Insanity Over an Obscenity

By Muhammad Hallaj

The Rushdie affair reminds me of an Arab saying which goes something like this: "A fool throws a stone in a well, and a hundred wise men cannot get it out." What makes matters even worse, is that in this case there is more than one fool and not a solitary wise man seems to be in sight. So what can one say about Salman Rushdie's obscene hallucinations and the hysterical frenzy that they have triggered, on both sides, without becoming part of the madness?

The first thing that comes to mind is a pair of platitudes: that slandering people's sacred symbols under the guise of literary license is, at best, in poor taste; and that retaliation with death threats demeans the cause it is supposed to defend. In the end, we are left not with the comforting and familiar lineup of good guys and bad guys, or wise men and fools, but with an insane furor about an obscene event.

What bothers me more about the whole affair is that decent causes—in this case the right of people to respect for their beliefs, and the freedom of expression—are being used to promote less worthy ends. Islam's merits as a universal faith are sufficiently protected by more than 14 centuries of history and a billion believers around the world. Its vitality is shown by the fact that it is today the fastest-growing religion. Rushdie can slander Islam but he cannot possibly threaten it. Freedom of expression deserves all the furor we can muster on its behalf, but it also deserves better symbols to march behind.

Muslims throughout the world are deeply offended, just as Jews were deeply offended—and rightly so—when Judaism was called a "gutter religion. " So this is not the issue. Muslims protested as Christians protested against "The Last Temptation of Christ." But this is not the issue either.

Death threats against writers, even writers of "religious pornography" such as Rushdie, are unacceptable. Such writers ought to be ignored rather than threatened.

Death threats against writers, even writers of "religious pornography" Such as Rushdie, are unacceptable. Such writers ought to be ignored rather than threatened. They do not deserve to be hoisted as banners for any cause. On the other hand, using Khomeini to defame the Muslims of the world and their faith is even more reprehensible.

With apologies to Socrates, Christ, Martin Luther King, and countless others in their good company, and without intending to squeeze Rushdie into their midst, killing as retribution for "objectionable" opinion has always been a cross-cultural madness. To deal with the Rushdie case as if it were a civilized "Western" cause against the onslaught of an uncivilized "non-Western" menace is hypocritical, to say the least. Hitler, a son of Western civilization, also burned books.

When Palestinian novelist Ghassan Kanafani was assassinated by Israeli agents in 1972 and when Palestinian poet Kamal Nasser was gunned down in Beirut by Israeli intelligence in 1973, their deaths generated no protests from the guardians of free expression in the civilized West. Book banning is routine in occupied Palestine, but it does not merit concern from the outraged enemies of book censorship. I applaud the cause they exploit, but they leave me utterly cold.

A universal faith such as Islam cannot be defended by its fanatics, and the world must not judge it by their behavior. And selectivity in the defense of freedom subverts rather than enhances it, because it robs it of its moral force.

Muhammad Hallaj is director of the Palestine Research and Education Center in Fairfax, VA, and editor of its magazine, Palestine Perspectives.