Agora

This is a translation of a piece by Helle Merete Brix for Sappho in Denmark. It was recently published in Weekendavisen also. This is taken from the Sappho edition. The [NUMBER] tags are mine.

The Satanic Precedent of the Muhammed Cartoons

To the last detail, the events of the Muhammed cartoons issue seem to follow the same script as the events sorrounding Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses”.

By Helle Merete Brix

How is it that 12 cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed published in a Danish newspaper can lead to a fatwa, threats from Al-Qaeda, diplomatic crisis, massive boycott of Danish goods and flag burnings in the West Bank? How can 12 cartoons get the Moslem World to jump on Jyllands-Posten and the Danish Prime Minister? To understand the dramatic developments of the Muhammed cartoons issue, it may be enlightening to recollect the case of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses.

The turmoil surrounding the novel, which Moslems claim says that the prophet Muhammed made up the Quran himself, and which, for example, describes a brothel wherein the whores are named after the wives of Muhammed, began in September of 1988 in India. The book had yet to be published in Great Britain.

But Rushdie, a British citizen born to a Moslem Family of Bombay, had been interviewed for two Indian Magazines, India Today and Sunday, alongwhich excerpts and reviews of the book were brought.

Two Moslem Members of Parliament, Syed Shahbuddin and Khursid Alem Khan, didn’t like what they read and started a campaign to have the book banned from India. They succeded. It was also Syed Shahbuddin who spoke the famous words, acknowledging that he hadn’t read the book and wasn’t about to: “I do not have to wade through a filthy drain to know what filth is.”[1]

At the beginning of October, the controversy reached Great Britain. A fax had been sent from an islamic organisation in Madras to Faiazuddin Ahmad at The Islamic Foundation of Leicester, to this day the stronghold of the radical islamist party Jamaat-e-Islamia in the West. This is the same party that in November of last year put a price on the heads of the Danish Muhammed cartoonists. Ahmad bought the book, read it and was appaled. He copied the offensive passages and sent them to other islamist organisation in Great Britain.

On October 7, several copies were passed to the embassies of Moslem nations in London. The Saudi government made the case their own and a couple of Saudi London newspapers wrote why the book was offensive. Ahmad was invited to Jeddah and received the support of the Saudis for a campaign against the book. But the weeks passed and most Moslem countries showed no particular interest and neglected to ban the book.

In the meantime, the campaign against The Satanic Verses gained support among British Moslems. The publisher of the book, Viking Press, was contacted in an attempt to halt the presses. But Viking Press, who would turn out to be one of the few heroes of the Rushdie case, rejcted then as later any and all demands for Moslem censorship.

The Book Burnings Begin
At the end of October 1988, a Moslem umbrella organisation in Great Britain moved to have the book banned under the English blasphemy law. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had to turn down the Moslems: “There are no grounds on which Government could consider banning the book.”

At this time, death threats started happening to Rushdie as a matter of daily routine. When he left his home, he was often accompanied by a bodyguard. Problems had started in the USA and South Africa. Viking Press in the USA received two bomb threats. And, following pressure from Moslem groups, the Congress of South African Writers decided decided to cancel Salman Rushdie’s visit to South Africa at the last minute.

In Bolton, near Manchester, Moslem groups had grown frustrated that government support was lacking in getting the book banned. To make matters worse, The Satanic Verses was awarded the Whitbread award for best work of fiction in November. A ritual book burning of The Satanic Verses was staged at the beginning of December. About 7000 Moslems participated, but the press paid scant attention to the event.

On January 14, 1989, the next book burning occured. It took place in Bradford, which even at that time had a large Moslem community. Only 1000 Moslems participated but this time the Moslems received support from non-Moslems, including local politicians and the Bishop of Bradford. This support helped getting the media’s attention. TV showed the book burning on the end of a stick.

The debate now became hot in the media and on January 29, 1989, 8000 Moslems marched in London protesting Salman Rushdie and his book. At this point, the seriousness of the matter must have dawned on Salman Rushdie since he realeased a statement to the press in which he assured that he was a good Moslem and that he saw Muhammed as one of the great geniuses of world history. He also made clear that his book was not anti-religious. But to no avail. The monstrosities had only just commenced.

Enter Khomeini
In Islamabad in Pakistan 10000 people marched on the American Center on February 12, presumably to protest the upcoming release of The Satanic Verses in the USA. Shouting “American Dogs” and “Allah is Greater”, the mob tried to enter the Center with the purpose of torching it. A guard was killed, becoming one of six casualties that day. The Police crushed the demonstration and about 100 were injured. Rushdie accused the leaders of the demonstration of using the issue to further their own agenda and the United States Ambassador to Pakistan voiced his suspicion that Iranian or Libyan money financed the protestors.

Next day in Srinagar in India, one was killed and 60 injured during demonstrations. “That very night,” writes the Historian and Expert on the Middle East Daniel Pipes in his excellent book The Rushdie Affair, from which most of the examples in this article have been taken, “the matter was taken out of the hands of the protestors in the street and taken to the national, political, level.” That night Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had come to power through the Islamic Revolution in Iran 10 years earlier, decided to issue a death sentence to anyone connected to the dissemination of The Satanic Verses.

It is likely that Khomeini heard of the dramatic unrest in Pakistan via the little transistor radio which, according to to his daughter Zahara Mustafavi, he has with him at all times even during Ramadan and holidays. On February 14, 1989, Khomeini issued an appeal “In His name, high beyond high” for all zealous Moslems to act to end the life of Rushdie and everyone connected to the publication of the book. None should fear to become executioner or victim in carrying out this task because “whoever is killed on this path will be regarded as a martyr.” To make the task seem more attractive, an Iranian charitable organisation offered a large sum of money for the mothers of the martyrs.

Rushdie heard of the fatwa through a telephone call from the BBC. At noon February 14 he was discussing the threat in the media.[2] He was given maximum protection by the police. He also participated in a wake for the writer Bruce Chatwin. The writer Paul Thereaux was worried for Rushdie and whispered in his ear as they left the church: “Keep your head down, Salman”. Rushdie laughed and diappeared into a car which whisked him away to his safe house. That was to be his last public appearance before he, to everybody’s surprise, appeared on stage at a U2 concert on Wembley Stadion four years later.

Rushdie, the Apostate
Iranian, Libyan and Palestinian groups strongly supported Khomeini’s fatwa. The Iranian president Khamenei announced on February 17, 1989, that absolution might be possible for Rushdie if he repented. The next day Rushdie issued an apology. But just as is the case with the Muhammed cartoons, Rushdie apologised the effect the book had had, but not that he had written it. The apology therefore had little effect. Furthermore, Ayatollah Khomeini in announcement of February 19 made it crystal clear that even should Rushdie repent and become the most pious of Moslems, the death sentence would still stand.

At the end of February 1989, Moslems everywhere in Europe were protesting against Rushdie. 1500 turned out for a demonstration in Place de la République in Paris, shouring “death to Rushdie”. In Der Haag 5000 gathered in front of the Ministry of Justice, burning effigies of the book and pictures of Rushdie. 10000 demonstrated in New York and in May of the same year 15000 British Moslems in Parliament Square demanded that Rushdie be sentenced according to Islamic law. It is reported that this demonstration was sponsored by Iran to the tune of millions.

1000 Moslems marched in Osle and 2000, mostly Pakistanis and some Turks, in Copenhagen. An Imam from the Islamic Culture Centre demanded “revenge”.

Since Khomeini maintained his fatwa, EU-members had to react. They withdrew their representatives from Teheran, though with the exception of the French, German and British diplomats, they had all returned a month later. The British government withdrew all its personnel from Tehran and demanded that all the Iranian representatives leave Great Britain. A number of civilian Iranians were also expelled. But, peculiarly, diplomatic relations were not broken. Instead, “reciprocity at zero” was insisted upon. In this way, Great Britain wanted to signal that if the fatwa was withdrawn, normal relations would be built back up.

Instead, Iran on March 7, 1989, broke off all diplomatic relations with Great Britain. This was done with a shockingly belligerent statement which said, among other things, that “in the past two centuries Britain has been in the frontline of plots and treachery against Islam and Muslims.” A leading figure of Iranian politics, Ali Akbar Rajsanjani, then speaker of parliament, followed up the statement by saying that “[when Muslims read this book], they will not see a mad Indian behind it; they will see Britain, Germany, France, and the United States.” As in the case of the Muhammed cartoons, overly false information was in abundance. To paraphrase a few examples, an Iranian scholar of the law said that Rushdie called Muhammed a homosexual. A French Moslem explained that Rushdie had asserted that any faithful Moslem is a bastard.

In March, Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe went on the BBC World Service to show foreign listeners that the government wished to distance itself from Rushdie. [3]Howe explained that the public understood that the book itself had been found deeply offensive by Moslems, that it was generally disliked, but that no limits would be placed on Freedom of Speech. Shortly thereafter Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made similar remarks. The Iranians weren’t impressed by these statements; on the whole they only made the West seem weak and wavering.

In general, clear statements of support for Rushdie were far between from Western heads of state and politicians. France authored a few salutative exceptions: President Francois Mitterand called the threats against Rushdie and his publishers “absolute evil.”[4] Laurent Fabius, President of the National Assembly called Khomeini a “murderer”.

Strangely, trade relations between Iran and Great Britain were not terminated. Great Britain continued its import of Iranian oil and Iran continued its import of British goods.

As in the case of the Muhammed cartoons, also the Moslem countries of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) joined the ruckus. This happened on a conference held in Saudi Arabia from the 13th to the 16th of March 1989. Only Libya supported Irans motion to support the fatwa. But a join statement of the OIC strongly condemned The Satanic Verses and called for banning the book and declared that Rushdie was to be regarded as an apostate.

Bombs and Censorship
The book was banned in all Moslem countries but even in Iran illegal copies were circulating. But it was also banned in countries with significant Moslem minorities, such as India, and in countries with only few Moslems, such as Venezuela and Japan, though the book was later translated into Japanese.

Threats and acts of violence were rampant in the West. But no Moslem property was damaged, apart from a Mosque in Great Britain that was hit by a Molotov Cocktail. Instead, politicians, artists and journalists thought to have expressed support for Rushdie, received death threats. Book shops were burned or had protestors marching in front of their windows with placards saying “kill the writer”. In several cases, bombs were detonated in American and British book shops, though no casualties resulted. It had an effect, though, and shops hid the book. And the furore made The Satanic Verses an international bestseller.

Almost no religious leaders came to Rushdie’s aid. Rabbis and Priests were usually busier understanding the hurt sensibilities of the Moslems than they were distancing themselves from barbarian demands that a writer should be killed over a book. Though clear statements of support were heard from individual writers and intellectuals, writer’s guilds and PEN-organisation were hesitant. The Swedish Academy, which awards the Nobel Prize for litterature, issued a nondescript statement supporting Freedom of Speech in general, without mentioning Rushdie by name, which made three of the Academy’s members, Kerstin Ekman, Lars Gyllensten and Werner Aspenström to resign their seats.

A number of Moslem intellectuals came forward in support of Rushdie. In 1993, the book Pour Rushdie was published. It contained 100 short essays from Moslem intellectuals in support of the persecuted writer. The year after it was translated to English as For Rushdie.

Soon lives were claimed by the issue. Khomeini’s death in June of 1989 had no effect. A Belgian Moslem leader who was against the fatwa and his assistant were killed in March of 1989 in a mosque in Brussels.

In the beginning of June 1991, Ettore Capriolo, Rushdie’s Italian translator, was rendered an invalid after he was stabbed in his apartment in Milan.

Less than a forthnight later, Rushdie’s Japanese translator Hitoshi Igarashi, was murdered. To years later, William Nygaard, Rushdie’s Norwegian translator was shot three times in front of his home. He miracuosly survived and the year after he published bengalese writer in exile Taslima Nasrin’s, controversial Shame. That year, 1994, Egyptian Nobel recipient Nagib Mahfouz was stabbed in the street but survived. He had openly declared his support for Rushdie.

Salman Rushdie today lives in New York and is no longer in hiding. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has said that the fatwa is irreversible.

[1] Full sentence: “You are aggrieved that some of us have condemned you without a hearing and asked for the ban without reading your book. Yes, I have not read it, nor do I intend to. I do not have to wade through a filthy drain to know what filth is.”

[2]Rushdie about the Fatwa to the BBC: “It’s horrifying that people are willing to proceed in this way against what is — after all — one novel in the face of the entire history of Islam.”

[3]Full sentence of the one quoted. Geoffrey Howe made to the BBC World Service:: “We understand that the book itself has been found deeply offensive by people of the Muslim faith. It is a book that is offensive in many other ways as well. We can understand why it could be criticized. The British Government, the British people, do not have any affection for the book. The book is extremely critical, rude about us. It compares Britain with Hitler’s Germany. We do not like that any more than the people of the Muslim faith like the attacks on their faith contained in the book. So we are not cosponsoring the book. What we are sponsoring is the right of people to speak freely, to publish freely.”

[4]Then-President Francois Mitterand: “All dogmatism that through violence undermines freedom of thought and the right to free expression is, in my view, absolute evil. The moral and spiritual progress of humanity is linked to the recoil from all fanaticisms.”