Salman Rushdie got knighted over the weekend: he’s now Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie.
Predictably, government officials in Pakistan and Iran have come out against honouring the “blaspheming” “apostate” Rushdie. It’s a brand of foaming at the mouth that we’re all too familiar with at this point; in a sense, the hostile fundamentalist reaction validates the strong secularist stance that Rushdie has taken since his reemergence from Fatwa-induced semi-seclusion in 1998. (If these people are burning your effigy, you must be doing something right.)
But actually, there’s another issue I wanted to mention that isn’t getting talked about much in the coverage of Rushdie’s knighthood, which is the fact that Rushdie wasn’t always a “safe” figure for British government officials. In the early 1980s in particular, and throughout the Margaret Thatcher era, Rushdie was known mainly as a critic of the British establishment, not a member. The main issue for Rushdie then was British racism, and he did not mince words in condemning it as well as the people who tolerated it.
This morning I was briefly looking over some of Rushdie’s essays from the 1980s. Some of the strongest work exoriated the policies of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and indicted the pervasiveness of “institutionalized racism” in British society. Two essays in particular stand out, “The New Empire Within Britain,” and “Home Front.” Both are published in Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism, 1981-1991. (Another great essay from that collection is “Outside the Whale” — required reading, though on a slightly different topic. And see this NYT review of the collection as a whole from 1991.)Here is a long quote from “The New Empire Within Britain” (1982):
[L]et me quote from Margaret Thatcher’s speech at Cheltneham on the third of July, her famous victory address: ‘We have learned something about ourselves, a lesson we desperately need to learn. When we started out, there were the waverers and the fainthears . . . The people who thought we could no longer do the great things which we once did . . . that we could never again be what we were. Ther were those who would not admit it . . . but–in their heart of hearts–they too had their secret fears that it was true: that Britain was no longer the nation that had built an Empire and ruled a quarter of the world. Well, they were wrong.’
There are several interesting aspects to this speech. Remember that it was made by a triumphant Prime Minister at the peak of her popuolarity; a Prime Minister who could claim with complete credibility to be speaking for an overwhelming majority of the elctorate, and who, as even her detractors must admit, has a considerable gift for assessing the national mood. Now if such a leader at such a time felt able to invoke the spirit of imperialism, it was because she knew how central that spirit is to the self-image of white Britons of all classes. I say white Britons because it’s clear that Mrs Thatcher wasn’t addressing the two million or so blacks, who don’t feel quite like that about the Empire. So even her use of the word ‘we’ was an act of racial exclusion, like her other well-known speech about the fear of being ‘swamped’ by immigrants. With such leaders, it’s not surprising that the British are slow to learn the real lessons of their past.
Let me repeat what I said at the beginning: Britain isn’t Nazi Germany. The British Empire isn’t the Third Reich. But in Germany, after the fall of Hitler, heroic attempts were made by many people to purify German though and the German language of the pollution of Nazism. Such acts of cleansing are occasionally necessary in every society. But British thought, British society, has never been cleansed of the filth of imperialism. It’s still there, breeding lice and vermin, waiting for unscrupulous people to exploit it for their own ends. (Read the whole thing)
That was Rushdie in 1982: “British society has never been cleansed of the filth of imperialism.” And it’s by no means the only strong statement he makes about racism and imperialism in “The New Empire Within Britain”; he also goes after the legal system, the police, and the clearly racist quotas the British had enacted in the immigration policy to reduce the number of black and brown immigrants coming to Britain from former colonies.
If we compare Rushdie in 1982 to Rushdie today, it’s clear that the man has changed quite a bit — but it also has to be acknowledged that British society has itself been transformed, perhaps even more radically. Organizations like the National Front are nowhere near as influential as they were in the early 1980s, and a decade of the Labour Party and Tony Blair have changed the political picture for good. But more than anything, what seems different is the way racialized difference (Blacks and Asians vs. the white majority) has been displaced by the religious difference as the most contentious issue of the day. One you move the debate from race to religion, the parameters for who gets seen as an “outsider” and who becomes an “insider” look quite different.
Interesting…. thanks for the that gem. Its only the fame of Rushdie as an author that caused this ruckus. I read a Science Fiction story selected in an anthology of ‘Best SF of 2006’ that was about a ‘what if’ scenario. The synopsis :
‘Roman officer, sent to Mecca meets a man in a crowd during a speech. He stands out due to his personal aura and charisma. Man invites officer to his house to break bread and tells Roman officer about his ideas and his beliefs and his concept of society and religion. Officer recognizes the individual for the great man he will become and forsees the threat he poses to the empire. Officer sets up an ambush and murders the red haired man to ensure the empire’s hold in the Middle east’
First person narration, i doubt that the Ayatollah is a member of the Science Fiction society. If he was we would have a new Fatwa.
Rushdie’s books suck ass, they are really terrible. like that Orhan Pamuk clown, or James Joyce
At the risk of being labeled anti-streamofconsciousness, I think it’s unfair to club Rushdie and Pamuk with Joyce. Surely Rushdie’s and Pamuk’s s works are more accessible than any part of Ulysses.
i am officially boycotting this site, as well as telling my friends to do the same
what a loss!!!
Oh, I thought razib was this kind of deu(ts)che.
I kind of wonder why folks don’t just “wipe their hands” of you, you know? I mean, you are clearly an atheist, therefore not a Muslim, and thus not a threat to the practice of Islam, right? 🙂
I really don’t think Islam is inherently anti free speech, nor do I think it inherently promotes stupidity (i.e. the belief that it is ok and a good idea to beat someone up for saying something disparaging or something you disagree with). Perhaps we should not resort to reductionist arguments and make a distinction between Islam and the politics of countries who claim to represent Islam through their political structure? Not that I really want to engage in a protracted debate about western Enlightenment thought vs. Islam.
Noo York,
awww, the feelings are hurt.
won’t you pray for us? The unsaved, heathen, haram, infidel SM regulars? Or better yet, obey the prophet by mounting an armed campaign to convert all of North America. Yippee!!! Forced conversions for EVERYONE!!!
Where’s that SpoorLam dude when you need him? 🙂
Wow…so much veiled racism in this site is really almost surprising. Razib, I’ve been reading this site for a while and I think your comments are laughably pathetic usually. The number of times you describe people, populations using genetics like they are participants in a dog show…are you in undergrad biology or something?
You’re obviously proud of being an atheist, and that’s really great for you. Whatever rocks your boat, but really “limiting immigration from muslim countries”? Why can’t we just deport all the muslims who are here already? I’m sure the BNP would be very sympathetic to you. Where the hell are you quoting from anyway “the prophet said that it is incumbent upon the kuffar that they should submit themselves to open borders so that the ummah shall sweep all before them“??
And Amardeep, It’s really ironic that for someone who claims to value free speech you can admire Rushdie. Free speech is really all about creating dialogue between different people. When someone says something filthy or clearly offensive it only alienates a group of people from the dialogue. That really does not help anybody at all. Rushdie is a person who obviously knew how his work would be recieved, he knew the Muslim world well enough to know that he would create a great deal of controversy. He craved noteriety and he achieved it. And please! Will you stop with the Ayatollah Khomeni already! I can honestly say that most Muslims find the practice of Islam in Iran altogether alien. Ayatollah Khomeni and his edicts and his tracts are something more inspired by culture than religion. I hate when people bring up the Ayatollah in discussions about Islam…it’s like bringing up Hitler while talking about Lutheranism. It really reveals a sort of intellectual bankruptcy in the bringer-upper.
I don’t think this is necessarily true, but I do think that conversations about religious minorities on this site do tend to bring out more commenters with whom you (noo york) disagree. I think a lot of people who disagree also steer clear since we have had this same convo again and again and again. But, not to make your life more difficult, you made a series of statements that I can only read as disparaging towards Islam — and you were the apologist!
hema, amen to that. I hate Ulysses in all its overrated, masturbatory (literal and figurative) glory.
to go with your common sense argument, aren’t muslims getting “shot, blown up, or their asses kicked” because they don’t respect free speech? then razib throws out a common sensical solution and you scream bloody murder. for you people to act all suprised that the liberal world is angry, just shows how ignorant you are about reality.
Why the quotes around the word apostate? Isn’t Rushdie an out-and-out atheist?
Or better yet, obey the prophet by mounting an armed campaign to convert all of North America.
I dont think Muhammad (sallallahowalehowassalam) was much interested in conversions. He was more interested in forming alliances which would benefit his Quraish tribe. When the fellow Quraishs moved from Mecca to Medina, Muhammad encouraged the Medina people to accomodate the Meccans. He made alliances with the non-Muslims and as long as his fellow Meccans were top dogs in Medina, he was okay with Non-Muslims living next to him. He was quite a tribalist at most levels.
Come on, this is uncalled for and also not an apt characterization of noo york’s comments. While things were not always super eloquent, I also don’t think it’s fair to bait someone. My biggest critiques was the statement about “if you insult Islam… expect to be beaten/blown up.” If you’re going to take issue, at least do it with the comments that were actually put forward.
I also wish folks wouldn’t boycott the site. I say this because, without alternative voices/dialogue, how will conversation open up? At the same time, I understand that sometimes things feel too offensive to want to continue with a group of people.
Rezia, thanks for your comment and for calling a spade a spade.
I kind of wonder why folks don’t just “wipe their hands” of you, you know? I mean, you are clearly an atheist, therefore not a Muslim, and thus not a threat to the practice of Islam, right? 🙂
the arguments in islamic jurisprudence is that public apostasy is treason. it sets the precedent that islam is voluntary and might encourage other defection and so cause social disorder. there is, i think, a tacit understanding that personal atheism is to be tolerated. the problem is to be public about your disbelief.
Perhaps we should not resort to reductionist arguments and make a distinction between Islam and the politics of countries who claim to represent Islam through their political structure?
well, i am a reductionist, but i’m not an essentialist regarding islam. i think i can, and will, change, just as christianity as changed. but i also don’t think islam has any reality apart as an ideal from the way people practice it. the fact is that it is commonly agreed in muslim circles to a high proportion that apostates should be killed (though there is disagreement to the amount of time allowed for repentance and reversion). how many muslim majority countries could i go into the public market and declare that god is dead without being killed or thrown in jail? (perhaps turkey?) it is one thing to say that
a) islam does not entail anything specific (which i generally believe)
b) but another to ignore the real consequences of the powerful central tradition of how the believers behave
I think the fatwa was more ‘notoriety’ than he wished for or deserved. Did you see the world’s Christian leaders denouncing the discoverers of the Gospels of Judas? Or calling for the death of Dan Brown for suggesting, in a bit of fiction, that Jesus was a procreating human being? There are innumerable works that seek to expand the narratives presented in the King James bible and none of them, produced in the last 50 years, have produced the reaction that Rushdie’s book received.
The fatwa was unique in that it represented an international censorship of a work not even written in the languages spoken by the countries who putatively supported this fatwa.
100 Noo York
Seriously dude, you are right. Everyone here hates Muslims. But they also hate Brahmins, non-brahmins, DBDs( who they call unmentionable names),ABDs ,women, men , children.
Basically they are all equal opportunity offenders – they hate everyone regardless of caste, creed, religion .So that kinda makes them very virtuous in a sick ,twisted way.
Stick around – I am sure you will see that I am right !
at this point i would like to restate my constant point on this site. the majority of the people on it are anti-muslim, anti-pakistani. if you guys think i am crazy, just read the comments.
noo york, you are the one who said it was “common sense” by Muslim standards for people to blow up or kill people who defame Islam. If I, a non-Muslim had said that people would be screaming for my head for stereotyping Muslims, and correctly so.
Rushdie is a wordsmith without sense, gifted with an astronomical verbal IQ, he uses it only to play ‘intelligent’ little word-games. I found Pamuk’s astonishingly bad and equally overrated My Name Is Red to be in similar territory, plotless and pointless. But you’re right Hema, Joyce belongs in a different universe altogether. I despise most forms of modernism, Pamuk and Rushdie prostitute themselves to the idiotic western chatterati.
People,
I do not think Noo York condoned any type of violent activity. He is protesting however against Salman Rushdie’s portrayal of the prophet. As far as Islamic standards that is moderation, he hasn’t called for the mans head. He has only protested over his Knighthood in Britain where a large number of muslims live. I believe he is justified is making his protest.
Noo York
Leaving the site isn’t going to help matters, argue your point and stick to it. You’ll find supporters to your point of view, just not in the space of four hrs.
come on, i was set upon in a much more intense fashion when I started commenting and dropping eggs like this one,
really? so how much should ‘blasphemy,’ (i.e. free speech) be penalized? he wasn’t yelling ‘fire’ in a theater he was writing a piece of fiction. When did that become a crime? Or is assuming that it should be not characteristic of someone who should be lampooned/excoriated?
I don’t think thats what he meant, I read it as that its common sense that a majority of people would be offended if someone insulted a revered figure in their religion. Whether they actually read “The Satanic Verses” or not is a whole another story.
isn’t the fatwa still on? why hasn’t anyone gotten to him? it can’t be that hard, he’s all over the place.
Noo York, don’t leave. It’s not because of your faith but because you are Russo-Scythian and this site is notoriously anti-Scythite. People are just scared of things that are different.
Why can’t we just deport all the muslims who are here already?
well, cuz they’re citizens.
I’m sure the BNP would be very sympathetic to you.
and muslims are also very sympathetic to me. so i have two choices, the BNP or the majority of muslims who think that my death is the requirement of their religion? no thanks
Where the hell are you quoting from anyway “the prophet said that it is incumbent upon the kuffar that they should submit themselves to open borders so that the ummah shall sweep all before them”??
is humor and satire against islam? oops, i forget, against the prophet….
does this mean that one should avoid expressing one’s thoughts? does this also mean that if there is a group that disagrees with you, and whose negative reaction is predictable, the only possible reason you published your thought was for that notoriety? please. although i wouldn’t completely set aside your assertion, the idea that he published this thought for nothing more than publicity is absurd. the whole concept of free speech stems from the idea that both the bad and the good can be stated. and i strongly subscribe to holmes’ marketplace of ideas concept – those statements that have no value will naturally be disregarded by society. as to which society – well, that is the rub – some statements have far more value in certain societies. whatever the case may be, surely you are not condoning noo york’s suggestion that fatal violence is a proportional response to such comments? in my mind, that is giving way too much importance to the speaker.
i’m a bit confused, as i thought razib’s suggestion was a. not only somewhat of a joke, but b. directly in response to noo york’s statement that muslims are in every country, and will act violently in every country when islam is challenged. thus, by noo york’s own logic, limiting the muslims in every country will avoid the violent inevitabilities that he predicts.
Ironically, doesn’t the knighthood ceremony involve kneeling before a person wielding a sword.. ?
Camille, thanks for the explanation in #28. It was my sense too that religious discrimination is the icing on the racial discrimination cake, right now.
For you aficionados of assassination related humor, here’s one that’s guaranteed to kill ’em at a dinner party:
How do you know Rajiv Gandhi had dandruff? Because all they found of him was his Head and Shoulders.
Are you sure it is not an irono-hyperbolic joke about the fact that Salman of all people got an honor, so Razib should be a duke?
camille, hema, and yes I say yes I will yes.
“I think the fatwa was more ‘notoriety’ than he wished for or deserved. Did you see the world’s Christian leaders denouncing the discoverers of the Gospels of Judas? Or calling for the death of Dan Brown for suggesting, in a bit of fiction, that Jesus was a procreating human being? There are innumerable works that seek to expand the narratives presented in the King James bible and none of them, produced in the last 50 years, have produced the reaction that Rushdie’s book received.
The fatwa was unique in that it represented an international censorship of a work not even written in the languages spoken by the countries who putatively supported this fatwa.“
Once again, it was an Iranian fatwa…not a pan-Islamic one. Actually, yes, I did notice that his holiness the pope was not thrilled to bits about the Da Vinci Code. He obeys the laws of Vatican city, and the Ayatollah takes the legal recourse available to himself in Iran. It’s really VERY disingenous to suggest that he didn’t expect a fatwa or other censure. I quite wonder at you! Rushdie and his ilk crave this stuff. That is why you see people like Irshad Manji gleefully hiring a body guard and getting bulletproof windows prior to the publication of her book. Unfortunately for her no one has bothered much about her yet. And, yes, I do mean gleefully, because in the interview I saw of her, it was really almost indecent her enthusiasm for these measures. Wake up and smell the human nature!!
Noo York, don’t leave. You’ll find that folks here are pretty much equal opportunity haters. Eventually, everyone gets criticized for something: religion, language, skin color, affilation with the Midwest, etc.
re: common sense, the original post:
and those who insult islam through free speech must understand that they will probably get shot, blown up, or their asses kicked, because freedom of speech is not in every country, but muslims are…common sense people. lets try it.
the prose isn’t clear, but it seems that it is common sense for people to understand that muslims will react violently to insults against their religion.
kesh you are right, i am not going to boycott this site, because it needs people who are more balanced, and less anti-everything…seriously you guys needs to read my comments, i never said it was ok to beat up or blow up people who say something against you…but you people need to understand that, that is how a lot of people in the Muslim world think…and thus, i dont get it, why, people are surprised that a fatwa was issued against a blasphemer? also rezia, God bless you…and everyone, get off the Iran issue, they are irrelevant to what Islam really is…the fatwa was removed in 1998
Well, hema, I’m glad you learnt your lesson and are finally being inclusive.
Sorry to be ignorant, but does that mean one is “born Muslim,” similar to Christianity and Judaism? I only ask because theoretically, in Sikhi, one has to opt-in. What this means re: practice is of course different from the reality, but I’m just curious.
I actually think it’s quite fair to critique the Queen for knighting someone who has caused so much offense. It’s not so much the issue of free speech, but rather, what values does the knighthood represent? Is this a a tacit endorsement of atheism and anti-Islamic sentiment? Is this a public vindication of those who label Islam as dark, deviant, and violent? Or was it simply an acknowledgment of his literary contributions. By the same note, what does it mean when someone’s contributions have been so offensive to so many, Muslim or otherwise? I think those questions are much more interesting and are definitely relevant to the UK’s position, both diplomatically and within the context of its own race relations. I also think, though, that the knighthood generally doesn’t mean crap in the UK anymore, so to a certain extent it’s like most of the Grammy Awards that way 🙂
What ?The Grammy’s don’t mean anything?
Why , oh why, do I waste precious time watching the live telecast?
Good stuff!
It is COMMON SENSE that SOME muslims will want to act violently against those who commit BLASPHEMY against ISLAM…Razib, i know you are smart enough to read…so please, read…carefully
Sorry to be ignorant, but does that mean one is “born Muslim,” similar to Christianity and Judaism? I only ask because theoretically, in Sikhi, one has to opt-in. What this means re: practice is of course different from the reality, but I’m just curious.
if you are born to a muslim father you are a muslim according to the majority consensus.
I also think, though, that the knighthood generally doesn’t mean crap in the UK anymore, so to a certain extent it’s like most of the Grammy Awards that way 🙂
Don’t be dissing the Grammy Awards now. Knighthoods are more like the Brit Awards, really.
Wake up and smell the human nature!!
well, the nature of muslims at least 😉
noo york – what i don’t understand is why is violence the common sense response to a statement by words? my issue is with the proportional response aspect. why not retaliate in words, as well?
this is a bit like saying, “And Prabhakaran took the legal recourse available to himself, in ordering a suicide bomber to blow up Rajiv Gandhi.”
or, “And Osama Bin Laden took the legal recourse available to himself, in ordering the attacks of 9/11.”
all jokes aside, human nature (unless the human is an inveterate risk taker–of which I won’t count rushdie as a member considering that he makes his living by sitting on his ass and typing on a computer) dictates survival first. I doubt that any author would willingly court the kind of reaction that he received.
Irshad Manji, on the other hand, is not comparable in significance to Rushdie. She is a potential case of ‘gleeful put-apon Islam critic” as you suggest.
Being in the news because idiots watch you, or as it is commonly called today – ‘fame’, is enough to warrant a knighthood these days.
I’m with noo york on this one, I’m pretty sure it was repealed a long time ago. I also think it’s kind of logical to expect people to react to something inflammatory.
hema, I’m not sure if I can accept your statement b/c you are from “Jesusland” (cite: HMF) 😉
Rahul, that was painful. (Ulysses) And no problem re: religious discrimination as icing. Just to be clear, I do think that Muslims, particularly Muslim men and hijabi women, are getting doubly screwed in a way that is definitely not comparable to other VMEs, though.
noo york, glad you’re staying around, and thank you for the clarification. And folks are right. When I first got here I thought the site was full of Sikh-haters, and later realized everyone hates everyone. It’s pretty equal opportunity hateration ’round these parts 😉
The political far right in Western Europe is starting to grow due to the backlash against a certain type of immigrants.
In countries like Sweden, Holland, Belgium and Denmark the immigration laws are started to change.
what i don’t understand is why is violence the common sense response to a statement by words? my issue is with the proportional response aspect. why not retaliate in words, as well?
ak, dude, if that actually happen, this world would be a much better place, i think you need to face reality more and stop idealizing
One can become a knight and remain apart from the British establishment. Sean Connery supports Scottish independence.
“is humor and satire against islam? oops, i forget, against the prophet….”
It sounded to me like you actually were suggesting that…if it was a joke then that is just peachy! I’m sure I’m okay with that. I am going to take offense to your ascribing something that was never said by the prophet (SWAT) though. And I’m sorry, there is just NOTHING you can do…the offense has been taken. No, you mustn’t even try to right it! And to the rest of yous with your earnest free speech hang ups: Lo, do I laugh bitterly at you expense! Bitter shall be your lot! Look, there is a difference between free speech and yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre. Learn to use your grey matter to be discerning enough not to proclaim sweeping analogies. Discern, people, discern!! We are not in the seventh grade and the colour grey is all around us!
“When someone says something filthy or clearly offensive it only alienates a group of people from the dialogue.”
but what about something written in a religious or holy book (of any religion/belief system) that can be interpreted as filthy or clearly offensive by another group of people – either religious themselves or non-religious? should that be covered by free speech or should it be excised from those books because it has either harmed, inspires harm or continues to perpetuate harmful stereotypes about other people, thus stifling fruitful dialogue and alienating people?
hema, I’m not sure if I can accept your statement b/c you are from “Jesusland” (cite: HMF) 😉
Am not too! grumbles
ak, dude, if that actually happen, this world would be a much better place, i think you need to face reality more and stop idealizing
i had a friend who walked around with a picture of the virgin mary holding an alien baby. a lot of people came up to him and said they were offended, but he never got his ass kicked.
some people are civilized, even if marginally.
Wow, the comments are flying fast and furious right now.
Umm, thanks? 🙂
Don’t fully understand what you mean by this, but I was saying I concur with you.
It wasn’t nice of you to say that.