The Rushdie Affair: Why were Muslims Outraged over The Satanic Verses?

The Muslim outrage of the Danish cartoons about Muhammad echoes the outrage expressed over the publication of Salman Rushdie's book Satanic Verses. Then, too, Muslims rioted and called for the murder of those who dared to offended Muslim beliefs. Even today, apologists continue to try to excuse the awful and at times barbaric behavior done in the name of Islam.

In the February, 1990 issue of Political Quarterly, Tariq Modood wrote:

In fact the anger against [Satanic Verses] had nothing to do with fundamentalism-or indeed Khomeni. Virtually every practising Muslim was offended by passages from the book and shocked that it was written by a Muslim of whom till then the Asian community were proud. Rushdie has argued that the mullahs whipped up the ordinary Muslims for their own political motives. The truth is that all the religious zealots had to do was simply quote from SV for anger, shame and hurt to be felt.

It is important to be clear that SV was not objected to as an intellectual critique of their faith (libraries are full of those); for the average Muslim the vulgar language, the explicit sexual imagery, the attribution of lustful motives — without any evidence — to the holy Prophet, in short the reduction of their religion to a selfish sexual appetite was no more a contribution to literary discourse than pissing upon the Bible is a theological argument.

Of course, if a person does piss on the Bible, do Christians riot? Do Jews issue bounties on the pisser’s life? No — so it is also important to be clear that Muslims did far more than merely object to the Satanic Verses and Rushdie’s writing. Tariq Modood’s glossing over that fact undermines his credibility as a fair commentator on the issue.

It’s also important to be clear that while pissing on the Bible isn’t a theological argument, it also isn’t meant to be one. What it is, and what it is meant to be, is a provocative and pointed expression of one’s feelings about the Bible — a form of expression which may be offensive to many, but which is as protected as any non-offensive expression is. The same is equally true of the Satanic Verses. What good are free speech protections if they only protect rarified theological arguments which offend none and are understood by few?

Tariq Modood says that religious zealots merely had to quote from the Satanic Verses in order to whip up ordinary Muslims into vicious, seething mobs — but apparently it never occurred to him to ask why the zealots were taking the time to recite from the Satanic Verses to these crowds in the first place. If people know that there is material in a book which is offensive to their religious sensibilities, the obvious choice is to simply not read it. Zealots were reciting from Rushdie’s book in order to do precisely what Rushdie said: to whip up ordinary Muslims for political motives. Modood acts like his is contradicting Rushdie when, in fact, he's merely confirming it and demonstrating how it was accomplished.

 

Quick Poll: Are Muslims justified in rioting and murder in reaction to material which offends them?

1. Absolutely not. Protests may be fine, but the violence isn't.
2. Only in reaction to some of the most extreme provocations.
3. Yes, Islam is a great religion and shouldn't be slandered in any way.
4. I don't know.
5. I don't care.

Click an option to vote, or View Current Poll Results

 

Read More:

• Islam
• News About Islam
• Islam and Politics
• Islam and the Koran