Religion in its essence is seen as sacred and holy, on a level, which can only be understood though a spiritual connection with your faith and the explanations this gives you for life and existence. As Islamic opponents to Rushdie say that they have no problems with logical work and research questioning the sincerity of their faith, or scientific arguments questioning the logical existence of religion, The Satanic Verses was seen as a fictional piece, which was blasphemous and dangerous to the credibility of such a well-established religion with such a huge number of believers. It can be understood therefore, if religion and its believers ‘can be easily offended if subjected to the indelicate play of an indisciplined fantasy’ (B Parekh, 1991 p297).
Rushdie’s ideas and opinions of Islam were a source of outrage for those against the book, calling Islam a ‘revelation of convenience’ (B Parekh, 1991. p296) or implying Mohammad slept around after his wives death were seen as insulting and disrespectful statements that have no worth or relevance in any type of writing, whether it be fiction or not. Just because the character in the book portrayed these disturbing images of Islam from within a dream, does not make the impact of protest against the book any less relevant or severe. Many Muslims shared the notion that the Satanic Verses was irrespective and damaging to their faith, Parekh highlights some of the in-sensitivity within the book as he relates the writing to the meaning of the Koran in saying ‘ The Satanic Verses mockingly reduces it (Koran) to a book spouting rules about how to fart, f…. and clean ones behind’ (B Parekh, 1991, p297). Such statements sparked protest in believers whose faith is seen as unquestionable, let alone open to such insults and degradation and many believed that even a warning on the inside sleeve of the book would not lessen the resentment towards it.
There were many issues sparked by the ‘Rushdie affair’. A key believe which brought Rushdie much support was that of the liberal value of free speech. This right to express ones opinions is of national and historic importance to the very essence of British democracy. A common western liberal response was to call for Rushdies right to publish the book free from harassment. Calls to ban the book were met with opposition by most liberal’s views. The poet T.Harrison linked the right or need for Rushdies work to be published freely, in his poem;
‘I shall not cease from mental strife
Nor shall my pen sleep in my hands
Till Rushdie has a right to life
And books aren’t burnt or banned’ (Gabriel, 1994, p24)
The right to free speech is also an important issue to Rushdie himself, he must have known that his book would have caused a backlash of protest, but defended his actions with statements such as; ‘what is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend it ceases to exist’. (Swedish censorship homepage). This importance in the belief in liberty and free speech is perhaps why protests against Rushdie did not have the same impact in the United States, where the freedom of speech is seen as paramount and is emphasised so in the bill of rights.
In the UK, Muslim objections were seen as un-reasonable and their motives seen as backwards and uncivilised. The media portrayal of Muslim feelings was quick to re-affirm the apparent harm and de-stabilization that Muslims were causing mainstream British society. Parekh emphasises this media portrayal of Muslims during the ‘Rushdie affair’ with, ‘They (Muslim protestors) were called ‘barbarians’, ‘uncivilised, ‘fanatics’ and compared to the Nazis. Many a writer, some of impeccable liberal credentials, openly wondered how Britain could ‘civilise’ them and protect their progeny from their ‘medieval fundamentalism’’. (B Parekh, 1991, p300) This led objectors of Rushdie to note that such views were not held by a majority of the Muslim community and the media was not portraying an accurate picture of community feelings or reactions. Sardar and Davies (1990) call this a ‘Distorted imagination’ (Sardar & Davies, 1990) and therefore a distorted reality of reactions and anti Rushdie feelings. The fundamentalist picture painted by the fatwah of Khomeini and the unbalanced portrayal of the media gave a picture of general Muslim feelings and helped enforce stereotypes of a fundamentalist unreasonable community. Sardar and Davies point out the unbalanced stance which the media took when debating opinions about issues raised by the ‘affair’ by noting that during such media interviews ‘ a rough calculation shows, a ratio of 10 to 1, non Muslims to Muslims’ (Sardar & Davies, 1990, Media). The picture which the media portrayed, and helped impose and sustain, is summed up by Parekh, ‘ Most of the liberal and Conservative press was hostile, accusing Muslims of preferring a theocratic to a liberal secular society and bringing Britain nothing but shame’. (B Parekh, 1991, p301).
Some did agree with Muslims arguments and anger against Rushdies writing, this led to questions of how much the Muslim culture was being stereotyped and how much the West’s interpretation of Islam was a case of cultural relativism, misunderstood, unfounded and ultimately untrue. Arguments about the west’s hypocrisy when referring to liberty and free speech were also raised, with issues such as anti-colonial book bans during Britain’s occupancy of India, such as A.C Osborns Must Britain lose India (Gabriel, 1994, p27). Veteran journalist John Berger also questioned issues of liberty, racism and a neglect of needs within our society leading to a misunderstanding of the diverse needs of ethnic minority groups. He wrote ‘In a multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi faith Britain we must realise that the freedom of speech is pretty meaningless in a society where substantial ethnic minorities and religious minorities feel their views are not adequately understood or represented. (Berger 23/1/1989 in Gabriel, 1994,p27)
The Rushdie affair also asked political questions, with conflicting feelings towards multi cultural issues being displayed. On a national level questions regarding immigration, integration and public order were asked and concerns regarding a damaging aspects to British society caused by large ethnic minority communities arose. Roy Jenkins, who was regarded as the father of the race relation’s act became concerned that ‘Britain had not made a mistake in letting in to many Muslims’ (B Parekh, 1991, p301). On a local level, debates about ethnicity were now having to re-identify and re-classify groups to include the diverse cultural and religious backgrounds which help make up British society the Rushdie affair had an impact on this as ‘debates must now take on board issues of religion, not taken up in previous years’ (Solomas et al, 1996, p19). Another impact on local politics was the local Muslim community leaders such as the Bradford council of Mosques, gaining much support through their anti Rushdie beliefs. This led to many second generation British Muslims to turn to their faith, as they believed that along with the racism they encountered within society their culture and parents heritage was under attack. As Modood points out, the Rushdie affair was ‘one of the conditions for the development of radical Islamic groups’ (Modood 1992 in Solomos, 1994, p225). The anti Islamic images which were portrayed during the Rushdie affair, particularly by the media, showed fundamental conflicting emotions which were very hard to resolve and could and perhaps has only hindered future cultural integration processes and thrown up questions and barriers that would segregate communities from accepting or being accepted within British or western society. This is highlighted by Sardar and Davies with,’ The Rushdie affair has a long history, an emotionally charged present and could unfortunately have a devastatingly long future, (Sardar & Davies (1990), media).
It has been a decade since the Rushdie affair, in which time a series of events and subsequent political decisions has kept open the debate about ethnic minority integration. Particular events which have raised emotions and questions particularly regarding Muslim communities within western culture as the Rushdie affair did, have been: The Gulf War, The recent Race riots involving young Muslim youth seen in Bradford and other cities and more recently the September 11th attacks. These events have made finding a simple solution to differences founded and expressed during the Rushdie affair very difficult.
Documents such as the Parekh report (Runnymede 2000) and the recent government race riot report have attempted to define and outline characteristics required in achieving a harmonious multi cultural society. Such reports were the consequences of the race riots in the North of England which have highlighted the almost apartheid like segregation currently seen in certain parts of the United Kingdom. It is apparent that there are cultural and religious differences within our society, and this has lead to a certain amount of racism, cultural stereotyping, and cultural relativism existing and being passed down from generation to generation and ultimately affecting many diverse communities across the UK by segregation and excessive racial tensions. We live in a society, which does no longer tolerate previously acceptable racist practices, we promote practices such as the use of politically correct language and equal opportunities within the workplace, but racial tension is still apparent and still a concern for those in Government. These tensions have been identified and outlined in the recent government report by Ted Cantle. Much needed improvements in integrating community life have been suggested. The highlighting of totally separate and segregated communities and a promise to promote social and community integration in areas such as housing education and community leisure by the Government will hopefully, if handled and promoted in a cautious and liberal manner without reinforcing, antagonising or promoting existing stereotypes. Become an important step in addressing and solving racial and religious tensions which were highlighted a decade earlier through the Rushdie affair.
In my opinion, when trying to formulate a solution to the delicate issues concerning cultural and religious integration we must focus on the education system. It has been at he most, three generations since the majority of ethnic migration towards the United Kingdom took place, and schools now contain a wide ethnic mix of pupils, particularly in inner city areas all studying our national curriculum. Much of my acceptance and understanding of other cultures comes from childhood experiences and friendships with a diverse range of peers within my educational environment. Schools should promote a diverse ethnic, cultural and social mix. This will go a long way in abolishing untrue stereotypes, and administer a better personal understanding of the many diverse cultural and social backgrounds within society. Examples of integration being promoted within schools can be seen with the schemes adopted by certain LEA’s (e.g. Glasgow) to promote an understanding of the diverse cultures of political asylum children, this is done by the whole class taking part in a pantomime about the cultural and religious backgrounds of the children. Many such initiatives are required, but Integration must not stop at the education system.
Only through a whole national consensus backed by all channels of society including the media, politicians and the general public as a whole, will we be able to accept and understand the many diverse cultures, religious practices and their traditions and histories. Debates should (and hopefully are) attempt to create new and accepted definitions of being British, without challenging morally acceptable cultural practices wherever they may originate from. Only with this acceptance and openness being administrated thorough society will we break down cultural barriers and non-acceptance as seen with the Rushdie affair. Otherwise such questions, issues and events will continue to take place for another decade and beyond, with actions and consequences I would not wish to predict.
Bibliography:
1, Gabriel J. (1994) Racism, Culture, Markets, Routledge.
2, Parekh B. (1991) Politics, Religion and Free Speech
3, Solomos J. (1993) Race and Racism in Britain 2nd ed, Macmillan press ltd.
4, Solomos J and Back C. (1996) Racism and Society, Macmillan press ltd.
5, Mason D. (2000), Racism and Ethnicity in modern Britain 2nd ed, Oxford Modern Britain.
6, Sardar Z and Davies M. (1990) Lessons from the Rushdie Affair, .
7, Esposito J. (1999), The Islamic threat: Myth or Reality? .