As the “Satanic Verses Affair” was ramping up, an influential Muslim spokesperson approached Salman Rushdie with a request that the author put a notification on the cover of The Satanic Verses that this was a novel, and that the story was fiction and not fact. The disappointed spokesperson later complained that despite his having approached Rushdie politely, the author had angrily rejected his most reasonable request.
One can well imagine how offensive this request would have been to Rushdie, and I, for one, was surprised by his restraint. Anyone who needs to have it explained that a novel is a work of fiction obviously doesn’t read novels. Rushdie wrote his novel for people who read novels, not for people who do not read novels. Also keep in mind that the people whose sensibilities the spokesperson was so anxious to protect tend not to read anything and are generally unable to differentiate between fiction and lies, especially in the written word. More tellingly, the people who rioted in the streets and burnt The Satanic Verses on the public square, whether in England, Pakistan, South Africa or elsewhere, not only had not read the book, but were practically illiterate. Why were they rioting about something that they could not possibly have read?
Whatever was in the book that could have incited them to mob violence was brought to them by someone who could read, having extracted exactly those words and sentences that would do the job. The story was irrelevant. No warning label would have cut any ice. The point was the malicious reporting of words; the malicious harnessing of words for a purpose other than that intended by their author.
Of course, Salman Rushdie could have put a warning label on the cover of his book, as the “reasonable Muslim” had requested. He could have anticipated the request and done so before he was asked. He could have placed himself in the minds of the Muslim illiterates (he is, after all, a novelist) and omitted those parts that they would find offensive. He could even have refrained from writing the novel in the first place, and all this trouble would have been spared. He had a variety of self-censorship options to choose from. Except…
The people who took offence had never read the book, and if offered it to read so they could judge for themselves (in the rare cases where they actually could read), would back away in fear. It was a book that contained something that could infect you. How did they know? Someone who had wanted them to riot told them so.
Censorship is about controlling access to ideas, but it is also about manipulation through controlled access to words. The Satanic Verses became an “Affair” when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his notorious fatwa making it incumbent on every Muslim to murder Salman Rushdie. It was Valentine’s Day, 1989.
A few days ago, the well-respected Jihad Watch writer Hugh Fitzgerald wrote a fictional “Palestinian” account, Israel Helps Palestinians Contain the Coronavirus — Or Is It Another Zionist Trick? (Part 1) and (Part 2) of a Greek tour group vacating a Bethlehem hotel after staff at the hotel tested positive for the coronavirus. It was a good spoof, although it was far too coherent to have been the work of a Jew-hating Palestinian (a dead giveaway).
At the end of the spoof, Fitzgerald says, “This story is, of course, preposterous. But I fully expect some Muslims somewhere to come up with such a fantasy, so I thought I’d beat them to the punch.” Of course this is true, but it is also unfortunate that it should be pointed out, for it in fact amounts to an apology and suggests that the author might have been a little conflicted about his spoof, anticipating his readers taking it the wrong way. It is a great story creatively and humorously handled. We read in order to expand and enrich ourselves, not to remain where we are and insist on impoverishing the writer. If you read only what you already know, then what is the point?
It would seem that several readers, even if they did not take it the wrong way, nonetheless felt compelled, no doubt with the best of intentions, to advise the author that it might have been better to put a warning up front, so the reader knew it wasn’t “real,” as there would no doubt be those who would, intentionally or in error, take the text to be an actual report, and put it about as truth. This would be precisely the wrong thing to have done (in truth, Fitzgerald did put a warning up front, thankfully easily missed: “There is, however, one conspiracy theory that is true. I know this, because it’s my very own”).
I find myself at odds with those readers who have put such a suggestion to the author. Had Fitzgerald placed a (more obvious) warning note on his writing, he would have censored himself, neutering his chosen literary form, the spoof, by drawing its sting, just as Rushdie would have neutered his novel by drawing its sting with a warning label.
The only people who would have needed such a warning would be those who had no idea what a spoof was, who, presumably, were not the readers Fitzgerald had in mind. Should such people come across the text, amongst them might well be those who would quote the text elsewhere either innocently or with malicious intent. An author cannot be held responsible for how his or her words might be misused or abused. The fault lies with the abuser. Those who do so innocently have simply misunderstood the text. It happens everyday.
But those readers who appreciate the spoof would also have been denied the slow reveal and anticipation of layered references characteristic of this art form, thereby censoring also Fitzgerald’s own readers in what they may read.
The Persian philosopher Abu Yusuf Yaqub al-Kindi counselled:
“We ought not to be embarrassed of appreciating the truth and of obtaining it wherever it comes from, even if it comes from races distant and nations different from us. Nothing should be dearer to the seeker of truth than the truth itself, and there is no deterioration of the truth, nor belittling either of one who speaks it or conveys it.”
I would presume to adapt part of Al-Kindi’s wisdom for our purposes here:
“We ought not to be embarrassed of appreciating the truth and of disseminating it to wherever it goes, even if it is taken differently to how we intended.”
I sincerely hope that Fitzgerald is not discouraged in future from flexing his pen as his fancy takes him, and that readers will continue to follow him there.
Long live satire!
tony wilson says
as far as i am concerned Mr Rushdie was an opportunist who wanted to cash in on the iranian revolution backlash here in the west. In my opinion therefore Mr Rushdie was out to make some money and a name for himself, NO I reject any notion that it was any type of warning or teaching about islam that we should know. It is true in the masjid lectures i used to attend the sheik did say muhammad was sinless, this contradicts muhammad as he is reported, in Islamic sources, to admit this in tafsir.
Any one who studies or is involved in islamic outreach will know this. I spent 10 years taking to muslims about christianity, i am very much a supporter of Jihad watch, Jamie Glazov and Tommy Robinson for speaking out against radical islam. However I am fan of those who use ‘radicals’ for their own ends regardless. Mr Rushdie is not Geert Wilders
tony wilson says
This should read ,However I am no fan of those who use ‘radicals’ for their own ends regardless. Mr Rushdie is not Geert Wilders
My apologies
Ray Jarman says
I suggest that you read Satanic Verses before criticizing it or Salmon Rushdie. I guess that pointing out the misery of the poor in London during Charles Dickens’ times, he should not have written Nicholas Nickleby or Oliver Twist since the novels brought shame on the upper-class of the time.
tony wilson says
The question is ‘Intent’. Intent to educate or make money? I say his intent was to cash in! Read the book absolutely not, I do not support such people. Now I will say I agree with you the Quran cannot be updated, the Bible is the truth.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
as far as i am concerned Mr Rushdie was an opportunist who wanted to cash in on the iranian revolution backlash here in the west. In my opinion therefore Mr Rushdie was out to make some money and a name for himself…
I read Satanic Verses soon after the affair started. First, the guy writes beautiful prose. Sometimes the meaning or art criticism terms escape me, but the word lyrical certainly fit in the case of that novel. What struck me is how the book didn’t insult Islam; it seemed to fairly easy on such an ugly thing.
Later I read Haroun and a Sea of Stories, a short book but just as beautifully written. It had an emotional effect on me that Satanic Verses did not. And then more books by him after that.
I don’t know about Rushdie’s motive or his financial situation, but with every book he adds value to the world. And art.
SKA says
The book was originally a financial stinker. Much of it went straight over the heads of people not acquainted with Islam e.g. the city of “Jahiliya” built entirely of sand. The name Makhund which rhythms with “Akhound” a derogatory term for a Mullah in Persian or Urdu. In fact the Saudis wee secretly negotiating with the publisher to buy up the literary rights to the book so they could administer literary euthanasia to it.
But it was the Ayatullah Khomeini who made the book a commercial success by banning it and anathematizing the author. Hundreds of thousands now bought the book in defiance of Khomeini though they still probably did not get its satires nor necessarily enjoy the story line.
However the subsequent stabbing and murders of translators and publishers and firebombings of bookstores carrying the book brought a real chill to Western societies. Those who previously regarded Islam with an indulgent disdain then started to fear it. I believe it was from this time forward that journalists and academics began to treat Islam with kid gloves fearful of the dagger.
Fakhreddin al Razi once noted that the Assassins had their own arguments both “pointed and weighty.” The pointed “arguments” were their daggers. The weighty ones were purses of gold. Today the western media and academia are both cowardly and swayed by gain. For potential critics there is the threat of murder but for collaborators like the Carter Center and the various Middle East Study centers there are financial grants and incentives to silence any critical voices. The combination of threat and bribery has been too effective in silencing criticism.
James Lincoln says
SKA,
Many thanks for that background information.
gravenimage says
All true, SKA.
I wasn’t sure whether I was going to buy The Satannic Verses when it first came out–it had gotten rather mixed reviews.
Then some thug firebombed our favorite bookstore, Cody’s in Berkeley, which had a full-window display of the book. My boyfriend (now husband) and I bought a copy each, something we seldom do even now.
LR says
SKA…Yes, thanks for your posting. Very well stated.
It is crushing to see how cowardly academia, as well as others have become in regards to being critical of Jihad ideology, and murder. I remember some of the Rushdie affair, but what happened after the Charlie Hebdo murders was sickening.. Only one publisher (that I know of) had the guts to reprint some cartoons, everyone else stuck their tails between their legs.
Theresa Powers says
Rushdie is NOT an opportunist at all. He had the right to publish the truth about Islam you fool. And IT is perfectly alright that he made money for himself and It is also great that he became famous for exposing the Muslims. You’re no Christian you fool. You are a slanderous fool, But what YOU really are I can’t post. Just know that you are nothing but a bottom feeding reptile.
tony wilson says
Thanks for the compliment, however I said his ‘intent’ was for money not education about islam, read my replies. Remember ‘intent’! yes people do good BUT for their own gratification not any one else, ask yourself about the timing of the release of the book?
What has he done since? Has he helped people understand Islam and why it is a retrograde belief?? If you are not from the UK, you should know that Islam is being treated as race NOT a religion. A parliamentary committee looked into Islam and said it was a race! Though not passed into law many left wing councils have adopted this recommendation! So be warned your reply could be deemed racist! Yes no jokes WHERE was Mr Rushdie? Denouncing this writing against these fools? No very silent! Islam is a foul religion which I stand against, I do not stand against Muslims but their misguide understanding that the Q’ran is correct and that the warlord and murderer mohammed is some type of role model.
There is only one role model Jesus Christ one truth found in the Bible, there are no other options
But once again thanks for the compliment
gravenimage says
tony wilson wrote:
Thanks for the compliment, however I said his ‘intent’ was for money not education about islam, read my replies. Remember ‘intent’! yes people do good BUT for their own gratification not any one else, ask yourself about the timing of the release of the book?
…………………………..
Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses in 1988. despite what “tony wilson” has implied here, there is no reason to think that this was specifically aimed at the Mullahs or Iran, nine years after the “Islamic revolution” there.
Then, the idea that no one should be allowed to write unless they are putting out tony wilson’s exact view of Islam is grotesque. (not that he has made clear just what that view is, in any case–his posts rather contradict themselves.).
More:
What has he done since? Has he helped people understand Islam and why it is a retrograde belief?? If you are not from the UK, you should know that Islam is being treated as race NOT a religion. A parliamentary committee looked into Islam and said it was a race! Though not passed into law many left wing councils have adopted this recommendation! So be warned your reply could be deemed racist! Yes no jokes WHERE was Mr Rushdie?
…………………………..
Actually, both Rushdie’s writing and his awful experiences has taught people a great deal about Islam. And the implication that Rushdie ever said that Islam is a race is *quite* mistaken.
More:
Denouncing this writing against these fools? No very silent! Islam is a foul religion which I stand against, I do not stand against Muslims but their misguide understanding that the Q’ran is correct and that the warlord and murderer mohammed is some type of role model.
There is only one role model Jesus Christ one truth found in the Bible, there are no other options
But once again thanks for the compliment
…………………………..
Again, this pretty much contradicts what this poster wrote earlier here.
Note–again–that “tony wilson” has *nothing* to day against Muslims murdering peaceful authors and publishers–but he has a lot to say against Rushdie’s daring to write. Very troubling stuff.
Koosemo says
Rushdie is a superb novelist.
And, yes, he writes to make a living. So have some respect for talent.
tony wilson says
Respect for talent?? Not when its used for mischief!
yiyoya says
Mischief? LOL! What greater mischief, what greater evil has been written than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Marx’s Communist Manifesto, and Mohammed’s Koran?
What are you trying to say? Don’t make fun of Mein Kampf, you’ll upset Nazis. Don’t make fun of the Communist Manifesto, you might upset commies. Don’t make fun of Mohammed and his Koran, or you’ll make the muslims angry?
You must be a Muslim.
gravenimage says
Note “tony wilson’s” use of the term “mischief”. This comes straight from the Qur’an, where penalty for “creating mischief in the land”–that is, saying anything at all critical of the horrors of Islam–is crucifixion or cutting off limbs on opposite sides. *Ugh*.
Note–again–that he does not consider threatening to murder peaceful authors to be mischief. *Disgusting*.
gravenimage says
tony wilson wrote:
as far as i am concerned Mr Rushdie was an opportunist who wanted to cash in on the iranian revolution backlash here in the west.
…………………………….
Salman Rushdie was born in India, and has lived in the UK and United States. He holds dual British and American citizenship. The idea that he wrote the Satanic Verses in order to specifically attract murderous attention from the vicious Mullahs in Iran makes no sense at all. There is nothing in the book about Iran or the Mullahs.
More:
In my opinion therefore Mr Rushdie was out to make some money and a name for himself,
…………………………….
Part of the motive in almost any author in writing a book–unless they write anonymously–is to make money and a name for themselves.
That “tony wilson” finds this abhorrent but has no problem with savages murdering peaceful authors is *very* telling. *Ugh*.
More:
NO I reject any notion that it was any type of warning or teaching about islam that we should know.
…………………………….
Then don’t read the book. The idea that Muslims have the right to determine–*by murderous force*–what others are allowed to read is repulsive.
More:
It is true in the masjid lectures i used to attend the sheik did say muhammad was sinless, this contradicts muhammad as he is reported, in Islamic sources, to admit this in tafsir.
Any one who studies or is involved in islamic outreach will know this. I spent 10 years taking to muslims about christianity, i am very much a supporter of Jihad watch, Jamie Glazov and Tommy Robinson for speaking out against radical islam. However I am fan of those who use ‘radicals’ for their own ends regardless. Mr Rushdie is not Geert Wilders
…………………………….
Anyone who considers a warlord, pedophile, slaver, rapist, and mass murderer “sinless” is pretty sick.
As for “tony wilson” being a big supporter of Jihad Watch, this seems pretty iffy. I have never noticed him posting here over the last 14 years–but he is happy to show up and spout apologia for his foul coreligionists plotting to murder a peaceful author and actually murdering his publisher and Japanese translator.
And what has “tony wilson” said to Christians about Islam? More Taqiyya?
More:
The question is ‘Intent’. Intent to educate or make money? I say his intent was to cash in! Read the book absolutely not, I do not support such people. Now I will say I agree with you the Quran cannot be updated, the Bible is the truth.
…………………………….
Few novelists write to educate–that is not the prime purpose of most novels, even ones with moral aspects. That “tony wilson” believes he has the right to threaten writers who don’t adhere to his views is just sickening–but this is true of virtually *all* Muslims.
Ray Jarman says
G. I., Not is Rushdie a great writer, like all novelists of the past and the present, writing is his profession and for Tony Wilson to besmirch him for earning a living is despicable.
tony wilson says
Really the £1,000,000 per year protection paid for by UK taxpayer – now that is despicable maybe he will pay the taxpayer back??
gravenimage says
Note that tony wilson considers protecting a writer from being murdered by Jihadists to be “despicable”. Yes–so much better if we all just bow to the demands of murderous Shari’ah.
Is this poster still pretending that he supports Jihad Watch?
gravenimage says
Agreed, Ray. Of course, this is true whether Rushdie is to one’s personal tastes or not.
LR says
toni wilson – You are an evil person who does NOT believe in free speech.
You wish to see Rushdie murdered. You evil sicko.
LB says
If I got this right, you’re gripe with Rushdie is the fact that his book sucks and is only written for money, correct? Well there are a few problems with that point of view.
First of all, novels are literary art form, and art is purely subjective. There is almost nothing objective about art. So whether you yourself think the book is good or bad is completely irrelevant to the rest of the world.
Second, I am almost 100% certain that there is no novelist in history who DIDN’T write with the intention of his work being recognized by the world, and consequentially, getting large amounts of money and social status from it. So your claim that Rushdie did it only for money can be applied to pretty much every other novelist who ever lived.
And third, even if you disregard all of the above, you can’t ignore the fact that Rushdie exposed the vanity and ultra low IQ of the muslim hive mind, which is exactly what the people you claim to be a fan of (Robert Spencer, Jamie Glazov, Tommy Robinson, Geert Wilders) do as well. So I fail to see how that poses a problem for you. Unless you’re a taqqiya-practicing muslim, that is.
Ray Jarman says
++++++++++++1
gravenimage says
Good [points, LB.
Steve says
Idiotic “concern” you have at every level, but I’ll only mention the first. Of course Rushdie wanted to make a buck, a dollar, a profit…what f’ing writer doesn’t? The worst being so called “scholars” who as you elude to, should be giving away their garbage they call textbooks to the colleges they teach at and pass on to the others. But at an average of $200-400 per text book, per class, someone, perhaps even the writer, was looking to make a profit, and in their cases, an obscene profit for putting out mostly garbage today. Save your opportunistic crap, no one with half a brain wants to hear it.
LR says
toni wilson could care less about any ‘intent’. That’s just a manipulative pretext for trying to get under people’s skin on this issue. Wouldn’t be surprised if he does this all over the place on the net.
He’s just a weird little troll, who likes to be nasty.
Ray Jarman says
I first read “Satanic Verses” as a result of the noise raised against the book. I enjoyed it but having very little knowledge of Islam and I had not (even though I was ignorant of that fact) read about the origins of the satinic verses as it pertained to Muhammad. After having read the unholy Qur’an, I reread the book and this time I really saw the humour that Rushdie wrote, especially pertaining to the caravan led by a religious zealot woman to their destruction or the humour of the house of ill repute but the storyline about the two men who survived the plane crash and the change in their lives was the most interesting. I see little difference in Rushdie’s highlighting the absurdities of Islam and Ibsen’s critique of Norwegian hypocrisy in his “Enemy of the People” that Muslims only wish to kill the illuminator while the Norwegians modified their ways for the betterment of their communities. In other words, they did not attempt to kill the messenger. Writers and philosophers from the time of Socrates through Hegel in the west have pointed out our faults and have attempted to have us change for the better while no matter how true, even criticism of Islam even from within is, because the Qur’an cannot be modified as the Old Testament has been influenced by Jesus Christ who taught true love for one’s neighbor and of doing the right thing for the sake of doing what is right rather than reward.
Rarely says
Conspiracy Theories vis-a-vie Israel are so common and, in most cases, so ridiculous that only the most ignorant and superstitious could possibly believe them. For example, the accusation that the Mossad had trained sharks to attack beaches in Egypt to harm Egypt’s tourist industry. Also the accusation that Israel was exporting blue jeans that had been treated with a chemical to cause impotence to Egypt.
That they are idiotic to the extreme does not mean that they are benign. They are used by the most evil of people to build hatred among the most gullible. The Protocol of the Elders of Zion is a pretty good example. A pure fabrication by the Tsarist Russian government it has been used endlessly to cause damage and give fuel to a wild myth that Jews have a some sort of plan to control the World.
There are so many of these going around that I didn’t (and still don’t) see much harm in Fitzgerald’s “spoof”. I have speculated on a few also. However, I don’t see it as a good example of clever and/or creative writing and/or journalism. That it could be, and most likely will be, misinterpreted and misquoted leads me to believe that it would have been better not to have been written.
louis meldman says
al-Kindi was an Arab
AleX says
Funny how muzzies take their ‘holey-guacamoley-koran’ seriously and in its literal, jihadic sense, yet they soften up in sophistries when ‘mansplaining’ their bandit prophet’s deviance, abominable sexual predation (Ai’sha’s case included).
Oh, the moral bankruptcy of mohamedans!
gravenimage says
Fiction in a Time of Lies
…………….
Fine piece from Anjuli Pandavar.
‘If Rushdie had caved, it would have made no difference in Muslim reaction, but would indeed have been a virtual apology. Rushdie, of course, has nothing to apologize for.
jca reid says
They can’t handle the Truth!