The School of Libelous Writing

By Abdul Salam Y. Massarueh

The Satanic Verses was written by Salman Rushdie with the intent to hurt Muslims and insult Islam, goals the writer set for himself and boasted about from the outset. The book should be regarded in the same light as any other negative stereotyping of Islam.

Rushdie belongs to the school of libelous literature. After he published his book, Midnight's Children, Indira Gandhi sued both the author and his publisher for defaming India. At that time, Rushdie and his publisher removed the libelous and insulting material from the book so that it would not be banned in India. After such publicity, it sold very well.

The Satanic Verses, in this writer's opinion, has little of redeeming social value to offer the reader. It does not suggest solutions to the mysteries of the universe, nor to the issues that perplex mankind, nor does it contribute to a reconciliation of religions of the world. Why, then, should countries of the world where such a book can readily lead to violence not request that it be edited or revised to eliminate the obscenities in its pages?

If the American writers defending freedom of artistic expression for Salman Rushdie were as concerned about the First Amendment rights of their own countrymen, some might well have protested the decisions of most major bookstore chains not to display or sell Paul Findley's They Dare to Speak Out or Alfred Lilienthal's The Zionist Connection. Both were published in the 1980s, both are deeply concerned with human rights and freedom of expression, and both are largely unavailable.

Attempts to portray Muslim anger about the book and its author as examples of fanaticism and bigotry are part and parcel of a persistent long-term readiness among some Western intellectuals to attack and defame Islam.

The availability in American bookstores of The Satanic Verses has far less relevance to democracy and its practice in the United States than does the "unofficial" censorship of books critical of Israel and of Zionism practiced by book distributors, major bookstore chains, and even some newspapers.

Rushdie's book had already been banned in India and precipitated violence by Muslims in Pakistan before Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini became involved.

The call by politically motivated Iranian leaders to kill the writer of this blasphemous book, and the posting of a bounty to be collected by his killers, is nothing but another act of violence. Its victim is not just Rushdie, but Islam as well. It strengthens and nourishes existing negative stereotypes of Islam in the West. Nor is it ameliorated when Western news media fail to give an appraisal of the "other" Islamic positions concerning this controversy.

From Al Azhar Mosque in Cairo, considered authoritative by a majority of the world's Muslims, has come a different message than that of Khomeini. It calls for a trial of Rushdie by Islamic scholars and spiritual leaders. Whatever their verdict on his writings, they will certainly invoke the law of compassionate Islam and offer Rushdie an opportunity to repent and ask Muslims for their forgiveness.

When one understands that, in addition to his book about India, an earlier Rushdie book, Shame, was also banned in Pakistan, one begins to understand the impatience of Muslim readers. Theirs is a religion already embraced by one fifth of humankind, and growing more rapidly than any other major faith. Neither a Rushdie's defamation nor Khomeini's politicizing will alter those facts.

Abdul Salam Y Massarueh, a Palestinian -born US journalist, was 1986-87 president of the Foreign Correspondent's Association of Washington, DC