the mosques, until recently, were grand works of architecture. outrage is authentic. After all. it is unwise to list every pos
Foreign donations did not help to initiate Islamic activities sible explanation other than the true one. Cynicism ought to
though some sustained them subsequently. To be sure, the have limits even in the Rushdie affair.
British Muslim community is not without wealth. Even so,
there is a striking contrast with Christian missions, funded by
British and American voluntary bodies, currently operating 7
in Muslim lands. There are vast donations to church personnel Martin Luther King’s maxim may well serve to introduce our
working among Muslims in Africa, the Middle East and theme: ’Law does not change the heart—but it does restrain
Pakistan. the heartless.’ Every great tragedy teaches a truism; and the
At the heart of these cynical allegations is the notion that Rushdie affair is no exception. The freedom to express
Muslims remain Muslims for some reason extrinsic to their opinions on political and religious matters has to be restrained
faith-such as foreign money. But the fact is that Islam has in the interests of social harmony. There are limits to freedom
a powerful hold on the minds of Muslims in places as diverse of speech even in liberal democracies; and there ought to be.
as Britain and Iran. Whether this is due to the consummate For it is dangerous to allow motives of profit and sensational
indoctrination methods of the faith in early childhood or, ism alone to determine the boundaries of public taste. We
more simply and credibly, a firm belief in its ultimate truth need the firm protection of the law to ensure that the interests
and sanity, can be left in the realm of reverent disagreement. of weaker individuals and groups are not substantially harmed
Suffice it to say that even in China and Russia. Muslim convic by the irresponsible attitudes or actions of the more powerful
tion remains secure and powerful notwithstanding systematic individuals and groups in the same society. Accordingly, there
Communist propaganda against Islam as a backward and are many legislative procedures for curtailing freedom of
regressive creed. speech. For example, the Press Council and the laws of libel
The point about the true motivation for being a Muslim is protect individuals’ reputations from the extravagant claims
utterly central to any understanding of the profundity of the of journalists and writers. Any juridical system that allows
anger of the Muslim campaigners, and their determination. the famous to seek redress for libel cannot boast absolute
The overwhelming majority of Muslims have relentlessly freedoms of speech.
argued against the sacrilege of Rushdie’s book because they In the United Kingdom we have laws restricting by common
have sincerely felt outraged. This outrage has been spon consent many excesses in the freedom of expression. No one
taneous and universal and needs no foreign sponsors. Con should deny the value of freedom of expression; and one of
science suffices. This is not to deny that many Muslims have, the problems we must accept in a multi-cultural society is the
as in Pakistan, exploited the Rushdie furore purely for their possibility of being routinely outraged. But the question here
own personal political ends. But it is only charitable to con is about the limits of this outrage. According to English law,
54 55
Be Careful with Muhammad.' The Liberal Inquisition
what is not prohibited is permitted; but many things are attempt to make a case against the publication of The Satanic
explicitly prohibited: blasphemy, obscenity, sedition, treason, Verses?
incitement to racial hatred, breaches of national security, The liberal thinker Michael Ignatieff (Observer, 2 April
subversion, contempt of court and of Parliament, and libel. 1989) has misleadingly argued that, at root, the disagreement
There are disputes, sometimes intractable, about the precise between Muslims and their opponents is over 'incompatible
definition of the offences involved, but the underlying prin conceptions of freedom, one in which freedom's limit is the
ciples are universally accepted. Is it unreasonable to extend sacred, one in which it is not'. Now. liberals certainly place
this concern to the prohibition of the publication of books the limit elsewhere— which is natural—since they reject the
like The Satanic Verses which are likely to inflame, through sacred. But the contrast, as Ignatieff wishes to interpret it,
defamation, the feelings of a given section of society and. in would be meaningful only if the opposite of the Islamic notion
doing so, to provoke public disorder? To be sure, prolonged of freedom were virtual anarchy. And of course it isn't. Lib
public and parliamentary debate would together serve to erals do recognise the limits of freedom of speech; it would
establish the precise content of the law. But surely the moral be odd if they drew the line at the sacred given that they
concern behind the proposed legal enactment can readily be reject the sacred. But, to men of faith, it may well seem
discerned and registered. arbitrary that the limits are drawn on the basis of race and
It is ironic that many in the present Conservative govern gender.
ment should give lectures to their Muslim citizens about the Ignatieff argues, mistakenly, that behind this disagreement
virtues of freedom of speech. For we are living at a time of of principle lies another radical disagreement, namely,
increased press censorship and routine political interference. whether 'offence can be given to beliefs as such or merely to
We have for example the Official Secrets Act. the recent individuals'. Now. as it stands, this formulation of the issue
seems incoherent. Can one attach any sense to Ignatieffs
legal battle over Spycatcher and the continuing broadcasting
claim about offence being given to beliefs as such? Beliefs
difficulties over Death on the Rock. And who can ignore the
are not sentient creatures; consequently they are not capable
formation of external watchdogs to police the media industry?
of taking offence. Only people are offended in the required
The establishment of the British Standards Council is itself a
sense. Among the beliefs these people hold are beliefs about
sufficient indication of the government's desire to erode cer
themselves and their universe-beliefs about race, gender and
tain freedoms.
religious conviction. Laws never protect doctrines or beliefs
During the Rushdie affair, countless writers both in the
as such against outrage. They protect the people who hold
West and in the Islamic world have been busy praising the
these beliefs against offence.
virtues of freedom of speech and condemning the orthodox The point is not a quibble. Ignatieff tries to argue that, in
Muslim predilection towards censorship. Yet many pro a theocratic state like Iran, the law protects certain doctrines,
fessional writers would no doubt accept that one can abuse while in allegedly free societies, like the United Kingdom,
the privilege of freedom. In the international PEN charter of the law does not protect doctrines as such but rather protects
the world association of writers, the final sentence of the individuals. It protects individuals through the application of
concluding paragraph reads: 'And since freedom implies vol laws of libel or laws against incitement to racial hatred. If so,
untary restraint, members pledge themselves to oppose such Ignatieff has to reckon with the fact that the law of blasphemy
evils of a free press as mendacious publication, deliberate remains on the statute books. This seems, on his understand
falsehood and distortion of facts for political and personal ing, an attempt to protect a doctrine rather than an individual.
ends.' Why can't Muslims appeal to this principle in their He dismisses it as a dead relic from a dead Christian past.
56 57
Be Careful with Muhammad.’ The Liberal Inquisition
A Christian believer may wish to disagree. In any case, the to the claim that they interpret freedom to be a negotiable
issue remains. Ignatieff can dismiss it because he mis value.
identifies it. The issue is not 'whether one should protect It is an axiom of democratic thought that the truth about
individuals rather than beliefs. For it is incoherent to protect the political world is not ascertainable in a final or absolute
beliefs as such unless there are people who hold them and way, and that all men and women are fallible, not least those
who might be offended by an attack on them. In one sense, in positions of power and influence. Accordingly, individuals
one has no choice but to protect people, as opposed to their and groups with conflicting interests should properly discuss
beliefs. It is both possible and necessary to protect beliefs and negotiate solutions on the basis of enlightened self-inter
because people’s sensibilities are at stake. The real reason for est. But there has been little evidence of any such reasoning
Ignatieffs rejection of the blasphemy law is not that it protects during the Rushdie affair. The notion of negotiating with
doctrines as opposed to individuals but because it recognises these uncivilised Muslims has been dogmatically rejected. It
that religious conviction can be as relevant a consideration as has indeed been a case of our light and sagacity versus their
race and gender in the formulation of legal restraint. darkness and obscurantism.
Religion is, for Muslims, as much a part of their essential It is the Muslims who have wished to remind liberals that
self-definition as race or gender. There is a sense in which freedom is indeed a contestable concept. The Muslims have
one cannot escape one’s race or. arguably, gender. But for plausibly argued that the issue is not the right to censure the
the overwhelming majority of Muslims, religion is also an Islamic tradition, for that right exists and is routinely exer
inescapable fact of one’s nature. So, the stock liberal argu cised. The issue is whether or not any civilised society should
ment fails, it is not as though one could simply discard one tolerate, let alone encourage, writers to ridicule and mock
religious conviction for another or even for none at ail. For the convictions of a major world constituency. Does the secu
many Muslims, Islam is a part of their being from the cradle lar clergy have the right to canonise freedom of speech as an
to the grave. Such a feature cannot reasonably be seen as absolute value overriding all other relevant considerations?
being peripheral or incidental to one’s self-image. The liberal fundamentalists have betrayed themselves. For
This is not an argument primarily for protecting ideas the central principle of secular liberalism is that difference
against abuse—in any case, as 1 have shown, an incoherent in ideological posture among groups and individuals should
proposal. It is an argument for protecting the collective dig rarely, if ever, entail a restriction of human sympathies. Yet
nity of those groups—such as Muslims and Sikhs—whose the Muslims were pilloried for defending their dignity as
members, rightly or wrongly, do define their own ideals or the believers.
worth of their lives in terms of irreducibly religious notions. It is significant that the British Muslims’ rebellion, with all
its impotence (only the powerless bum books and demon
strate on the streets), has elicited anger rather than sympathy.
8 Could it be that Islam challenges the moral absolutism of
’Freedom is not a holy belief, nor even a supreme value.’ So the liberal establishment setting itself up as the sole cultural
writes Michael Ignatieff in the Observer of 2 April 1989. It overseer and arbiter of public taste and value? Even a purely
is, he tells us. a contestable concept. Is it? To be sure, liberal rhetorical protest by the British Muslims has galvanised the
thinkers would argue that all the central concepts of modern opposition; everyone has gathered together to warm them
secular political theory are essentially contestable. Freedom, selves by the fire of Western passion. Where is the negotiated
rights, power, democracy itself. Yet the behaviour of apolo compromise, the judicious pragmatism of a liberal democratic
gists for liberalism during the Rushdie affair gives the lie culture committed to rejecting authoritarian dictates and the
58 59
passionate arrogance authoritarianism allegedly engenders? The Rushdie affair is, in the last analysis, admittedly about
After the Rushdie episode, it is even harder to endorse a fanaticism on behalf of God. Immediately we need to be
faith in the humility of secular liberal postures of power. cautious. For fanaticism is by no means the monopoly of the
The point is hugely significant. Islam is a salutary reminder Muslim fundamentalists. Indeed fanaticism is often merely
of the need for political humility in secular statecraft. Il is other folks' passion. Nations can be fanatical about trivial
always a routine assumption of Western political theory that matters (such as football and sensuality) or elevated matters
the possibilities of political humility are exhausted by purely (such as religion and morality). Could it be, then, that we
secular postures of power. Yet the assumption is question can all live with some prejudices but not with others?
able. For it is secular statecraft, not theocracy, that gave us The Archbishop of York wrote in a letter to The Times (1
Hiroshima and two World’ (or rather European) Wars. Some March 1989) that abolishing the law of blasphemy would
of the most incisive critiques of the abuse of power have come indicate 'that in the last resort our society holds nothing
from the pen of those troubled by the hubris of secularly sacred, apart from the freedom of writers to write what they
when it rejects any liability to forces greater than itself. With like. This is. for obvious reasons, attractive to
so much talk of The Thought Police and Muslim fundamental writers . . . (but] why should it have absolute priority over
ists in the same breath, it is well to remember that Orwell's all other claims to sacredness?' Fair question, surely; and one
political masterpiece 1984 is a critique of totalitarianism in not to be answered by evasive liberal rhetoric about religious
secular dress. Big Brother was not an Ayatollah, not even an intolerance being particularly oppressive. Intolerance, no
ordinary Muslim. The Liberal Inquisition has its Thought matter what its source, leads to oppression and denial of
Police too. human rights. It is a prejudice, if a pardonable one, to think
that the intolerance of those who make particularly loud pro
9 fessions of tolerance is to be preferred to the intolerance of
those who don’t.
Freedom is more holy to liberals than Michael Ignatieff would
have us believe. In fact, liberal society too holds certain
shibboleths beyond rational debate. Some things do matter;
and principles cannot be weighed in the scales of pragmatism 10
or diplomacy. Yet if freedom of speech is a sacred or other Neither conspiracy nor passion has been lacking in the Rush
wise unnegotiable value for the liberal West, why shouldn’t die affair. One of Viking Penguin's own editorial advisers.
the question of Muhammad’s honour have a similar status for Khuswant Singh, wisely counselled against the publication of
Muslim believers? The Satanic Verses. Certainly one can have conspiracies in
It is fashionable for Western writers to pretend to be sus the strong sense of actually having influential people in
picious of all apologias and enthusiasms. Yet aren't we all smoke-filled rooms whispering sinister secrets. A society as
apologists for one belief or another—if only the true one? complex as ours doesn't normally work like that. But con
Nor will it do to pretend, as some might neatly think, ’But spiracies in the weaker sense abound. There has been a sys
truth needs no apology’. For that would only be true in a tematic attempt, both before and during the Rushdie affair,
world in which truth were both manifest and men were to exclude the broadcasting of well-argued and convincing
honest. But, in the contemporary universe, truth is extremely Muslim contentions.
hard to come by and. even when attained, there is no shortage After seeing The Late Show on 8 May 1989 on BBC2,
of those professionally engaged in obscuring it. the historian David Cautc wrote to me: ‘Isn’t it time they
60 61
despatched you to interview the liberal intellectuals in their need and don't deserve. Those who regularly mistake fashion
"belljars’’?’ It was high time indeed. But even to have got for passion, and pray that others do so too, cannot have the
this far, 1 privately mused, was'an achievement. It would be right to any tremendous cause, whether for Islam or against
at least another fifty years before Ignatieff and Akhtar could it.
reverse roles. And that not simply because Akhtar had a
brown skin. After all. Salman Rushdie and Tariq Ali also
have brown skins. But Akhtar and his ilk happen to believe
in that dangerous creed—Islam—at once too far from and yet
too close to the Western conscience. Fifty years does not
seem to me to be too generous an estimate.
Nor has passion been in short supply during the Rushdie
affair. Yasmin Ali is wrong when she claims that the reaction
from the liberal left has been 'depressingly bloodless’ in com
parison with 'the militant wrath of Shabbir Akhtar and others’
(New Statesman and Society. 16 March 1989). What is true is
that the passion from the liberal camp has been reactionary
and secondary: there has been a passionate reservation about
the passion of Muslims.
For all their claims to objectivity, the views of most liberal
commentators bear clearly on them the imprint of partisan
enthusiasm and ethnocentric loyalty. Thus, for example. Fay
Weldon has recently canonised Rushdie! Given that St Sal
man’s incoherent fantasy appears to have fooled the West, at
least the miracle-working requirement for canonisation has
been fulfilled.
The fact is of course that The Satanic Verses is a mediocre
piece of literature the popularity of which among people who
know nothing about Islam invites one to look at their motives.
The Western literary establishment has inflated the book into
a major cultural phenomenon in a decade that must show
some claim to significance before it ends.
It has been a long summer of persecution. In the end, there
will be. as usual in the aftermath of English obstinacy, a
compromise solution embedded in insincere apologies, from
all sides, for past excesses. But any hasty militancy, by
the Muslims, would be a great tragedy for Islam. For it
would give the liberal establishment a martyr they badly
62 63
From Teheran with Love
4 From Teheran with Love voiceless Muslim masses. Even the desperate book-burning
(in Bradford a month earlier in mid-January 1989) had not
seriously worried them. After all, as many in the press would
have us believe, these Muhammadan peasants are not capable
of appreciating great works of fiction. At any rate, a relatively
incomprehensible piece of literature weighing in at about a
quarter of a million words, was transformed into an instant
bestseller. It was every author's dream. In repeated television
■I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the appearances. Rushdie enjoyed being represented as the great
author of the "Satanic Verses" book, which is against Islam, liberal freethinker, dedicated to progress and enlightenment,
the Prophet and the Koran, and all those involved in its harassed by a narrow-minded and narrow-hearted ‘fundamen
publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to talist’ minority among the Muslims.
death. I ask all the Muslims to execute them wherever they ‘Publish and be damned' is a Western slogan; ‘Publish and
find them.' be hanged’ is Khomeini’s version. Rushdie was destined to
Ayatollah Khomeini’s edict, issued on St Valentine’s day, pay a high price for what was. in Muslim eyes, very obvious
certainly seemed no message of love. It shocked audiences literary impudence. In Teheran, the controversy surrounding
world-wide. For most non-Muslims it merely confirmed, if The Satanic Verses had been monitored by the Ayatollah’s
such confirmation were needed, the all-pervasive fanaticism advisers since October 1988. But no action had been recom
and intolerance of ’fundamentalist’ Islam. Khomeini had mended. Iran's charge d'affaires, Akhundzadch Basti, was in
become one of the many violent witnesses to the bigotry and London throughout the months preceding the delivery of the
anti-intellectualism of the Muslim faith. In a long line of fatwa and must surely have advised his government on the
totalitarian leaders, he was unwilling to tolerate the diversity developments in Britain. But it was the riots in Islamabad
of opinion all traditions naturally spawn over the centuries. that were to supply the last straw. Iranian television reported
Many Muslims, however, applauded Khomeini as a hero. that half-a-dozen people had been killed in anti-Rushdie dem
Members of both major sects, Shia'h and Sunni, were united onstrations in the Pakistani capital on 12 February 1989, with
in their praise for his stance. In sharp contrast to the deafen one more civilian death a day later in neighbouring Kashmir.
ing silence in the Arab heartland of Islam, at least he had Khomeini asked for a full report on The Satanic Verses; a
spoken. And spoken clearly. Had he not stood up for the day later he pronounced his famous fatwa according to his
honour of Muhammad—the noble messenger of God? Wasn’t interpretation of Islamic law. Within hours there was talk of
this proof of his love for God? Many Muslims privately a price on Rushdie’s head. This was indeed, as V. S. Naipaul
thought that Khomeini had got the date right after all. remarked in an interview in Calcutta, ‘an extreme form of
literary criticism'.
1
■Publish and be damned’ was never truer than in Salman 2
Rushdie’s case. But it can be fun being published —and Western condemnation of Khomeini’s fatwa was hasty, loud,
merely being damned for it. Before the religious edict (fatwa) clear and unanimous. Commentators in the media saw it as
from the Iranian cleric, Rushdie and his publishers had been the Muslims' collective regression into the fanatical intoler
having a good time at the expense of the powerless and ance of the medieval era—or, I suppose, of the more recent
64 65
days of the American Wild West. Many writers speculated
that it was difficult even to explain, let alone justify, the flavour of Machiavellianism, that offends the Western con
ferocity of Khomeini’s reaction.' Could it be that he had inter science. At any rate, it is wise to resist the obvious conclusion
preted Rushdie’s book as a personal attack on the Imam ‘bent that Iranian interpretations of Islam necessarily patronise
on rolling back history itself, setting his face against progress brutality more than other ideologies do.
It is in general unwise for assassins to publish their inten
and justice?
At any rate, virtually ail Western writers, particularly Brit tions to their would-be victims. Given the frankness of Khom
eini’s orders, it is difficult to believe that Khomeini was inter
ish, French and American ones, jointly condemned the fatwa
ested in having Rushdie assassinated. (Indeed, in a
as failing to meet Western ethical requirements. It was brutal
paradoxical way. the fatwa saved Rushdie’s life: the tight
and unjust. Such ’remote control' assassinations smacked
security surrounding him, in the wake of the Iranian threat,
more of the Mafia than of a civilised state.
has made it difficult for outraged Muslim individuals even in
There were over-reactions too. The normally moderate if
Britain to harm him.) Khomeini himself probably reasoned
passionate Nobel Prize winner. Elie Wiesel said: ’If the death
that an individual keenly threatened with death suffers far
threat succeeds in silencing the Indian bom author, it would
mean not only the end of literature but the end of civilisation.’ more than one who is killed without warning.
’Be careful with Muhammad’, warns the slogan. Rushdie
An exaggeration surely; civilisation may well survive without
must have known it. Anyone bom within the Realm of Islam
Salman Rushdie and his works.
Muslim, particularly Iranian, reaction was no less passion is bound to know it. Indeed, many outsiders are well aware
of the Muslim tendency to take religious conviction seriously.
ate. Khomeini's fatwa and the price placed on Rushdie's head
There is ample evidence in Islamic history for the view that
was. it was argued, no different from the bounty offered for
bank robbers in the American Wild West during the nine Muslims hold their Prophet in great esteem. At any rate.
Rushdie’s literary terrorism had been answered by Khom
teenth century. Was the sheriff then a murderer because he
eini's threat of physical terrorism.
offered a reward for the criminal caught dead or alive? Nor
will it do to retort, urged the Iranians, that the alleged crime
in Rushdie’s case was not committed within a territory under
the jurisdiction of the Iranian state. There were, the Iranians 3
pointed out somewhat weakly, instances of one nation s auth
Sir Geoffrey Howe of the United Kingdom was among the
orities sentencing a citizen of another country: the British
first Western leaders to condemn Khomeini’s fatwa. Within
government once sentenced a future Israeli Prime Minister.
days of Khomeini’s declaration, Howe had elicited the uncon
Mr Begin, in absentia, for involvement in Palestinian terror
ism in the 1940s. ditional support of the European and American communities.
To show solidarity with the British decision to withdraw Brit
The Western outrage is the result of double standards. For,
ish diplomats from Teheran, the EEC (European Economic
after all. surreptitious violence in the pursuit of such goals
Community) countries decided on 20 February to withdraw
as national and ideological security as well as alleged anti
their diplomats too. The newly elected President George
terrorism is morally acceptable to many European and Ameri
Bush also joined in the Western criticism of Iran’s leader as
can critics of Khomeini. Are there no Western heads of state
who occasionally condone the taking, albeit secretly, even of a tyrant and murderer.
In Teheran, the initial reaction was one of sincere surprise.
innocent life in the pursuit of aims like security and world
Why had Britain over-reacted on the Rushdie issue? After
peace? Perhaps it is Khomeini's candour, with its published
all. Britain had taken the initiative in normalising diplomatic
66
67
Be Careful with Muhammad! From Teheran with Love
relations with Iran; indeed the British Embassy had been At the end of February the Iranian Parliament passed a
reopened in November 1988. motion giving the United Kingdom seven days to impose a
Iran immediately responded to the EEC reaction by an ban on Rushdie's book and apologise. Iran's charge! d'affaires,
equally dramatic move. All Iranian diplomats in Europe were Akhundzadeh Basti. left London for Teheran. He supported
recalled. Muslims in many European cities marched, raising Khomeini's fatwa as a 'divine order' which no one could
pro-Iranian slogans like ’Khomeini—the honour of Islam’. change. The whole aim of the Islamic Revolution, he told
On 22 February an ageing Ayatollah Khomeini issued a state reporters just before his departure, was to defend Islam
ment. The unprecedented reaction shown against Iran, he throughout the world.
declared, was due to the West's alarm at the potential power While Western diplomatic pressure against Iran was
of Islam. It was this threat to Western hegemony. Khomeini increasing, there were many more demonstrations in which
argued, that could alone explain the sheer ferocity of Western Muslims condemned Rushdie as well as the British govern
indignation. The reaction of European and American govern ment. Throughout the Muslim world and indeed Europe and
ments had little to do with defending the rights of a black the United States, outraged Muslims took to the streets in a
individual and more to do with their frustration at having been rare show of unity. British and American flags were burnt
denied an opportunity to ridicule Islam. Even the presence and the embassies stoned. Arab governments, particularly the
of one truly Islamic state. Khomeini concluded, could put Saudis, were condemned for their silence over the Anglo-
considerable limits on the power of non-Muslims to insult the Rushdie scandal; they were passionately accused of being co
Muslims. conspirators with the West in a plot to destroy Islam. Khome
One day after Khomeini's reaction to the Western outrage, ini. by contrast, emerged as the isolated but celebrated hero
the Iranian Parliament and Assembly of Experts tabled a who had saved Islam in the hour of trial. Muslims the world
motion asking the government to break off diplomatic over were deeply impressed by the courageous stance of the
relations with the United Kingdom. The Iranians suggested Iranians given that they had already paid such a high price
that, given Britain's past record of ideological enmity towards for their defence of Islamic values.
Muslims, the British government must publicly condemn The The one week’s notice given to the British government by
Satanic Verses and apologise to the Muslim community for the Iranians was due to end on 7 March. Iran cancelled
injury to feelings. Meanwhile, many religionists throughout a technical exhibition, scheduled for 5 March in Teheran,
the Islamic world were coming out in favour of Khomeini's involving 50 British firms. On 2 March the Labour MP for
edict. On 25 February' Indian police shot dead about a dozen Bradford West, Max Madden, urged Parliament to act quickly
more Muslim demonstrators in Rushdie's native Bombay. to resolve the Rushdie affair. He warned that unless the
The Imam of India's Jami a Mosque in Delhi openly sup British government tried to satisfy the demands of its own
ported Khomeini's fatwa. Another leading Indian Muslim Muslim citizens, Khomeini could not be isolated as an out
religionist, Maulana Hasan Ali Nadawi. no friend of Khom sider agitating the Muslims settled in the United Kingdom.
eini's and indeed passionately opposed to Shia"h Islam, On the same day, Geoffrey Howe and Margaret Thatcher
endorsed the Iranian cleric's judgement as 'just and appropri both acknowledged that The Satanic Verses was indeed offen
ate'. The Mufti of Jerusalem's al-Aqsa Mosque concurred. In sive and sympathised with Muslim outrage. But neither
the Lebanon the powerful Sheikh Shaban, leader of the agreed to consider Muslim demands for a state ban on the
Tauhid Movement, came out in favour of the fatwa, praising book. Many parts of The Satanic Verses, argued Geoffrey
Khomeini as a courageous Muslim soldier opposing a 'Zionist Howe, also provocatively compared Britain with Hitler's Fas
plot against Islam'.
cist Germany. And while that offended him and his col-
68 69
leagues, it was not a sufficient reason for banning the book.
Freedom of speech was. he continued, a British tradition that Similarly, the Koran frequently accuses the Christians of com
had to be defended at all costs.' Diplomatic relations between mitting blasphemy against God (or. more strictly, one of the
Iran and the United Kingdom were officially severed on 7 names of God since the person of God is too exalted for any
indignity to reach him). Once again, no penalty is prescribed.
March.
Indeed far from legislating punishment here, the Koran dis
courages Muslims even from verbally abusing the deities of
4 idolaters and blasphemers: ’And revile not those whom they
We shall in due course examine Khomeini’s fatwa in the call upon God. lest they, out of spite, revile (the true] God
context of the British Muslim stance and indeed the reactions in their ignorance’ (6:109).
of other Muslims world-wide. But it is wise at this stage to Things are somewhat different when a believing Muslim is
survey briefly the traditional Islamic beliefs and laws about thought to blaspheme against God or his messenger. The
blasphemy, apostasy and treason. Koran itself makes no clear reference to such a scenario.
Subsequent learned opinion has always remained divided but
All sacred literature in the Hebrew-Christian and Islamic
traditions makes references to blasphemy, apostasy, and there is no shortage of those prescribing imprisonment or
even execution for heretics and individuals thought to have
heresy. Let us begin with blasphemy. The Old Testament
(Leviticus 24:16) prescribes corporal punishment for blas committed offences against the dignity of God or his messen
phemy. while the New Testament (Matthew 12:32) is content ger. Such measures have rarely been carried out. official Islam
to warn that blasphemy is unforgivable in both worlds. Justi having always been relatively tolerant of heresy. But there are
famous exceptions. The tenth-century mystic-saint Mansur al-
nian prescribed the death penalty for blasphemy; it became
part of the codification of Roman law in ad 535. In later and Hallaj had, in a moment of ecstasy, exclaimed ’I am the
medieval Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic, blas truth’, effectively identifying himself with the Deity. He was
phemy remained punishable by death. Indeed blasphemy is executed by an outraged orthodoxy eager to avenge blas
still a criminal offence in the United Kingdom though it does phemy against the divine name.
not figure in the legal systems of many other European The problems of identifying apostasy and the determination
countries. of appropriate punitive measures are both large and contro
It is fair to add that blasphemy can be a meaningful offence versial. By and large, the Koran prescribes penalties for what
both in a pious and a secular context. For secular nations that may be termed ’social’ crimes—such as adultery, fornication,
were formerly Christian, 'blasphemy' would imply the use of theft, highway robbery, causing public disorder—as opposed
to purely personal or spiritual offences such as hypocrisy,
grossly outrageous language concerning one’s own nation or
dishonesty in interpersonal relationships, back-biting, finan
some inviolable ideal of that nation. In parts of the United
cial malpractice, lapse from strict Islamic piety, and private
States, there is still a civil penalty on the books for any
extreme outrage against the flag. loss of faith. As 1 understand it. the sacred scripture of Islam
does not prescribe any penalty in this world for apostasy-
In the Islamic tradition too it is possible to blaspheme
alone. It condemns those who 'turn their backs on guidance’
against God. his revealed message and his Prophet. Surpris
as sinning against God; the works of renegades are in vain and
ingly, however, the Koran docs not legislate a penalty for such
blasphemy. Chapter 4 (verse 151) refers to Jewish blasphemy Hell is often said to be their destination (2:217). However,
against Mary, the mother of Christ. But no punishment, other apostasy is punishable by death if it is aggravated, variously,
by treachery in a military context, a breach of contract or
than a spiritual one (in terms of divine wrath) is mentioned.
treaty with a Muslim party to an agreement, ideological or
70
71
physical enmity to Muslims or the Islamic state, any attempt
the prophetic example, and all five schools of law (four Sunni,
to bring the religion of Islam into serious disrepute in the
one Shiah) arc unanimous in their endorsement of capital
eyes of rejectors, and related dffences.
punishment for public recantation coupled with active oppo
Given that the infant Islamic state in Medina could easily
sition to the House of Islam.
be infiltrated and subsequently destroyed by external political
Private recantation from Islam aggravated by disobedience
forces working in alliance with fellow conspirators within, the
to Islamic law or physical violence against Muslim lives and
sacred volume has much to say on recantation and apostasy
property always warrants the 'extreme' (hudood) punish
as well as heresy, temporary belief feigned by individuals
ments. Thus, for example, immediately after the death of the
trying to create confusion among believers, and undetectable
Prophet, the First Caliph took military action against certain
varieties of hypocrisy. There arc ten references to recantation
tribes which had relapsed into their previous paganism. But
and scores of references, including a whole chapter, to hypoc
the rebel tribes were not only committing apostasy; they were
risy. Neither hypocrisy nor recantation merit corporal punish
also refusing to pay the obligatory alms-tax due to the infant
ment. In fact, according to the Koran itself, neither merit any
Islamic state. In effect rhe tribes were breaking their pledge
penalty at all in this world. Thus, for example, three Jews in
to the Islamic authorities. Such apostasy, coupled with a
Medina who recanted according to Chapter 3 (v.72). did so
breach of contract, effectively amounted to treason against
with complete impunity. Indeed. Chapter 5 (v.54) speaks of
the Islamic state; and the death penalty was accordingly-
collective apostasy by an entire generation of Muslim
invoked against the rebel tribes.
believers. No worldly punishment is prescribed; God simply
Given that the Koran famously makes no distinction
promises to raise a generation more worthy of the faith.
between religious and political authority, many Muslim schol
A virtually conclusive argument against the death penalty
ars of law from the earliest times have considered recantation
for recantation from Islam is implied in the Koran's famous
to be not merely sinful but also an act of high treason against
chapter concerning 'Women' (v.137). 'Those who believe,
die Islamic state. Capital punishment has therefore sometimes
then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve and then
been demanded even for privately committed apostasy. The
increase in their disbelief, such are those whom God will
major aims have been to safeguard against opportunist con
never forgive nor guide to the path.' But a renegade could
versions and to prevent the entry of spies into the Muslim
hardly enjoy the benefit of repeated belief and disbelief if
community. Clearly, if people entering the household of Islam
capital punishment were prescribed for the initial act of apos
know there is no way out, only those sincerely inclined to
tasy. To be sure, this verse could be interpreted alternatively
accept Islam are likely to enter at all. There have been many
to be simply a commentary on the limits of repentance and
cases of individuals converting to Islam and then relapsing
divine forgiveness. But such a reading does not preclude the
into their original faith once privileged access to required
more obvious interpretation that even repeated apostasy, let
information had been obtained or certain attractive worldly
alone apostasy, is not punishable by death.
privileges-such as polygamy and the facility of divorce-had
Recantation of itself, then, docs not seem to warrant the
been enjoyed. Only those suspected of spying are likely to
death penalty. This interpretation of the Koran is supported
face execution primarily for broadly political (as opposed to
by the Prophet's own political dealings. We have a list of more
religious) considerations of security and the public interest.
or less all individuals who were considered to be dangerous to
But there are jurists who wish to block all apostasy in order to
the Islamic state at the time of Muhammad's triumphant re
avoid any abuse of the privileges Islam offers to its adherents.
entry into Mecca. Though a number were executed, none of
The death penalty for apostasy has been demanded in
these was executed for committing apostasy. But the Koran. recent decades, for some of the reasons mentioned above, by
72 73
several learned authorities such as Sheikh Abu Zahra of no one has the right to question the Muslim status of the
Egypt and Maulana Abul Ala Maududi of Pakistan. The speaker. The practice of Islam has never been taken to be a
general view here is that conversion is a one-way traffic. condition of being a Muslim: many Muslims fail to fulfil their
While converts to Islam are welcome, any leakage from the normal religious obligations. Those Muslims who break the
vessel of faith cannot be tolerated. Male apostates are to be laws of Islam arc appropriately punished but their status as
executed unless they are mentally disturbed or below the Muslim believers does not depend on the propriety of their
age of consent (normally set at twelve), or congenitally and conduct. Such individuals may be seen (and often see them
invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Islamic religion or selves) as bad Muslims; but bad believers are believers none
converted forcibly to Islam from the revealed faiths of Juda the less. And God alone is the final judge in matters of the
ism and Christianity. Female apostates, with the same excep faith. The Koran nowhere restricts entry into Paradise to
tions as above, are treated more leniently: indefinite incarcer good Muslims (or indeed even to Muslims as opposed to Jews
ation until recantation. All apostates, male or female, are and Christians).
allowed a period of grace in which they can recant and repent From a community confident of his wisdom, the Prophet
of their decision. routinely received requests to single out the lukewarm and
Although many contemporary learned authorities reject the hypocritical elements from the truly faithful ones. He declined
view that apostasy is a capital offence, there are religionists, and thereby set a precedent for all future Muslim attempts to
particularly in India. Pakistan. Bangladesh, and Iran, who judge what is in other people's hearts. We know on the
would opt for capital punishment. The view is that those bom authority of ibn Ishaq that in the raid led by Ghalib bin
in the House of Islam cannot leave the realm of faith without Abdullah al-Kalbi, a man was killed by Usama bin Zayd and
bringing disgrace on the family of the apostate. Typically, the his companion, despite his confession of faith at the time of
law of Islam rarely needs to be applied in such cases since capture. Asked by the Prophet about the killing, Zayd replied
the apostate’s family will take the law into its own hands and that the captured man had become a Muslim out of fear.
kill the apostate on account of the stigma thought to attach The commentator Ahmad ibn Hanbal adds that the Prophet
to the rest of the family. Particularly in Indian sub-continental angrily asked Usama bin Zayd whether or not he had opened
contexts, a man's izzat (roughly speaking, honour) is thought the victim's heart to check the authenticity of his confession.
to be at stake if a family member converts to another faith. With such incidents in mind. Muslim jurists have usually
There is immense social pressure to disown the apostate if agreed to give the benefit of the doubt to the suspected
not to kill him or her. In Birmingham recently a Bengali hypocrite or apostate. As the standard Islamic theological
father murdered his own daughter because she left Islam to maxim has it: 'It is better to be mistaken in forgiveness than
become a Jehovah's Witness. in punishment.'
Among jurists favouring capital punishment for recan There is currently no consensus among Islam's religious
tation, the definition of Muslim is so broad as to include any intelligentsia in Cairo's seminary al-Azhar regarding the cor
individual calling himself or herself a Muslim, no matter how rect attitude towards apostasy. But the Draconian rulings of
he or she behaves. This was the definition used at the time some earlier religionists favouring capital punishment have
of the first census in Medina during the Prophet’s rule. Ever not, in general, found favour with the contemporary Egyptian
since, it has been considered both a necessary and a sufficient authorities at the Sunni world's policy-making centre. In prac
condition for being a Muslim that one publicly affirms that tice of course the majority of people born in the House of
one is a Muslim—normally by reciting the creed: ‘There is Islam, who wish to avoid fulfilling the requirements of Islamic
no god except God and Muhammad is his envoy.' After that piety. Can do so with impunity. There is. if you like, practical
74 75
apostasy all the time. By and large, Muslims who privately
to idolaters, may well serve as part of a specifically Islamic
commit apostasy are not harassed by the Islamic establish
manifesto on freedom of conscience and conviction: ‘To you
ment. However, those who publicly insult the Prophet or
your religion, to me mine’ (109:6).
launch abusive attacks on the contents of the Koran and the
derivative Islamic tradition are almost always taken to task
for it. 5
Enlightened Muslim opinion now recognises that, within
‘The only reward of those who make war upon God and His
the modern community of Islamic peoples, there is a signifi
Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land’, reads
cant number of individuals who are its members by chance
chapter 5 (w.33-4) of the Koran, ‘will be that they will be
rather than by choice. There is therefore a high price to be
killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate
paid for keeping the entire community in line with any unduly
sides cut off, or will be exiled from the land. Such will be
harsh policy or ruling on apostasy. For it would breed hypoc
their humiliation in this world, and in the world yet to come
risy; and disaffected hypocrites have always been a source of
there awaits them an awful doom. This is so except in the
treason and sedition even in Muhammad’s own day. Luke
case of those who repent before you overpower them. For
warm and time-serving allegiances, ultimately disruptive of
God is forgiving, merciful.' Rushdie is charged, under the
the social fabric, are hardly worth the price.
provisions of the law derived from these verses, with creating
To be sure, a missionary faith like Islam cannot turn a blind
fasad (public disorder) in a land under divine sovereignty.
eye on the heretic or the apostate—‘the brother that walketh
Khomeini’s fatwa, like the varied edicts issued by other
disorderly’ in St Paul’s idiom (2 Thessalonians 3:6). And
jurists in the Islamic world, does not by and large hinge on
Muslims certainly don’t turn a blind eye. The persecution of
the fact that Rushdie is an apostate or a blasphemer or indeed
the Ahmadi sect in Pakistan (which has been expelled from
even a shatim - an individual who insults any messenger of
the House of Islam) is a sufficient witness to that. For the
God. whether Muhammad or his prophetic predecessors.
ordinary Muslim, meeting an apostate is a far more dramati
(The penalty for a shatim. unlike a blasphemer or an apostate,
cally disturbing experience than meeting a Jew or a Christian.
is irrevocable.) The author of The Satanic Verses is charged
These related fears of heresy, apostasy and social dismem
with causing fasad or corruption in the world. In Rushdie's
berment. however, have to be set in the balance with a due case, his privately committed apostasy is thought to be aggra
regard for freedom of belief. The potential risks of heresy
vated by a public declaration of ideological enmity against the
and apostasy inherent in the offer of religious freedom are, Realm of Islam. Given that, in Islamic thought, no distinction
it seems to me, worth taking. For one thing, if there is a God. obtains between religious and political crimes, Rushdie’s
it can be safely assumed that he wants a voluntary response
attack on the religion of Islam is interpreted to be an act of
bom of genuine conviction, rooted in reflection and morally
high treason against the Islamic state. Now, as it happens,
responsible choice. Seen in this light, heresy and apostasy are
the underlying charge of fasad can be levelled indifferently at
morally more acceptable than any hypocritical attachment to
Muslims and non-Muslims alike, whether within or outside
orthodox opinion out of the fear of public sanctions.
the House of Islam: hence Khomeini's decision to include,
Nor is this a position devoid of traditional religious support. within the remit of his fatwa. Rushdie's non-Muslim
Scriptural passages are to hand favouring such a stance: accomplices, namely, his publishers and related parties.
‘There should be no compulsion in religion’ (2:256). Con It is important to understand the exact nature of Rushdie’s
scientious disbelief has to be tolerated. A verse, revealed crime. He is charged, under the regulations of chapter 5 of
during the early Meccan ministry of the Prophet, addressed the Koran, with a declaration of ’war upon God and His
76 77
Messenger' and, in doing so, with creating 'corruption (fasad) must allow such critiques on pain of becoming repressive and
in the land’. For Rushdie has been an apostate—an atheist outdated. And Rushdie's earlier work Shame caused deep
in his case-for many years before the publication of The offence to some individuals in the Pakistani government,
Satanic Verses. Many Muslims have known this and few have though it did not arouse the spontaneous anger and universal
even criticised him, let alone threatened his life. Rushdie outrage occasioned by The Satanic Verses.
is in good company. Many other writers, journalists, poets, The reason for the different reactions to the two novels is
thinkers and artists from a similar background also repudiated of central significance. To criticise or even to prostitute the
Islam as a false religion. It is a well-known fact that almost reputations of individuals who profess the Islamic creed is
all of the Third World socialists resident in the West have, in one thing; reviling things sacred is quite another. To accuse
their eagerness to disown their roots and origins, sought to and to be the subject of accusation are altogether human;
cauterise Islam from their hearts and 'souls’. Indeed many both are a part of the failings of our common humanity.
have, in addition, engaged in a militant campaign against the Muslims are no exception here. But while matters of private
faith of their forebears—though usually from the safety of a injury to feeling are within the province of the discretion and
flat in London or Paris. forgiveness of individuals, offences against the dignity of God
Rushdie’s secular lifestyle, then, has been tolerated by and His Messenger may well seem inexcusable acts of gross
Muslims. No one has denied him the right, as an imaginative immorality. Nor should one dismiss the latter claim as merely
writer, to take legitimate liberties with his own sacred heri a fanatical judgement harboured in a religious enthusiasm
tage. But liberty is not licence; and most of us would think that is admittedly alien to the secular West. If we are to
at least twice before defaming the character of a man whose understand people, including the Muslims, we cannot begin
life and work have been, rightly or wrongly, held in esteem by ignoring the factors and perceptions that inform their out
for 1500 years by a major constituency of the human race. look, that are a part of their make-up.
Nor is the ground for such caution merely fear of the Muslim Many writers, including Rushdie in his earlier work, dis
reaction. One has some obligation to be fair in one’s criticisms guise their hatred of Muhammad and Islam by pretending
and reservations even about—especially about—outlooks one that their only target is the intolerance and fanaticism of the
conscientiously rejects. mullahs and clerics. In The Satanic Verses Rushdie coura
Rushdie is entitled to reject Islam or indeed to reinterpret, geously takes one step further, realising, quite rightly, that
in an idiosyncratic way. some of its doctrines and regulations. one cannot indefinitely hate Muslims without also hating the
But this is largely a matter of private option; any public faith and the prophetic pattern they love. Accordingly, he
declarations should be made in conscious awareness of the makes explicit his reservations about Islam and his animosity
risks. An authorship, no matter how personal in its formation towards the Arabian Prophet. Rushdie no longer pretends
or motivation, can hardly remain private in its consequences. that he is merely concerned to condemn a few 'fundamental
And self-censorship is a meaningful demand in a world of ists' (like Khomeini). He goes to the heart of the matter. He
varied and passionately held convictions. What Rushdie pub cuts Allah down to size and puts Muhammad in his place. It
lishes about Islam is not just his business. It is everyone's— cannot be expected that Muslims should fail to react to such
at least every Muslim's—business. an ideological challenge.
Rushdie is not a newcomer to controversy and even to
book-bannings. Indeed he has in the past, through the
medium of fiction, ably criticised influential Muslims. All
societies, alive to the pressures of the contemporary world,
78 79
f> London from several Arab Muslim countries met to formulate

The Rushdie affair comes at a time of sharply opposed and a comprehensive anti-Rushdie strategy. They were briefed by
competing trends in the Arab, and more broadly. Muslim the Saudi diplomat Sheikh Mughram al-Ghamdi, Director of
world. Though there arc countless signs of religious revival— the Islamic Cultural Centre based at the Regent’s Park
and Western talk of ’radical Islamic fundamentalism- is not Mosque in London. The ambassadors, all trustees of the
entirely without basis-there co-exist passionate commit Islamic Cultural Centre, agreed to campaign peacefully and
ments to secularly. Indeed there are many in the contempor called, rather weakly, for a state ban. In the weeks that
ary Muslim world who remain, in Jalal al-e-Ahmad’s phrase, followed, there were meetings with MPs and British govern
'Westoxicated'. Not every Muslim has sobered up under the ment officials. By late December the ambassadors of Pakis
influence of Khomeini’s Islamic revolution. tan, Qatar and Somalia, along with the Saudi Director of the
There are roughly fifty Muslim states today (if we include Regent’s Park Mosque, had already formally protested to the
Nigeria. India and Uganda) and Muslims in all of them have Home Office.
reacted, in different ways, both to the publication of The Just before the end of 1988 Sir Patrick Mayhew, the Attor
Satanic Verses and to the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini. We ney-General. told the Muslims, through Dr Pasha, that the
need to examine briefly the reaction of some of these and publication of The Satanic Verses constituted no criminal
other stateless Muslim communities and, in doing so, com offence. In early January 1989 Lord Mackay, the Lord Chan
ment on some of the underlying political trends in the Muslim cellor, informed the Muslim campaigners that blasphemy,
world. We shall return to Khomeini's stance in the penulti being a criminal offence, came under Home Office responsi
mate section before concluding with an assessment of the bility. On 1 February 1989 Douglas Hurd unequivocally stated
British Muslim position. that the blasphemy law would not be extended to cover non
Let us begin with the Saudis. It was in early October 1988 Anglican sanctities. The Saudi lobby. like other Muslims in
that Faiyazuddin Ahmad of the Leicester-based Islamic Foun Britain, had knocked on every official door.
dation. after receiving information from a friend in India, Khomeini's intervention in mid-February raised the issue
flew to Saudi Arabia to instigate a Saudi reaction against The to a new level of seriousness both for the West and for the
Satanic Verses. In the weeks that followed Saudi Arabia, like Saudis. The Ayatollah had condemned the book, the author
Pakistan, Egypt. Somalia, Sudan, Malaysia, Qatar. Indonesia and its publishers. What had the Saudis done? Muslims
openly began to question whether the ruling Saudi dynasty
and South Africa, banned both the book and entry by its
author. was worthy to be called guardians of the two holy cities.
Towards the end of February letters even from non-Muslims.
Throughout October the pro-Saudi lobby in the United
condemning The Satanic Verses, began to appear in the Brit
Kingdom met regularly to condemn the deeply anti-lslamic
ish media. At about the same time the Saudi organisation
sentiment expressed in The Satanic Verses. In London, Dr
Rabita al-Alam al-lslami finally declared that Rushdie’s book
Syed Pasha, secretary of the Union of Muslim Organisations,
contained ’affronts and assaults on the Islamic creed’ and
called a crisis meeting and launched a national campaign. In
•infringed the sanctities of the Islamic faith . . punishable in
a letter to the Prime Minister he called for prosecution of the
any country ruled by a system, constitution and laws that
author and the publishers. In early November Mrs Thatcher
protect people's rights and dignity’.
replied that there were no grounds for prosecution under Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia itself, a leading court scholar,
existing British law. Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz. urged that Rushdie
Towards the end of November 1988 ambassadors in be tried in absentia, under Islamic law in a Muslim country,
80 81
on charges of ‘heretical crimes against the House of Islam'.
act. Many Muslim commentators reminded us of the Saudis'
Lesser Arab religionists began to demand, unrealistically.
keen displeasure at the showing of the film Death of a Princess
Rushdie's extradition, while th£ir governments had imposed
on British television. The film was, wrongly no doubt, inter
a ban on his entry. Khomeini was no longer the only Islamic
preted to be an insult to the Saudi royal family: the Saudis
jurist to have condemned The Satanic Verses and its author.
immediately withdrew their ambassador, threatened to break
After an intensified and unified world-wide campaign
diplomatic relations and indeed even hinted they might
against Rushdie's book, the Jeddah-based Organisation of the
impose economic sanctions. The film was, accordingly, with
Islamic Conference (OIC) reluctantly agreed to put the issue
drawn by the British authorities.
on its agenda. The OIC, established in 1969. is essentially a In the Rushdie affair, the Saudis adopted an unduly soft
club of pro-Western Islamic countries. Few of its recommen
approach, failing even to protest strongly to the British
dations ever affect international events or policies. However,
government. Many Muslims accused the Saudis, who belong
for what it is worth, the OIC passed a resolution on 16 March
to the Wahhabi sect of Islam, as having, like all Wahhabis,
to defuse the universal outrage felt by Muslims over the
no adequate appreciation of the greatness of Muhammad.
Rushdie affair. In it. the 45 member states condemned The
Religious sectarianism apart, it is hard to resist the conclusion
Satanic Verses and its author and called for concerted action
that the reputation of their family is. for the Saudis, more
to combat blasphemy against Islam and the prostitution of
worthy of protection than the reputation of the Prophet
the reputation of Islamic personalities. The leaders of the
Muhammad. The fact is doubly surprising when we note that
member states were exhorted to ban the book, and boycott
Muhammad is not only a supreme figure of Islamic history
all Penguin publications unless the offending book was
but also, in the case of the Saudis, a national hero who
immediately withdrawn. The declaration was not mandatory brought their nation to permanent prominence in one of the
and. in real terms, had little effect. Indeed, some non-lslamic
major conquests of history.
countries like India and South Africa had taken stronger The Saudi, and more generally Arab, response has been
measures. conspicuously slow, gentle and undemonstrative. Even the
When 1 wrote ‘An Open Letter Concerning Blasphemy' OIC resolution was passed in the wake of a massive and
immediately after the publication of The Satanic Verses. I concerted world-wide campaign by the ordinary powerless
predicted that Arab religious personnel, particularly the Saudi Muslim masses. And it is not unfair to speculate that the
guardians of Islam's holy sites, would strongly condemn Rush OIC's member states were, like their Western allies, con
die and his publishers. Khomeini seemed too preoccupied cerned solely with the risks to their vital political, economic
with the rebuilding of post-revolutionary Iran to bother with and strategic interests. It is noteworthy that while all Islamic
monitoring the Rushdie episode. In the event. 1 was com states have banned The Satanic Verses, few leaders have con
pletely mistaken. But I was in good company. For the entire demned it or its author. The state ban is often imposed simply
Muslim population of the world was amazed by the silence in order to appease the anger of the ruled Muslim masses.
of the Arab governments and associated religionists at a time Indeed, the Saudi ban on The Satanic Verses is. in real terms,
when a writer, protected by the West, had opened up the hollow. For the Saudis routinely ban books; even imports of
heart of Muslim conviction for universal ridicule. That King sacred literature (like the Koran) are prohibited if printed
Fahd and the Kuwaitis should welcome Prince Charles and
outside the Saudi Kingdom.
Lady Diana during their Saudi and Gulf tour and assure them Iranian commentators have been particularly loud and
of unconditional Saudi and Arab friendship with Britain was unequivocal in their condemnation of the silence of the
interpreted by many Muslims to be a peculiarly treacherous Saudis. On 29 March two Muslims in Beigium-an Imam and
82 83
his assistant—were killed for opposing Khomeini's fatwa. It of Islamic fundamentalism is of course Egypt. The Rushdie
is widely (and plausibly) believed that Iranians were respon affair comes at a time of increased tensions between Egyptian
sible for the assassinations. Tensions between pro-Iranian and •moderates' and their Muslim fundamentalist opponents.
pro-Saudi Muslim organisations have increased world-wide, Although Islam is the official religion of Egypt with the
including those in Europe and the Far East. Islamic law (Shari ah) the main source of Egyptian legislation
The fact is, of course, that any agitation on a large scale (Article 2. The Constitution), Islam has in practice virtually
could, if unchecked, lead to a serious sense of grievance and no influence on government policy. The fundamentalist Mus
eventually pose a threat to the political stability of several lims have therefore declared that Egyptian society is infidel
Arab regimes. Iranian commentators have repeatedly warned (takfirj. Significantly, three prominent Muslim scholars at the
that any politicisation of the Muslim peoples will, in effect, al-Azhar Islamic seminary in Cairo issued a fatwa declaring
encourage in the long-term a radicalisation that may well that the charge of infidelity was invalid when issued against
inspire Khomeini-style revolutions. The threat of Islamic fun a whole society as opposed to an individual or group of
damentalism to some Arab governments, such as Egypt. individuals.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, is indeed all too real. It is a clear In mid-March, Dr Sayed Tantawi, the Mufti of Cairo and
comment on the popularity and power of militant Islam that, imam at the al-Azhar seminary issued his fatwa concerning
notwithstanding Western pressures to condemn Khomeini, Salman Rushdie. He opted for what the West calls a moderate
few Muslim leaders or religionists have issued a verdict stance, condemning the book's contents in fairly mild terms
against Khomeini’s judgement. while virtually exonerating Rushdie. One could have safely
expected such a soft verdict from the Egyptian government's
7 supreme authority on Islamic law. The reaction of the official
government-employed Muslim clergy to the Rushdie provo
We need to examine briefly the reaction of several nations cation has been the straw that broke the camel’s back for the
with large Muslim populations, and. in doing so, identify radical Islamic groups in Egypt. There have been passionate
the competing internal forces of Islamic militancy as well as calls for a jehad on a corrupt political order.
militant secularity in the Muslim world. In Egypt there are only two kinds of Muslims: those who
It is a sign of the times that a project for rewriting Arab support the government's policies and those who are in jail.
history, without any reference to Islam, was being launched And the fundamentalists are mostly in jail. Only the •moder
in the Iraqi city of Baghdad early in 1989. Meeting under the ates’ are free to practise Islam. For their Islam poses no threat
chairmanship of Dr Mustafa al-Najar. the executive council to vested Western interests. The moderate' Islamic elements
of the Bureau for Writing Arab History decided that Arabs in the Middle East are, in official Egyptian as well as Western
constitute a distinct racial group whose present and past interpretations, the ones considered harmless to the West.
achievements needed fuller appreciation. Distortions alleg In Algeria too, Islamic fundamentalism is seen as a major
edly introduced by Iranian and Western orientalist scholars threat to the stability of the state, in recent months, the
were to be excised; all authentic writing must refer exclusively Algerian authorities have been engaged in several attempts
to Arab sources. Rcvealingly, throughout the Council's delib to weaken the forces likely to inspire an Islamic resurgence. In
erations, Islam is never mentioned in any context—as if it fact, the recent constitutional reforms approved at a national
were not Islam that brought the Arabs to prominence for the referendum in Algiers are primarily designed to isolate
first (and indeed only) time in their history. Islamic groups from the left-wing labour groups.
Apart from Iran and the Lebanon, the only other citadel Since the country’s independence from France in 1962, the
84 85
Islamic factions have often joined forces, for purely pragmatic
Turkish authorities’ decision to permit the screening of The
reasons. with the left-wing groups lobbying for justice and
Last Temptation of Christ as part of the eighth annual film
reform. (The pragmatic decisioh to unite Muslims and Marx
festival was seen as a further provocation. Muslim critics in
ists was also an ingredient in Khomeini’s revolutionary over
Turkey have long been protesting about the sexual permis
throw of the Shah in Iran.) Islamic and left-wing activists
siveness that secularity has brought—with Turkey being the
jointly organised the unofficial strikes and riots in October
only Muslim country openly importing pornographic
1987 that challenged Colonel Chadli Benjedid’s regime. The
materials and even printing a Turkish edition of Playboy. The
government knows that behind the October unrest, in which
Rushdie affair comes at a time of increased official hostility
500 people died, was a powerful coalition of radical Muslim
to traditional Islam as Kemalist secularist forces retreat in the
and militant labour groups.
face of a new assertion of Islamic values by ordinary Turks.
Article 40 of the new constitution forbids the formation of
The Turkish government’s recent decision to welcome Mus
political associations directed against state interests. Accord
lims of Turkish descent expelled from Bulgaria had been its
ingly socialism is abolished as the state ideology; but the new
only redeeming action in the eyes of its Muslim fundamental
constitution confers upon trade unions in the public sector
ist opponents until the authorities eventually capitulated and
the right to strike. This measure seems to be part of an
attempt to satisfy left-wing demands and thereby isolate the banned The Satanic Verses.
In Pakistan there have been several violent protest rallies
specifically Muslim forces of protest. A major concern of the
over Rushdie s book. The Islamabad riots on 12 February, in
Algerian rulers, along with their Arab and Western allies,
which six people were killed, may well have prompted
is to preserve the essentially secular nature of the political
Khomeini to issue his fatwa. The Islamabad riots were fol
institutions. And Islamic fundamentalism poses a serious
lowed by riots in Lahore. Peshawar and Karachi. In early
threat to that aspiration since the Islamic groups want to have
March popular anger against Rushdie was caught up in ethnic
a constitution based on Islamic law (shari ah).
animosity between various factions, especially in Karachi. A
The Turkish reaction to the Rushdie affair can only be
bomb went off at the British Council Library in Peshawar in
properly assessed against the background of a recent attempt
by the masses to reassert their Islamic identity. The imposed mid-March.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was in China at
secularism of Kemal Ataturk and his followers has long been
the time of the February protests held in front of the Amer
resented by the ordinary Turks who. by and large, remain
ican Cultural Centre in Islamabad. She interpreted the anti
loyal to Islam. In March 1989, at the height of the Rushdie
Rushdie protests as being a part of the right-wing Islamic
affair, there were several demonstrations in Ankara against
lobby’s attempt to destabilise her government. After the mys
a supreme court’s decision to revoke the law permitting
terious death of General Zia-ul-Haq, the pro-Saudi Islamic
women to wear the veil on university campuses. Turkey’s
parties were defeated by Miss Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s
President Kenan Evren, who sees Islamic radicalism as a great
Party in the November 1988 elections. It is probable that the
threat to national security, had insisted on the abrogation of
right-wing politicians mounted the demonstrations to embar
the law permitting female students to wear a headscarf. At the
rass the pro-American factions in Bhutto's party. It is harder
demonstration, male and female marchers called for Evren’s
to believe that those who died in the demonstrations did so
resignation and shouted, ‘Evren and Rushdie go hand in
for purely political motives. At any rate. Miss Bhutto banned
hand’.
The Satanic Verses without condemning its author. Indeed,
In Bursa, the Ottoman Empire’s first capital, there were
in a BBC radio interview, she accused opponents of Rushdie
many displays of popular anger over The Satanic Verses. The of being guilty of blasphemy! Unsurprisingly, Britain’s
86 87
Foreign Secretary, Geoffrey Howe, voiced his approval of
sequently been ruled by a Westernised £lite sympathetic to
Miss Bhutto's stance on the Rushdie affair and. more gener
Western capitalism and secularity, and completely opposed
ally, welcomed the full 'restoration of democracy’ by Pakis
to the ideals of the Muslim people they rule.
tan’s allegedly new ’civilian' government.
Many anti-lslamic politicians in the Muslim world none
In neighbouring India. The Satanic Verses was banned as
the less enjoy great popularity among the believing masses,
early as October 1988. The secularist Muslim politician Syed
because they carefully conceal their loss of faith. There are
Shahabuddin. a member of the opposition Janata Party,
therefore countless Rushdies in the House of Islam. The Shah
alerted the Indian government to Rushdie’s book; Rajiv
of Iran and his supporters were, to a man. atheists blindly
Gandhi reacted immediately. Apart from the fact that Gandhi
imitating Western patterns of conduct. It is not in vain that
was facing a general election—there are 150 million Muslims
Henry Kissinger once referred to the Shah as America’s
in India—he no doubt remembered how his mother had suc
‘unconditional’ ally. Indeed, the rulers of almost all contem
cessfully brought libel charges against Rushdie's earlier prize
porary Muslim nation-states are secularists committed to
winning novel Midnight's Children. At any rate. India was
upholding Western interests.
among the first countries to ban the sale and distribution of
With few exceptions, the nation-states labelled ‘Islamic’ are
the book. While it is an avowedly secular nation. Indian
in reality nco-colonial sovereignties in which Muslim
politicians wisely prohibited publication in order to avoid
ambitions are severely mutilated. It is noteworthy that the
inter-religious strife.
freest Muslims live in the West and in Iran. Everywhere else.
Islam is an outlawed political force. It is no exaggeration to
8 call the Arab states proxies of the United States and Britain.
Indeed one might even say that the leaders of many so-called
Rushdie's loss of faith is not an unusual phenomenon. Count
Muslim countries are fellow conspirators with the West in
less Muslims have, under the impact of Western thought,
their opposition to Islamic forces in their territories. Western
repudiated Islamic ideals. The view that Muslim societies are
critics must not allow their hatred of Khomeini to obscure a
inferior and irrational relics from a bygone age is by no means
recognition of the truth about the realities of power in the
restricted to Western critics. The intellectual and political
Muslim world.
<Slite in Islamic lands—as in the Third World more generally—
The reaction of Western governments to the Rushdie affair
share the conviction that Islam patronises an outdated system
is understandable. For these governments' defence of Rush
of belief and practice. Most of the nationalist leaders who
die is itself part of their continuing defence of countless
aspired for independence from European colonial rulers were
Rushdies all over the Muslim world. In all the client-states,
themselves secular in outlook. After independence the
Rushdies abound. And they need to be protected from the
Muslim world was placed in the custody of a secularised Slite
wrath of the Muslim masses. Once the peoples of Islam learn
leadership sympathetic to the West's political goals.
the truth about their rulers, Khomeini-stylc revolutions need
The ruling Elites in most Islamic countries flirt with the
not remain confined to Iran or the Lebanon.
ideals and traditions of their former colonial masters. There
It is no coincidence that the most extreme fatwa comes
is therefore a virtually complete rift between an educated
from Khomeini. A unique feature of contemporary Iranian
leadership, entertaining a Eurocentric world-view, and the
society is its radical reversal of the roles of secularly and
illiterate ruled classes, often passionately attached to tra
religion. In the essentially secular order established by the
ditional Islam. Even countries created specifically to be
colonial masters of the Muslim world, Islam was to be allowed
Islamic slates, such as Pakistan and Algeria, have sub
to survive, even thrive, as a sub-culture. Khomeini's revol
88 89
ution re-establishes the supremacy of Islamic culture while 1989 at his funeral surely deserves to be placed in perspectives
relegating Western culture to tjie status of a tolerated aber other than those of a cynicism that brands other folks' passion
ration. For in major Iranian cities, Western cultural tendenc as mere fanaticism. Yet fanaticism too can be defensible—if
ies still co-exist with Islamic ones. This is in sharp contrast to it is about great ideals rather than mere trivialities.
other so-called Islamic states—notably Egypt, Pakistan and Western appraisals of fundamentalist Islam betray bias and
Saudi Arabia—where Islam is reduced to an item of piety in often complete ignorance even in their choice of political
the private sector. Khomeini’s Iran is the only country where vocabulary. To argue that Khomeini issued a fatwa to dislodge
the Christianising of Islam, so to speak, has been decisively the ’moderates’ from any ascendancy within the Iranian politi
challenged. cal order is to misuse language—and to misunderstand the
The victory of Western colonialism over Islamic states is at nature of Iranian society. There can be no question about
root the victory of powerful secularised nations over weak Khomeini’s sincerity in delivering his verdict - though even
secularised nations. The political potential of Islam has not great jurists can be mistaken. As for the so-called moderates
been drastically reduced by the triumph of Western secularly. he is supposed to be challenging, one needs to know what is
For virtually none of the so-called Islamic states, other than meant by moderation. Moderation is a virtue in Islamic ethics,
Iran, allows Islam a say in its political policies. The Iranian It implies balance and fairness in judgement; it is not equival
Revolution, even gone wrong, proves that Islam can never ent to opportunism or laxity in conduct. To Western commen
be controlled by secular powers, for its religious enthusiasm tators, all individuals harmless to the West, no matter how
can never be drastically reduced. It is Islam, as a unified extremist in other ways, are moderates. The risk and indeed
enterprise of faith and power, that inspires the Afghans in absurdity in such use of language is obvious. Thus, for exam
their struggle against the Russian aggression; it is Islam that ple. Iran's Hashemi Rafsanjani was classed as a moderate by
sustains the Palestinians’ Intifadah when the secularised lead the West. Suddenly he ordered the killing of any five Amer
ership has given in to Israel. A preacher such as Sheikh Abdul icans or Europeans for every Palestinian killed by the Israelis;
Karim Obeid is more dangerous than a ’101x01151' such as he was referred to more ambiguously after that as a ’moderate
Yasser Arafat or a spectacularly wealthy ruler such as King in Iranian terms’. The fact is of course that, for a Westerner,
Fahd. In the Middle East, rich men can be powerless while to call such a man moderate in any terms is to misuse language
poor preachers can move mountains. And the Israelis know or. perhaps, to indulge a private sense of humour.
it. Khomeini has been a favourite target of Western resent
Fundamentalist Islam as a unified enterprise of private faith ment for over a decade. Yet few Western biographies of the
and political allegiance deserves to be properly assessed. late Iranian revolutionary do him justice. During the Rushdie
Western critics fail to appreciate the intellectual and moral affair there were scores of articles about the man and his
credentials of fundamentalist Islamic positions because they faith. After all. Khomeini was fascinating; a man in his sevent
short-circuit all critical thought as soon as the term appears. ies leading an Islamic revolution, after years of exile,
Take, for example, the portrait of Khomeini in the West. The equipped only with the famous nail-clipper-and the will to
Iranian revolutionary has been branded a complete devil in martvrdom. Yet no biographer could develop the imaginative
all the obituaries in the leading papers. Yet that extremism sympathy with his ideals necessary for any objective assess
is no different from the extremism of Muslims who exaggerate ment of his achievement.
the depravity and corruption of the West. Both assessments An alternative account is badly needed. On every score,
are wildly naive, stereotyped, and indeed create more puzzles whether one welcomes it or rejects it. the achievements of
than they solve. The devotion to Khomeini televised in June Khomeini’s Islamic militancy arc colossal. He is the only
90 91
man—a poet, theologian and jurist in one—to have built a whatever he thought was right? In an age of neo-colonial
theocracy since the Renaissance- To question the political domination of the Muslim world by puppet regimes owing
legitimacy of all contemporary political patterns—whether allegiance to Western powers, it is impossible to avoid some
dynastic, dictatorial or democratic—in the name of religious
admiration for Khomeini.
principles requires not only a great political will but also In the final analysis the issue is to do with two world-views,
an exceptional degree of mental independence. The West both aristocratic in outlook, both bent on imperialism and
is alarmed by the militancy and •terrorism’ of leaders like proselytisation. Khomeini was no less passionate about empi
Khomeini and Ghadaffi; and quite rightly so. But this mili re-building than the Americans he denounced. Western com
tancy is primarily mental, not merely military . Khomeini was mentators naturally prefer their own brand of imperialism to
mentally free enough to refuse to interpret the whole world that of their opponents, but the instinct for domination is not
from a Eurocentric perspective that, rightly or wrongly, sets foreign to either party. ’One goes "west’”, writes Fazlun
the mental fashion of virtually all of the world’s contemporary Khalid in a brilliant piece, ’wherever one goes’. Those who
ruling elite. For all his other errors, the Ayatollah did not reject or resist the mental imperialism of the West are dubbed
make the mistake of sending his sons and grandsons to fundamentalists. Khomeini was certainly a fundamentalist.
Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard. For he wanted us to go East-wherever we go.
Khomeini’s Iran may well be seen as a medieval theocracy
by Western observers. Yet one needs to rise above one's
ethnocentrism to see what cultural memories theocracy 9
evokes in the Muslim mind. For theocracy is as precious to Should Muslims in the West endorse Khomeini’s/otH-a? It is
Muslims as democracy is to Westerners. The West rightly noteworthy that the Iranian verdict does not demand the
remembers theocracy with a collective shudder. Muslims may banning of The Satanic Verses. Khomeini concentrates on the
well have the right, for reasons historical as well as contem person of the author (and his publishers) rather than on the
poraneous, to react differently. Certainly the view that only offensive publication itself. British and American Muslims,
secular postures of power lead to humility in matters of state by contrast, have concentrated on the book rather than its
craft is questionable in an age that has witnessed the arrogant author. Rushdie doesn’t matter-to put the point rather arro
brutality of two major wars, Hiroshima, and the increasingly gantly. For Muslims in the West, the state banning or volun
darkening shadow of nuclear holocaust. Virtually all the tary withdrawal of The Satanic Verses would be a satisfactory
major tragedies of the twentieth century—possibly our worst resolution. This is why Rushdie’s apology offered immedi
century so far—have been caused by secular and nationalist ately after the issuing of the fatwa has not been accepted: as
ambitions. Even the much lamented Iran-Iraq war was not a long as the book remains in print and on sale Muslims will
purely religious struggle. There is much to be said, in retro
continue to protest.
spect. for the view that the socialist nation-state of Iraq, as a If Rushdie could be tried in a court of law. whether in the
vassal of the capitalist West, was the aggressor. West or in an Islamic land, then that would be considered a
Westerners must be careful with men like Khomeini—but bonus. But the primary aim is to have his book withdrawn.
for the right reasons. There is on the ideological level a Thus, for example, an influential Muslim community in New
tremendous psychic tension between the West and fundamen Zealand has successfully campaigned for a ban on the import
talist Islam. A certain kind of power complex in the Western of The Satanic Verses; accordingly. Muslims in New Zealand
mind leads to a radical repudiation of Khomeini and all his have dropped their enmity towards Rushdie himself. Unfortu
works. Who was Khomeini to stand up to the West and say nately no other Western country has yet followed suit. Some
92 93
Western commentators have argued that the repeal of Khom

eini’s fatwa is a condition of negotiations with the Muslims. 5 What’s Wrong with
Yet it seems unfair to ask British Muslims to reject what they
have never endorsed. It is true that a number of individuals, Fundamentalism?
in a moment of anger, endorsed Khomeini’s fatwa. But 'death
to Rushdie’ has never been the official position of any British
Muslim authority or organisation. To be sure, individual Mus
lims may well wish to disown as immoral the threat to Rush i
die’s life. But that is a matter of private judgement. Muslims It didn’t take Rushdie to teach Westerners that fundamental
in the West cannot influence the decisions of the Iranian ism is a dirty word. There are countless commentators who
government. have for a decade or so condemned fundamentalist options
The most difficult thing in the Rushdie affair is to maintain in all the three theisms of Judaism. Christianity, and Islam.
a consistent and convincing moral position. In Granada Tele But it is Islamic fundamentalism that remains the favourite
vision’s Hypotheticals (screened on 30 May 1989) it became target of Western resentment. For fundamentalist Islam
rapidly clear that many of those involved in the affair enter increasingly makes the headlines: a sentence of execution is
tained a confused moral stance. Thus, for example, the passed on a foreign novelist: leaders of Islamic countries,
Muslim participants. Dr Kalim Saddiqui and Yusuf Islam, seen as client-states of the West, are assassinated by members
seemed ambivalent in their response to questions about of radical Muslim groups: Europeans travelling in the
Khomeini's fatwa. Granted that they endorsed it as theolog Lebanon are accused of spying and arc kidnapped; American
ically valid, would they implement it in a country outside the airliners are hijacked, and so on.
House of Islam? Were they not under an obligation to attach Although many writers would condemn fundamentalist ver
priority to British law? Both tended to give or imply evasive sions of all faiths, it is undeniable that Islamic fundamentalism
responses that betrayed a lack of clarity in their ethical is almost always judged with prejudicial rigour, lake, for
outlook. example. V. S. Naipaul’s A Turn in the South (published by
In one sense, the reaction of the British government to Viking in 1989) in which he explores Christian fundamental
Khomeini’s death threat was entirely wrong and distracting. ism in the United States. Naipaul is very generous to born-
For the fact that outside powers (such as Iran) were inter again Christian fundamentalists who arc described as good
fering should also have been the occasion for recognising the and sincere. This is in sharp contrast to his earlier propagan
gravity of the situation, of the profundity of Muslim indig dist travelogue. Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey.
nation at home. Britain has a sizeable Muslim population dealing with Muslim fundamentalism in several Islamic lands.
which claims citizenship. Since they were the first, naturally, Among the Believers is saturated with the predictable preju
to agitate against The Satanic Verses, shouldn't the govern dices of a Westernised Hindu. Yet the book has been wrapped
ment do something to satisfy their demands? The death threat in praise by Western reviewers. Relying entirely on anecdotal
and the hysterical Western reaction to it together served to evidence. Naipaul sees Muslim fundmentalists as foolish and
marginalise the real debate—namely the state banning or insincere, taking false comfort in the oversimplifications of
voluntary withdrawal of a book calculated to demean mem an outdated faith, hoping to reap the benefits of modernity
bers of a distinct group in their own (and others') eyes. Where without paying the usual price.
there’s a will, there's a way. indeed a thousand ways; if not. Western students of Islam need to be very careful in their
a thousand excuses. assessments of Islam. A propagandist political vocabulary.
94 95
Be Careful with Muhammad! What's Wrong with Fundamentalism?
so routinely employed in discussions of Islam, needs to be
but fail to sustain these feelings for the rest of the week. But
challenged in the interests of objectivity. Islam is not just a Islam is none the less in much more evidence in the daily
catalogue of rigid rules about afcohol. theft and sexuality. It lives of those who call themselves Muslims than Christianity
is a way of life, a unified enterprise of faith and power—with is in the daily lives of those who profess Christianity. And it
deep religious resources for sustaining a variety of moods of is largely to do with a recognition of the principle that God's
authentic piety. ordinances are to be fulfilled no matter how severe the temp
Both in popular and academic writing in the West, there
tations to lapse and fail.
has long been an unargued assumption that fundamentalist I understand 'fundamentalism' to be the position that the
interpretations of Islam can have no adequate intellectual scriptural canon contains a basic source of wholly correct
credentials. Both secularised Christian and liberal critics of guidance. Such a view may, to choose less loaded termin
Islam have concurred that fundamentalist Islam patronises ology, be labelled integralist. It may reasonably be main
morally indefensible attitudes. Unfortunately, in Western uni tained by a modernist as well as by a traditionalist or funda
versities. the protagonists in debates about Islamic fundamen mentalist believer; the usual contrast between the two is
talism are. without exception, Jewish and Christian theists,
wrongly drawn.
simplistic Muslims ignorant of Western thought or Third Fundamentalist handling of sacred literature is often
World champagne socialists repudiating the faith of their fore derided, particularly by secularised Christian believers, as
fathers. Authentic Muslims of intellectual ability are system going down a religious cul-de-sac. 'The "light” in the Enlight
atically excluded. It is high time we explored the virtues of enment was', as the Rt Rev. Lesslie Ncwbigin reminds us,
fundamentalism. •real light'. The advance of rational thought and the spectacu
lar increase in the scope and authority of the sciences of man
2 and nature have together served to expose as embarrassingly
fantastic—if not utterly false or incoherent—some of the non
'Is there anything about Islam you don't like?’ A Christian religious trappings of the faith. We can. it is said, no longer
colleague asked me this question in the sure expectation that accept in the light of recently acquired sophistication, the
the response of a passionate Muslim would be: 'No. I like all traditional notion of infallible dictation of scripture; the Bible
of it.' The correct answer, of course, is exactly the opposite. has no intrinsic authority independent of the verdict of secular
'Yes. Lots of things. It's a tough religion.' thought. Conservative confidence in the authenticity of the
The point is significant. Islam does not claim to be a religion religious core of revelation, the contention concludes, can
of comfort or convenience. One dislikes its obligations often none the less remain intact since the false non-religious
enough. Some of its claims are, in worldly eyes, scandals. But elements arc to be simply identified and then expunged.
that is Islam. There are within every vision certain beliefs Unfortunately, however, distinctions between religious
that look to outsiders like prejudices. Yet, in the last analysis, truth and secular error are rarely so neat and obliging as to
one must defend these too. coincide exactly with the wishes of contemporary Christian
At another level, one changes human nature to suit apology. If a book can be fallible in its claims about astron
religious demand; one must not alter religious demand to suit omy and biology, there is no reason why it should be infallible
our human, all too human, wishes. One of the cardinal defects in its pronouncements on religious doctrine In fact, of course,
of modern Protestant thought has been its failure to grasp without begging the central question at stake, it is impossible
this truth. To be fair, for most Muslims, Islam is a 'Friday to sift out the religious message which is presumed to be true
religion'—they feel particularly pious on Friday afternoons from the culturally conditioned irrelevances presumed to be
96 97
false. There may be motives for establishing a coincidence of scholarship and piety. All sources, other than the scripture,
between the essence of a faith and just exactly those scandals are human and therefore fallible even though these may still
to the intellect which today's worldly folk will tolerate. But be interpreted as having normative significance for the con
there are no grounds for doing so. duct of ordinary believers. An individual believer is also per
For all Muslims, as for pre-Enlightenment Christians, faith
mitted to disagree with the consensus of his or her whole
should be an 'all or nothing affair'. The reasons are as decisive community provided that, according to certain agreed stan
as they arc simple. One cannot properly endorse the authori dards, he or she can claim to be learned in the scripture of
tative integrity of a partly fallible scripture. Muslims quite Islam. Such individuals are usually exempt from obedience
rightly interpret the Koran to be an error-free corpus undi to the law (Shari'ah) but there is no reason to think that
luted by human factors external to its incidence. Fundamen
many of them exist in the modem world.
talism, far from being a dead option, actually conceals the The issue of Muslim intolerance has recently been the sub
only defensible attitude towards what one takes to be the ject of bitter commentary by Christians and liberals and of
word of God. equally bitter rejoinder by Muslim apologists. Islam certainly
This view of faith as an 'all or nothing affair’ is very much has an ethic of co-existence with societies bearing revealed
open to misunderstanding. My defence of fundamentalism scriptures. The aim of Muslim imperialism has always been
published in the Observer on Easter Sunday 1989 has been conquest rather than conversion. Thus, the Islamic record has
widely criticised, particularly by Christians. There were two been honourably distinguished, from its very inception, by its
major reservations which deserve a brief mention. Firstly, lenient ascendancy in dealings with vanquished Jewish and
critics argued that it was not clear how one identifies the Christian communities. Even hostile critics concede that Mus
alleged fundamentals of Islam and whether or not these fun lims have been far more inclined, than their religious cousins,
damentals, once identified, were properly subject to the kind towards peace and reconciliation in the Holy Land. Beyond
of reform or development essential to reflective religion. Sec that, the failings of Muslims arc merely a part of the failings
ondly, there were some Islamic doctrines, it was argued, that
of our common humanity.
seemed to authorise intolerance towards members of other Christians have, surprisingly, cast the first stone here. Yet
faiths and indeed towards women. Could such doctrines be the Christian record is, as many modem Christians themselves
defended? concede, utterly deplorable. For though the Christian com
The answer to the first question is simple. The Koran is munity has rarely defended intolerance as an ideal, it would
the only fully authoritative source in Islam. A Muslim believer be difficult to find many among its members in the past who
must accept it as a miracle of reason and speech and attempt have avoided intolerance in practice. Christian tolerance may
to live by its rules. If a believer, male or female, finds some well be a virtue inspired by a love for justice and forbearance.
of its rules and claims unacceptable, he or she must still feel Yet it is too often found only in lands and epochs where the
religiously obliged to contend with his or her doubts and faith is dead or dying. (Christians are not known for their
weaknesses. The experience of such religious puzzles is a lenience in Northern Ireland, South Africa and the Lebanon.)
form of mental temptation that is a relatively normal trial in Could the real motives be indifference and apathy, themselves
the life of faith. A believer is not permitted to take conscien rooted in loss of faith? The tolerance of a faith should be
tious objection to what he or she sees as the word of God— manifest in its age of enthusiasm as well as at a time of
for God is above human conscience. However, a believer may
decline.
exercise his or her own judgement in assessing the moral The question of Muslim women's relation to their men. in
worth of the Prophet's life and the received Islamic traditions equality or otherwise, has exercised many critics, both within
98 99
and outside the Muslim world. It is widely believed that Why do Christians, as fellow religious believers, also abet and
Islamic fundamentalism assigns second-class status to female second abusive assaults on an established religious tradition?
populations. That Muslim wpmen are in fact severely Apart from a few French Roman Catholics such as the
oppressed and often denied even basic human rights in Archbishop of Lyons, few influential Christians have sym
Muslim countries such as India and Pakistan is so blatantly pathised with the Muslims over The Satanic Verses affair.
obvious as to make all apologetic denial totally unconvincing. Though Muslims had been among the first to protest at the
The critique of fundamentalism, however, goes well beyond showing of Scorsese's controversial The Last Temptation of
that in claiming that Islamic doctrine is designed to oppress Christ, they received scant support from Christians in their
women, no matter how charitably one interprets it. own hour of trial. The established and legally protected
This is a problematic charge. While one might reasonably Church of England has only mildly condemned Rushdie's
claim that the Koran envisages a society under male leader attack on Islam while loudly condemning the Muslim style of
ship. it is not clear that its doctrines are necessarily incompat protest.
ible with some forms of women's emancipation. Certainly, the In one sense, the Christian reaction is to be expected.
sexual puritanism of many Muslim lands is entirely contrary to There has been a titanic struggle between the two missionary
the spirit of the sacred volume. faiths of Islam and Christianity for the last 1500 years; and
The traditional Muslim custom of segregating female my enemy’s enemy is my friend. The ideological battle
society from the male population—in order to protect women between the Crescent and the Cross is by no means over
against aggressive kinds of male desire—has led to charges of cither in Africa and the Third World or in Europe and Nonh
sexual apartheid. But one must not judge too hastily here. America.
For the aim of the veil is to create a truly erotic culture in In other ways, the Christian reservation about the Islamic
which one dispenses with the need for the artificial excitement protest has been puzzling. The Christian establishment tried
that pornography provides. Certainly, Islam condemns the to censor D. H. Lawrence's novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover
commercial exploitation of women that reduces them to little and Thomas Hardy's Jude the Obscure. Their reasons were
more than a cause of male desire. far less substantial: the former because of the use of four-
There are deep and controversial issues here. Muslim letter words and the latter because it was seen, perhaps
women themselves must now attempt to interpret the sacred wrongly, as an implied attack on the sanctity of the institution
text and question the traditional male bias that has patronised of marriage. The Bishop of Wakefield burnt a copy of Hardy's
their oppression for so long. But it is well to remember that novel. Nor is this a relic of some past age of Christian enthusi
there will be scandals here; some divine imperatives may asm. Both attempts at censorship were made in the twentieth
seem, to a modern secularised conscience, demanding and century. And as late as the 1970s. Christians successfully sued
harsh. A few scandals remain for all believers—men and a publication for linking Christ with homosexuality.
women alike. Affronted Muslim believers were never more irritated than
when Christian believers joined the Liberal Inquisition.
3 Surely, the Christians as religious people would and should
understand the anguish of their fellow theists. What was their
Respect for other people of faith is an article of faith in Islam. excuse for persecuting the Muslims?
It is, therefore, with justified resentment that Muslims have So loud and clear is the voice of mockery in The Satanic
noted the lack of sympathy displayed by other religious Verses that Muslims, including myself, remain amazed at
groups, notably Christians, during the Rushdie provocation. Western, particularly Christian reaction. To be sure, several
100 101
What’s Wrong with Fundamentalism?
Christians did recognise that Muslims did have a right to be Muslims springs from passion and wholesome enthusiasm
rather than insecurity and dogmatism. To react against
severely offended. After all. there are limits to mockery. One
might mock the Pope or doubt, his infallibility: but it would wanton ideological attack is a healthy sign indicating that the
be immoral to mock Christ. The Rt Rev. Lesslie Newbigin ideology is alive and well, that those who espouse it take it
of Birmingham and the Rev. Kenneth Cragg from Oxford seriously. The lesson for the Christian conscience could hardly
be clearer.
both expressed concern at the intolerant treatment of Muslims
Nor will it do to say that God does not need human
by the host society.
defence. It is true of course that God is above human insult
Notwithstanding these few isolated examples of sympathy
in one sense; but there is another equally valid sense in which
and sincerity, most Christian commentators behaved arro
the believer is morally obliged to vindicate the reputation of
gantly. At the height of the affair. I suffered a personal crisis
God and his spokesmen against the militant calumnies of evil.
of conscience: 1 could not take the critics seriously. Were they
Only then can he or she truly confess the faith. For faith is
merely sincere but misguided? Or insincere and misguided?
Several Christian writers have condescendingly argued that as faith does. In this matter, the Koran is bound to have the
all this fuss over an admittedly offensive book shows that last word: God does not guide a people who sell his signs for
a paltry price. Small wonder then that the Christian clergy
Muslims lack the self-confidence of the Christian mind. After
are failing to preserve and transmit the faithful heritage.
all, Christians bore with dignity the provocation of The Last
Temptation of Christ. Surely the Christian faith has not been
undermined. 4
The truth is of course too obviously the other way. While
Beneath a picture of the kidnapped Anglican Terry Waite,
Christian apologists continue to make a virtue out of a weak
the caption reads: 'This man can’t go to church this Sunday.
ness. the continuous blasphemies against their faith have
What’s your excuse?' The question, part of the Church of
almost totally undermined it. No religion or ideology devoid
England’s advertising campaign against religious indifference,
of an internal temper of militant but constructive wrath can
is addressed to the Christian conscience but might we not
safeguard and perpetuate its heritage. Belief-systems, like
borrow it to query the modem religious inclination in general?
biological organisms, must be fortified against external attack
For in this age of widespread secularity and indifference to
if they are to survive in a world addicted to the logic of
religious faith, there is no shortage of excuses. Yet the mess
coercion. It is only a comforting myth that the sword of
age of fundamentalist Islam still manages to bring the Friday
Christian love is sharper than the enemy's sword of steel. In
traffic to a halt outside Cairo's overflowing mosques.
a world where evil assumes militant forms, good can only
It is possible to state the vigour and enthusiasm of Islam
survive if it is equally militant in its defence. Vulnerability is.
as a fact—rather than as a boast. Muslim religionists are
Christian apology notwithstanding, never the best proof of
often derided as ignorant and obscurantist. But they have
strength.
successfully protected orthodoxy against the forces of
The central Christian misunderstanding in this area has
compromise and dilution. The heritage of Islam has been
been that somehow the militant wrath of Muslims is due to
successfully transmitted to its modem custodians. It is now a
fear and internal anxiety rather than to confidence and a
powerful force within the world, inspiring martyrdom at the
commitment to faith. The issue is significant. Is the militant
Islamic temper merely reactionary and defensive? Or is it highest rate of any living faith.
One might lament the lack of thinkers in contemporary
indeed the hallmark of the truly religious imagination?
fundamentalist Islam. Islamic doctrine, wisely, discourages
The Satanic Verses does not threaten Islam. The cry of
103
102
What's Wrong with Fundamentalism?
ised and humane capitalists who accept the political
inappropriate kinds of curiosity: and orthodoxy encourages hegemony of the current system. Muslims arc truly religious
•safe’ thoughts. Muslims generally refuse to countenance any in outlook for they refuse to allow their faith to be relegated
subtlety of mind or will that might undermine Islam. There to the status of a tolerated sub-culture. Instead they still
is. if you like, a kind of deliberately cultivated self-protective propose, no matter how unrealistically, manifestos for the
naivetd which safeguards the faith in an age of mental adven Kingdom of God on earth—even in this age of secularly. It is
turism. But, in any case, one must not exaggerate the import undeniable that Christianity no longer controls the subversive
ance of intellectuals for a religious tradition. A faith can
movements of thought or action within the culture it has
survive indefinitely without thinkers—but not without mar
historically inspired. It has. in effect, been reduced to a sub
tyrs. And there is no shortage of martyrs in Islam even in an
culture manipulated regularly by a secular nation-state.
allegedly godless twentieth century.
If a dying Western Christianity accommodates secularism,
TTie liberal atheistic assumption that religion is on its death
a resurgent fundamentalist Islam challenges it. The Muslim
bed has been decisively refuted by several events in the cur
response to Rushdie has successfully challenged the cultural
rent century—including the Iranian Revolution and the Rush
and mental imperialism of the occidental mind. This alone
die affair. Islam will continue to plague the labours of the
liberals who are trying to replace God by enlightened man as can explain the sheer depth of liberal resentment against
the sole arbiter of moral norm. Muslims.
The aim of the Liberal Inquisition has been to intimidate The West does not necessarily oppose Islamic fundamental
Muslims: all absolutist supernatural claims must yield to the ism in all political contexts. Thus, for example, the Americans
alleged moral relativism of the liberal West. In fact, of course, have, for strategic reasons, supported the Afghan fundamen
one is merely replacing one absolutism with another, for talists in their struggle against Russian expansionism. But.
liberalism is no less an absolute position than Islam. As we fundamentalism in Iran and the Lebanon is fiercely rejected
saw in Chapter 3, the liberal establishment is trying to capture by the West. Thus far. the Western acceptance of Islamic
the high moral ground by perpetuating the myth of its own fundamentalism has depended on the political complexion of
superiority to al) religion, particularly to Islam. Yet the irony its associated movement. But. after the Rushdie affair. 1
of course is that the notion that self-styled and self-appointed would think that Islamic fundamentalism will be opposed in
liberal arbiters of what is the norm are the sole custodians of any and every form, no matter what its larger political align
civilised values is itself illiberal. The Rushdie affair has. as ment. It is too dangerous a force, for it has encouraged
an unintended consequence, confirmed that fact beyond a militancy among all believers, including Jews and Christians.
shadow of a doubt. After the Rushdie affair, many Christians recognise the need'
Contemporary secular man has emerged triumphant over for a militant post-Enlightenment church-and militant
all religious traditions—except Islam. Muslims refuse to in the Islamic style. Many secretly recognise that to tol
accept the intellectual or cultural supremacy of the secular erate gratuitous abuse is indeed a matter for shame, not for
outlook. Hence, of course, the well-known hostility to practis pride.
ing Muslims. I know from my own experience in several Dangerous or not, Islamic fundamentalism is here to stay.
Western countries that a 'moderate' Muslim is defined as one It is wrong to assume that it is an isolated accident or an
who does not take his faith seriously, Anyone who does is, aberration of Muslim history. It is integral to Islam because
on account of that fact alone, classed as a fanatic. only an integralist interpretation of Islam is convincing. Power
In the West, most Jews and Christians are not truly and the political dimension are vital to Islam because, as a
religious in outlook. They may fairly be described as secular
105
104
faith, it has always resisted attempts to shelve it in the private 6 Faith and Power
sector of purely personal devotion. The Kingdom of God is
not merely within you—it must be brought forth into the
human world.
i
A Christian friend recently complained to me: ‘1 do wish
Muslims would learn to develop a theology of powerlessness.
We did —a long time ago. With God, nothing succeeds—like
failure.'
With God. perhaps; but in the human context, as my Chris
tian friend knew very well, the slogan is entirely different.
Islam, like any other ideology, including Christianity, instinc
tively seeks (and occasionally enjoys) the sanction of political
power. Unfortunately, in the West. Muslims constitute a
powerless minority with severely restricted access to resources
and opportunities in the world of employment, politics, learn
ing and commerce. In Britain few Muslims exercise influence;
almost none holds a position of power. Only a handful of
them hold important posts in industry, the financial world,
the universities, and the mass media. None has a say in
Parliament. Unlike the traditionally established faith of
Anglican Christianity, Islamic principles and values have
always been systematically excluded from exercising any
influence on the policies of the British government.
To be sure, there arc individuals with Muslim-sounding
names who hold a few positions of influence in contemporary
Britain. But these men and women are militantly anti-lslamic,
often consciously repudiating the faith of their forefathers. In
most cases they are appointed more on grounds of ideological
suitability than mere ability or expertise. It seems hardly
unfair to accuse them of being, in effect, fellow conspirators
working to undermine Islam and Muslim interests.
That there is a concerted attempt, throughout the Western
world, to exclude able practising Muslims from positions of
power and prestige cannot reasonably be denied. That Mus
lims arc routinely subjected to unlawful discrimination on
107
106
Be Careful with Muhammad! Faith and Power
grounds of religious affiliation is also a fact wholly beyond In the wake of the Rushdie affair, many Muslims have
reasonable dispute. But Muslims, face to face with such injus threatened to withdraw their electoral support from the
tice, do not cultivate a tragic impulse or the retiring mood. Labour Party. Traditionally, of course, the majority of Mus
Islam encourages its votaries to strive for a just and prosper lims vote for Labour, though many Muslims uphold values
ous social order here on earth. This religious motivation alone more characteristic of the Conservatives. Though Muslims
can explain the conspicuous moral purity of the anti-Rushdie tend to emphasise the importance of commerce, encourage
campaign in the West. In thus seeking justice and equality of the promotion of community and family values, and endorse
treatment, Muslims arc close to the logic of the Prophet’s a conservative sexual ethic, they have, in the past at least,
own political activism. A Muhammad face to face with Pilate found the policies of the Labour Party more congenial to
would have given the Roman chap a lot more to do than their overall interests. This is partly to do with the history of
merely wash his hands. their settlement as immigrants from the Commonwealth. The
majority of Muslims came from relatively poor and rural
backgrounds in the Indian sub-continent in the 1960s and
2 early 1970s to supply cheap labour for the British market.
One of the most remarkable features of the Rushdie affair Some of them have begun to acquire wealth in the last decade.
has been its ordinariness. It did not begin as a scandal in high It is now rather problematic to categorise them as working
society only to be filtered down later to the masses. Rather, class since many of them do a manual job in Britain but run
it began as an ordinary event with ordinary Muslims reacting a small business here and own some property in the land of
to it. Indeed, in important ways, the issue has remained their origin. Their outlook is religiously as well as sexually
conservative with a strong emphasis on scholarship and enter
ordinary to the very end since the rich and potentially power
prise. This is hardly a description of a proletariat class in the
ful Muslim groups and leaders in the Arab heartland of Islam
sense in which most Western, particularly Marxist, commen
have continued to maintain a puzzling silence. In some
moods, one might forgive the British government for thinking tators use the term.
It is likely that those Muslims who have acquired wealth
that the only outrage is felt by a bunch of illiterate peasants
or have entered the professions will vote for the Conservative
in a remote northern city of England.
Party. But. by and large, most will continue to opt for Labour.
The Rushdie affair is at root a British affair, whatever its
The majority are bound to remain poor since racist resent
international ramifications. British Muslims have quite rightly
ment results in the denial of many facilities and provisions to
resolved to lobby local MPs and Councillors in order to articu
which Muslims are legally entitled as citizens of this Kingdom.
late their demands as citizens of a mature democracy. They
Already poor, a significant number have dependents abroad
have made their demands not as Muslims but primarily as
who often look to them for regular financial support. The
British citizens; they have condemned governmental indiffer
majority therefore remain underprivileged. To be fair, the
ence in the name of social justice, not of religious imperative.
British working-class is in as bad a shape financially, but it is
There is a sizeable Muslim constituency in modern Britain.
at least spared the humiliation that racial discrimination
There are just over a million Muslims here, most of whom
are settled in the metropolitan areas of Yorkshire, the West brings in its train. Though the promise of class mobility
remains for the poorer Muslims, in practice it is effectively
Midlands and London. Over half of all British Muslims have
empty, given the barriers erected by racist indignation at the
originated in the Indian sub-continent, with roughly 70.000
new-found prosperity, real or imagined, of black immigrants
settled in Bradford alone. Muslims actually constitute the
largest ’immigrant’ population in Britain today. from the Commonwealth.
109
108
Faith and Power
liberal, repressive yet permissive' (New Statesman and
The Rushdie affair may significantly transform Muslim pol Society, 5 May, 1989).
itical life in Britain. For if the affair has been responsible for British Muslims are a powerless minority. This is a bald
arranging some unusual unions between the left and the right, assertion that no doubt needs qualification. For British Mus
it has also led to some equally unusual divorces. For one lims are a powerless minority that forms a part of a potentially
thing, Asian Muslims arc no longer in the good books of the powerful global community, just as Catholics in Britain arc a
liberal anti-racists who once supported them in the name of minority but retain links with a larger and more powerful
equality and multi-culturalism. Many in the liberal left, who universal fellowship. Even so. for most practical purposes,
had encouraged local government to provide services to Muslims in Britain remain poor, isolated, and weak. In the
ethnic minorities including Muslims, now find themselves Rushdie affair, their protest is a proof of their powerlessness;
ranged on the opposite side, passionately defending Rushdie’s powerful groups do not need to demonstrate on the streets.
right to ’freedom of speech'. Had Rushdie been white, the To be sure. Muslims are part of a larger British political
left would almost certainly have condemned his book as pat constituency and. as citizens, wield some influence. In late
ronising prejudice against an already oppressed racial min March the Bradford Council of Mosques issued a com
ority. But the colour of Rushdie's skin has completely clouded munique: 'Support our anti-Rushdie campaign or lose votes.’
the liberal assessment of the affair. There may of course also The Paddock Ward by-election in Huddersfield was the first
be non-political. broadly personal, factors in the left's regard test of the new Muslim strategy. It failed to dislodge Labour
for Rushdie: he is not only the darling of the liberal press but from what was seen as a marginal seat. But the pressure from
also one of the most distinguished anti-racist campaigners: the Muslim electorate has not been entirely without effect; a
his videos and views are widely available and respected by number of MPs and Councillors in predominantly Muslim
practitioners in the race-relations industry. At any rate, the areas have endorsed some of the Muslim demands. Max
Muslim alignment with the left has always been viewed by Madden, Labour MP for Bradford West, has openly pleaded
both parties as a marriage of convenience; and so the divorce for the cancellation of the plans to bring out a paperback
caused by the Rushdie saga has not led to accusations of edition. Keith Vaz. Labour MP for Leicester East, has repeat
betrayal or broken hearts. edly called on Viking to withdraw The Satanic Verses. Vaz.
The right has thoroughly enjoyed harassing Asians who are a Catholic from India, has been vigorously attacked in left
attacking a British author. The author’s skin colour, which wing circles and many have asked his constituency to elect
has long been an inconvenience for the establishment, is no another candidate at the next election who could better rep
longer a relevant consideration. The right is therefore in the resent the 'official' Labour Party policy on race relations.
odd position of having to defend a black man who is normally Muslim anger and frustration grew as government insti
seen as an enemy. But my enemy’s enemy is my friend. tutions reaffirmed their commitment to the continued publi
In one sense, the distinctions within the political spectrum cation of The Satanic Verses in a free and democratic Britain.
hardly matter. For neither the left nor the right has supported Requests for legal enactment to protect Muslim sanctities
the Muslim campaign for the withdrawal of The Satanic were flatly rejected. Throughout March and April 1989. Brit
Verses. In fact, it is not even possible to say which of the two ish Muslims became acutely aware of the extent of their
major political parties has had greater sympathy. Understand political weakness. It became rapidly clear that no one listens
ably. British Muslim leadership has been frustrated when, in to the powerless-unless they become a nuisance. And thus
David Caute’s characteristically perceptive words, ’wrestling a very law-abiding Muslim community eventually decided to
with the baffling idioms and codes of the white chameleon, resort to a systematic political campaign involving, in the
which is cunningly Christian yet secular. Conservative yet
111
110
Faith and Power
take kindly to Muslim attempts to deviate from established
words of the pro-Iranian Muslim Institute's Director. Dr
British norms, especially when the Muslims have opted to
Kalim Saddiquc. ‘symbolic breaking of the law and manipu
settle in Britain.
lation of the political process'. A concerned British Muslim Muslim citizens claim to be British as well as being Muslim.
leadership reminded Muslims of their obligations to obey the Implicit within the legislation and policy on multi-cuituralism
laws of their chosen country of citizenship; but they also formulated since the mid 1960s has been the assumption that
reminded them of their duties as Muslims. The only feasible the identity of immigrants contains an amalgam of their own
alternative was. therefore, a campaign of disobedience imitat distinctive cultural heritage as well as the traditions of their
ing other civil rights movements, in which existing unjust laws chosen country of citizenship. This assumption has been
were broken as a prelude to reform and fairer legislation. widely questioned in the wake of the Rushdie affair. It has
On 27 May 1989. roughly 30.000 Muslims converged on
been the subject of a relatively dramatic recent declaration
London's Parliament Square to demonstrate their justified by the Tory Home Office minister John Patten—a theme to
resentment at the continued publication and sale of The which we turn in the final section of this chapter. But it is
Satanic Verses in Britain. There were minor incidents of viol
wise to begin by exploring briefly issues clustered around the
ence and a few arrests. Several Western commentators
notion of a multi-cultural society accommodating opposed
dubbed the style of protest ‘sub-continental’—a euphemism
ideological convictions within a common liberal democratic
for violent and unruly. The newspapers carried more out
framework.
bursts of white anger, from racists, liberals, and Conservatives During the Rushdie affair, newspapers with a pro-Con-
alike. There were calls for a ban on demonstrations. Many
servative leaning have routinely declared that the myth of
white commentators, pretending to be offering analyses of multi-culturalism has been exploded. Enoch Powell's alleg
the tension, were, in effect, beginning to issue threats to the edly prophetic warnings of inter-racial conflict have often
Muslims. For example. Muslims were invited to step down been repeated in recent months. 'The immigrants must assimi-
their protests if they wanted to avoid a white backlash. liate'—accept the values of the host culture. Or else leave.
In mid-June. a protest rally in Bradford sparked off serious There is a radical gulf, the contention continues, between
racial incidents in the city. There were renewed calls for Muslim aspiration and British political reality. There can be
increasing police powers and a ban on all demonstrations and no question of Muslims being allowed to build a theocracy in
even rallies. In the months that followed there were clashes the heart of Yorkshire. Barbara Amiel in The Times of 24
between Asian and white youths in the Yorkshire town of February 1989 speaks on behalf of many when she laments
Dewsbury and the West Bowling area of Bradford. The Rush the presence of ‘most intolerant segments of society' who
die issue was no longer a purely 'religious' one: there were
wish to 'force their will over everyone else'. Amiel goes on
long-term implications for community and race relations in a to conclude that creating a multi-cultural society was itself a
multi-ethnic British society.
profound mistake.
Immediately one needs to be cautious. For the creation or
3 destruction of a multi-cultural society is a subject that con
cerns not only Muslims. We have many brands of dissident
The people of Britain may fairly be described as among the opinion in contemporary Western society. There are Christi
most patriotic in the world. Of all the nations, the British ans, Jews, secularists, Hindus, homosexuals, ordinary people
have indisputably shown the greatest attachment to their own concerned with the conservation of the environment and wild
customs and traditions over the past two or three centuries. populations. Labour activists, animal rights campaigners, to
As creators of the world's largest empire, the British do not
113
112
Faith and Power
mention just a few. The Rushdie affair may have served be sure, there is a pseudo-religious element in it too, for the
to endorse independently-founded scepticism about the very established Anglican Church may equally be described as a
possibility of a multi-cultural society housing a Muslim min religious or a secular (or semi-secular) institution. And
ority. But one must not have illusions about the true scope though modern British society lives off the heritage of the
of the scepticism. For even if the Muslim problem' (one Christian tradition, orthodox Christian doctrines hardly ever
thinks of the Nazis and the Final Solution) could be resolved, inform its political policy and indeed central Christian values
the issue of ideological division and conflict engendered by of tolerance and charity are actually upheld by many liberals
passionately held dissident opinion remains. That is a worry and secularists as well.
which is integral to liberal pluralistic society and must necess It cannot be surprising that such a society fails to attach
arily remain indefinitely on the agenda. Muslims or no Mus any great importance to the religious outlook of Muslims.
lims, multi-culturalism is here to stay. But given the presence of a sizeable Muslim community
within Britain, Islam is no longer some exotic creed out there
Once upon a time, in the heyday of multi-cultural rhetoric.
Roy Jenkins and his disciplies said that a multi-racial society in the Middle East. Western society must allow political room
not only tolerates diversity but encourages and welcomes it. for a faith that is wrongly seen as being too dogmatic and
That is much harder to believe these days. For those who monolithic to fit into a pluralist culture. The. problem of
have chosen to remain recognisably different, within the limits accommodation can only be solved if Westerners reject
of the law, have suffered much indeed. The early immigrants absurd propagandist portrayal of British Islam as a subversive
accepted second-class status with a kind of resignation. These force likely to destroy the fabric of multi-cultural and multi
were men and women schooled in and comforted by the pious lingual society. Over the Rushdie affair Muslims have merely
idioms of destiny and fate, never demanding the full rights of asked for protection against gratuitous provocation, not for
citizenship. a licence to build a theocracy in Bradford.
Their sons and daughters are different. They know their The problem of peaceful co-existence of the Muslim min
rights; and. paradoxically, the very society that has taught ority with the white majority involves much more than the
immediate issues spawned by the Rushdie tragedy. Take for
them the language of political demand and request has often
denied them the rights they have asked for. example the controversial problem of 'separate' schooling for
Muslim children. Muslims have been campaigning unsuccess
The problem arises when these confident British-born citi
fully for the right to establish their own voluntary-aided
zens wish to be both British and Muslim. Muslims want to
schools almost since the day they arrived in this country.
integrate but not to assimilate: they want to compromise on
matters of fashion but not of principle. Under the provisions of the 1944 Education Act. public and
local authority funds are used to provide the running costs
It is fair to say that a genuine pluralism in society can
(and 85 per cent of the capital costs) of many Church of
sometimes pose a threat to the dominion of beliefs and values
England. Roman Catholic and a few Jewish schools. Though
that inform the common framework. Every society, including
Muslims are legally entitled to set up similar schools, their
a multi-cultural one. is necessarily mono-cultural in its overall
demands have been resolutely rejected by local and central
legal and political structure. The question is whether or not
a variety of opposed ideological options can be fitted in. government. There are many state schools, particularly in
inner city areas of London. Bradford. Manchester, and Birm
without friction, into the larger common framework. To
ingham where pupils happen to be predominantly (or even
Muslim eyes, in the post-Rushdie era, it looks as though
almost entirely) Muslims. But. after almost two decades of
Britain is at heart an essentially mono-cultural social structure
lobbying MPs and Councillors. Muslims still do not have any
with strongly liberal, secular, and nationalist foundations. To
115
114
Faith and Power
Be Careful with Muhammad.'
are interpreted by Muslims as being the forces of secularly,
voluntary-aided schools. In fact, several independent Muslim sexual permissiveness and excessive materialism.
schools in Bradford, Dewsbury, and Blackburn funded by Many in Conservative as well as Labour circles think that
private donations, badly need to acquire voluntary-aided giving Muslims the right to separate schools will cause harm
status in order to survive. to race relations as Muslims withdraw into their own cultural
Both the left and the right reject Muslim demands. The fortress. But race relations policy cannot properly be based
argument from the left has generally been that all schooling on the assumption that Muslims should behave like white
with religious foundation is counter-productive in a multi liberals. A truly pluralistic society can only be built on the
cultural society whose citizens aspire to live within a common, premise that Muslims may, within certain specified legal
largely secular, framework of law. The Labour Party has limits, behave as Muslims. Ethnic minorities are entitled to
always favoured changes in educational legislation which resist the onslaught of English cultural imperialism. If we say
would make provision for Muslim needs within the main that Indians and Pakistanis arc only acceptable as members
stream and thus remove any basis for 'separatist- demands. of the British community provided they integrate fully, then
The 1988 Education Reform Act reverses recent trends we are paying lip-service to the pluralist creed.
towards a multi-culturalism sensitive to minority needs by The political issues here run deep and the conceptual ones
legislating for certain new specifically Christian attitudes and deeper still. Members of the ethnic minorities, particularly
values within the so-called National Curriculum. The Muslim Muslims, need to examine carefully the proper limits of politi
rejoinder to all this has been, quite rightly in my judgement, cal demand in a multi-cultural society. This is a deeply
that as long as Jews and Christians have the legal right to involved issue for the Muslim conscience. We need to return
operate voluntary-aided schools, it is wrong to prohibit Mus to it in the final section. In this context, it is sufficient to
lims from doing so. It may well be true that all such schooling record that Islam is a political faith that has internal resources
is the remnant of a more religious age and should be replaced for fiercely resisting any reduction into a piety in the private
by a suitably modified mainstream state system appropriate sector. Like all ideologies, Islam instinctively seeks the sanc
to a secular society. But it is wholly indefensible to uphold tion of political power. Where Muslims live as minorities —
inequality of treatment. as in Britain, India, and Israel-they effectively espouse a
The arguments from the Conservative camp are much less domesticated version of Islam. For, in general, secular West
convincing. The Muslim wish for voluntary-aided schools is ern democracies tolerate religious piety if and only if it is
interpreted by Conservatives as a wish for 'separate' identity, devoid of state sanction. To ask for a religious practice that
itself part of the larger desire for autonomy and cultural enjoys the full support of political power is, in the final analy
independence. And. as Douglas Hurd declared in his speech
sis, to ask for a theocracy.
at the Birmingham Central Mosque in late February 1989, There are issues of great immediacy here for the British
"no community would thrive that withdrew itself from the government. What does one do with citizens who will not
mainstream of British life." The Conservatives believe that ‘assimilate-? In a mature democracy, one cannot simply sup
Muslims want single sex provision, particularly for their press them; nor can one properly accept every demand that
daughters, because they fear that integration into British they may make. Now Muslims constitute the largest religious
society involves too many compromises with Western deca community in Britain-for, strictly speaking, there arc more
dence and neo-paganism. This demand for voluntary-aided practising (as opposed to merely professing) Muslims than
schools is therefore seen as a demand for segregation—as a Christians in modern Britain. Can it be fair to ignore the
wish to create a cultural ghetto that is a bulwark against what
117
116
Faith and Power
rights of such a group merely because its members look like Despite consistent campaigns for its abolition for many dec
ades—notably by The National Secular Society—the law of
foreigners?
I blasphemy remains on the statute books. As late as 1979,
Mary Whitehouse was able to take Gay News to task, under
4 the blasphemy provisions, for publishing a poem in which
Christ experiences temptation to homosexuality. She won.
‘That Muslims are denied equal treatment under the law', said
The House of Lords’ decision in the case contained a slight
Roy Hattersley in a speech on 2 April 1989 at the Birmingham
redefinition of the scope of the offence, in that blasphemous
Central Mosque, 'is a matter of indisputable fact’. He is, of
libel is committed in any published writing concerning God
course, right. Settlers from Canada. New Zealand and Austr
or Christ, the Christian religion, the Bible, or some sacred
alia arc welcome while those from India and Pakistan are
merely immigrants who need to go through potentially racist subject, employing language that is scurrilous and abusive
and tending to vilify the Christian religion and hence having
testing procedures. Catholics and Jews have their own volun
tary-aided schools reflecting their respective religious convic a tendency to lead to a breach of the peace. In the case of
Whitehouse v Lemon and Gay News Limited. Lord Scarman
tions while applications from Muslims are refused on the
took the view that protection under the present legislation
grounds that such schools arc too 'separatist' in ethos. We
does not extend beyond the Christian religion.
need not extend this list in order to show that all races and
In 1981 the Law Commission published its Working Paper
religions do not receive equality of treatment in contemporary
no.79. The Commission provisionally proposed the abolition
Britain.
without replacement of the common law offences of blas
There is, however, one particularly obvious inequality
phemy and blasphemous libel on grounds of various short
within the law which has been the subject of intense contro
comings, including unclarity of the offence and its restriction
versy during the Rushdie affair. Christian, or rather Anglican,
to Christianity. The Commission refused to propose a new
sensibilities alone are officially protected. Anachronistic as it
offence to deal with blasphemous conduct. To date, however,
may appear in a largely secular society, blasphemy remains
the criminal law of blasphemy remains on the books; the Law
both a statutory and a common law offence in modern Britain.
Commission's attempt to abolish it is one of several attempts
As the established church, the Church of England has, since
the seventeenth century, uniquely enjoyed a legally enforce that have failed,
Muslim sensibilities are not protected in the United King
able protection against blasphemy (where the offence is orally
dom under the current blasphemy law or indeed under any
published) and blasphemous libel (where it is published in a
contemporary enactment. The Satanic Verses does not seem
written form). Originally at least, any attack on the Anglican
to contravene any contemporary British laws on race relations
creed was necessarily an attack on the state. Blasphemy was
or libel. To Muslims the fact that Rushdie has written vilely
therefore an indictable offence (triable by jury) of common
enough to provoke anger but. as it happens, in a context that
law. It consisted of any publication of words attacking the
enables him to avoid the normal penalty of law. is a sufficient
Anglican denomination of the Christian faith or its scriptures
reason to suspect an inadequacy in the existing legislation.
in a manner so scurrilous as to pass beyond the limits of
Were Muhammad alive, he could of course successfully take
decent debate or controversy, and tending to lead to a breach
Rushdie and his publishers to court for blasphemous libel.
of the peace. The offence is punishable by fine and imprison
But there are no provisions for protecting the sensibilities of
ment at the discretion of the court.
individuals (or communities) whose self-esteem is linked to
Britain is one of the few European countries in which the
their respect for Muhammad and his ideals.
offence of blasphemy is still recognised in the legal system.
119
118
The issue here is not merely of equality under the law. For who wish to protect a whole pantheon of deities. Yet the
one way, popular with secularists, of attaining equality of normal Hindu's polytheistic belief is anathema to Jews. Chri
treatment would be simply to abolish the law of blasphemy. stians and Muslims alike. An even-handed and fair blasphemy
That would, however, be cold comfort to Muslims: while law is undeniably difficult to formulate even if we assume —
removing the privileged position afforded to a Christian as perhaps we shouldn't—that atheistic humanist traditions
denomination, it would leave Islam as unprotected as ever. do not deserve legal protection.
Such a solution would rely on a drastic principle parallel in If we refuse to extend the blasphemy provisions, the refusal
motivation to the impractical view that one way to solve all must be for the right reasons. Neither inability to define
human problems is by exterminating the human race! blasphemy nor the presence of agreed difficulties in appli
Although we can well understand why some Christians wish cation of the proposed law is a sufficient reason for refusal to
to preserve the blasphemy enactment in its current form, it legislate in this area of sensibility. Virtually all areas of pro
is equally easy to sympathise with the Law Commission's found human concern are the subject of keen disagreement,
recent recommendation of complete annulment. For the fact but that fact alone docs not deter us from making laws to
is. of course, that Britain is increasingly a secular liberal regulate behaviour. There are arguments, sometimes intrac
democracy in which Christian principles play a negligible role. table, about the precise definition of many offences: public
It is true that some recent Conservative legislators are self and parliamentary debate can, however, jointly sort out the
consciously concerned to make Christianity the faith of Bri details once the underlying principles have been accepted.
tain: but that very attempt and the worry behind it betray the The fact that we cannot provide an uncontroversial definition
decline of Christian conviction. At any rate, the intellectual of an offence can never be an adequate ground for abandon
climate is hardly congenial to strident Muslim demands for ing the search for formulating proper legal restraint and the
an extension of the law in the wake of the Rushdie affair. corresponding punishment.
Blasphemy—and related notions such as anathema and idol It is important to know the purpose of law. Legislation
atry—are so remote from the daily concerns of most people cannot make us fully tolerant of one another. Those who hate
in modem British society as to make their inclusion in legal Islam will, even under a tighter law, seek other means of
restraint a thoroughly complicated affair. Indeed, blasphemy abusing it. But the ability of human beings to evade even the
is a notion foreign even to many modem secularised Jews most precise legal regulation is no reason for refusing to
and Christians, let alone to secularists and other rejectors. impose legal constraint. 'Law does not', in Martin Luther
There are no doubt difficulties in extending the blasphemy King's famous remark, 'change the heart—but i^does restrain
law to protect the God of the Jews and Muslims as well as of the heartless'. And that is already a great achievement.
the Christians. For one thing, under such a relatively compre Nor will it do to entrust matters to the discretion of individ
hensive anti-blasphemy enactment, we could be sued for uals in the hope that men and women can never be utterly
entertaining mutually contradictory beliefs. Muslims and Jews insensitive to each other's feelings. Arguments in favour of
consider it blasphemous to declare that Jesus was God (or self-censorship are. in political and ideological contexts, weak
the Son of God). Yet it is clearly absurd to suggest that Jews and implausible. It is unsurprising that we do not merely
and Muslims should sue the whole of Christendom for what request racists to self-censor their literature. The law docs it
is merely a standard belief. Christians, in turn, could accuse for them since the issue is too public in its consequences to
their religious cousins of blasphemy against God in denying be left purely to private decision and discretion. There is no
his incarnation in Christ. And there are other problems too. evidence, historically or contemporaneously, for the view that
We cannot simply ignore the religious sensibilities of Hindus human beings will cease to harm the interests of others once
120 121
the fetters of law are removed to make room for voluntary distinct group of people on grounds of their self-professed
charity. Islamic identity.
The law may be a blunt ihstrument but we cannot do In the wake of the Rushdie debate, the Race Relations Act
without it. In the context of the Rushdie affair there is an needs amendment. Ethnicity cannot be the sole factor in
urgent need for an enactment to protect Muslim sensibilities identifying a group as a community with shared convictions.
against gratuitous provocation. Whether or not the enactment The Commission for Racial Equality has rightly viewed with
involves an extension of the existing blasphemy regulations is sympathy attempts to classify’ Jews and Travellers as distinct
really a matter of detail. It may well be that, in a secular groups. Why not Muslims? Unfortunately, the Commission
society like Britain, the Muslim’s best bet is to campaign for is largely secular in its guiding principles; most of the archi
a law making certain kinds of conduct or publication socially tects of race relations policies are secularists eager to deny
unacceptable as opposed to religiously offensive. Lord Jako- the importance of religious allegiance as a factor in human
bovits. the Chief Rabbi, has wisely counselled Muslims along social identity.
these lines, arguing that some enactment should prohibit
’socially intolerable conduct calculated or likely to incite
revulsion or violence by holding up religious beliefs to scurri
lous contempt . . . ’ (The Times. 4 March 1989). Thus, for 5
example. Muslims may contend that while insulting a revered The Rushdie affair has not yet been resolved. It may never
but dead religious leader like Muhammad need not be an be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned parties. After
indictable offence in a secular society, such polemic could Khomeini's fatwa in February 1989 it became rapidly clear
excite the anger of those citizens whose self-image is created that both Rushdie’s supporters and his detractors were getting
by reference to his ideals and lifestyle—and hence may lead ready for a long night. We had a radical disagreement on our
to a breach of the peace. Ln short, some writing may defame hands.
an entire community. Do we? 1 believe that the Rushdie controversy is not intrac
The Commission for Racial Equality has not established table. To show that it is incapable of rational resolution would
that Muslims are a discrete group of people bound together be effectively fatal to the Muslim case. It is clearly in the
by a common faith. The Race Relations Act does not. except interests of the liberal and non-Muslim constituency to pre
in Ulster, identify religion as a ground for discrimination; tend that Islamic demands concerning Rushdie’s book are
accordingly tjic equal opportunities policies of local authorit unacceptably foreign to the spirit of Western democracy. But
ies do not normally interpret it as a relevant determinant in arc these demands, properly assessed, incapable of being
service delivery. Yet, in the case of Muslims, the Rushdie met? Does the debate over The Satanic Verses ultimately
saga has strongly indicated that religious affiliation is far more involve a principle concerning which Muslims radically dis
central than colour and ethnic origin in determining the needs agree with their opponents? Or is the dispute resolvable on
and aspirations of Muslims. Indeed, for Muslims, faith takes the basis of empirically obtainable evidence about the harm,
on a significance at least as great as -ace and gender in any socially and individually, certain publications may cause?
proper interpretation of their self-identity. The demands of The central difficulty here is prejudicial rigour. If only non
Muslim communities cannot always be subsumed under the Muslims would assess the Muslim case on the basis of evi
geographical category of Asian. In fact, Asians often see dence rather than on the basis of negative views formed
themselves as religious groups, i.c. as Sikhs, Hindus, and independently of the relevant evidence. The objectivity and
Muslims. It is entirely reasonable to identify Muslims as a restraint that Western commentators loudly proclaim have
122 123
completely deserted them during the Rushdie affair, whatever way or another to the Rushdie affair, especially after hearing
may be said of their assessment of other non-lslamic issues. Khomeini’s edict. The French authorities have whole-heart
Let us suppose, for the sakd of argument, that someone edly condemned Khomeini’s fatwa and threatened to pros
had published a novel praising a character recognisably ecute any Muslim in France who openly avows support for
Hitlerian, with scenes as offensive to Jews as those in The it. There has been no corresponding condemnation of Rush
Satanic Verses are to Muslims. Would we allow, let alone die. even for bad taste. The Americans have also come down
passionately patronise, such a publication? Should we? In heavily on the Muslims for their opposition to Rushdie, with
1987 the management of London s Royal Court Theatre aban out any corresponding judgement about the possible propriety
doned its plans for staging Jim Alien’s play Perdition, which of Muslim indignation. Of all the Western governments. Bri
questioned the received account of the Holocaust. Influential tain alone has reacted cautiously and sympathetically. While
Jews stopped the production, though without enlisting the condemning Khomeini’s verdict, there has also been some
powers of the state or requesting supplementary legislation. sympathy for Muslim alienation and anguish. Thus, for exam
The management conceded that the play would distress Jews. ple, even the most dedicated Muslim campaigners have not
Yet the same theatre staged the play Iranian Nights by Tariq been threatened with deportation; indeed even those openly
Ali and Howard Brenton, at the height of the Rushdie affair, calling for Rushdie’s death have been tolerated.
despite protests from Muslims who argued that it trivialised Muslims have been deeply frustrated by the inaction of the
Islamic ideals. Presumably. Jews are much more easily out British government, by what Muslims have perceived to be
raged than Muslims.
the slow rate of democratic reform. Comparisons with the
Fortunately, Jewish suffering has a special place in Western
Chinese government’s fast ban on the work of the Chinese
eyes. As a community that threw in its lot with the Christian
Rushdie’ have often been made. In March 1989 a Shanghai
West it has for long been subject to focussed brutality. Yet,
publishing house issued a book entitled Sexual Customs. It
in many ways, the decrease in Western hatred of Jewish
was put forward as a sociological survey of sexual mores
communities has, sadly, gone hand-in-hand with a proportion
world-wide. The authors, Ke Le and Sang Ya. argued pre
ate increase in hatred of Muslim communities. It were as
posterously that minarets were phallic symbols, the domes of
though the Western mind must feed on resentment towards
mosques represented female breasts and that the believers'
at least one community at any given time. It happens to be
main purpose in going on the annual pilgrimage to Mecca
Muslims now—the new Jews of contemporary Western
society. How else can one explain the sheer depth of Western was to commit bestiality with camels. There were demon
anger at the Muslim decision to defend Islamic ideals in the strations by outraged Muslims; the book was immediately
face of an intolerable provocation? banned on the grounds that it had intolerably provoked a
To accuse contemporary Western commentators and poli religious minority.
ticians of prejudice and unfair attitudes is not to suggest that Yet the temptation to denounce the British democratic
things cannot change for the better. After ail, unlike the Jews, process by comparison is to be staunchly resisted. Mature
Muslims have lived in Britain only for a few decades. It is democracies can indeed be frustratingly slow in responding
unrealistic to expect them to attain to positions of power and to the perceived needs of citizens; the tempo of democratic
prestige overnight. But it is important not to entrust an unjust change certainly angers and frustrates. But while a Commu
state of affairs only to patience and the future. There is work nist political order may react immediately, such action can
to be done in the present. have far more tragic results. The massacre at Tianamen
More or less all Western democracies have reacted in one Square in 1989 is fortunately no part of democracy. Inaction
124 125
is surely better than widespread and hasty suppression of the European community's legislation for 1992. (Many individ
rights of citizens. uals in Britain already enjoy dual citizenship.) We cannot
here explore the many implications of Patten’s position.
Directly with respect to Muslims. Patten's declaration raises
6 several obvious questions. Is the ideal of multi-culturalism
‘Submit to the will of your God, by all means; but submit to now being effectively abandoned? How will Muslims choose
British law first’. An original definition of Islam has been if faced with the choice between being British and being
proffered by commentators and politicians as Muslims have Muslim?
refused to wind down their protest against Rushdie's book. Patten seems to be favouring the melting-pot model, popu
There has been no shortage of threats or analyses from the lar with some multi-culturalists, rather than the model put
authorities—and it is not always easy to tell the two apart. forward by Roy Jenkins in 1966 when he called for equal
Listening to Conservatives like Douglas Hurd and Kenneth opportunities for ethnic minorities in an atmosphere of cul
Baker, one might be excused for thinking that Islam is the tural diversity sustained by mutual tolerance. The present
white man's latest burden. One can certainly detect a residue Conservative government may well favour assimilation in the
of colonial arrogance in some of the comments made by light of recent developments that seem to suggest a Muslim
British politicians in recent months. Westerners are once desire for cultural separatism. Certainly, some Muslim organ
again taking upon themselves the morally demanding task of isations have demanded a recognition of Islamic family law
civilising backward Muslim people suddenly re-emerging with for British Muslims—with an implied call for the legalisation
renewed confidence as a result of recently acquired wealth. of polygamy. There have even been some extravagant com
The most influential declaration has come from John ments about a whole Islamic charter for British society. It is
Patten, the Home Office Minister of State responsible for not difficult to see why some Tory commentators have cau
race relations. On 4 July 1989. he published an open letter tioned Muslims against asking for a miniature theocracy
to a number of Muslim leaders rejecting their demands for a within the United Kingdom.
state ban on Rushdie's book and reminding them of their Though multi-culturalism is not an invention of modern
obligation to live harmoniously in a multi-cultural British Britain. British society has recently been engaged in a pion
society. Two weeks later, in a letter addressed to, among eering experiment in creating multi-ethnic social harmony. It
others, the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. would be unfair to dismiss its fruits and successes merely
Patten argued that being British imposed on Muslims (and because we have come up with an obstacle. But the Rushdie
other communities) a duty to respect British laws. He warned affair will certainly provide a crucial experiment for the multi
Muslims against making unacceptable demands as citizens of cultural ideal in liberal democracy. The resolution of the issue
a kingdom that was not Islamic in its constitution. He con will interest Muslims who themselves have in the past created
cluded that British Muslims should not cultivate dual loyalties a civilisation that patronised multi-cultural and multi-religious
where one of them conflicts with the obligations entailed by ambitions.
British citizenship. Multi-cultural ideals are visibly strained when citizens are
Patten’s 'On Being British', as it is called, raises many actually offered a choice between two opposed identities.
large questions in the debate about multi-culturalism. cultural Patten's warning to the Muslims points to the necessary ten
purity and identity. It comes, oddly enough, at a time when sion between loyalty to the state of one’s chosen country of
British identity is likely to be diluted (if not contaminated) citizenship, on the one hand, and an allegiance to a larger
by Britain's membership of the EEC and the effects of the religious community that transcends national boundaries, on
126 127
the other. British Muslims are citizens of the United King

dom; but they are equally members of a global Islamic com Epilogue: The Summer of
munity. In this they are no different from Catholics and Jews
who arc citizens of a given nation but retain some loyalty to Discontent
their larger ethnic or religious fellowship. There are duties to
both; the conflicts that are created usually remain indefinitely
on the agenda of loyalties. Normally Muslims are asked to
compromise routinely on matters of taste or fashion—but not 1
on matters of principle. There is rarely the need for a painful I have a right to truth, and to publish truth, let society suffer or
choice between two opposed allegiances both based on funda not suffer by it. That society which suffers by truth should be
mental principle. But where circumstances force such a otherwise constituted.
choice, no authentic Muslim can hesitate about which loyalty
comes first. The writer of these uncompromising words is not Salman
Rushdie. The words are in fact penned by the seventeenth
century militant rationalist William Hammon. Yet. for all the
cultural and historical discrepancy between the two writers,
the quoted creed may well serve to introduce the controversy
over The Satanic Verses.
‘1 have a right to publish the truth', says the courageous
author. By all means. But could Rushdie say the same in
defence of his book? To be sure, someone might retort, the
question of truth or falsity cannot properly arise at all; The
Satanic Verses is proffered as a fictional account. But. as we
saw in chapter 2, it remains too close to actual Islamic history
for Rushdie's claim to be convincing.
The issue remains. A right to publish unpalatable truth and
indeed criticism is surely not equivalent to a right to publish
propaganda and abuse. For all the apparent simplicity of
this distinction, it is a distinction that remains important and
unambiguous. Its exact formulation and application are centr
ally relevant to any intellectual resolution of the Rushdie
controversy.
T have a right to truth'. Rushdie may well have said. And
indeed he has every right to teach the Muslims some truths
about themselves. Perhaps Islam needs a major heretical
movement that could jolt Muslims out of their complacency
and persuade them to take seriously the many challenges of
secular modernity. But such a movement must be recognis
ably Islamic. Otherwise Muslims will merely either ignore it
128 129
the other. British Muslims are citizens of the United King

dom; but they are equally members of a global Islamic com Epilogue: The Summer of
munity. In this they are no different from Catholics and Jews
who arc citizens of a given nation but retain some loyalty to Discontent
their larger ethnic or religious fellowship. There are duties to
both; the conflicts that are created usually remain indefinitely
on the agenda of loyalties. Normally Muslims are asked to
compromise routinely on matters of taste or fashion—but not 1
on matters of principle. There is rarely the need for a painful I have a right to truth, and to publish truth, let society suffer or
choice between two opposed allegiances both based on funda not suffer by it. That society which suffers by truth should be
mental principle. But where circumstances force such a otherwise constituted.
choice, no authentic Muslim can hesitate about which loyalty
comes first. The writer of these uncompromising words is not Salman
Rushdie. The words are in fact penned by the seventeenth
century militant rationalist William Hammon. Yet. for all the
cultural and historical discrepancy between the two writers,
the quoted creed may well serve to introduce the controversy
over The Satanic Verses.
‘1 have a right to publish the truth', says the courageous
author. By all means. But could Rushdie say the same in
defence of his book? To be sure, someone might retort, the
question of truth or falsity cannot properly arise at all; The
Satanic Verses is proffered as a fictional account. But. as we
saw in chapter 2, it remains too close to actual Islamic history
for Rushdie's claim to be convincing.
The issue remains. A right to publish unpalatable truth and
indeed criticism is surely not equivalent to a right to publish
propaganda and abuse. For all the apparent simplicity of
this distinction, it is a distinction that remains important and
unambiguous. Its exact formulation and application are centr
ally relevant to any intellectual resolution of the Rushdie
controversy.
T have a right to truth'. Rushdie may well have said. And
indeed he has every right to teach the Muslims some truths
about themselves. Perhaps Islam needs a major heretical
movement that could jolt Muslims out of their complacency
and persuade them to take seriously the many challenges of
secular modernity. But such a movement must be recognis
ably Islamic. Otherwise Muslims will merely either ignore it
128 129
Be Careful with Muhammad! Epilogue: The Summer of Discontent
or condemn it. Rushdie is too abrupt, too eager to rupture freedom of speech (or conscience) is the central value being
all links with the Islamic context that might guide Muslims defended here. That particular right of democratic society is
into making appropriate concessions to modern thought. The always exercised with due restraint; any society in which free
temper of revolutionary proposals is no less significant than dom of speech were absolute would probably cease to be a
their content. Even if a Rushdie-like mood—aristocratic and society at all. Though many defenders of freedom have
supercilious—may occasionally be necessary in the face of recently spoken in tones high and holy, it is difficult to take
entrenched orthodoxy, the content of iconoclastic proposals them seriously in view of the double, even triple moral stan
need not lapse into abuse. dards they regularly employ. Occasionally, freedom of speech
But what's wrong with abuse? Don’t we often rely on satire may well be absolute and exercised with impunity—but only
and comic hyperbole to make valid points? How else can one at the expense of powerless groups.
cut the gods down to size? I gave a relatively detailed response What, then, is the real reason for the universal and indeed
to this and similar retorts in chapter 2. Suffice it to say here spontaneous outrage in the Western constituency? It seems
that there are many techniques of reverent yet penetrating to me that the Muslim response over the Rushdie affair chal
scepticism that do not carry the dangers attending satire and lenges the cultural imperialism implicit in the occidental out
ridicule. It is unwise for us in a multi-cultural society to look. Why should the West dictate the mental and moral
encourage a form of denigration and abuse which can breed fashion for the rest of the civilised world? Only Muslims have
resentment to the point of strife and public disorder. It is one dared to ask that question. For to ask such a question is
thing to say that the Islamic tradition should, like all others, already to betray mental independence.
co-exist with a contemporary habit of mind which interrogates The fact is of course that there exists a small clique of
and questions even cherished convictions. It is quite another ideologues, with privileged access to publishing houses and
to argue that Muslims, or indeed non-Muslims, should toler newspaper columns, who have become the self-appointed
ate wanton prejudice or otherwise propagandist material pub priests of the cult of ’democratic’ freedom. For these indivi
lished under the pretext of criticism. duals. the defence of Rushdie is actually a form of self-
defence—an attempt to preserve a value system based on
the exploitation of the weaknesses of unprotected minorities
2 entertaining radically different moral or religious convictions.
By a complex process of events, the defence of Salman Rush The Rushdie affair is. in effect, part of an ideological battle
die and his novel has. mistakenly, become a defence of West between Islam and the West. There can be no other expla
ern values. The scenario is certainly stranger than fiction: a nation for the sheer bitterness and lengthiness of a campaign
virulently anti-Islamic book is written by an Indian apostate that started off as a request, surely modest enough, for the
living in Britain, and an Iranian cleric orders his execution. removal from circulation of one gratuitously provocative and
The oddity of the tale doesn't end here. Mrs Thatcher’s relatively inferior piece of literature.
government, condemned as racist by the author, leaps to his
defence. The Islamic world and the Western world become
ideologically polarised almost overnight. 3
What precisely are the Western values that the defenders A free society is one’, it has been said, ’in which it is safe to
of Rushdie are upholding? And why are they prepared to pay- be unpopular? On such a definition. Britain may not. in the
such a high price for upholding them? It is too late in the aftermath of the Rushdie provocation, remain a free society—
night for anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, to pretend that at least for Muslims. It has never been entirely safe to be
130 131
Be Careful with Muhammad.1 Epilogue: The Summer of Discontent
a Muslim here; but, particularly in cities with large Asian qucnces for the defenceless Muslims. Indeed there has
populations, the local authorities have over the past decades recently been a revival of Fascism in Britain. France. Ger
made genuine and partly successful attempts to combat racism many and other European countries. The vocabulary of the
and inequality of opportunity. Unfortunately, the fruits of Final Solution is not necessarily confined to the Germany of
that labour have vanished overnight. Muslims are now being the Third Reich and the Jews. And who would have thought
singled out for prejudicial treatment. The old racism against that a society which had historically produced great philos
all blacks is more focussed now. Even before the Rushdie ophers and musicians could go down in an orgy of violence
episode began. Muslims were systematically victimised and and anger? The nasty side of human nature is never too far
harassed because of their conspicuous refusal to 'integrate'. below the surface of civilised existence.
To be sure. Muslims were making all the concessions required The Muslims will not be alone in their suffering. As a result
by law: but nothing more. Much more than other minority of the Rushdie affair, the lives of Western hostages held in
groups, Muslims wanted to retain their own faithful heritage the Lebanon have been further endangered. More broadly,
as well as reap the benefits of British citizenship. It was given the volatile ideological climate in the Muslim world, it
necessarily an uneasy alliance: Rushdie has made it a virtually is safe to predict an increase in political terrorism in the
impossible one. coming decade. The targets will include British citizens seen
The events surrounding the publication of The Satanic as conspirators against Islam and the Muslims. Travelling
Verses have long-term consequences for the sizeable Muslim these days is hazardous enough without the additional risks
community now settled in the United Kingdom. In the short that political entanglement brings.
term, there will be increased discrimination by white
employers against members of a community already dispro
portionately affected by economic recession. There will be an 4
increase in the discrimination against Muslim students and Though global in its implications, the Rushdie saga is essen
teachers in intellectual life—though that is not excessively tially a British one. It started in Britain; in some sense, it
worrying since such discrimination has always been at virtu needs to end there too.
ally peak levels. In the long term, the consequences could be The manner in which the Anglo-Rushdie affair terminates
either devastating or beneficial depending on the govern will be of great political significance. For it will determine
ment’s reaction. If the current level of resentment and anger whether or not Britain, as a potentially mature democracy,
is allowed to increase, then Muslims will suffer severe depri can accord to all citizens a right to equal and just treatment.
vation as the white majority engages in systematic oppression Unless the authorities wish to suppress their Muslim citizens,
of 'these barbarians'. If the government intervenes, estab they can no longer ignore Muslim demands for the enactment
lishes a dialogue with their Muslim citizens, the affair could of legislation protecting Islamic sensibilities.
end on a constructive note. To enact laws to protect the deepest feelings of Muslims is
At the height of the Rushdie affair I wrote in the Guardian not to 'give in’ to that old Iranian cleric Ayatollah Khomeini.
that the next time there arc gas chambers in Europe, there Well before the Iranian edict was promulgated, domestic
is little doubt concerning who will be inside them. If we make Muslim populations in Britain’s metropolitan cities had been
allowances for the shock tactics and overlook the hyperbole campaigning for the withdrawal of The Satanic Verses. Sub
in a journalistic piece written after all in the heat of the sequent events have, sadly, created a deadlock in which both
moment, the remark is not entirely without point. If society parties see victory as a matter of honour. Yet justice is what
deteriorates-as societies can—there will be dire consc- the Muslims seek; victory at all costs is not an Islamic doc
132 133
Be Careful with Muhammad! Epilogue: The Summer of Discontent
trine. At any rate, as long as injustice prevails, we are all even in a secular country. Many points have been made—
losers. It is a false triumphalism that wishes to defeat Muslims and made with a passion and enthusiasm alien to the West in
in order that society may win.' matters of religion. No sincere observer of the campaign
It is high time for the age-old veto on any sympathetic against the book can remain unimpressed by the moral integ
assessment of Muslim aspirations, initially imposed during the rity of the Muslim motivation.
Crusades, to be lifted and for Muslims to be given a fair But the rewards are much larger. Though there is a paradox
hearing in the corridors of power. Otherwise they will remain of publicity—many more will read the book, given the fuss wc
alienated and isolated second-class citizens faced increasingly have made —Rushdie’s message has been pre-empted. Many
with the threat of organised racism. Even if the goal of provid individuals will continue to buy the book out of motives of
ing equality of opportunity and just treatment is a long-term curiosity, or, in some cases, malice. But no one, Muslim or
one. Parliament needs to enact laws immediately to protect non-Muslim. can read The Satanic Verses with the degree of
Muslims against gratuitous provocation. It does not greatly ignorance and innocence required for the poison to be effec
matter how this protection is achieved: by an extension of the tive. It is now widely if secretly recognised that Rushdie’s
scope of the law against blasphemy or by amending the public book was written for instant fame and easy money. And, in
order Act or the criminal libel Act or indeed by any other any case, whether people read it or not, Muslims have shown
appropriate enactment. These are details to be sorted out by that a society should not, as a matter of principle, patronise
public and parliamentary debate. But the underlying principle
its publication.
needs immediate recognition in the wake of the Anglo-Rush
On every score of political expediency it may have been
die episode.
wiser never to have started a fight with such powerful enem
it is in the interests of the establishment to pretend that
ies. At any rate, it is certainly dangerous to refuse to drop
the Rushdie affair will die a natural death. But this is a
the issue at this stage. But Muslims see it as a matter of
mistaken diagnosis if only because it will still leave a perma
principle —and considerations of expediency and danger can
nent scar. Words can hurt; and there arc wounds time cannot
have little or no relevance in such affairs.
heal.
What remain in our thoughts, for a quiet evening, are
myriad variations on an influential slogan about power and
5 powerlessness-all equally trivial, al) equally true or equally
While the Liberal Inquisition was at its height, many Muslims false depending on one’s mood. The pen is mightier than the
advised each other in a moment of despair, to be patient and sword; the sword is mightier than the pen; the pen is useless
steadfast. Some were tempted to entrust the whole matter without the sword; the pen is mightiest with the sword. It has
to patience, prayer and the future. They recognised, rightly, taken Islam to remind us that faith should be mightier than
that there are no short-cuts to victory in matters of the faith. both.
And even when achieved, it is only the wise who recognise Certainly, the sword is useless without the pen. Even if the
it. But many Muslims inferred, wrongly, that patience and British government and people score a victory over their
prayer arc substitutes for active struggle and militant Muslim citizens, through threats or the use of naked force,
witness. the moral victory belongs to those who stand up for what
The campaign has not been without success for the Mus is right and just, not fearing the reproach of the powerful
lims. As a group, they have shown the liberal establishment but unjust. It is here that faith properly tests and tries men
that faith can, and sometimes needs to. move mountains. and women. Faith is as faith does—in the hour of trial. The
134 135
human task, the human obligation, is to plead for and. if

necessary, fight for what is right and just. Victor)' is. for the
Muslim conscience, by the grace of God—our Lord and their
Lord.
136
The publication of Salman Rushdie's lltc Satanic Verses
will go down as .1 major trauma in the history of
modern Islam. For the Western liberal Establish
ment, the need to support an author under
unprecedented pressure has been overwhelming.
Reviewing the book in depth. Dr Shabbir Akhtar -
one of I he leading opponents of the book - explains
why it has caused such offence and why it poses
such a challenge to the dignity, integrity and identity
of Muslim communities everywhere.
Outlining the sequence of events that led from
the early and repeated protests to the desperate and
symbolic book-burning at Bradford and the
eventual verdict ol execution from the Ayatollah
Khomeini. Dr Akhtar analyses the conflicting needs
of an immigrant community' whose overriding
culture is religious but whose national environment
and host culture are secular
Dr Shabbir Akhtar obtained his doctorate with his

lhesis on the philosophy of religion Born in
Pakistan, he was educated at St Catharine's College,
Cambridge, and the University of Calgary. Alberta
He has worked as Community Relations Officer at
Bradford, where he is a member of the Bradford
Council of Mosques He has been able to witness
at first hand the lull impact on the British
Muslim community of Salman Rushdie's book The
Satanic Verses.

Be Careful With Muhammad PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Be Careful With Muhammad PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BE CAREFUL WITH

An illiterate woman in Bradford went to see her teenage

2 entitled 'Ayesha' and 'The Parting of the Arabian Sea' deal

then, is the allegedly sacred experience to be interpreted? Is 8

anger on behalf of a sincere if frustrated humanitarianism.

13 of racism for most ordinary Asians settled in the inner city

f> London from several Arab Muslim countries met to formulate

Western commentators have argued that the repeal of Khom

the other. British Muslims are citizens of the United King

the other. British Muslims are citizens of the United King

human task, the human obligation, is to plead for and. if

Dr Shabbir Akhtar obtained his doctorate with his

You might also like

Be Careful With Muhammad PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Be Careful With Muhammad PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BE CAREFUL WITH

An illiterate woman in Bradford went to see her teenage

2 entitled 'Ayesha' and 'The Parting of the Arabian Sea' deal

then, is the allegedly sacred experience to be interpreted? Is 8

anger on behalf of a sincere if frustrated humanitarianism.

13 of racism for most ordinary Asians settled in the inner city

f> London from several Arab Muslim countries met to formulate

Western commentators have argued that the repeal of Khom­

the other. British Muslims are citizens of the United King­

the other. British Muslims are citizens of the United King­

human task, the human obligation, is to plead for and. if

Dr Shabbir Akhtar obtained his doctorate with his

You might also like

Western commentators have argued that the repeal of Khom

the other. British Muslims are citizens of the United King

the other. British Muslims are citizens of the United King