What an extraordinary, if depressingly predictable, fuss about Salman
Rushdie’s knighthood. Eighteen years after the fatwa was issued, Ijaz
ul-Haq, the Pakistani religious affairs minister, last week told his
country’s parliament that “if someone exploded a bomb on Rushdie’s body, he
would be right to do so unless the British government apologises and
withdraws the ‘sir’ title”.
Union Jacks were burnt in Pakistan, with rioters shouting “Kill him!”. If I
were Pakistani, I’d be more inclined to riot about the monstrous
off-the-scale corruption that riddled my government, and the corrupted
version of Islam that brainwashed disenfranchised young men in the
madrasahs, but anyway. A spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry said that to
honour “an apostate and one of the most hated figures in the Islamic world”
indicated that Britain supported “the insult to Islamic values”.
One might respectfully suggest that if people who seek to impose their
grotesque distortion of Islam on their unfortunate peoples will insist on
making these inane pronouncements, they might at least do so with a degree
of calm and a semblance of rationality, because otherwise it’s hard to take
them seriously (assuming one were inclined to do so, which is quite an
assumption).
It’s as though the Vatican took such exception to The Da Vinci Code that,
instead of putting out composed-sounding statements and seeking (not
entirely successfully) to reassure people that super-creepy Opus Dei is not
in fact creepy at all, its spokesmen started foaming at the mouth like
nutters and ordered crusades against Dan Brown for having the temerity to
invent a story and write fiction.
Actually it’s not like that, because Rushdie is a brilliant writer and Brown
is a sort of rich monkey with a typewriter, but you get the gist. And no
sooner is the knighthood announced in the Queen’s birthday honours than
politicians such as Jack Straw are tripping over themselves “sympathising”
with the “hurt feelings” of the “Muslim community” and volunteering his
opinion of Rushdie’s oeuvre: “I’m afraid I found his books rather difficult
and I’ve never managed to get to the end of any of them.” This just makes
him sound thick, I’m afraid.
Midnight’s Children is hardly Finnegans Wake, and with the exception of The
Satanic Verses none of Rushdie’s books is remotely “difficult”. So either
Straw is remedially dim, poor thing, or he’s making the point that since
Rushdie’s work is not his cup of tea, neither is Rushdie, and nor, by
extension, is his knighthood – nothing to do with me, guv, so please keep
voting for me, Muslim constituents.
Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said she was “sorry” for any offence
caused. An unnamed Labour MP told a newspaper that “anybody with common
sense would have blocked this”. Thank God for John Reid: the home secretary
said that although the issue was “sensitive”, the protection of people’s
rights to express their opinions in literature, argument and politics was of
“overriding value to our society”.
What on earth is the point of pussyfooting around like pathetic craven saps
(and I write as someone who is the daughter of a Muslim and also has some
Iranian blood)? Surely there’s a difference between careful diplomacy and
pandering to extremist Muslims who violently oppose everything people in
this country stand for and believe in?
We live – thank God, Allah and everybody else – in a democracy. We have, and
cherish, the right to free speech. It is a glorious thing. People are
allowed – encouraged – to have an imagination and to write books, which some
people may like and some people may not, but there you go: nobody forces
anybody to read anything (though perhaps they should: I’d love to know how
many fatwa supporters read the 560 pages of The Satanic Verses).
So what I don’t understand is why, when the knighthood was announced and
gracefully acknowledged by Rushdie – “I am thrilled and humbled to receive
this great honour” – it should have been met at home by carping and wriggly
apology instead of celebration. Is it too much to ask for our politicians to
stand up and paraphrase Voltaire’s “I disapprove of what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it”? Yes, apparently, because it seems
that pandering to the tiny proportion of the Muslim vote that is both
extremist and fundamentalist is worth more than art, beauty, reason or morality.
Part of the problem – and it’s an objectionable one – is that Rushdie is
viewed in many quarters as being insufficiently grateful for the protection
the (Conservative) government afforded him during the fatwa. Apparently, if
millions of people are encouraged to kill you and the country you live in
quite rightly thinks that’s a poor show, and helps you, you forfeit the
right to express an opinion about anything, whether it’s the price of a pint
of milk or the niqab.
In addition to this perceived lack of gratitude is the political perception of
Rushdie. To the right, he’s a leftie, which is ironic because he was helped
and protected by a Conservative government and a Labour premier, Tony Blair,
whom many would consider a kind of low-level Tory.
To the left, he is problematic in the extreme, because the left courts the
Muslim vote. “Courts” isn’t quite right – “toadies” is more like it. And in
the process, moderate Muslims who practise their religion peacefully and
with grace don’t seem to feature: they’re lumped with the extremists and
given a hard time as a result, for the reasons outlined above.
There’s a third issue here. Art matters. Literature matters. They matter much
more than the ravings of some overexcited, barely literate oik of a cleric
with a gift for oratory, even if – especially if – said cleric ends up
having global influence. When you cut to the chase, all that remains is
this: Rushdie, who was 60 last week, is an exceptional writer who has
written great books, for which he has been awarded prizes and awards both
here and internationally. Unlike most exceptional writers, he walked around
as a living target for 10 years under constant police protection.
People associated with his books were also targeted, injured – his Italian
translator was beaten and stabbed; his Norwegian publisher shot and left to
die – and even killed, in the case of his Japanese translator. All because
he wrote a book, used his imagination, made up a story, got it published,
and didn’t or wouldn’t foresee the calamitous consequences of his act of
creativity – because those consequences were unimaginable to a civilised
mind living in a democracy. His knighthood recognises all of this, as well
as his talent. I couldn’t be more delighted for him.
india.knight@sunday-times.co.uk
If there’s one thing I’ve learnt through having a child with special needs, it is not to judge other people in a similar boat
Dan Brown is the Premiership? Oh, dear ... Dan Brown is a silly scribbler. The fact that a lot of people without any literary appreciation buy his nonsense proves nothing at all. A lot of sad people buy Hello magazine and other such total drivel.
Ann Sinclair, Manchester,
The principles of freedom of speech and the sovereign government's right to honour an eminent citizen are incontestable and vividly expressed by India Knight. John Reid does indeed emerge with credit for defending the knighthood and avoiding the weasel words used by Jack Straw and Margaret Beckett. India Knight is on less firm ground with her sweeping claim that Rushdie is a "brilliant" and "exceptional writer (who) has written great books". One truly great book, yes indeed. For Midnight's Children alone, he deserves every literary and cultural honour going. It is the masterpiece of imaginative post-war magical realism. Yet I challenge her to cite another book from Rushdie which can compare with the best from Amis, Ishiguro, MacEwan, Franzen, Vidal, Wolfe and many others from the rich seam of post-war American and English fiction. Congratulations, India, on defending the rights of literary expression but be more selective in your extolling of literary brilliance.
Jamie Stevenson, London, United Kingdom
Excellent article, hits the nail right on the head. Jack StrawBrain is clearly not the brightest of politicians and is transparent in his pandering to unenlightened extremist Muslim 'thinking'. Thank goodness John Reid is more honest and perceptive. Perhaps the real issue is either that moderate, sane muslims are too intimidated by extremists, or that it is culturally difficult for them to not be polarised between extremist and rational thinking, because the latter is identified as 'Western' and 'unIslamic'
Russell, London,
What a pity that India Knight's otherwise sensible answer should be spoiled by her attack on Dan Brown. The Da Vinci Code has been enjoyed by people all over the world who have then gone on to read his other novels. For India Knight to sneer at him is ratherr like a park footballer sneering at tghe premiership.
David Gwilliam, Leicester, England
Best article I've read in months! I couldn't agree more!
Mark Bauch, Los Angeles, California
Hooray for India Knight. How utterly who sums up the situation most brilliantly.
I know this is a side issue, but Jack Straws remarks are awful. This government has reduced political debate to the 'lowest common denominator' and they want to dumb down our culture as well. How embarassing for Jack Straw that he couldn't read a Rushdie book - it's just like Blair saying that at 50 he thought it was "about time he got into classical music." Cultural ignorance and philistinism should be frowned upon and not encouraged.
Twenty years ago a politician would have been embarassed to admit he couldn't read a book. Now it seems to be good currency. I'm ashamed of our politicians: presumably the same people responsible for Shakespeare being taught in bite-size 'excerpts'.
Simon Funnell, London, UK
I see no reason for Rushdie not to be honoured in this way, except that he's a crap writer. If you want to find out why, just read David Mitchell or Glen Duncan.
Rotwatcher, CHELTENHAM,
before he got to cocky and decided to attack Islam Rushdie spent much of his time attacking Britain,a much softer target..He hasn't an ounce of loyalty and gratitude,I personally resent the fact that protecting this enemy cost the tax payer millions,
john baird, london,
"Brown is a sort of rich monkey with a typewriter"
Brilliant. Next to Stephen Fry's opinion that Brown writes of "arse gravy of the worse kind", this is one of the best descriptions of Brown's writing.
Your article itself, Miss Knight, is excellent. I couldn't agree more.
Theena, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Great article, India
Mohammed, Paris, France, who earlier wrote,
"for Saudi Arabia churns out thousands of religious scholars every year.
USA churns out thousands of hollywood films every year."
Obviously Saudia Arabia and Hollywood are both great at producing huge quantities of fiction, eh?
Tony G, London, UK
I have no idea about Salman Rushdie as and author, nor about the merits or content of The Satanic Verse and have heard differing opinions as to the merits or otherwise.
Nevertheless, the govbernment in the name of Her Majesty, has seen fit to award one of her subjects this honour which is her right as the head of state and no other nation, friendly or hostile, has the right to take issue with this as we shoud not have with their decisions regarding their nationals.
Alex, London, England
"if people who seek to impose their grotesque distortion of Islam on their unfortunate peoples will insist on making these inane pronouncements, they might at least do so with a degree of calm and a semblance of rationality"
This is either disingenuous or naive. Muslims are routinely beaten, tortured and killed for apostasy, and these acts upheld by Islamic courts. Rushdie touches such a sensitive nerve because not only does he commit a flagrant blasphemy by dissecting Islam's claims of delivering up a "perfect" religious code via its sole prophet; rather, he does so with exquisite relish as both a free Westerner and apostate, thereby precluding any chance of Muslim religious authorities forcibly returning him to the world Islamic community.
Paul, Columbia, USA
The order of "fatwa" issued by the Islamic fundamentalists to annihilate Salman Rushdie , if not physically but at least morally, to down and drown his creative spirits, clearly shows the tunnel vision and narrow minded approach of Muslim clerics. Are they not impinging or tresspassing into one privacy and right of freedom to express . It has been good long eighteen odd years , to quarantine or ostracize a personality from free public appearance, especially in the Islamic world . I had the privelege to read the banned book and still hold it as a prized possession. Though I shall never be able to pen down my literary views on its contents, be it objectionable or blasphemous, but as a free citizen of this world, it pains my heart to see such parochial and hypocritical approach of a few mind sets. Let matters of creative arts and literature be not ruled by the diktats of so called sacrosant, 'holier-than-thou' religious ethics.Why blame Muslims, even saffron brigade hindus do the same.
Witty, New Delhi, India
An excellent India Knight column.
Will miracles never cease?
David T, London, UK
Would India knight be in favour of free speech for abu Hamza as well? or for the "extremist muslim preachers" she talks about.
Free speech carries with it a responsibility. It is not free fro freedom's sake. Rushdie has done nothing to add to any discourse about multiculturalism. His gift to society has been trouble about a piece of nonsensical fiction.
As a taxpayer why should I have to pay for his protection? If the author and her fellow Rushdie supporters love him so much why don't you put your money where your mouth is and foot his security bill everytime he comes to the UK?
akram, London,
I agree that we should not be beholden to those with extreme agendas as to what we do or do not do - especially in the award of knighthoods (for what they are worth today).
I do not know why Rushdie was given a knighthood - India says it is because he is a brilliant writer (debateable and obviously India must be more intelligent than me to have finished one of his books!) and secondly, it is to stand up for a right to free speech. I'm not the first to point this out, but why did we not not give one to say, Bernard Manning, if this is an overiding factor - he was funnier than Rushdie.
Stephen_R, Belfast,
Excellent ! Well said.
Gary, Twickenham, UK
Leave Dan Brown alone. I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code and I may be the only person in the world who will admit to that. I read somewhere that he made around £ 70 million out of the book. If that's the work of a monkey, I'm going on a diet of bananas.
Marie-Louise, Brussels,
Well done India, particulalrly for arguing against the philistines (not the best term in this context)who say they've never read or been able to follow Rushdie's book.
What sort of proof does Mike want? Many literary commentators think Rushdie is a great writer.
John, London,
Mr Straw's remarks impressed me as ambiguous or evasive at best, and obsequious at worst; Ms Knight has done a public service in pointing this out, as in the rest of her firm and principled editorial piece.
S.J. Schneider, Bordeaux, France
80% Christians are only Christians by name/birth
80% Muslims are very serious about their religion (They'll die for it)
You can't compare Vaticans response to that of Islamic worlds (who take their religion very seriously)
Saudi Arabia churns out thousands of religious scholars every year.
USA churns out thousands of hollywood films every year.
Mohammed, Paris, France
I think that we should recall the context of Khomeini's fatwa; he issued it after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, a war which both sides lost. Khomeini said that signing the peace agreement was like 'eating poison'---so what did he do? He created a diversion by manufacturing outrage about a novel. Muslims inside and outside Iran were diverted from honest reflections on a terrible war (more than a million dead) by a spurious outrage.
Diotima, London, UK
I heartily agree. The reaction to this book has always been out of proportion but it's easy to forget that not all Muslims care about the Satanic Verses...
Sadia, London,
Well done India Knight, I couldn'nt agree with you more. It has always been the belief of many that the more you give in to those people then the more they want., It is a matter of shame for those Politicians who are scared to death to speak the truth about the direction Islam is taking and what damage it can do in the future, not only for Britain,and the West but the whole World.
My message to them is simply ( wakey wakey ) before it is too late.
Chris Jaggo, Stockton-on-Tees, UK
Exactly what needed to be said, well done India.
Reactions like this are what keeps Islam in the spotlight as an intolerant, childish and ridiculous religion, which it patently isn't. I'd love to see the Queen pour petrol onto the blazing inferno and make Rushdie the new King or something, just to see what happened, but I think leaving it alon will be just as effective. We have been losing at the great game of chicken with extremists for far too long, and if we hold our nerve just once, maybe, just maybe, they'll grow up and not blow us up?
JB, Chaldon, UK
I couldn't disagree more: Blair, a low-level Tory? Good heavens, the man's blue all the way through. Everything else in Knight's article, though, is spot on.
I find Reid's dane-geld offensive. Must start a fatwha against him.
Derek Smith, Brighton, UK
Hi!
I am a member of Opus Dei, and whilst I agree that I would not think it approppriate to lynch Dan Brown, I do object to being called super-creepy!
Just because I try to live the tenets of my faith does not make me some terrorist-anarchist-arch conservative fundamentalist!!
Olali, London, UK
I think the UK government full well knows the effect this knighthood would have on the Moslem world...so why further inflame the divide...is there a hidden agenda to keep this so called "Clash of the civilisations" on the front burner, so that politicians, and defence contractors can profit ????....;and as Mike from Malaga has said, truly great writers exist outside the govt's fold...and then why not grant Dan Brown a knighthood as well...!!!
Bob, Davie, USA
Hooray for India Knight.We must not apologize for upholding the values of western democracy.To do so is weak and confused.
frances , Tunbridge Wells, uk
Brilliant! I believe Sir Salman himself has said " If freedom of speech does not mean freedom to offend then what the hell does it mean? " [ Or words to that effect ].
It's my favourite quote.
If you truly belief in freedom of speech you must accept the expression of opinions with which you not only disgree, but which you find repulsive. But the best way to extinguish daffy ideas is to allow them to be expressed. Otherwise they fester, unexamined and unrebutted.
james, Canberra, Australia
One of the most sensible analyses of the situation to date.
Josie, Leeds, UK
Let's forget about the radical muslim reaction for a moment. Rushdie is a brilliant writer? What proof are we offered for this view?
The really great writers are never offered a knighthood because they never fall in with any government's programme.
Mike, Malaga, Spain
Thank you India Knight for bringing some ratonality to all this. And shame on those politicians who toady to extremist muslims here and abroad. I'm pleased I live in a democracy and not under Sharia law.
Mike C, Fulham, London, UK
Well put , India Knight. The mindless, insecure rabble who bay for Rushdie's blood remind me of the sheep-like crowds in "Life of Brian". They would be hilarious if the weren't so dangerous!
Peter Ozanne, waterford, ireland
It seems to me, that this knighthood is not a celebration of literature etc, it is obviously an insult to the muslim world. I also despise the extremists, but to insult them in this underhand way is not the path to peace and love.
shona Pollock, london, UK
This is an excellent riposte to the Islamic extremists who seek to impose their barbarous values of repression and intolerance on the civilized world.
Matthew H. Kramer, Cambridge, England
Indeed. Very well said. It's nice to see that some right-minded people are expressing their opinion as well. I was, for instance, absolutely furious when I read a piece by Oliver Miles, in which he wrote:
"Or rather it is only our concern if there is a feeling around that he deserves an honour because he has suffered for his art. I would argue that the suffering was self-invited."
Self-invited...
I remember thinking: Yeah right - you are just like that Australian mullah who claimed that when a woman gets raped it's her fault. (For when you leave uncovered meat out in the street, who can blame those poor, defenceless cats for being tempted to partake of it.)
Self-invited or uncovered meat: it's all the same, disgusting and distorted thing: Chamberlain and his bloody umbrella again, when only contempt and condemnation fit.
In a way the appeasers are more despicable than the mad mullahs and suicide bombers. Insanity is a time-honoured defence in the courts of law; complicity is not.
Jan, Prague, Czech republic
Does anyone have any doubt whatsoever that the more we pander to extremists the more they will demand? To believe otherwise is tantamount to hiding one's head in the sand.
Marin, London, UK
Well said India
sue, canada, canada
This has got to be the most stupid thing the head of the British Empire has ever done. A little pat on the back might be fine but putting Rushdie in a class with Ringo Starr is just plain goofy. But it is a nice way to thumb your nose at thousands of muslims around the world and show that the Empire is still there.
RAS, Bangkok, Thailand