Home >> Europe >> Great Britain

     Email   Print 

'Sir' Rushdie Raises Muslims' Anger

Amit Pyakurel - 6/25/2007

Perhaps many had speculated a surge of probable Muslim anger, but may not had expected that the displeasure could grow to this extreme. It's the recently provoked outrage of the Muslim populace against the Knighting of the well-known Indian-born British writer, Salman Rushdie, whose novel, The Satanic Verses, had amounted to vigorous rage from the Muslim world when it was first published in 1988. The Satanic Verses led the Islamic religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini to call for Rushdie's immediate killing. And his recent honoring has further ignited the Muslims' anger, as the Islamic fanatics have placed a £80,000 reward on Rushdie's head. Rushdie (who has already collected the prestigious awards like Booker of Bookers prize, the Whitbread novel award for two times, and the James Tait Black memorial prize) was given the Knighthood in the birthday honors for Britain's Queen Elizabeth II.

The aggressiveness towards the Knighting of Rushdie, who's perceived by a bunch of Muslims as an "enemy of Islam" for his "negative characterization" of Islam in The Satanic Verses, has not only been limited to the ordinary folks of the Islamic world, but also to the prominent Muslim authorities. Pakistan, as a major Muslim country and an ally of the US for "war against terror," has officially resented against the Knighting of Rushdie by the British Queen. It's the "utter lack of sensitivity on the part of the British government," as per the statement issued by the Pakistan's Foreign Ministry. The Pakistani Parliament has also demanded an apology and withdrawal of the Knighthood honor to Rushdie.

More serious sounds the remark by a Pakistani minister who allegedly said that the Knighthood could incite radical Muslims to carry out suicide attacks, which the U.K. has expressed its "deep concern" upon. Britain said that "nothing can justify the suicide bomb attacks." Likewise, to join the league against the Knighthood provided to Rushdie is Iran, whose officials remarked that the British Queen lived in a "dream world" and a country's newspaper called her an "old crone". Mohammad Reza Bahonar, first deputy speaker of Iran's parliament, said, "Salman Rushdie has turned into a hated corpse which cannot be resurrected by any action."
Pakistani religious affairs minister, Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, said to his parliament, "The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism." But the irony strikes as he also said that "if someone exploded a bomb on Rushdie's body he would be right to do so, unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'Sir' title." At one instance he has refuted the claim that Muslims are "extremists and terrorists," and on the other he has openly advocated that killing Rushdie would be right, while confronting a free speech of this literary icon.

A bulk of the Muslim world, even some of the prominent authorities of Muslim nations, seems to carry the sentiment that Knighting of Rushdie is "dishonoring" the norms of Islam. Not only the perceived extremist populace in the Muslim world, but the official heads of some Muslim nations openly calling for the death of the writer, rather sounds worrisome. It illustrates how less have been the effect of calling for moderate standards in Muslim world, as in other religions and cultures, along with tolerance and respect for free speech.

Free speech could at times hurt one's attitude or perception, be it based on personal, religious, or cultural aspects. Also, Islam isn't the only religion, which some of its followers feel to have been hurt by the free speech of others. Criticisms or "humiliating" explanation raised by such free speech may not always be true. But, does that mean that it should be confronted with violent means, by killing the opponent? Bad ideas may, at times, arise from the free speech, and crushing these "bad ideas" by "good ones," ideologically, would eventually derive the truth and knowledge.

Moreover, the accusation saying that aim of honoring Rushdie is to assault Islam sounds irrelevant, as the writer rather seems to be honored for his extraordinary individual literary talent, irrespective of his attitude towards Islam. Islamic extremists violently protested against the Danish cartoon's last year, and the harsh reaction towards the Rushdie's The Satanic Verses was of the similar nature. One of the reasons for such retaliation is against the "misreading" that Islam and its doctrines "embraces violence."

We may sound insane while we pose prejudice that teaching of Islam is based on violence. But, ironically, as the fanatical Muslims dissent such prejudice using non-other-than the violence to justify the "goodness" of Islam, their adage and action contradicts. How can you prove you are not violent, just by the means of violence itself? Moreover, such intolerance and aggressive nature imposed by some Muslim population would only help to justify the claim that "Islam is a violent religion," by non-Muslims, especially from the West who are generally regarded as the "enemy of Islam."

Rather, if the extreme elements in Islam pose and sustain in a tolerant, calm, and logical manner, like the number of moderate ones do, but refrain from using violent means and threats, their answer to the so-called prejudices and "Islamophobic" dissents would bear more fruit. If to prove Islam is not violent, but embraces peace and humanitarian values, then why not dissent with ideology and intellectual dialogues, rather than declaring open threats of death to those who criticizes the practice of Islamic doctrine, let alone such criticisms are based on prejudice or truth?