The Impossible Fundamentalism of Doubt

Few people would know what Salman Rushdie actually talks about. I doubt if anyone would read Rushdie`s book for an introduction to the Seerat. You probably need to focus on someone such as Rodinson for a discussion over facts. But with you, Mr. Manzoor, let`s not beat about the bush here!

Tell us, Is it justified to condemn Rushdie to death for writing `The Satanic Verses`, whether the book makes sense to anyone or not?

It doesn`t matter if few people understand Rushdie. You can`t judge him one way or the other without understanding what he has to say. The point is that according to the intellectual basis for the Satanic Verses (what the author is refering to as the ``fundamentalism of doubt``), defending Rushdie`s freedom of expression or even freedom to live is not morally correct (there being no such thing as objective morality).

I believe the death sentence on Rushdie is not justified but I have no sympathy for his pleas for ``human decency`` to set hime free, since he clearly believes in no such thing. (and if you had read the novel, instead of blindly jumping on the freedom-of-expression band wagon, you would understand the irony here).

Dear Author:

I think we will never come to a mutual understanding, still some question I had to ask.



1. cardinal moral claim that what distinguishes the Divine from the Satanic is, at best, arbitrary.

I believe, in your text, you should make the reader aware of your understanding of the Divine and the Satanic. The Jack comes roaring out of the box and refuses to listen.

2. The immorality of Rushdie`s gospel of doubt

Your adamant claim on the worth of Rushdie s work denies any plausible interpretation a reader or a critic of different values might consider. Thematic and subtexts created a diverse understanding of the verses , which apparently in your persevering stance you have remained unaware of. Starting from Suleri s canon ball, where the projection was onto-history of a moribund messenger (Gibrael the actor), through interpolation of travels of movement, of migration, to Rushdie s fissured lens; there remains a lot more to be affected and developed by the reader. His account is a Joycean revenge on the intellect of those who have forgotten the value of storytelling.

3. But then how could a moral judgement be based on a fictional account?

I assume that you are aware of the tradition of secular storytelling in Islamic history: remember Shehrazade and Amir Hamza? And the judgement is not delivered forcefully (Khomeini?) but voiced as a remedy.

4. Only those who espouse an oppressive doctrine of the polymorphous, nay polytheistic, nature of the ultimate truth are prone to doing so.

Now you are being crudely judgmental. I for one would like to see a philosophical explanation of your conclusion i.e. hypotheses, working etc. By the way, how about a Fatwa on you from the BJP or the RSS? Maybe we can provide India and Pakistan with a golden opportunity to flex their nuclear muscles.

5. Only those who discard the intellectually facile and morally paralysing relativism which is the gist of Rushdie`s novel can be summoned to his defence!

Thank you sir :)

6. How do you sir, feel about other infidels like Tasleema Nasreen? Aren t people like Bernard Lewis, Judith Miller and Fouad Ajami- who are creating a planned and factual distortion of Islamic history in the academia- more deserving of your benevolence?

Khuda kay banday to haiN hazaroN, banoN maiN phirtay haiN maray maray

MaiN us ka banda banoN ga jis ko khuda kay bandoN say pyaar ho ga.

Regards,

Faisal

Wasiq,

Your point is well taken. Your referral to oriental discourse over centuries is more relevant that the definitions of moral forts on both sides of the argument. However, in this injunction of morass why is the literary value of the Satanic Verses being consummated? The novel has become either a crime of the morally paralyzed or the redemption of the intellectually liberated.

Towards the end of my earlier posting I did mention some academics who act as deterrents of dialogue. Why don t we concentrate on Lewis for his inept portrayal of Islam? V S Naipaul as an artist is even guiltier by converting the same discourse into the literary. Their argument is faceted on the West being a sum larger than its components and Islam just being a symbol. Here lies a problem, which includes the Rushdie affair as a precedent. This I assume is a more complex issue and should be addressed separately.

Regards,

Faisal

Without getting knee-deep into the morass of whether the Fatwa on Rushdie is justified or not, (i.e parroting the ``standard`` stances of the two sides) I would like to make the following observation:

To me the absolute sanctity of freedom of expression is as dubious as the sanctity of religious dogmatism it wishes to challenge. An unequivocal insistence on freedom of expression, regardless of its contents, purpose and effects, is as dogmatic, absurd and puerile as the belief systems of a myopic cult.

The Fatwa, cannot, and should not, be divorced from its ideological context. And `Satanic Verses` should not be elevated to more than what it is. The dynamics of this pro-Fatwa and pro-Rushdie yo-yo should be understood in the context of two civilizations which are not entirely conversant with each other`s language and symbolism, and carry a mutual air of distrust. A Westernly schooled mind, regardless of its race, still views an Islamic, or for that matter any other, mind as foreign, and the same holds true conversely. It is highly unlikely that the effects of decades of schooling are completely reversed.

In the scenario of a civilizational clash, words are as potent a weapon as any bomb. Could it be that we are focussing too much on the pawns?

! And this brings us to the heart of the Muslim

! argument against the novelist, namely that moral

! judgement is possible only on a historical

! ground, and that where the ground is sacred such

! as the Sirah of the Prophet, not only profane

! imagination but also pious devotion must remain

! within the bound of historical reality.

I assume that by historical reality the author

really means ``objective hisorical reality.`` I agree that good fiction should follow the constraints of objective historical reality (but not that a fictional work not agreeing with the established orthodoxical account of anything should be banned and its author condemned to death). However, in the absence of an objective historical account a writer only has her creative imagination to guide her. William Golding`s ``Inheritors`` provides one extreme example of fiction entering the terrritory where an objective history does not exist. I disagree with the author`s statement that `the cardinal moral claim of the novel` is that `all cats are grey.` The obvious conclusion to draw is that Rushdie does not consider the existing Sirah works to be historically accurate (esp. when it comes to accounting for the Satanic Verse episode). Rushdie`s work should be seen as suggesting a plausible possibility when no objective historical account exists (and the existing `histories` suggest implausible accounts).

A very strange arguement

What we have chosen in this generation is the sanctity of human life. Allowing all other previous sanctities to be brought up for doubt. Tomorrow when my children have a different view of our arbitrary choice (what about sanctity of animal life, mumma?), I will accept that as inevitable.

I disagree with you wasiq, words will never hurt as hard as actions. Freedom to doubt, for some has reduced the notion of decency to an arbitrary decision - but for me, a women, has made a ``decent`` life possible.

You raised an intersting argument. But before we judge the relative absoluteness of morals, we have to determine whether by casting doubt on the divinity of the Quran, Rushdie has seriously affected the people who believe it is divine. Has he threatened to kill the Muslim Ulema? Has he decided to punish the Muslims for being Muslim?

Khomeini, however decreed that exterminating the blasphemer would exterminate the blasphemy. This is relatively as subjective a decision as Rushdie`s SV, I agree with you there, but proving that Rushdie is as bad or as good as Khomeini does not mean that the relative badness of freedom of speech in its subjectivity is as bad/worse than absolute badness as decreed by Khomeini. I think if subjectivity is the criticism you have than the degree of subjectivity in freedom of speech is better than no tolerance for critisim (which is what Islamic states do).

If anything, the argument that Khomeini was just exercising the same right to speech as Rusdie is fallacious. If that were so, instead of fatwas, a counter argument could have been given. Such all out defensiveness of the religion makes it too absolute---too fundamental, too subjective.

Of course, I see human life being a moral value in itself and as Rad said, our age is of humanism, and that is seen as the ultimate goal of existential concerns. I don`t think this relative watering of God`s absoluteness is in any way anti-islam. Many Islamic scholar`s would say that true Islam is tolerant, humanistic and FOR human beings. The Quran is full of allusions to the sanctity of human or any life. In SV, the joke was not on God, but on the people of Mecca and Medina. SV is really best taken as a satire; for me the basic message was to lighten up and don;t take it all so seriously. This seems to be in line with the author`s other works where he pulls a real good punch on the sub-continent`s concern with being good and pure without really developing a personal sense of conscience (Shame and Midnights Children). Maybe what irritates people up so much is the condescension in the author`s tone? I wonder too. I think his affect on South Asian literature/social conscience will be felt for a long long time. No matter what fatwas are issued.

Maybe the Mullahs should realise this and be a bit more graceful!

I am sorry for the length of my reply, and please excuse my tone at times... I am basically sitting down and typing it all in :)

Re: Faisal;

I think that the popular emphasis on the literary worth of SV is highly over-sold. I can think of at least one good reason for that: There is no ``intrinsic`` literary worth of any work, it always derives from the socio-cultural matrix that gives birth to it and sustains it. The interpretations of SV, and the hard-liners that argue for them
ardently are somehow incapable of understanding this simple thing. I have seen ``explanations`` of the imagery of SV, that grow endlessly in an incoherent weed-like fashion. It is clear that the exponents of the work are merely deluding themselves by ``discovering`` symbolism in SV
that really only stems from their own minds. That is a major problem with defining an inherent literary worth of a work.

Also, in my opinion, the political aspect of the novel is not separable from its contents. SV is known because it came in the political limelight at a time when the West faced an intractable enemy
in the ``rogue state`` of Iran. Why is it, that we do not know of any modern work that describes the Western civilization in unfavorable terms? After all, statistically speaking, the Western civilization has caused more harm to humanity than any other previous civilization in human history. Why is it that the entire propoganda apparatus of the Western world, aided and abetted by its economic and political might, is rallied to the defense of Rushdie, who happens to be saying
precisely what one would like to hear?

It is this political dimension of this affair that also answers why we don`t focus so much on earlier Orientalist works, some of which are much more offensive to Muslims. Those works are not viewed today as entirely ``objective`` studies of Islam or Muslims, but as biased accounts that focussed more on sustaining the popular myths about a foreign adversary civilization than on an effort to gain insight about a people and their ways. Once the motivations are realized and understood, one can have a measured and deliberate response. And that
is the case with the Orientalist works, which have receded to oblivion within the ranks of Islamic institutions of learning. I think that SV
is bound to the same dustbin of history where other such works currently reside.

Am I also allowed to suggest that maybe, just maybe, by giving too much credit to SV and the apologetic discourse that surrounds it, we are
ourselves falling victim to the well-tested and tried political adage: ``A lie told a thousand times, becomes a truth``?

best,
Wasiq

Re: Rad and Saima

I wish to say again that I do not intend to discuss whether the death sentence on Rushdie is justified. The reason is that most people
approach this issue in a very simplistic manner and insist on a resolution one way or another. Such things are not possible within the
human domain, no matter how much we wish them to be.

Coming to the issue of freedom of expression: To me the absolute sanctity of freedom of expression is as dubious as the sanctity of religious dogmatism it wishes to challenge. An unequivocal insistence on freedom of expression, regardless of its contents, purpose and effects, is as dogmatic, absurd and infantile as the belief systems of
a cult.

You mention humanism, and I hasten to add that I myself would wish that the myth of humanism is achievable, but let me ask you the following:

(1) Isn`t humanism as much of a fantasy as the sanctity of a God, Prophet or a Divinity? By fantasy here I mean something that cannot be
absolutely proven. Can you give me historical proof that the myth of humanism has actually produced less carnage than in the past? We
believed in humanism while people were killed in tens of thousands across the globe, in most cases by the dubious prophets of humanism themselves.

Let me mention to you another such ``ism``: Nationalism, the supposed panacea for all ailments. Nationalism, the new material substitute for all that was sacred, gave us colonialism, two world wars, countless smaller wars and endless oppression that continues to this day. Isn`t
there a stark contrast between the reality and actuality of nationalism?

(2) Do you agree that different civilizations may have different symbols that represent the same concept? Humanism is, thank God, not a
Western invention. All civilizations are humanistic. The savagery starts when one civilization insists that its interpretations and
symbols of humanism are more valid that those of another.

By saying that ``this is a century of Humanism`` you are guilty of that age-old mistake, i.e of defining humanism to be something that you
perceive it to be and discounting all other possible variations of it. I am sure that the Conquistadors believed in humanism too while
they decimated the ``savages``, and the French believed in Humanism too when they killed a million Algerians, the list is practically
endless.

I think that, regardless of what the ceaseless incantations of popular media and its pundits say, there is more to the issue of SV than we
would like to handle.

I think it would be worthwhile to step back for a day from what people on either side say, and view this issue in terms of a civilizational conflict and not as a Western allegory of conflict between a dogmatic Church and a ``heretic``. Symbolism is very hard to transfer cross-culturally, but a person of sufficient intelligence can, with
effort, appreciate the importance certain symbols play in the lives of people.

Maybe you should ask yourself the question: How must the faithful Muslims regard the Prophet for them to espouse a death penalty for Rushdie following what he has written in Satanic Verses? If you can appreciate why that would happen, then you would have come closer to understanding the importance of the Prophet as a unifying core of the Muslim communities.

RE: Wasiq

On cross-cultural symolization:

I think death or death threats are symbols common to both cultures and civilizations. I appreciate that simplifying the issue will not address the conflicts between the two civilizations, but this threat in my humble opinion does tip the balance towards Rushdie. The only reason for that is that a person who writes is not worth killing..:-)

I appreciate that the sanctity of age-old belief was violated by SV. The sanctity of Quranic ideals is violated every day in any case. Look at the Taliban. Look at child labour and much much more. Violating Rushdie is NOT the answer. No matter which side of the world one lives in.

In my very personal opinion, a rather coarse work has been made more dangerous to the cause of global tolerance and diversity because of the reactions of the Mullahs. Please understand that I am not absolving Rushdie of his responsibilty as a writer or saying that his outrageous comments are not really so.

But the Fatwa is not the way to handle the issue. Shutting all debate is not the way to handle a conlict. It is an equally if not worse reaction to SV.

On why no-one manages to hit Western Civilization below the belt:

Because they do so themselves. Their strategy of freedom of expression protects them, there

are no sanctimonious beliefs and it helps the civilization to grow... it vaccinates them :-)

I agree that there is much in Western Civilization that falls below humanistic ideals. The Western

Civilization has wreaked havoc on the Earth. Is anyone from the East standing up and saying so?

Is our own culture or civilization developing in the absence of Western doubt?

Ny voice of doubt says that there is so little that Mullahs do that they jump on any chance of glory that comes their way through SV and similar other things e.g., women/sex

Lastly, it is human nature to think that the world ends outside the borders. Nationalism has led

to much carnage and is doing so all the time, I agree but I think that kind of intolerance is the Mullah`s special talent. It was the Islamists who pushed Pakistan the hardest to detonate the Nuclear Bomb. Yet again, it is hatred from which fundamentalism derives its power. I would like to think that the Irani lot are peace-loving pious Muslims who are the victims of the West`s nationalistic goals but somehow I can`t absolve them of all guilt. I admit I am biased because of their attitude towards women; I think it is barbaric and far more dangerous than a book.

I was unlucky enough to meet SR just months before

SV made him a household word in the West. This

brief one minute encounter did not lead to any kind of warmth being generated for him as he

had the expression ``Darn Desi`` the whole one minute I was talking to him at the Poetry Club gathering at San Francisco State University.

I had him autograph a copy of Midnight`s Children and praised him for writing one of my most favorite books of all time ``Shame`` (even though

GGM`s ``One Hundred Years of Solitude`` to which some similarities may be discovered is still

my most favorite book). But talk about an ego,

this guy sure was full of himself.

But let us not dwell just on the personality. This

guy can write. Years earlier when I use to read

every book of literature I could get my hands on, I ran into a little known work called ``Grimus`` written by a ``Pakistani`` writer named Salman Rushdie. What one could clearly detect was the

incredible imagination that this individual could tap into. Unfortunately identity is not something that he was ever comfortable with and it is his

own lack of it which surfaces as the ``Indian`` writer called Salman Rushdie emerged later to

take up the cause of writing trash in the West.

Trash is how many Islamic thinkers and scholars

have described Satanic Verses, and this time since

I am neither of the two, I happen to agree with them. Salman Rushdie is best known for his worst

book. And most astonishing of all might just be

the revelation that he did this on purpose to

become a known name in the West and to lay the crisis of his identity at commercialism`s door.

On the fatwa aspect of this issue, god will eventually be the judge (depending on individual beliefs). The fatwa has helped Rushdie a great

deal in selling his books. Many ``free speech warriors`` in the West have a copy of Satanic Verses in their bookcases but at my prodding, few

have admitted to having read more than a few pages.

Like one of his main characters in Grimus, Rushdie

has been sentenced to ``live forever``, this time in bookcases without being read or taken seriously. His many excellent writings that only us Desis can really appreciate are a better window to his genius. I for one only wish that he had gone for

the jugular of the Mullah than give them ammunition to denounce all of us who live on the

observant fringes of the Islamic World and are

sick and tired of the fraud and blasphemy carried

out in the name of our religion because in our

case a dictator came along and strengthened these very forces with the help of a hypocritical West

to perpetuate his rule.

Thus in conclusion, I now believe that Rushdie has

really done a disservice to the cause of free speech in our not really imaginary homelands.

Ras H. Siddiqui 8-9-98

Wasiq,

I believe our dialogue has finally come to the inevitable arbitration of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; still, I would try to redeem some of my earlier arguments and deliberate on some of your.

Yes, your understanding of ‘literary worth’ is fair, but to assume that those on the other side of the argument are somehow misguided is quite unjust. In my opinion, the ‘socio-cultural matrix’, which gave birth to SV, will protect its significance. For example, acceptable even today in the “Rogue State,” is the literary importance of a certain Sadiqgh Hadayat. Sadigh was a Persian author in the middle of this century who fell into the nuance of Beckett, Joyce and Proust to establish his understanding of Persian history with a somewhat negative light on Islamic history (please refer to ‘Parveen the daughter of Sasaans’). He stands to the reflection of our Islamic Institutions even today, then how do you assume that Rushdie’s fate is to obliterate? These determinations of a culture being immutable to its art have been constantly defeated; consider, in our Region only- Iqbal, Manto, Ismat and Rashid.



By large the academia has adopted a violent reticence on part of SV: its literary worth has neither been over sold nor been popular. And to the guilt of discovering fantastical symbolism in the novel, I have nothing much to say? I thought all art was well left to interpretation. You might just want to read Dr. Suleri’s “Rhetoric Of English India-“ I think she has done a marvelous job.

On the Orientalist discourse of this debate I have already stated my opinion and I believe we are in some agreement here. But to say that older Orientalist works have been disregarded is quite inaccurate. In fact, west draws most of its conclusions from bygone understanding. Again I would refer to the likes of Bernard Lewis, Judith Miller and our very own Fouad Ajami.

By the way, Sheherzade told a thousand lies and what in retrospect is her, or our, truth?

Regards,

Faisal

What has been lost in the furor over the Fatwa is that Islam has been branded as an unreasonable terrorist religion which it is not. This impression has been reinforced by the refusal of muslim countries and other `intelectuals` to criticise the transnational execution order

When religion loses its fundamental meaning and becomes merely an expression of freedom, it can happen that people stay locked within a horizon so clouded that they can no longer see the heavens.

To Pervez Manzoor,

You say: Why must we, in short, arbitrate between these two contending texts?

I find this argument is completely ridiculous. The Rushdie text is a fictonal book that explores the author`s ideas of a plausible/possible interpretation of Islamic history and trys to fill some gaps (some people didn`t like its implications). It make interesting reading, but does not have as its objective, the goal of swaying the faith of anyone. Its literature, pure and simple. Nothing more, even if it might not be very good literature.

Khomeini`s text on the other hand signalled a declaration of a cultural-religious war, that called for the death of Rushdie, and put a $5 milion dollar bounty on his head! Rushdie did not go out and ask for someone to be killed. All he did was write a book. I don`t think the question of the relative morality of his book Vs. the text of the Ayatollah`s fatwa even exists.

Your whole essay is an example of some of the worst garbage i have ever read in my life! It is furthermore devoid of even an iota of intellectual merit. However, if i put a price on your head tommorrow for writing it, are we both morally equal?

What Rubbish.

OMAR1974