Hadji Murat and Zuhayr

August Heinrich

English 241

Blog Response

April 30, 2013

Hadji Murat and Zuhayr as Warriors

            While reading the story of Hadji Murat I was surprised at the reactions he received from many of those who he encounters that have only heard of him through reputation or stories.  He carried with him a benevolent aura, which won him the admiration of Maria Dimitriyevna and Butler, a man with a head for battle, with ease.  His delicate nature off the battlefield also facilitated his escape, as his escorts were initially more trusting of his intent and didn’t pursue him until his horse came to a gallop.  Hadji Murat didn’t embody the typical persona of a sawn-off, bloodthirsty warrior off of the battlefield.  He acted in the name of his family and their defense, similar to another individual with young blood and a will to fight for his family and honor, Zuhayr.

            Zuhayr is much like Hadji Murat, in that his urge to make a stand was in accordance with his family values and loyalty to his community and religion.  Zuhayr didn’t acquire the reputation that Hadji Murat was known for, but he was fearless when battling for the safety of his own kind.  He fought with honor and embraced the visions of chivalry as far as his imagination could pursue.  I believe, if Zuhayr continued along this path, he would almost replicate the character that is Hadji Murat.

Tolstoy and honesty over embellishment

In the second chapter of Hadji Murad we are introduced to Avdeev, a Russian soldier with a cheerful disposition. In conversation with his fellow soldiers he explains what he’s doing in the service; how he left a comfortable life at home to take his brother’s place in the army. Avdeev recognizes the disparity between him and his brother’s fates, and is “fed up” with living “a dog’s life.” And yet, he doesn't let it bring him down, remaining cheerful amongst his comrades. Still, the reader is meant to pick up on the idea that poor, kind Avdeev doesn't belong in the army. After transporting enemy Caucasian scouts to the prince, author Tolstoy further demonstrates Avdeev’s naivety by having him say “They really are just like Russians… Good lads!”

A couple chapters later Avdeev is shot in the stomach during battle and dies shortly after. On his death bed he says, “I envied my brother… well, now I’m glad. Let him be. Good luck to him, I’m glad.”

In so much of the media we consume – novels, movies and television – the soldier’s life is played up and romanticized. Granted, Avdeev lived before the latter two, but the sentiment remains that the ideas of glory and righteousness have lured young men to their doom for as long as war has existed on this earth. Like George McGovern once said, “I hate that old men sit in air-conditioned rooms dreaming up wars for young 

men to die in.”

Tolstoy does not seem to be in the business of perpetuating the notion of war as glory or righteousness. Like the quote on the back of the book reads: “you will see war... in its authentic expression – as blood, suffering and death.” Avdeev bought the joke, and Tolstoy kills him to make his point clear. Like the masterful writer he is, Tolstoy takes war and the enemy, the other, and gives it realism over embellishment. Unlike other authors we’ve read in this class, Tolstoy doesn't need to exaggerate or rely on stereotypes to create understanding for the reader, but shoots for the authentic. That is why he is considered such a great author and why, in the context of this class, he breaks the trend of orientalism.

Ahmad and God's Loneliness

August Heinrich

English 241

Blog Post- Terrorist

           

I was struck by the tone Ahmad uses in chapter four when he’s speaking of God to Joryleen, because it doesn’t consist of Ahmad’s usual rhetoric when speaking of the almighty.  Whenever a question of morality is tossed his way, he usually responds with a quote from the Quran or praises the wisdom of Allah.  By accident, he reveals a soft spot inside himself.  Says, “At times I have this yearning to join God, to alleviate His loneliness.”  Moments before, he complained about how nobody thinks of God and whether or not he suffers.  I feel that when he thinks of God and God’s supposed loneliness, he’s subconsciously thinking of his own.  Despite that he appears to enjoy truck driving without Charlie, with only God as his passenger, he really enjoys the comfort of a supposed entity next to him because he longs to be with someone who is actually there.  Initially he eagerly offers himself to die for the mission proposed by Shaikh Rashid, because he hopes that will alleviate his own loneliness on earth.  Ironically, it seems that his isolation on earth stems from his inability to see beyond his lessons with Shaikh Rashid and the Quaran’s teachings, which in turn prevents him from enjoying many of the pleasurable details of life on earth.

Image and Misunderstanding

Of Updike’s book, I will say it is downright painful to read. Just from the standpoint of an unbiased reader, I feel like I’m reading the ramblings of someone who is not only ignorant, but thinks they’re so much wiser than all the ‘demons’ they see. I’m not very far in, and I mean to finish it, but it won’t be a walk in the park.

On Boston, I ask: What about us needs there to be an agreed-upon definition, a quick-reference checklist of characteristics that make a terrorist? Because as long as the public is reinforced in having this stereotype, the further we’ll all get from any hope of a positive relationship between the United States and the Muslim world.

American society sorts and makes judgments for so many kinds of people, and it’s never been a positive aspect of this country. But with extremism, with terror, the public is hungry for a “why” – a recipe for terror, probably so that we can wipe out or outlaw whatever ingredients “make” a terrorist. Because terrorism hits us so hard and we’re all so terrified of it, we just have to be completely rid of it. We have to stamp it out, so let’s make it easier to identify them and wipe ‘em out in one fell swoop. There’s no time to think for a moment, look deeper, maybe realize there isn't just one kind of terrorist. Maybe we can’t just compile them all into a list of recognizable traits – Muslim, Eastern, Brown, Etc. – and prosecute the bunch.

Do you get where I’m going with this?

We fuss over what a terrorist ‘should’ look like to the public perception. When the culprits to the Boston Bombings were identified, people kept mentioning how they were white and American Citizens, how ‘normal’ they appeared.  This is a mistake, because how they look or where they come from is second to the fact that they are monsters. There should be no room to sympathize with them, and so the public's  infatuation with image it's perception of ‘normal’ has to change. I believe we've been allowed to rely on stereotypes for far too long. As a result, the country at the center of the modern world, with limitless information at our fingertips, is deadened to the world we exist in.

Terrorism is an inexcusable crime. Its perpetrators are deserving of the full weight of justice. Now, If this generation could just overcome the barriers of prejudice, we’d be that much closer to easing tensions between the East and the West that result in acts of violence and terror every day. 

Ahmad Ashmawy Mulloy and the American Image of ‘Terrorist’

            As I began reading John Updike’s Terrorist over the weekend I was quite disappointed to be faced with many common stereotypical descriptions and definitions of what many Americans think of as a terrorist in this day and age. John Updike’s novel looks to give insight into the life of an Muslim American high school student, born in the United States, who has become distraught with what he finds to be the corrupt American society. While Ahmad is described as an angry, isolated student fully engulfed in his Muslim faith, fitting within the American definition of a terrorist, Updike also seemingly also manages to describe Ahmad as an outcast American teenager. I was surprised to see both of these caricatures describe the same person. Ahmad is looked negatively upon and seen as different despite his American roots because of his devotion to Islam, yet he could also be potentially sympathized with because of his struggle to be accepted by his peers and his feelings of being divided over his beliefs and his desires. These two conflicting images stuck out to me as I began to feel that perhaps Updike’s novel might be looking to go beyond simple stereotypes that fit within pre-existing societal beliefs.

            Rereading through some of the opening sections of the book I discovered how much Updike seems to feed into the stereotypical American definition of what makes a terrorist. Ahmad uses extreme language in regards to everyone else describing his classmates as “devils” who want to take away his God and criticizes many of the young woman who go to his high school for being promiscuous and dressing in a provocative manner (p. 3). Ahmad also is very involved in his Islamic faith; he is learning Arabic and constantly quotes ideas that the Koran promotes. For example, before attending his guidance meeting he comments that guidance should only come from Allah. Even adults are surprised by how prim and proper Ahmad is and how he dresses in stark white shirts and black pants (p. 34). These ideas of devoted Muslims who hate America and feel different and hateful towards Americans are just some of the stereotypical definitions that have come to define a terrorist in this day and age. Updike seems to just embody these ideas in Ahmad to make his novel fit with societal expectations.

            Yet, upon further analysis and based off of what we mentioned briefly in class today, I can only question whether Updike writes based off of his own beliefs in this stereotypical image or if this caricature is only a bigger comment on America in the post 9/11 period. Updike continually is understood as critiquing American society; he negatively comments upon the breakdown of cities, the disillusioned youth and the disintegration of traditional marriage. Thus, I can only wonder if Updike is almost commenting upon America’s disturbing and somewhat newly formed fear of terrorism by creating a character so that fits within these stereotypes. Updike seems to be attempting to show the American public the ridiculousness of such a fear and attempting to get his readers to question their assumptions. This novel either feeds directly into the orientalist discourse or it looks to critic how common these assumptions are made in the age of fear that has only continued to grow in the 21^st century. 

What was on my Facebook referring to the Boston Bombings

Brittany Staie

During the past week we have all seen the events take place in Boston, for my blog I wanted to talk a little bit about somethings about it, like we did in class today. Today people where saying how they where seeing people jumping to conclusions on their Facebook  I also witnessed a lot of this on my Facebook  Before the names of the two brothers where even released there was someone on my Facebook news feed saying that people where "getting" back at us for having troops invading other places. They automatically jumped to the Boston bombings being a way to get pay back for us sending troops into their cities. When I saw this I started to think about how in class we have been talking about how people jump to conclusions about people. Such as people automatically assuming that just because the 9/11 attackers practice a certain religion (to the extreme) that everybody that practices that religion. I think this is something that we need to keep in mind when we are looking at this type of events, even more so when we do not have enough information to know who has done it yet (like we didnt when these people posts on facebook). In my own opinion I would think that this would be something that people would have learned after 9/11 is that even though one person is part of a group doesnt mean that everyone is like that, and likewise just because we have troops somewhere does not mean that we should automatically assume that they are responsible for attacks and or bad things that are happening to us. From what I saw from my facebook I think that one of the biggest things that people need to understand is that you can not accuse someone before you know all the details, you can not say that there is a certain group that is doing this when you do not know for sure.

Where Does the Responsibility Lie?

John Updike’s Terrorist is littered with references to Islam through the orientalist lens and presents Ahmad as the stereotypical Muslim teenager seeking to protect his religion and to take down as many “infidels” as possible. At no point through the text is there separation of an individual’s action from the religion as a whole. Very similarly on the news there’s a continuous projection of the two brothers responsible for the Boston Bombings as Muslim, however, as far as I’ve seen, never has there been a disconnect between Islam as a whole and the individuals who, become the spokespeople for an entire religion and different cultures.

Reading this book while we have a live view of the orientalist perspective being broadcast continuously makes the question of responsibility even more interesting because being in a class setting, one where we are required to analyze content critically, it is easy to see text’s stereotypes and clichés. If someone, however, were to pick up this novel and read it at face value and not look into the very untruths that the novel uses as facts or watches news without question then the orientalist perspective is yet again spread and more people are lead to believe that a whole culture is responsible for actions of individuals who should not, but sadly have, become the spokespeople for a whole religion.

I think this question is a hard one to answer because on one hand the responsibility lies with the reader/viewer. Information we are supplied with has never been unbiased and will probably never cease to be biased. We, with the ability to critical think, need to take in all information that is readily supplied and process it while taking all aspects of the topic into account. The supplier, be it a news source or an author of a fictional work, is responsible for the content which they are producing and as such should be aware of how the work may influence the readership/viewership. I don't understand why it's so ridiculous to require that all people should be aware of both how they read and view information and how they produce it. We live in a society that seems to feed on the perpetuation of stereotypes and fear and as a result we abuse a whole religion and force our fear onto others without considering the consequences. I think in the end we are each responsible, or should be, for our own opinions and actions and should be able to control those whether or not external sources are or not.

Terrorist and Terrorism

In light of recent events it seems that Terrorist is the perfect book to be reading.  Sadly though the book does not provide much insight into what real terrorists are like.  The book is filled with stereotypes that reinforce a negative view on terrorists; Updike paints terrorists to be Islamic fundamentalists that hold intense resentment for the American culture and society, which is partially true.  The book is wrong in the fact that terrorists are all under-privileged kids who are lashing out because of forces that seem to be out of their control.  While their are a few grains of truth, I think Updike focuses too heavily on the aspect of religion and fundamentalism.  A large portion of terrorists are actually wealthy middle class individuals who are resentful of American values because they differ so much with the views of Islamic people, especially extremists.  You can see from the Boston Marathon Bombings that not all terrorists are Islamic extremists out to ruin America, they can be from anywhere and of any ethnic background, the only common ground is the intense hatred for American values and governmental system.  I think we can learn a lot from the media coverage of the terrorist attacks.  We spent a majority of the class today talking about the misrepresentation of Islamic people in the news, and how terrorist attacks trigger people to accuse Islamic people of things that have nothing to do with them.  While the two brothers did have ties to Islamic groups, they are not considered to be traditional Muslims, and as the reporter from The Daily Show claimed, it confused everyone to see that these terrorists are from a Russian state and are as white as they come.  I think that the media needs to focus more on the objective facts and less on speculating how much religion is to blame for these attacks.  I understand in this post 9/11 world that everyone wants to jump to blame Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, but in reality terrorism comes from a deep rooted hatred for our lifestyle, not from a religious fanaticism.  "Terrorist" really portrayed terrorists in the wrong light, not that there is a good light to shed on terrorism, but he definitely weighed too heavily on the stereotypes.  This made his novel seem ignorant, even if he did this with the intent of sounding ironic, it comes off as ignorant.  Like we said today in class, people who have not read other texts on Islam or studied the media's obsession with it would read this and assume that all terrorists are made this way.  That is worse than just plain ignorance, Updike is spreading his ignorance to his readers and it is prolonging the misconceptions that most Americans have about Muslims.  The novel read nicely at times but was riddled with far too many ridiculous stereotypes on both sides.  The Jewish guidance counselor is more of a stereotypical Jew than Woody Allen and Ahmad could not be any more of an Islamic fanatic searching for a reason to die for his cause.  Shaikh Rashid is way too much of a potential father figure for Ahmad who turns him down the wrong path, it just generalizes all Muslims who have lost their fathers into a category of terrorists.  These things are all very wrong, and I think our society really needs to take a step back and figure out why it is we take such a harsh approach and how we can fix it to achieve peace and to stop terrorists.

Disappointed in terrorist

The ridiculous stereotypes presented in "Terrorist" disappoints me, to say the least. In class, we discussed the credibility issue with the media and prominent authors - all who are influencing the thoughts of others in one way or another. Like Rushdie, I thought Updike was being ironic in the first part of the novel. Ahmed is a moody teenager, Mr. Levy is a tired guidance counselor and Terr-ible, Terr-ific Terry was an American. All encompassed stereotypes - a terrorist, a Jew, a hippy American, oh and can't forget the eat-your-feelings out American represented by Mrs. Levy. I thought for sure that Updike was trying to be ironic here. All countries and groups of people have their stereotypes, but I thought he was going to break these stereotypes. I imagined Ahmad growing up to be a successful truck driver - no this is not the American Dream, but it is success nonetheless. I imagined Mr. Levy getting caught by his wife, ultimately leading him down a path of reflection and appreciation for Ahmed's ambition. I imagined Terry finding the strength to get rid of Mr. Levy and free herself of the need of male support. All of these characters were a let down. How predictable. The Muslim boy Ahmed (madman as Charlie calls him) is so passionate about Islam, naturally he would be sucked into a terror plot...right. Mr. Levy lays on the Jewish guilt, ultimately persuading him to not blow up the tunnel - letting little freckle faced girl in the Volvo survive. I couldn't put this book down because I thought Updike was going to eventually go against these stereotypes. I was thoroughly disappointed.

Stereotypical Islamic Terrorism

       While reading Terrorist, I was struck by the stereotypical portrayal of an Islamic extremist. Ahmad seems so intense that it borders on ridiculousness. I could not help but think that Ahmad was similar to Jeff Dunham’s comedy skit of “Achmed the Terrorist”. In this skit, Jeff Dunham portrays terrorists as passionate lunatics that scream “the infidels!” and rave about killing the masses.

In this novel, John Updike attempts to enter the mind of a terrorist who of course, is Muslim. Despite the fact that not all terrorists are Muslim, John Updike chooses to make his leading character Muslim knowing that it would play into the fears of the American masses. Ahmad is not only Muslim, but chooses to take his faith to the next level so that everyone who subjects themselves to impurity and sin is beneath him. “Infidels, they think safety lies in accumulation of the things of this world, and in the corrupting diversions of the television set. They are slave to images, false ones of happiness and affluence” (Updike, 4). Here, Updike shows how committed Ahmad is to his negative perception of others. While Islam is a religion of peace and being close to god, Ahmad uses it to critique “the infidels” and condemn them to lives of slavery and unpleasant deaths. “I look around me, and I see slaves- slaves to drugs, slaves to fads, slaves to television, slaves to sports heroes that don’t know they exist, slaves to the unholy meaningless opinions of others. You have a good heart, Joryleen, but you’re heading straight for Hell, the lazy way you think” (Updike, 73). Again, Ahmad appears as the picture for a religious fanatic similar to Achmed the terrorist. His condemnation of Joryleen causes him to chastise her freedom in her body. It is obvious that his fanaticism will only grow until he becomes the stereotypical terrorist.

Throughout the entire novel it is extremely difficult to sympathize with Ahmad. After a terrorist attack many often ask, “Where did they go wrong?” or “How could we not have noticed their insanity?” However, when the terrorist is Islamic, they just attribute their violence to the religion. Updike does a great job in appealing to the societal prejudice against Muslims in showing Ahmad’s extreme religiousness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsElecvWXu0

Book Reviews and Ignorance

Ten pages into John Updike’s novel Terrorist, I had to put the book down. Updike’s characterization of Ahmad is slanted through such an Orientalist perspective that, for a few minutes, I couldn’t continue reading the book. On the very first page of the novel, it was clear what Ahmad thought about American society. His hatred and repulsion for the corruptness of American society was clear through his hatred for those “weak and nonobservant Jews” (3)—his teachers—who try to Westernize Ahmad’s education. Despite Ahmad’s own religious background, he detests all other religions; the topic of Christianity is “abhorrent” (8) to him. Yet, as we’ve learned over the course of the semester the majority of Muslims idolize aspects of the West (like the prevalence of democracy) and respect Judeo-Christian denominations as being religions ‘of the book.’

So how did every review published at the front of Terrorist blatantly accept such a slanted viewpoint of a Muslim character?

The News & Observer, a North Carolina-based newspaper, said “A novelist, ultimately, is superfluous if he cannot tell us something about our current and changing world, and in Terrorist Updike does just that.” Updike gives us insight into “our current and changing world?” What about the millions of Muslims world-wide how are not terrorists? The Muslims who are not ultra-conservative fanatics who aspire to murder innocent human beings? The only representation of Islam we have in the novel is of the minority—only a small percentage of Muslims worldwide are radicalized.

 The Booklist lists Terrorist as a starred review and says the following regarding Updike’s novel:

“This marvelous novel can be accurately labeled as a 9/11 novel, but it deserves also the label of masterpiece for its carefully nuanced building up of the psychology of those who traffic in terrorism…it is a high mark in Updike’s career.”

Apparently, whoever wrote this Booklist review believes that Ahmad, as a character, represents the profile or background of all Muslim terrorists. Updike’s novel only reinforces stereotypes of the East, linking Islam with terrorism. The unfortunate part is that most Americans who read this book don’t have the knowledge we do about Orientalism, and will willingly accept Ahmad as a representation of Islam as a whole, rather than as one person (or character) whose actions have no bearing on the Islamic faith or the Middle East.

Misconceptions of Islam

Rachel Reff

Misconceptions of Islam

                Right from the beginning of John Updike’s work, Terrorist, there is an immediate assumption that because Ahmad is Muslim he is going to be this terrorist. Although this is not said directly in the book it is supposed by the opening pages of Ahmad’s hate towards everything but Islam. Why is it that the people who are Muslims are targeted for their religion as terrorists? Updike automatically goes into the race and ethnicity factor. “Ahmad himself is the product of a red-haired American mother, Irish by ancestry, and an Egyptian exchange student whose ancestors had been baked since the time of the Pharaohs in the muddy rice and flax fields of the overflowing Nile. The complexion of the offspring of this mixed marriage could be described as dun. A low-luster shade lighter than beige.” (p.13) Why is this line even important? Updike places unimportant ideas into his readers minds to make people believe that because Ahmad is the ‘product’ rather than being the ‘child’ of a Muslim man that he must have some sort of evil contained in him. Was it not just reported that most of the horrific crimes of hate and destruction that happened in 2012-2013 were committed by Caucasian men that all came from some type of Christianity? Muslim people are constantly targeted for being the cause of hateful crimes. The worst part yet is, statistically, there are less crimes created by Muslims than other religions.  The Washington Post conducted a poll of different religions with different categories to see what people thought of specific religions. Muslims were listed as violent, untrustworthy, intelligent and hardworking. This kind of ignorance is what fuels future generations of people to keep thinking in this kind of way without ever getting to know a person who practices Islam. Hence Updike’s description of Ahmad with Dr. Levy. “Jack Levy sighs again and thinks head to the next appointment-another needy, surly, misguided teen-ager about to float away into the morass of the world. “Well, perhaps I shouldn’t say this, Ahmad, but in view of your grades and SATs, and your way-above-average poise and seriousness, I think your-what’s the word?-imam helped you to waste your high-school years.” (p.40) Why is it that Updike made Ahmad to be someone very intelligent, is it because he too just assumes what a majority of people think as well?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/21/americans-who-distrust-muslims-are-likelier-to-back-the-war-on-terror/

I know this might come as a shock, but terrorists are people too...

I'd like to begin this blog post with a quote I found on Frontline, in an article titled, 'Al Qaeda Today':

"It turns out that the terrorists are very much like us," he says. "They're not really all that different." In a 2004 speech, Sageman explained, "Most people think that terrorism comes from poverty, broken families, ignorance, immaturity, lack of family or occupational responsibilities, weak minds susceptible to brainwashing -- the sociopath, the criminals, the religious fanatic, or, in this country, some believe they're just plain evil."

But Sageman found that three quarters of his sample came from the upper or middle class. The vast majority -- 90 percent -- came from caring, intact families. 63 percent had gone to college, as compared with the five to six percent typical in the third world. "These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways," he says.

The terrorists he studied were not, for example, "the Palestinian 14-year-olds we see on the news," but they joined the jihad at an average age of 26. Three-quarters were professionals or semi-professionals. They are engineers, architects, and civil engineers. Bin Laden himself is a civil engineer, his right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri is a physician, and the 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was an architect."

John Updike's The Terrorist, purported to depict how "terrorists" are created, does no such thing, and, in fact, only creates what Americans think makes a terrorist. The protagonist grows up in an insulated, religious environment, as if to put the blame for his terrorism on Islam itself, and if that weren't bad enough, he actively rejects Western values, until the day is saved by the irreligious Jack Levy, who steers him back onto the right path, as though terrorism were like drugs or alcohol, a bad life choice that kids would use to childishly rebel from their parents.

True, this is a better explanation for terrorism than the throwaway line that one always hears in the context of terrorist attacks: "They're just crazy." Well, that depends upon your definition of crazy. If you are talking about mental illness, then no, not necessarily. True, extremist groups may attract such personalities, but pretending terrorists are necessarily mentally-ill undermines the very real political conflict that often drives them to such acts. Terrorist groups are political factions, composed of people using a form of warfare relying upon intimidation and attacks upon civilians. Cold. Yes. Effective. Yes. Crazy? No.

So what about the stereotype purported by The Terrorist, that these are just troubled kids hanging out with the wrong crowd? Well, let's put it this way. Before the Boston Marathon attacks, nobody would have thought Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was any kind of terrorist. We are shocked by how "normal" he and his brother looked. People online have posted pictures of him from their elementary school year books, and others posted pictures of him they found as some girl's prom date. There was no indication that he was troubled, that he hated the West, or anything like that. The fact of the matter is, he's a person. But of course, Americans jumped on the chance to blame it on his background, some Americans even mixing up Chechnya and the Czech Republic, prompting the Ambassador of the Czech Republic to clarify that they are completely different places. But these men were essentially American, and one journalist said that, essentially, blaming Tsarnaev's actions on his Chechen heritage makes as much sense as blaming Timothy McVeigh's (the Oklahoma City Bomber) actions on his Irish heritage.

The point is, if we go about trying to figure out what kind of person a terrorist is, we create a mentality that they are a special type of person, a species of villain separate from "normal" people like you and I. Any one person can become a terrorist, for many different reasons. Even one of us, in this class, could one day decide to make some kind of political statement gone wrong. It's not that farfetched an idea. A terrorist is a person who commits terrorism, end of story, and reading anything more into it is a recipe for disaster.

My Five Questions

Do you believe Shalimar's actions were that of a rational and clear minded individual, or rather those of a man driven solely by rage and blind malice?

What parallels can be drawn between Shalimar's actions against his personal injustices and the actions taken by religious and ethnic/cultural groups as a whole, spurned as well by injustice and turmoil?

What motivates someone to become an assassin, a terrorist, a murderer? And in the enlongated moment of that decision, how do personal, emotional wounds gain political currency enough to justify killing someone? Or killing many people? 

Rushdie portrays love as a profound, complex, potentially dangerous emotion. In the world of this novel, does true love exist? Or is love negated by distrust and infidelity?

As represented by the Banquet of the Thirty-Six Courses Minimum, the acts of preparing and consuming food stand as symbols of tradition, wealth, and power. How does Rushdie achieve this effect?

Sorry they're late, I misread the e-mail, thought they were to be posted and answered today, not posted Tuesday and answered today.

Greg Stewart

My Five Questions

1. Who is Rushdie trying to influence with this novel. What is the audience he's trying to reach and what is he trying to express to them?

2. Does Shalimar succeed in saying anything significant about terrorism and the relationship between the East and the West?

3. Where does Rushdie consider himself in the world? If we could have a clearer understanding of his worldliness, we could better understand his perspective in his writing.

4. Why is it important for this educated guy who is given the gift of influence to reinforce certain unpleasant stereotypes? Has he no shame?

5. Often times, Islam is branded as a religion that hates the West merely for its Western-ness. In this sense, there is an idea that a clash between America and the Muslim world is inevitable. What can be said about the parallels between America's prevalent patriotism and the Muslim world's strong loyalty towards Islam and it's ideals? Is patriotism America's answer to Islam?

Five Questions

August Heinrich

English 241

Five Questions

Shalimar the Clown

1)   Was it fair for Max Ophul’s reputation to be entirely tarnished for his transgression toward Boonyi?

2)   Was the loss of Kashmira a fair punishment to Boonyi for her transgression towards her people and way of life?

3)   How much blame should be placed on Edgar Wood for Boonyi’s decline into addiction and madness?

4)   Is Shalimar’s anger justified?  If not, when do his actions become excessive?

5)   Are the actions taken by General Kachhwaha on Kashmir under “President’s Rule” justified at all? Why?

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.  

Let God Sort Them Out

August Heinrich

English 241

April 16, 2013

Let God Sort Them Out

            I was struck by the egregious military tactics taken by General Kachhwaha and the Indian army in Kashmir after the political echelon deemed it a “disturbed area.”  Suddenly any and all basic human rights in Kashmir dissolved.  The introduction of “President’s Rule” granted the Indian army total immunization from ramifications or sanctions implicated during their control over the city, and led to inhumane practices of torture and interrogation that threw all of Kashmir into a dreadful state.  The statement in the text sent from the political echelon reads, “Every Muslim in Kashmir should be considered a militant.  The bullet was the only solution.”  This reminded me of the famous saying, “Kill them all and let God sort them out,” a variation of Arnaud Amalric’s answer to a question regarding Catholic “friendlies” as opposed to enemies during the crusades around the 12^th century, in which he stated, “Kill them all, for the Lord knoweth them that are his.”  The tactic posed no serious benefit to the Indians besides an augmented sense of control and instilled an intense feeling of fear in Kashmir.  “Kill one, scare ten.  Kill one, scare ten.”  It seems as if during this period General Kachhwaha becomes more vicious than anytime previously in the novel, growing increasingly vindictive towards the Kashmir inhabitants.  It seems as if his strategy only feeds his insatiable need for revenge on Kashmir, which may not even be quenchable.