Modern eastern western encounters have occurred on many an occasion over the last century and into the present.

The western media as seen through its many experts, intellectuals, and academics alike has even further reserved an already limited vocabulary when engaging with Islam to a handful of words. All to often described as oppressive, intolerant, zealous, barbaric, dictatorial, and of course fundamentalism, being a popular term bestowed with a certain sense of exclusivity and adamant responsibility for that which comes with such a title on the shoulders of Islam. Were never made to forget by design or perhaps even the unintentional that most modern encounters whether in fact or fiction are in direct response to Islamic insurgency and a perceived threat to western interests as the terrible attacks of September 11th and its reportage lay witness to such a claim, being another matter perhaps for a different discussion.

By choice for this particular piece of work in further exposing these inherent differences often cloaked under a false makeover provided by the government, media, and indeed the literary word in neglecting any real objectivity and fairness particularly when dealing with Islam. As seen in the late 80’s, when Salman Rushdie in 1988 wrote his highly charged and very controversial novel the ‘Satanic Verses’ published by Viking/Penguin London, which for all its perceived wrongs can be accredited with opening a long sort after debate on faith engaging in and around a number of issues. Such as they’re being any real significant importance of faith in western society and particularly in context to that of one besides Christianity, and what degree of authority or governance should religion have upon its faithful. What constitutes as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ particularly in the artistic sense when engaging with any faith, and why? And finally does anyone have the right to mock and question the authenticity of another’s faith, all being questions that had been brought forth in the light of the books publication, though done in a very distasteful sense and under tense circumstances, thus bringing the west and east together once again though unfortunately for all the wrong reasons.  

Firstly as western societies would like themselves to be perceived as unhindered secular, libertarian, and of course democratic societies. Which is all good in theory though in reality it’s a different story as such notions seem to work more so on a

                                                           ~2~

perceptual level, as the Rushdie fiasco would have us believe pointing out the double standards adopted by the west in giving the green light to an out right assault on Islamic values in the most vile and obscene of language used in a so called work

of fiction. Supposedly being written on the theme of migration, transformation divided selves, love, demise, London and Bombay, so why did he provocatively name it the satanic verse and as suggested by Faruqi, why devout six out of nine chapters to an Islamic theme and real Islamic characters disguised under a facade of fantasy and the incongruous1. Still leaving many a unanswered question, firstly as a result of the ambiguity with which Rushdie himself changes the books meaning giving it an almost a new explanation in every interview to date, as if he was merely going with the flow and changing his colour in an almost chameleon like fashion, perhaps a ploy at appeasing his audience. At times talking about the book as a mere work of fiction, and at other moments justifying the profanity directed at the prophet Muhammad as being dreamt upon by the novels protagonist, being described as volatile and disturbed character thus perhaps in Rushdies eyes legitimising his work as fiction, though at other moments he has clearly stated if he realised the offence the book would caused he would have made a point of writing an even stronger and more critical book on Islam.    

In short the book was fraught with provocation and controversy thought by many a Muslim whether devout, moderate or lapsed as an open attack Islam, as Shabbir Akhtar in his book ‘be careful with Muhammad’ points out any Muslim that fails to be offended by such a book, on account of that ceases to be a Muslim and goes on further to stress how the book has become a litmus paper test for distinguishing faith from rejection2.  

The name of the book itself is insulting with connotations suggesting that the Muslim holy book the Quran and its contents are in fact “satanic verses” as the title advocates. Not stopping there the author goes further in assaulting the prophet Muhammad, namely referring to him as Mahound an soubriquet with different variations in medieval times, used by Christian clerics back then to ridicule the prophet as a baby frightener, a fraud, and an anti-Christ, a immoral person who used the wives of other men to satisfy his own lust and brought revelations to satisfy his own promiscuous conduct3. And goes even further in insulting the prophets wife’s, which according to the Quran are mothers of the devoted, and respected by Muslims as the same way the prophet is revered. Though Rushdie addresses them in the crudest of fashion referring to them as whores and the holiest of Muslim shrines ‘Kaba’ as a brothel, as the following extract would suggest.

    When the news got around Jahilia that the whores of the curtain had each

    assumed the identity of one of Mahound’s wives, the clandestine excitement of

    the city’s males was intense…the fifteen-year-old whore ‘Ayesha’ was the most

    popular with the paying public, just as her namesake was with Mahound.

                                                                       [Ahsan/Kidwai: 33]

   

Rushdies other exploits in disparaging the prophet are far fetched as calling him a ‘bastard’ and even using the four-letter word, and referring to explicit sexual acts, such as sodomy and various positions. Which Muslims have argued doesn’t make any sense and how can such rhetoric be equated to any sense of the word artistic. Thus prompting Muslims to have pointed out on many an occasion the inherent differentiation between the critical and plainly obscene. As the following analogy given to a Tanzanian scholar professor Ali Mazrui during a trip to Pakistan in November 1988 conjures up an interesting and expressive perspective on general Muslim discontent towards Rushdie’s blasphemous book4.  

    Its as if rushdie had composed a brilliant poem about the private parts of his                                                            

    parents and then gone to the market place to recite that poem to the applause of

    strangers who invariably laughed at the jokes he cracks about his parent’s genitals

    and he’s taking money for it.

                                                                       [Ahsan/Kidwai: 36]

Taking this analogy a step further particularly in light of the efforts of the tens of the thousands of British Muslims to see the matter end in dignified way as possible, particularly after all the distress caused by the book, prompting many peaceful demonstration and general public out cry at the insensibility of the British government and media alike in further fuelling the whole incident in giving Rushdie and Viking excessive liberties at the cost of deep rooted insult to millions of people all in the name of one man’s senseless liberal inquisition. Having many a British Muslim look upon the government with disbelief and question whether such inherent freedoms would have been uphold at an expense of there own sanctity, as the following quote looks upon a number of comparable scenario’s though with folly being directed at the west with the audacity only comparable to that of Rushdie’s liberal inquisition, his right to freedom of expression beyond the restraints and confines of the ethically justifiable, and having been left at the discretionary judgement of an selfish man motivated by his own inhibitions resulting in the pain, suffering, and death of many Muslims.

    ‘For example if the Virgin Mary (God forbid) was portrayed as a prostitute and

    Jesus as an illegitimate child of one of her sexual clients and the Disciples of

    Jesus as a gang of homosexuals or if Hitler was depicted as the saviour of

    Jews, would the Christian and Jewish communities tolerate, let alone passionately

    patronize such publications? Similarly the queen was projected as a prostitute, and

    members of the royal family as debauches with no morals, how would the British

    public react? As professor Mazrui puts it admirably: ‘it would be interesting to  

    speculate which leading western writers would march in a procession in defence

    of the rights of such a novelist.’

                                                                       [Ahsan/Kidwai: 37]

Though in actuality such an analogy would be virtually impossible to publish as to the surprise of many Muslims that there were laws in intact protecting the greater sensitivities of Christians, putting to doubt the authenticity of a genuinely secular Britain where such laws would still be justified. Firstly because they undermine dominant ideas of western self-enlightenment and reflect limitations on an individual right to unhindered freedom of expression involving ones inherent right to freedom of speech and the double standards posed when dealing with ethnic minorities. Being a major point of British Muslim discontent made even more unpalatable through the vigorous campaigning and genuine public out cry on the part of Muslims to have the blasphemy laws reviewed so that they would cover all faiths though to their disdain was surprisingly unsuccessful, announced by the queen bench divisional court, under section 4(1) of the public order act 1986, dismisses the British Muslims application for issuing a summons against Viking/Penguin Publishers of the Satanic Verses for causing public disorder5.

Instead of consoling Muslims with comforting words, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Harris urge prosecutions against those Muslims protesting6. Statements that would only have Muslims review their own positions in a society that passionately presents itself as a progressive and secular society functioning under inherent principles of democracy and indeed liberty, thus self perpetuating itself to a role model for all progressive societies particularly those of stark contrast, often having been depicted in western media as evil, oppressive, and autocratic regimes more than likely with an habitual association with Islam.

By having one not help look upon the west’s engagement to the east with a sense of suspicion, and let me reframe by stating that by ‘East’ I am specifically referring to Islam. The west has harboured an animosity for the prophet Muhammad and Islam for one-and-a-half millennia99. Which even now in our highly forward thinking and progressive societies never falls to astonish, thus popping it ugly head up from time-to-time, which at times may even seem beyond any real rational, as Akhtar suggests in the following extract.

    The rushdie affair retains its momentum largely because of the incidence of

    deep rooted psychic tensions within a western conscience confronting an

    authentically Islamic temper. Part of the concern here is fuelled by the

    contemporary fear, in itself absurdly unrealistic, that Muslim immigrant

    populations want to build a theocracy in the heart of a European country.

                                                                       [Akhtar: 7]

I must emphasis that such a statement would be open to ones own interpretation in accord to a dominant perceptual stance, once again owing itself to the whole eastern western divide and its elucidation depend on the side your on.

Satanic Verses never ceases to amaze me what the motivation beyond such a specimen of writing might have been, particularly in light to Rushdie’s immense knowledge of Islam and that of acute Muslim sensitivities towards their beloved faith and prophet. Having been well aware of the response of such work would generate, nevertheless still taking upon himself in executed its publication with all the clear signs of an immense repercussion. This has left many Muslims the world over with scepticism towards Rushdie’s motives in writing such a piece of work, having even been looked upon as an attempt in rewriting Islamic history from that of secular perspective as claimed in Rushdie’s earlier interviews, though many have seen it as no more than a malicious ploy to hurt the feelings of Muslims as a means of appeasing the west, and inciting them to violence and desperation7.    

Leaving many Muslims sceptical and in desperate need for answers to even plunder the realms of the conspiratorial particularly after all the global publicity the book received and appraise by many an academic whether for it being a literary work of par excellence or plainly an attack on Islam. Some even remarked upon it being a virgin field never ploughed before8 and accredited Rushdie with many an accruement appraising him, taking into account even western orientalist’s and their medieval predecessor whom both fervently sought to disparage Islam by attributing to it a fantastic, disrespectful or demonic sexuality had in all fairness for whatever reasons managed to stop in rhetorical terms in use of explicit obscenity of the graphic nature when referring to the prophet Muhammad. Unlike the orientalists Rushdie in his probable pursuit for some sort of deluded self enlightenment has thought that by writing such an obscure piece of work he could possibly change the Islamic world and guide these poor deluded lost souls away from a life of misery, homogeneity, and dictated oppression, all to often being accruements fixated in the western mindset when engaging with Islam. Though unfortunately not realising Muslims have retained their faith in the face of many an external force through sheer love, devotion, and equitable trust in their scriptures. Nevertheless ignoring this Rushdie takes it upon himself as a moral crusade of some sort, obviously designed to disparage Islam and for doing so is accredited by his western appraisers, seen by many in the western world as a one man crusade in breaking long constructed taboo’s and in doing so takes this genre to a point of mass expansion to a summit where it by the skin of its teeth barely manages to explode into utter kayos.

If anything Rushdie and the west can be accredited with further alienating Muslims and making sure their even more distrustful of western intentions, particularly in light of the media frenzy that followed the Rushdie fiasco resulting in most western dignitaries, academics and intellectuals alike jumping on the anti Islamic bandwagon only helping further enforce astringent ideologically of the east notably that of Iran and its hard-line clerics who used this incident very well to further fuel their anti-American propaganda and went a step further in issuing a religious Fatwa (death sentence) to Salman Rushdie. Resulting in the formation of two camps the Islamite’s on one side and progressive western thinkers on another with their deep-rooted beliefs of individual liberty and secularism.

The satanic verses miserably fails in raising any real issues of any distinctly Islamic identity in the contemporary world of varied voices and irreligious confides, parallel to that of what has been done in the western context in light of self enlightenment and establishing the sanctity of god-within. Most Muslims haven’t developed such notions that parallel the puritan notion of the bible-within9, and the Satanic Verses has not established a better understanding or any real sense of Muslim enlightenment, thus being equivable to any real and promising Muslim response to modernity, thus such an agenda can only be set by Muslim intellectuals who are believers and who themselves are disturbed by the widespread and apparently awkward worldly reservations about religious imagination in an age of reason10.

                                                           

                                                           ~7~

---