Don't assume you know their intentions.

In the first half of Shalimar the Clown, Salman Rushdie, does an excellent job of introducing the characters’ personalities and behaviors while postponing the uncovering of the meticulous details that explain why the characters are who they are. For example, Shalimar the clown, a Muslim from Kashmir, used to enjoy a life of indulgence, opportunity and love before he lost his young wife and home. The rage that developed from the loss of his spouse and the immense terrorist attack on his homeland; the burning of Kashmir was a unifying Muslim experience, these events drove Shalimar into embracing the radical side of Islam. The story opens with Max Ophlus being murdered in broad daylight by Shalimar the Clown, his driver. Unaware to the audience, the suffering Shalimar experienced forced him to believe he had legitimate justification for his act of murdering and becoming a holy warrior. Having a complete understanding of the behaviors of the characters from the beginning of a novel obviously makes it a lot easier to understand the plot and character development, but Rushdie succeeded in only incorporating limited characteristics without making the story vague, it made for a suspenseful read.

The character of Shalimar

The aggressive character Rushdie develops through Shalimar the Clown is indicative of his own orientalist thoughts. The name Shalimar the Clown, to begin, is a ridiculous name, and Rushdie lays the foundation here for his portrayal of terrorists. Before he is even born, Shalimar irritated his mother while he was in her womb. On page 72, she describes the unborn Shalimar as "...the person that's giving me the shivers right now is still inside me."So, even before Shalimar has live, we are led to believe that he was evil.  Later in his life, during the time of Boonyi, Shalimar is depicted as this controlling man over a submissive woman - " Don't you leave me now...I'll kill you and if you have any children by another man I'll kill the children also." What kind of image is Rushdie trying to display here of the middle east. After Max takes Boonyi as a lover, Shalimar is deemed as a loser. Terrorists are low-life losers? Maybe Rushdie should pick up a copy of Who Speaks For Islam so he can better understand the Middle East. Max, a Jew, is portrayed as a hero. But wasn't he the villain here? He was consumed with material goods (at least later in life), he marries Peggy, but continues on a polygamous lifestyle with no regard to the consequences it entails. His marriage with his daughter India is clearly chaotic, as she has little understanding of her own name - one with literal roots to the Middle East. I am really put-off by this book so far. Its almost fun to keep reading, because there are so many ridiculous images Rushdie propagates.

Shalimar the Clown and Orientalism pt.1

In the first section of Salman Rushdie's "Shalimar the Clown" we are presented with a view of both inner and outer chaos.  This chaos is sparked and spurned by political turmoil, interpersonal conflict and pain, as well as the ultimate combination of unfortunate circumstances which lead to the culmination of this novel.  As a reader, we are given the rare and incredibly valuable opportunity to analyze situations regarding the main character from both inner and outer influences.  Shalimar, the clown, the assassin, is an individual whose thoughts, actions, and reasoning are far too complex to be fully disclosed let alone understood in a mere 398 pages.  The task we are given, of truly thinking as Shalimar does, of seeing the world through his interpretations and decision making processes, is an imposing one to say the least.  However, as with everything in our world, one is only able to even begin to understand an individual or their actions if they start from the beginning.  Luckily Rushdie, as with so many of his other works, displays an uncanny ability of placing the reader in his characters exact place.  In various times throughout history and life, in different places throughout the world, and in varied and complex emotional states, Rushdie practically forces the reader to delve into his works and attempt to capture all it is that he writes.  

A main and critical theme throughout this novel is one of destruction, loss, pain and sorrow.  Shalimar feels this regarding his lost chance at a true family, the immense agony he feels for his lost love, and eventually he channels all these emotions into his defining act of murdering the one to blame for it all.  One need only take a glimpse at the life Shalimar once held, a life so naturally associated with that of a performer, a clown. He was happy, he felt pride and hope and love.  Sadly though, this comes to an end; as does the proverbial Eden that was his home.  The fracturing and demise of Muslim Pakistan from India inevitably ends with a total collapse of the once cherished Indian life itself.  The crevice into which Shalimar's entire life falls is etched by corrupt political, emotional, and religious lines. Rushdie may not be able to cause us to smell, to taste, to see or feel the life he so eloquently describes, the life Shalimar once led.  But he is at least more than able to compel and relay a feeling of darkness and despair, some of the only things left after it ends; whether it is through interpretation of Shalimar, or simply contrasting it with the life led by Max and India in the United States.  By showing us a life of luxury, privilege, happiness and family, and by knowing Shalimar’s life to be one of complete contrast with those words, we can start to piece together the puzzle Rushdie presents to us; a puzzle of cracked and missing pieces, one that, however tempting and alluring it may be to finally solve and understand, poses an unattainable and impossible task.  Perhaps we aren't meant to finish this puzzle, though. After all, when searching for a destination, it is more often the journey to find answers, reasons, or solutions that gives the traveler a greater sense of fulfillment and understanding. A road riddled with even more questions, leading down even more roads of discovery and further enrichment.

The Social and Politcal Side

I enjoyed the beginning of Islam: Empire of Faith that focused on the origins of the religion and especially the life of the prophet Muhammad. The background information really shed some new light on the religion for me; it demonstrated how tolerant of a religion Islam has been from the beginning, as well as the social justice inherent in the Islamic way of life. Muhammad taught that all people should be equal, and that was one reason that the religion was widely accepted and easily spread. The documentary also highlighted the political implications of the spread of Islam. I liked how Muhammad was able to unite different tribes of people and gain their attention through his intelligence. He was able to stop conflicts and ultimately united warring groups under the oneness of Islam. The end of the tribal divisions went hand-in-hand with social justice for the poor and underprivileged in society; Muhammad wanted the people to understand that wealth, power, and property were not things to hoard and worship, but were gifts of life to be shared with all of God's people.
The unity of Islam has done far more than give people a common belief in God, but worked to diminish social gaps, end wars, and strive for social equality.
I was a little surprised when Muhammad destroyed the old idols of his fathers, but I do understand that the idolatry was not accepted; it just seemed like a violent way to end a group of people's belief. But I would say that it is by no means an upheld precedent because throughout the history of the Islamic Empire, the Abrahamic religions were well respected and tolerated.

Religious Extremism and Class

August Heinrich

Blog Response

April 2, 2013

Religious Extremism and Class

I was struck in the reading of Who Speaks for Islam by the typical psychological and sociological findings regarding Islamic moderates in contrast to radicals.  Though there are few variations in the Western view of typical Muslims, it seems generally presumed that the most radical of Muslims fit the same profile as a violent deviant in the United States.  School shooters in the United States, for example, are subject to a chain of assumptions about their personal life before any details or facts are discovered or released.  The same holds true for serial killers all over the globe.  For many of us in the West this creates a dangerous slippery slope as it reinforces our urge to generalize a group of people, especially when such generalization can blind us from warning signals for future cases.  Oftentimes, our character’s profile is dramatically different from what we assume to be true.

 I think the basic stereotype in United States culture for the image of a Muslim radical is one of a lonely, reclusive social outcast who finds solace among a group of similarly distressed social outcasts.  In reality, the most violent Islamic followers fit a more stunning profile.  Many have a formal education extending beyond typical public school education, and radicals flock from both the middle and lower classes, not only from areas stung by stifling poverty.  In fact, 67% of radicals have a secondary education and 65% say they have an average or above-average income.  Contrast this with the 52% of moderates with a secondary education and 55% of which say they have an average or above-average income.

If these data are true, then we have to seriously re-evaluate how we seek out potential terrorists.  If we still assume that the whole Eastern world is full of poverty and turbons, and insist on a very skewed representation of a Muslim terrorist, this “War on Islam” will escalate on both fronts, and neither side will fight a rational battle or progress for the better for anyone.

The more you know...

In class, professor Akman has prompted us for Who Speaks For Islam? by saying he wants us to be surprised by what we find. Its not hart to understand where he's coming from, given the disparity between America's perception of Islam and Islam in actuality. To his credit, he is right about the statistics being surprising. I had no idea about a lot of the aspects of Muslim life as described in the book, and for that i'm glad we picked up this book. But, for me, these statistics stopped being particularly surprising when we were shown commercials for the show Sister Wives and news segments about polygamists in Texas, and when in the book it was indicated that the 9/11 hijackers weren't strict Muslims at all, but were really just low-lives. It reminded me of what a friend of mine and I concluded about Christianity not too long ago: That while a lot of them had the capacity to be closed-minded and paranoid, this was certainly not the norm. Priests and other such clergy are often the best of Christians and the same goes for Islam. Muslims are just people. They don't want suicide bombings or holy war any more than anyone in America does.

This book has really just solidified my perception that the United States government has used whatever images or notions - true or contrived -  its needed to in order to continue to invade and take advantage of oil-rich countries without upsetting the public's conscience. Take the United State's alleged mission to bring democracy and human rights to the middle east. Democracy is great in the west, and Majorities in several Muslim nations indicate a desire for some form of democracy. And yet, as many Muslims "disagree that the United States is serious about spreading democracy in their region of the world." (pg.32) These nations may very well desire democracy, but they are young. They will find it when they're ready. Like the Quran teaches, if they were supposed to have democracy by now than they would have. It is not the duty of the United States to bring it to them. We demonize their treatment of women, and yet in our country we have our own polygamy, misogyny, fear and loathing. We're really not that different from the east, only we're the ones meddling where we don't really belong.

The west didn't invent soap - little details like this one were so interesting to me in both the documentary and in the reading of Who Speaks for Islam, especially when the east is depicted as a dirty, poor region (as seen in media such as Slum Dog Millionaire). I really enjoyed the section about Mohammed - a man of trading, peace, knowledge. He was not a man who preached terror and intolerance as many in the west are ignorant to. He was a great trader, exposing the world to true cultural diffusion in Mecca, a place of peace and exchange. My high school history teachers did teach us that the middle east was a trading ground, but they also seemed to lack this knowledge on the influence the middle east had on the world - or maybe they just skipped over this detail to focus on the west. Why is it that I have never learned about Mohammed, but I have been exposed the Jesus a number of times in my public high school? Even in college - I have not been exposed to the Quran at all besides this class, and yet, I was required to read the Bible for humanities. After 9/11 it's no wonder why people began to target Muslims. They were ignorant to their history, and only associated them with the radicals instead of with the Islamic tradition of peace and tolerance.
"They hate us for our freedoms..." How, as a nation, can we be tolerant if our leaders are setting our nation up to persecute by making ignorant statements?