|
|
The Scribe, the Pharisees, and Us
| Article
# : |
16421 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
5 / 1989 |
2,476 Words |
| Author
: |
Robert Royal
|
In one of the most controversial chapters of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, a young satirical writer living at the time of the founding of Islam is threatened by a cynical Middle Eastern politician. The politician collects revenues from temples dedicated to the 360 gods and goddesses worshiped in the city Jahilia and stands to lose a lot of money and power if Mohammed carries out a monotheistic revolution. Under pressure, the writer agrees to use his gifts to discredit the Prophet. The scene ends with the politician planning the death of the writer after he has outlived his usefulness: "Here's a great lie, thinks the Grandee of Jahilia drifting into sleep: the pen is mightier than the sword."
To judge by the reactions in some quarters to the publication of the book, some people seem to see this as an unintentional allegory about Rushdie's life. Ahmed Jabril, of the terrorist group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, announced his intention to kill Rushdie, who, he said, was being used by "Western forces" to destroy Islam. In Iran, government spokesmen scoffed at what they regarded as Britain's hypocritical defense of Rushdie's right to publish, even though the British conceded the book was deeply offensive to Muslims. But in spite of these reactions, the political intentions of the various actors are not at all as clear in the real world as they are in Rushdie's fiction.
When Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued his death warrant against Rushdie, he may have been calculating the gains to himself within Iran and throughout the Arab world. He may also have been personally stung by the novel's portrait of a bloodthirsty Imam in exile (as Khomeini once was) who uses for propaganda purposes a former pop singer (Cat Stevens?), now a convert to Islam under the name Bilal X. In the real world, it is not so easy to tell who is playing the cynical politician and who truly represents the Prophet.
Double standards
In any case, Khomeini set in motion a series of events that, at least up to this point, may reveal a great deal more about courage and cowardice and double standards in the political realm than it does about Rushdie's novel. The United States and Britain stood up to Khomeini, the European Community withdrew its diplomats from Iran, and the Vatican, along with the chief rabbi of Jerusalem, issued disapprovals both of the threat and of the offense to Islam. It is difficult to see how civilized persons could have behaved toward Khomeini, who became so enraged during the controversy that he issued a statement saying, "Even if Salman Rushdie repents and becomes the most pious man of his time, it is incumbent on every Muslim to employ everything he's got, his life and wealth, to send him to hell." This kind of unlimited fury has no place in a civilized world, and quite a few Muslims disagreed with Khomeini's view of the duties of a believer.
But not all so-called civilized groups responded to the outrage. The United Nations, for example, showed once again why it is not taken seriously as a moral force in international affairs. Its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which all member nations are presumed to subscribe, guarantees a whole list of freedoms that have been trampled in the Rushdie case. Yet not a word came from the world's most extensive international body concerning the threats by one member nation to a writer living in another member
...
Read Full Article
|
|
