A Fatal Stabbing in New York: Salman Rushdie and Freedom of Speech
On Friday 12 August, after 33 years of running from the possibility, Salman Rushdie was attacked by a 24-year-old man of Lebanese origin on stage as he was taking part in a Chautauqua Institution book reading event in New York.
The 75-year-old was quickly taken to a hospital where his injuries are said to be recoverable, though it is also said that he could lose an eye as a result of this attack. The reason this assault is noteworthy is that in 1988, British-Indian novelist and essayist Rushdie published his fourth novel, The Satanic Verses. The book was a critical and commercial success, but received mixed reviews from the Muslim community in Britain. The late Ayatollah Khomeini pronounced a death sentence on him for blasphemy against Islam. Rushdie was put under police protection and had to go into hiding for several years.
Rushdie has been called the most controversial writer of his generation. Born in 1947 to an Indian Muslim family, he went to Rugby School and then Cambridge University, where he studied history. In 1975, he published his first book, Grimus. His second novel, Midnight’s Children, won the Booker Prize in 1981; it was also awarded the James Tait Black Memorial Prize for fiction and the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize for Best Book. His third novel, Shame, was nominated for the Booker Prize in 1983. Ironically, the Farsi translation was a best-seller in Iran. But in 1988, Rushdie published a fictionalised account of Prophet Mohammad’s life entitled The Satanic Verses. However, it sparked significant debate, with some Muslims accusing the text of blasphemy and ridiculing Islam.
The question of whether Rushdie was simply exercising his intrinsic right to free expression, or whether Muslims around the world were simply overreacting at the time, raised complex challenges. Should Muslims, who revere the Prophet, exercise some discretion and ignore the book instead of supplying it with the oxygen that any energetic reaction would provide? That is, would just ignoring it not have been the best course of action, keeping the book relatively restricted inside the circles of authors and other literary figures? This was the liberal-progressive point of view. However, the more outspoken conformist voice won out. Certain religious leaders were able to incite outrage over the concept that Islam and Muslims were being blasphemed. While it is true that blasphemy is a capital offence in some Muslim nations, Muslims in the West adhere to post-enlightenment norms and values.
The ramifications for Muslims in the West speaking out loudly against the book, on the other hand, focus on the community and its cultural and religious dynamics rather than the issue of free speech. Angry Muslims demanded blasphemy and the abolition of the book due to its objectionable content. Progressive liberal Muslims argued that it does not matter what a writer writes; it is possible to disregard it, and giving it greater attention serves the objective of making people appear reactionary and regressive rather than focusing on how people were hurt by Rushdie’s misrepresentation of the Prophet (he arguably knew he was doing). The book provoked a wave of protests across the UK, attended by tens of thousands of British Muslims, some of whom openly burned the book. A year later, Iran’s late leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa, or edict, calling for Rushdie’s execution, stating,
“I warn all zealous Muslims around the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, who has been written, printed, and published in hostility to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur’an, and all those engaged in its publication who were aware of its content, have been condemned to death.”
A reward of more than £2.5 million ($3 million) was offered for the assassination of Rushdie. The author was forced to go into hiding under police protection for nine years, but he disregarded the danger at the time, saying there was “no evidence” of anyone wanting the reward. Rushdie’s prize was increased to $3.3 million in 2012 by a semi-official Iranian religious group. Later that year, a Twitter account associated with Ayatollah Khomeini was temporarily suspended after posting, “Imam Khomeini’s judgement regarding Salman Rushdie is founded on divine verses, and much like divine verses, it is solid and irrevocable.” There have been several assassination attempts on Rushdie and attacks on the text’s translators. An unknown assailant stabbed to death Hitoshi Igarashi, who had translated The Satanic Verses into Japanese, at his office at the University of Tsukuba in 1991. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Thailand, Tanzania, Indonesia, Singapore, and Venezuela have all banned the book.
Rushdie is an advocate of religious satire. His allegorical novels examine historical and philosophical issues using surreal characters, brooding humour, and an effusive and melodramatic prose style. His treatment of sensitive religious and political subjects made him a controversial figure. He condemned the Charlie Hebdo shooting and defended comedic criticism of religions in a comment originally posted on English PEN, where he called religions a mediaeval form of unreason. Rushdie called the attack a consequence of “religious totalitarianism”, which, according to him, had caused “a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam.”
As Rushdie was stabbed in the neck and torso onstage at a lecture in New York state yesterday morning and airlifted to a hospital, conceivably, the attacker targeted Rushdie because of his criticism of Islamist extremism. In Rushdie’s words, “[t]he mere existence of freedom, however limited, is always better than its absence.” He warns about the dangers surrounding certain governments, particularly those who would rather silence people than listen to their points or understand their viewpoints. Rushdie argues that “we are all stronger when we can speak without fear or censorship.” This mantra needs to apply to all — minority and majority, powerful and powerless.
While democracy has been eroding over the last fifteen years, social divisions and political polarisation have deepened, with people holding onto often fabricated notions about themselves and others that continue to indicate a perennial state of conflict. As has been expressed by many writers and thinkers, Rushdie’s book was not the cause but the symptom of divisions in society, all of which have been examined in the context of identity politics and its intersections with neoliberal globalisation. Leadership across the Muslim world has also been slow to move the pace of change where issues relating to freedom of expression continue to afflict journalists and thinkers as well as other members of society in significant ways.
