The Case For and Against The Satanic Verses

Opinion from The Nation (Lahore) December 25, 2002

What clash of civilisations?

By Izzat Majeed

It is time to forget this whole mess about the `clash of civilisations.` Yes, there is a `civilisation` in the advanced, market-based democracies in the West. But there is no `Islamic civilisation` today, and there has not been one since the collapse of the great Abbasi Empire when Halaku Khan, the grandson of Chengiz Khan, burnt Baghdad to the ground in 1250. That fire also destroyed what was by then the greatest library the world had ever seen.
After the fall of Baghdad, the unified empire of Islam and the civilisation it gave rise to, dissipated into regional kingdoms. Muslim rule survived in Al-Andalus and some of the great debates surrounding the de facto secular nature of the Abbasis continued unabated but they did not outlive the end of Muslim rule in Spain.
Islam`s golden period created the Islamic Civilisation. It was based on a spirit of inquiry, tolerance of different views of religion, society, and the interpretation Islam`s early centuries. The Abbasis in Baghdad and the Muslims in Spain created the basis of what could have been a dynamic, constantly evolving and progressive Islamic Civilisation. But by the beginning of the 14th century, this great Civilisation was frozen in time and place by the rulers and jurists of the day who proclaimed the end of debate and dialogue.
Islam never saw another unified empire. The Ottoman empire did lay claim to a caliphate of sorts but, ultimately, it remained an Ottoman entity that happened to be Muslim. The Mughals of India ruled India as secular Muslims. Emperor Akbar even tried to create a fusion of religions (the `Din-e-Ilahi` - religion of God) which, in its failure, only highlighted the secular nature of the Mughal empire. And when the last of the great Mughals, Aurangzeb, turned fanatic, it hastened the collapse of the empire. Islam saw lesser kingdoms from the Maghreb to the Far East, but they were all local and regional.
The dawn of the bourgeois nation-state, along with the collapse of `empire` in Europe and the consolidation of capitalism after 1848, further eroded any collective sense of `civilisation` within Islam. The Muslim `Ummah,` which had expired with the collapse of the Abbasis, begun to think in terms of individual national liberation movements.
Thus the nationalism of the anti-colonial struggle in Muslim-majority areas in the 20th century developed into a secular struggle for independence and human rights. Islam was never the ideological force in any of these nationalist movements. In India, the Muslims (a minority in social and economic decline) started off alongside the Hindus in the independence struggle. The ulema were dead against the creation of Pakistan. The Quaid-e-Azam, the founder of Pakistan, was a nationalist who only sought minority protection in the face of Hindu obduracy and the classical British ``divide and rule`` policy. Here is what the Quaid said on the eve of Pakistan`s creation to the Constituent Assembly:
``You may belong to any religion or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of state --- you will find that in due course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.``
The Quaid died soon after this speech and the mullahs waylaid his secular Pakistan and robbed the Muslims of any civilised future. After all the Muslims of South Asia form over 40 percent of the world`s total Muslim population. So, when we get worked up about the `clash of civilisations`, we are merely confusing the existing `Western` civilisation with a defunct `Islamic` one. Yes, there is a clash. But it is not between Muslims and the West. It is a clash of haves and have-nots. It is a clash of the rich, arrogant, enfranchised US-led West and the poor, humiliated and disenfranchised peoples of underdeveloped countries, which happen to have Muslim majority populations.
The Muslims do not hate America. They hate US policies, be they for the control of oil (creating the whole mess in the Middle East and beyond) or access to markets, or keeping the war machine in shape. Give a Muslim half a chance and he (and more so, she) would love to be educated in the US, benefiting from all the freedoms enjoyed by American citizens (the present curtailment of human rights there notwithstanding). And he would also fight to bring those freedoms to his people.
We forget the US is an imperial power, no different from any other in history. Rome was the centre of the world. It was the dream of every Roman subject to get Latin rights, the then equivalent of a `green card`, or better still, full citizenship. The ``barbarians``, when defeated, became the most ferocious defenders of the Empire. One such ``outsider``, Philip, the Arab, rose to become Caesar (244-249) during the thousandth year of Rome. It is in the nature of an imperial power to constantly seek consolidation and extension of ``empire`` with all the economic, cultural, political and military power at its command.
So, there is no reason to cry with the tears of Western `civilisation` when it is acting in the only way that makes sense to its imperial dictates. We Muslims have no civilisation (Islamic or secular) to defend. Ignorance, poverty, the dark rule of self-inflicted dogmas, ruled by corrupt (and visionless) dictators, do not make a civilisation.
I cannot name a single `Muslim` country with any degree of democratic, `civilised` government today, and none is in sight. The millennium-old practice of Islam has a long, long way to go before it can be called civilised. So, where is the `clash of civilisations?` It is the age-old struggle of the downtrodden wanting just a loaf of bread and the freedom to eat it any which way they like.
It is pathetic and meaningless when Muslim fanatics talk about `jihad` against Western civilisation while enjoying all its benefits in their own dark and un-free societies. It is just as well that the vast majority of Muslims do not much care about these fanatics.
Look at the `Islamic` world and you will see that, with the exception of Iran and the Gulfdoms, all other Muslim countries are de facto secular societies governed by the civil law of the West. Iran is a special case (given the history of Shia-ism which comprises, at best, 10-15 percent of all Muslims) and the Gulfdoms are mere oil rentiers with illusions of nationhood living at the mercy of the West. The Gulf Muslims cannot drink oil (especially as it is unrefined and they can not make even the smallest nut or bolt of a refinery).
Islamic `fundamentalism` is a meaningless term, but the fundamentals of Islam are simple: belief in One God, prayer, fasting, charity (Zakat) and pilgrimage (Hajj). `Jihad`, about which the whole world is crying hoarse, particularly the Muslim fanatics, is not a fundamental pillar of Islam. In any event, the meaning of jihad, as mindless warlordism, is alien to Islam. In the fundamental pillars of Islam, there is nothing that can justify the religious mayhem a tiny minority of Muslims is desperately trying to inflict on the world at large. Fortunately, the vast majority of Muslims do not support the fundamentalists (the Mullah Business Ltd).
Most of us are too busy going about our disenfranchised and poverty-stricken lives to worry about the mullah`s world. However, the greater the disenfranchisement (look at the current political scene) and the more miserable the level of poverty and illiteracy, the more harmless the appeal of Islamic fanaticism. We may yet descend into the Taliban hell by default, given the current mullah-army nexus which seems to think it has finally hoodwinked the people into thinking they have reached the `end of politics.`
The lost `civilisation` of Islam has to be rediscovered with the mind of the 21st century. The mullahs offer nothing more than a dictatorship of the truly ignorant over the apathetic. It will be a long battle before the war against the present dark age of Islam can be won. The golden age of Islam is only relevant in giving us the freedom to think and interpret Islam. The mullah, on the other hand, wants to go back to camels and flying carpets.
The West, particularly the US, is not invincible if civilisations were to clash in earnest. The Chinese, Indian and Japanese, `civilisations` have clashed with the West at one time or another. The Chinese and Indians wanted independence; the Japanese economic domination. The Chinese and Indian `clashes` won; the Japanese lost, but then had the vision to learn from the West and prospered dramatically while keeping their own civilisation more or less wrapped up in Western clothes. The wars of independence in the post-1945 era defeated the West. The Vietnamese people defeated the US comprehensively, and yet, today, are trading and learning from their former enemy.
The time has come for us Muslims to declare jihad on our own ignorance and on the mullah`s hijacking of Islam. `There is no compulsion in religion` - Allah says so in the Quran. The US will always create its own demons to fight and conquer. The fingerprints they seek today are not of an Islamic civilisation (which the Muslims have to rediscover) but of an enemy they themselves have created.

A quote from somewhere on internet:

``In 1992, Islamic assassins had gunned down my good and brave friend Farag Foda, a professor and columnist, a human-rights activist, and an outspoken critic of the Islamic militants. The murder had shocked Cairo and terrified intellectuals. . . Egypt`s most popular preacher, Abdel Hamid Kishk, a blind sheikh who constantly attacked both the government and its official religious establishment. Kishk had been telling his audience that Muslims who entered paradise would enjoy eternal erections and the company of young boys draped in earrings and necklaces. Some of the ulema, the religious scholars at al-Azhar University, the governments seat of Islamic learning, had disagreed. Yes, they said, men in paradise would have erections, but merely protracted, not perpetual. Other experts disputed the possibility of pederasty in paradise. ``Is this what concerns Muslims at the end of the 20th century?`` [Farag] Foda asked in a column in October magazine. ``The world around us is busy with the conquest of space, genetic engineering and the wonders of the computer, while Muslim scholars,`` he wrote in sadness and pain, ``were worried about sex in paradise.`` . . . he was killed.`` (Judith Miller)

The quote is from following link:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/islamquotes.htm

A body count of less than 30 was mentioned for violence that happened when Makkah was taken. Does anyone know how much is total for entire venture to establish brand new religion of Islam? What I mean is during the time of prophet under his direct orders.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

In re mbenzenglish #5:

?

On second thought. Oh my GOD. I never knew Rushdie was in cahoots with Thatcher, Israel, Canary Wharf (non-sequitor?) and the insurance oil [sic] people in 1971. Holy Moly, this MUST mean that, like the Canary Wharf development project (which, if I am not mistaken, is under the sponsorship of the Saudi Oil wallahs), the creation of Bangladesh is actually a land reclamation project hatched by Thatcher, Israel and the insurance oil (?) people. And this MUST mean that England is trying to funnel insurance oil (?) to Israel via Bangladesh. Hmmm. This is VERY interesting. Someone alert the New York Times. Dr. Watson, the Game is afoot.

But wait, there appears to be more. Rushdie, in cahoots with Madam Taslima Nasreen (MTN, apparently) are responsible for the business of child prostitution in the former East Pakistan. This MUST mean the oil (both Saudi and insurance) are pimping kids in Dhaka. More millions to their billions I guess, though I never would have imagined such horizontal integration in multinational conspiracy industries.

But what gets me; what really stumps me, is the fact that women and girls from Afghanistan, Kashmir, Gujrat, Pakistan and Yugoslavia were presented to Atal Behari Vajpayee by his ole’ comrade, the famed war criminal Milosovic. Frankly, I never imagined ole’ Atal – what with the arthritis and all – getting jiggy with it. Wow, the stuff you pick up and learn on Chowk never ceases to amaze me.

Dear mbenzenglish, I am amazed by your grasp of religious and historical events. I never thought a book review on Salman Rusdie’s worse novel could be a summed into a competition between “evil of islam vs evil of jews ,christians ,hindus,buddhists”. (Bhuddists? Bhuddists!! BHUDDISTS!!!??)

Personally, I recall reading Verses after I picked it up in a Phoenix bookstore in 1996. I recall reading it, along with the rest of Rushde, in one go. My thoughts: Not as good as the Moor’s Last Sigh (though, after reading your comments, I am convinced there might be a South Indian/Keralan connection with the Thatcherites/Israelis/Insurance Oil (?) wallahs – what a nexus); but hilarious, and instructive. I mean, how do you reconcile the episode of the Satanic Verses with contemporary Islamic dogma. In The Life of Mohammad, Karen Armstrong makes a strong argument, explaining the Satanic Verses as a sort of un-official (that it, without His sanction) marketing strategy. Which failed. Rushdie’s magical realism would have you believe something else. But who am I to argue what actually happened. I mean, I just realized that child prostitution in South Asia is actually a scam controlled by writers and authors (I shall, of course, regard from now on all written things with an eye of skepticism).

But, dear mbenzenglish, I worry for you. You seen too far into the truths which make this world revolve. Like you, I yearn for a state of innocence. Perhaps you might forgive me if I say that I do not believe it lies in recreating life as it was in nomadic Arabia, circa 800 A.D.

Rafay Alam

dear saima -- but this is all `baasi kaRhee` -- why now --

satanic verses were merely manic, meaningless, meandrings of a midde aged man -- in mid life crisis --

NOT even read by a bunch of illiterate religious howler monkeys.

the MAN -- is now long over the hump -- a much calmer saner man -- and no doubt -- one of the most innovative and brilliant writers of English language which he has enriched immensely...

Got this book after two months on the waiting list of the library, that says a thing or two about the book.
Found it a bit to damn abstract, too fuzzy, you must be clear if you set out to confuse.
All through the book you get the feeling, the real book was the flimsy plot, described by Roy here, & the bits baout jahiliya, Ayesha, the whore house , Baal were added later, or at the very least ballooned from a shrivelled thought to an idea of `shock into thinking & debate ....` the voltage for the shock seems to be dragged out, the intent , a few enraged muslims to get that first edition flying from the shelf & the dollars flowing into the pocket.
In the end Rushdie got much more then in bargained for , a good author trapped in a bad book , the satanic verses will forever be recited to rushdie , this is the book with which he will be introduced , & will be remembered by. Scholars in coming time will study the book just to understand the response it generated , its artistic value lost & so also the much better works of the author.
To the muslims , rushdie should be thankful , for with their book burning a bad book of his was claimed to be a masterpiece.
As for his actual trashing of Mohammed , one is reminded of what Trudeau the canadian P.M said when he was told that Nixon refered to him as a SOB, `` I have been called worse things by better people ``.
One must feel sympathy for rushdie, for more then anyone else the book distorted him. THE WRATH OF GOD ...PERHAPS.

I am afraid that I rarely read such long pieces of writing on screen.

But my ``do paisay`` or two cents...

Salman Rushdie holds the unique distinction of being the writer
who is best known for the worst book that he has ever written.
And believe me, this comment has nothing to do with religion.

I will leave it at that for now because someday I hope to write an
opinion piece on this. Muslims themselves are responsible for making this book and its writer a household name in the West.

Ras

Great to read this: This is an excellent attempt at presenting a well-thought out critique of the Novel; There are many vantage points to analyze this book and Dr Roy seems to have used many:

1. the point of view of a man brought up in post partition, post colonial india pakistan. That vantage seems to be Rushdie`s definitive viewpoint. Just analyzing this book from that vantage point would require a book in itself--there is so much sub-text and context. Unfortunately Rushdie seems to suffer from a background foreground problem that his critics dislike. The context and sub-text of his work is always subsumed under the wild colour and extravagance of his prose, his dialogue and his characters. Man does he make it complex, or what? Dr Roy points out that he does NOT understand the post colonial, post partition India.
2. the point of view of a male muslim, tracing his traditions, his history his belief. Dr Roy points out that Rushdie does not understand polytheism beyond the obvious suspension of belief from a typical monotheistic.
3. The author`s own personal life and experiences that keep popping up througout the novel.

Dr Roy`s work has provided a comprehensive platform to really talk about the book and what it says, rather than what some Iranian had to say about the book back when. Can people stop talking about how useless the book was? It proves over and over again that it was a useful work, simply because of the reactions it produced.

1. Dr Roy`s comments that criticize Rushdie for not understanding India--are probably true. It is also interesting that That is exactly what Pakistanis say about his other works and this one``Rushdie doesnt understand our culture``. If understanding means borrowing a culture`s blindspots well then for sure, Rushdie doesnt understand. Rushdie writes from a perspective that perhaps people from India are not familiar with--the idea that Muslims historically ruled that country and the sense of angst at losing it to the British and then Hindu parliamentarians.

Peculiarly a similar sentiment exists among Indians--that Pakistan is a runaway mutinous child that was stolen by M.A. Jinnah with the help of Gandhi. Rushdie brings his unique acerbic wit to bear on all our sacred cows. It suits him to use the Muslim anti-idol stance. It suits him to use a comic book action adventure manner of story telling. I guess he thinks like many a Bombay film director, who the hell will buy this, unless I put some masala? Masala aside, the book has some important points that usually get completely missed in the violent supertext and action. And for pointing those out, Dr Roy must be admired.

2. Yes Rushdie lacks sentiment--the characters never behave like human beings with tears, hearts and feelings. They behave more like caricatures in a cartoon program--but I cant imagine how the author would be able to make his point unless he did this? The ideas that lie behind this novel are so huge and abstract; it is hard to translate those into natural direct prose. Can people who are deeply steeped in tradition ever see anything beyond those traditions, unless someone shocks them? More people from India and Pakistan read Rushdie than Naipaul, I am willing to bet. As for pandering to a Western audience--why not? he writes in their language--this language this civilization has become so powerful--who would notice him if he wrote in Urdu? This is Imperialism.

3. His comments on religions and the understanding of theology show that aside from being born with a Muslim name, he is steeped in agnosticism. The comments on the book being a dialogue between belief and skepticism-- I thought were very insightful. It truly seems that Rushdie is standing shocked at the level of prevalent belief--. the blind adherence of people to these beliefs. And so his characters go from all shades of doubt and belief.

Dr Roy is right that Hinduism is little understood--and its flexibility is its power--whereas theistic religions pick fights over identity, Hinduism has been remarkably resilient and anti-death. In effect, polytheism is the charming, fun cousin of dry, practical agnosticism...now that could give inspiration to Rushdie for his next novel--but it seems that Roy is right..Rushdie, by the extent of his interest in Muslims and Islam is more Muslim and Pakistani than British and Indian.

If anything, Rusdie has at least made it fashionable to read and write about countries and cultures that have the least written about them. Instead of the Royal family, the world got to read about another world, another stage--it it wasnt praise at least it was publicity, an opening for more voices from this region and hope for political presence in a world media skewed towards the matters of the West, rather than of the East.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Why whip a dead donkey?
Are you trying to resurrect him before the Appointed Hour so that someone can ride him for the salvation of mankind?

Are the sale of the trash sagging? Is he having difficulty paying his security expenses.

Such kind of writings are pampered & preened only by professor, journalist, or `writer` types. Masticaters & cud-chewers of intellectualism. Such people are incapable of earning an honest living in the marketplace. These are the kind who cannot earn a living outside being `employed` by the state ,a welfare-agency, or panderers to the puerile and porno english-commercialism.

They sneer at those free-minds who do not have to adjust their `correctness` for the sake of tenure or grant. These wretches try to `glamourise` their vocation by becoming increasingly deviant `radical`, noise-worthy and news-ready.

Except for the hard sciences there is no need to spend taxpayers money on such bufoonery which any Indi-paki can ill afford.