No More Fanaticism as Usual--One More Rushdie

Now in the theme of another all Rushdie week, Rushdie comments on the sloganization of his name, and the lack of moderate voices in Islam.

He may be an average writer, but I am beginning to really like the guy…

I have copied it in total for those of you who still believe that the New York Times is a Zionist conspiracy since it requires you to register!

By SALMAN RUSHDIE

It’s been quite a week in the wonderful world of Islam.

Nigerian Islam’s encounter with that powerhouse of subversion, the Miss World contest, has been unedifying, to put it mildly. First some of the contestants had the nerve to object to a Shariah court’s sentence that a Nigerian woman convicted of adultery be stoned to death and threatened to boycott the contest — which forced the Nigerian authorities to promise that the woman in question would not be subjected to the lethal hail of rocks. And then Isioma Daniel, a Christian Nigerian journalist, had the effrontery to suggest that if the prophet Muhammad were around today, he might have wanted to marry one of these swimsuit hussies himself.

Well, obviously, that was going too far. True-believing Nigerian Muslims then set about the holy task of killing, looting and burning while calling for Ms. Daniel to be beheaded, and who could blame them? Not the president of Nigeria, who put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the hapless journalist. (Germaine Greer and other British-based feminists, unhappy about Miss World’s decision to move the event to London, preferred to grouse about the beauty contest. The notion that the killers, looters and burners should be held accountable seems to have escaped notice.)

Meanwhile, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hashem Aghajari, a person with impeccable Islamist credentials — a leg lost in battle and a résumé that includes being part of the occupying force that seized the Great Satan’s Tehran embassy back in the revolution’s salad days — languishes under a sentence of death imposed because he criticized the mullahs who run the country. In Iran, you don’t even have to have cheeky thoughts about the prophet to be worthy of being killed. The hearts of true believers are maddened a lot more easily than that. Thousands of young people across the country were immature enough to protest against Mr. Aghajari’s sentence, for which the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, duly rebuked them. (More than 10,000 true believers marched through Tehran in support of hard-line Islam.)

Meanwhile, in Egypt, a hit television series, “Horseman Without a Horse,” has been offering up antiSemitic programming to a huge, eager audience. That old forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” — a document purporting to prove that there really is a secret Jewish plot to take over the world, and which was proved long ago to have been faked by Czar Nicholas II’s secret police — is treated in this drama series as historical fact.

Yes, this is the same Egypt in which the media are rigorously censored to prevent anything that offends the authorities from seeing the light of day. But hold on just a moment. Here’s the series’ star and co-writer, Mohammed Sobhi, telling us that what is at stake is nothing less than free speech itself, and if his lying show “terrified Zionists,” well, tough. He’ll make more programs in the same vein. Now there’s a gutsy guy.

Finally, let’s not forget the horrifying story of the Dutch Muslim woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has had to flee the Netherlands because she said that Muslim men oppressed Muslim women, a vile idea that so outraged Muslim men that they issued death threats against her.

Is it unfair to bunch all these different uglinesses together? Perhaps. But they do have something in common. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was accused of being “the Dutch Salman Rushdie,” Mr. Aghajari of being the Iranian version, Isioma Daniel of being the Nigerian incarnation of the same demon.

A couple of months ago I said that I detested the sloganization of my name by Islamists around the world. I’m beginning to rethink that position. Maybe it’s not so bad to be a Rushdie among other “Rushdies.” For the most part I’m comfortable with, and often even proud of, the company I’m in.

Where, after all, is the Muslim outrage at these events? As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?

At least in Iran the students are demonstrating. But where else in the Muslim world can one hear the voices of the fair-minded, tolerant Muslim majority deploring what Nigerian, Egyptian, Arab and Dutch Muslims are doing? Muslims in the West, too, seem unnaturally silent on these topics. If you’re yelling, we can’t hear you.

If the moderate voices of Islam cannot or will not insist on the modernization of their culture — and of their faith as well — then it may be these so-called “Rushdies” who have to do it for them. For every such individual who is vilified and oppressed, two more, ten more, a thousand more will spring up. They will spring up because you can’t keep people’s minds, feelings and needs in jail forever, no matter how brutal your inquisitions. The Islamic world today is being held prisoner, not by Western but by Islamic captors, who are fighting to keep closed a world that a badly outnumbered few are trying to open. As long as the majority remains silent, this will be a tough war to win. But in the end, or so we must hope, someone will kick down that prison door.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/27/opinion/27RUSH.html

Well, this article has certainly been edifying.

Where does this guy Rushdie get off self-aggrandizing himself?

The guy is a blind idiot!

Let me first off say that I have read some of his articles here and there, but not one of his books completely (only a few extracts - rest, no time), tho I've been meaning to forever.

But this piece just takes the cake!

"Islamists"? What's that please? He has trouble calling a spade a spade? It's like thinking the word "Muslim" has some moderate sane sensible rational servile little connotation to it, and "Islamist" is this big overblown gigantic monster like King Kong.

Heck no. He means Muslim whether he says Islamist or fundamental or raghead or whatever. Anyone who bows to the air on a mat and sways while chanting rote verse is a Muslim bigot for him, only he doesn't want to say it out loud. "Islamist". Nice euphemism Mister Rushdie. Don't make one whit of difference whatsoever. We know what we r to u, u ideology-hopping frog u. Trying to keep "muslims" separated from "islamists" so that u can choke on champagne and caviar at the wonderfully moderate "muslim" hosts party, while pouring literary chitrol all over those "Islamists".

Guff.

And what else. Lemme see.. I 4got...

Haan! This nonsense on what what?? SLOGANIZING his name? HA!!
Ludicrocity of the century!

Those people who are suffering for their free speech - they're not hate-criminals!! They love their religion to the extent of pointing out idocyncracies in its practice. They were looking out for the *betterment * of Islamic practice - not to belittle it, Mister Rushdie. NO WAY can Hashem Aghajari or Ayaan Ali be compared to YOU, u scoundrel.

You wrote a book that was a mockery - do u understand the term "mockery" or should I get the dictionary for u? - a heinous MOCKERY of Islam's Holy Book. That's not telling us how to practice our religion right - that's telling us our religion is $hit. There is a bloody difference, you dork.

Ayaan Ali tried to bring the plight of muslim women to light SO THAT THEY COULD BE GIVEN BETTER TREATMENT. Not to obliterate them off the face of the earth, u whippersnapper.

Hashem Aghajari criticized the system and its functioning; he wanted to make it BETTER, not do away with Islamic practice, u turncoat.

R u blind deaf dumb or what? And people call u a writer! Jeez louise... Just having the ability to string a bunch of long words into structured sentences doesn't make anyone a writer, u iridescent tubelight.
Writing means having a reponsibility, not changing your stance every time the wind blows; and being a great writer means getting better at it.

U r an absolute idiot. Now I don't even feel like throwing my money on your stupid books, even if they can help me better my English.

I thought after Satanic Verses u might have learnt yr lesson, and ok fine u write well boohoo, but u made a whole slew of people shed horrible tears for no gdamn reason whatsoever.. unlike Ayaan Ali and countless others who work constructively and risk everything to bring Islam into modern times; u just wanted Islam finished khatam khalaas and clap clap be done with it.

U r a major dolt. You went into hiding like a coward with his tail between his legs after the SV debacle rather than face the world and tell them why u did what u did and what ur intentions were and all that jazz. U didn't care two hoots for Islam or its progress, u just wrote.. giberrish. Coz it sells. Then when u thought "Ah, I'm beginning to find more and more people who want to sideline Islam, maybe it's time to come out", like the funky villain that u r, u plodded back onto the social map of the earth. And now, when people WHO HAVE 1,000 TO THE POWER OF INFINITY TIMES MORE COURAGE THAN U WILL EVER HAVE, are starting to point out problems in Islamic societies, u decide to side with them, hide behind their coattails or just hop along for the ride... u have no real personality do u? U have no real opinion on anything. U're just a pompous shallow publicity-loving actor.

U r just cheap, that's what. U think those people ought to be called the Modern Rushdies? Well, boo hoo. They're a thousand times better coz they believe in what they're fighting for. U r just a humongous ignoramus who picks up coins that the crowd's thrown after someone else's performance.

Get a job baking cakes Rushdie. No, wait. U'd cheat even in that. Just stay where u r and don't move, Islam doesn't need an obfuscated spineless complete jerk like u.

And now my tirade is done.

Allah miaN iss larki ko thora sa kam likhnay kee hadayat farma. Ameen.

Allah mian...mujhay "servile" ka matlab bataade.

Romulus, u try saying all that in three words or less! Dekhtey hain...

Salman Rushdie Sucks

Ana ....two words......Mashallah

Am I good or what? Can I get a Pulitzer now?

Ana,

I hate it when you hold back. Please let us know what you REALLY think this time.....

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ana: *
Am I good or what? Can I get a Pulitzer now?
[/QUOTE]

No actually I trashed the manuscript. Please define a muslim and an islamist, so we can begin the party..

Yeh Ana, spurt it out.

Muslim for Rushdie and his types would be an Islamist gone right, but still no place at the dinner table for them.

Yaa, now my mood is all lightened up. Dang!

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ana: *
Muslim for Rushdie and his types would be an Islamist gone right, but still no place at the dinner table for them.

[/QUOTE]

Would there be a place for him in an islamist's table? We can ask the local ayatollah's of rock'nrollas for that.

Good piece by another one who is inspired by NYA. I like seeing the NYIzation of the intelligencia (I don't object to it, if it is done in good taste). It’s ok. I am only flattered.

If only my other friends could learn a thing from Salman. (((A subtle hint for you CH and Romeo)))).

NYA: I might inspire but Romeo just perspires...that filthy animal. Good article indeed, Ana's piece for the Vagina Monologues not withstanding.

That’s what I am talking about Chaltahai. You are the man, man.

Ana has a potential. Actually a lot of potential. She makes us look stupid (Roman not included). I am beginning to get a little worried about it.

CH - in a Talibanic society, prolly not. But that is not his definition of an Islamict is it? He means anyone who prays five times a day, doesn't matter if they play snooker the rest of time. For him, moderate Islam means PBS with an MTV mission. (..did I get that rite?)

Rushdie's idea of a moderate Muslim is someone named Yacoub who has no problems calling himself Jack, who has a mother who sits all night praying in a dark cloak, but who himself goes to the masjid only on Eid day, and that too maybe. Jack/Yacoub should be happy working at the local Rentacar, and in order to get promotions he should be doubly happy when his employer tells him to come to the office party where they serve alcohol. He should be trebly happy when he is asked to drink the alcohol, in fact he should consider it a privilege that such a secular society is accepting him and encouraging him to be one of them.

Now, a muslim with progress in mind, has no problems being called simply Yacoub, with a mother who prays all night in a dark cloak, going to the masjid whenever he has some time or trying to make time to pray wherever he is, and working happily at the neighborhood Rentacar. Likewise, a muslim with progress in mind has no problems getting asked to the office party. But at the office party, the Muslim with progress in mind, stops short of being served alcohol.. and his colleagues don't even ask him if he wants to drink because they are aware of his beliefs and respect them. This is a real moderate muslim. He is one of his society, as well as one of the other society simultaneously - Venn diagram. BUT he preserves his core self.

U see the difference? Rushdie's idea of a "muslim" who is not an Islamist, is someone who is a sellout.

The muslim who wants progress - I hate the term "moderate muslim" there is no such thing, we are all moderates until provoked to anger - is not a sellout. He is a disciplined entity who respects himself as well as others, and is willing to be a human being.

There is a difference between a floormat and a human being. Rushdie's moderate muslims means floormats. They get dirty all the time, they need constant shampooing, maintenance is very expensive.

To be a human, with some essential core values, costs nothing. But that is not enough for Rushdie.. he wants floormats. Until then, we are all Islamists to him.

And yes, at the table of a muslim who is looking for progress, all people would get a place to sit, their incredibly unfathomable stupidity notwithstanding.

Just so that Ana has the opportunity to really burst a blood vessel, try on Friedman today. Not only is he giving one to the “Islamists”, but he has the following description of the “Moderate Muslims”.

"The decent, but passive, Muslim center must go to war against this harsh fundamentalism. "

Defusing the Holy Bomb
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

To: Leaders of the Muslim world

From: President George W. Bush

Dear Sirs,

As you approach the end of Ramadan and we approach our Thanksgiving, I thought it would be a good time for me to share with you some concerns. Let me be blunt: I am increasingly worried that we are heading toward a civilizational war.

How so? Well, let me point out just a few news stories in recent days: Imam Samudra, the Indonesian Islamist accused of masterminding last month’s Bali bombing — in which nearly 200 tourists were killed — reportedly said during his confession that it was a “holy bomb” that ripped apart that disco, and that it was aimed there because it was full of foreigners — i.e., non-Muslims. There is nothing “holy” about a bomb that kills 200 people just because they are foreigners.

Then I read about Bonnie Penner, a young U.S. missionary nurse at a prenatal clinic in Sidon, Lebanon, which provided care for needy Palestinians and Lebanese. She was shot three times in the face. A Palestinian security official told The A.P. that “the killing was the result of a hostile Muslim reaction in Sidon to the preaching . . . lessons the center was giving to Muslim youths.” Do you know how much proselytizing Muslim groups do in America? A lot. We have no problem with that. That’s who we are. Who are you? I have no idea whether this woman’s clinic was involved in proselytizing Muslims, but I do know that she was a nurse, caring for Muslims, and she was shot for who she was.

Then there was Azmi Abu Hilayel, whose son Na’el strapped himself with dynamite and blew up an Israeli bus with school kids. Azmi was quoted as saying: “I thanked God when I heard that my son had died in an operation for the sake of God and the homeland.” I can’t believe that the God of Islam, a God of mercy and compassion, would bless killing anyone’s kids. Believe me, I know Israeli soldiers have killed dozens of Palestinian children during the intifada. That is shameful. But I don’t hear Israeli generals, parents or rabbis thanking God their sons could kill Muslim kids. Soldiers shooting kids is wrong. Suicide killing is wrong. There is no God that blesses either.

On top of all this, we just had the imam of a Paris mosque arrested for allegedly helping the airplane shoe-bomber. And we had two U.S. marines shot in Kuwait, a country we helped rescue from Saddam, and we saw one of our top aid officials in Jordan killed in his front yard for a similar “crime” — being an American in the Muslim world. Now you see why I ordered that young men from most Arab countries who are studying in America be fingerprinted and photographed by the I.N.S. I had no choice.

You say all this is happening because we support Israel. I know we need to do more to bring peace, but I don’t think that nurse was shot, or that Bali bomb was made “holy,” because we support Israel. I think it has to do with the rise within your midst of a deeply intolerant strain of Islam that is not simply a reaction to Israel, but is a response to your failing states, squandered oil wealth, broken ideologies (Nasserism) and generations of autocracy and illiteracy. Armed and angry, this harsh fundamentalism now seems to totally intimidate Muslim moderates.

But the values it propagates will bring ruin to you and conflict with us. As Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute wrote in National Review, “No faith will make rote memorization of ancient texts, suppression of critical inquiry and dissent, subjugation of women, and a servile deference to authority the recipe for anything other than civilizational decline.”

The decent, but passive, Muslim center must go to war against this harsh fundamentalism. Yes, we have our intolerant bigots too. I just publicly distanced myself from those Christians who smear Islam with a broad brush. But our moderate majority and press regularly denounce them too. They are not dominating our society. We’ve had our civil war against intolerance. Now I’m urging you to have yours. Don’t tell me you can’t. Look at those courageous Iranian students who are now taking on the extreme fundamentalists within their own society — risking their lives to fight those who want to take Islam, and Iran, back to the Dark Ages. God bless them.

Friends, unless you have a war within your civilization, there is going to be a war between our civilizations. We’re just one more 9/11 away from that. So let’s dedicate this next year to fighting intolerance within so we can preserve our relations between.

Sincerely, G.W.B.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/27/opinion/27FRIE.html

Ana banana. He only used the term 'Islamist' twice in this long essay, and you are making a huge deal out of nothing. He used it in the right context, implying a sympathetic view of religion by the followers than anything else. It still does not change what he means to say whether he uses the term islamists or jackass.

You should definitely read a few of his books. You will be amazed with his imagination. The guy is a genius.

Ana: What I find ridiculous in your assertions is this percieved concept of "moderate muslim". So let me define it for you. No where in the article does Rushdie make claims of having nightly orgies with kuf'r women as a pre-requisite for moderation. (Roman, down boy!)

He cleverly and corrrectly shows the dichotomy between the muslim and the islamist. Particularly in Iran. At the end of the day, your views and his are very similar if I were to interpret the concept of moderation.

In my opinion, here is where you two differ.

There needs to be more Rushdies who question the state of their religion (or culture) not from a perspective of 'who did this to us' (the west, the moderates, the "wayward" muslims, the secualrists...etc.) but from a "why did this happen". Greater introspection into closing of societies. Establishment of 7th century practices, obsolete governance mechanisms, obsolete financial systems, obsolete educational and cultural practices. All in the name of interpreted divine mandate.

this is the crux of the problem not that the west is taking food from some palestinians mouth and that's why he needs to blow up a pizza parlor.