My Problem With Rushdie

He is called a champion of free speech. He is an icon of anti-censorship. And yet, he sues a former body guard for how he is depicted in said bodyguard’s memoir. When in hiding due to the Fatwa, he made a statement that he returned to Islam as an appeal. This was a lie, little more than a last-ditch attempt to save his skin. He is an atheist who isn’t content to live without faith, but feels the need to condemn and influence a faith he does not fully understand. He says:

     “What is needed is a move beyond tradition, nothing less than a reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern age, a Muslim Reformation to combat not only the jihadist ideologues but also the dusty, stifling seminaries of the traditionalists, throwing open the windows to let in much-needed fresh air. (...) It is high time, for starters, that Muslims were able to study the revelation of their religion as an event inside history, not supernaturally above it. (...) Broad-mindedness is related to tolerance; open-mindedness is the sibling of peace.” 

     In this statement he not only misunderstands Islam but religion at large, and fails to recognize that his own atheism is just as much “an event inside history, not supernaturally above it.” He demonstrates here a lack of understanding about the true nature of Islam and Jihad, and expects such a powerful faith to bend to his superficial call for “a move beyond tradition.” He demonstrates here his own lack of tolerance.

     To me, Salman Rushdie looks positively criminal. He’s an author who comes from the east and reaches a great deal of fame in the west, while leaving his heritage in the dust. He’s a massive literary celebrity who does a lot of work reinforcing western stereotypes about the east. It’s shameful – his first book  since 9/11 relies on historical fiction archetypes such as the deranged ‘jihadist’ Muslim and the heroic European… As someone coming from a Muslim heritage, he seems perfectly content to apply western circles of thought to his fiction. He uses a love triangle and historical hindsight to create the western understanding of a terrorist and to create the west’s view of itself (and, it can be speculated, portions of how Rushdie views himself). He doesn’t attempt to defend or bring any enlightenment to the eastern position aside from his depiction of the fall of Kashmir.

     But maybe his failure to defend the east has something to do with the east itself. Growing up in the states, we’re all bred with a sense of loyalty to our country. Before children are even old enough to understand what they’re saying and doing, they learn the pledge of allegiance and recite it daily while facing the flag. (This has some parallels to Muslim’s praying towards mecca at the start of each day and I wonder what else could be said about patriotism being the west’s main or most potent religion…) Outside of religion, it seems the eastern world doesn’t have the same sort of inherent loyalty to one’s homeland that the west has and emphasizes in its youth. Perhaps that’s why I see so much to dislike in Rushdie, because he’s an atheist who uses his status as a mega-successful author to support stereotypes instead of defending the people who make up his homeland. In this work, Rushdie seems to ignore the idea that underneath and persistent through all religion, people are merely people.

     

     And yet, Shalimar won the Hutch Crossword award, a prestigious Indian award for literary works, so maybe I don’t really have an argument.

     

     Since the events in Boston, a lot of people have been speculating that the attack may have come from the outside, from a terrorist group. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the first arrest was a Saudi man who was allegedly wounded by the blast and was apprehended while running away like everyone else. On social media websites on Monday you saw people moan and groan about the decline of humanity and how it feels “like the world is coming to an end.” During trying times like this it becomes even more important to remember that unspeakable violence like this is happening every day across the world. If there was as much empathy towards people in Syria or Pakistan as there are towards those in Boston now, mankind would be so much closer to overcoming the curse of prejudice and violence towards our neighbor.

     For me, that is Rushdie’s biggest failure: a man who is given the power to influence people through his words does not work towards understanding and love, but reinforces the stereotypes that prejudice and hatred are based on.