Author: Atif Munawar Mir

Source: Muslim Sunrise Summer 2012

www.muslimsunrise.com

Introduction

Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses published in 1988 generated a plethora of emotions the world over. The book’s subject matter inflamed fury and hostility, which in turn fostered cultural misunderstandings and social unrest. The novel, while generally condemned by the Muslim world, was met with violence by Muslim fanatics. The West, on the other hand, lauded the author’s work, perceiving the controversy as a battle between freedom of speech and censorship. As such, the novel became a political device used by its supporters and opponents alike to further their own personal and political agendas. Emotions ran high. Mutual insult and ridicule undermined any prospect of a meaningful cross cultural dialogue that could explore and evaluate the boundaries of freedom of speech in the global village.

The novel became a source of intense controversy. Muslims were enraged at the degrading depiction of their beloved Prophet^saw and his wives and companions. Rushdie, on the other hand, argued that the real cause of controversy was not the novel itself but the way Muslims read the novel. Rushdie claimed that instead of reading it as a work of art, Muslims read it literally.[1] Rushdie seems to be asserting that “his novel is not open to accusations of blasphemy since in literature or art, figurative necessarily dominates” over the literal, according to literary theorist, K.M. Newton.[2]  Such viewpoints “set works of an art on a pedestal”,³ which stifles healthy dialogue. That is why Newton argues that “inheritors of Western values should…learn to view works of art in a less idealistic spirit”.[3] Otherwise, supporters of Rushdie “appear to suggest that Muslims have no right even to find the book offensive since they are reading the text in an improper fashion”.[4] Viewing art in a less idealistic spirit will enable Rushdie’s supporters to better understand the other party’s viewpoints and feelings of insult. To this end, this article will explore the following:

1)      What does Rushdie mean when he says that The Satanic Verses can be read as a work of art?

2)      What are the ramifications for such a view?

3)      Do authors have ethical responsibility to respect individuals, cultures and religions?

Meaning of “read the novel as a work of art”

Categorizing The Satanic Verses as a work of art should not absolve Rushdie from explaining the offensive elements of his novel. The book attacks the Holy Qur’an and the Holy Prophet^saw, and his wives and companions by creating a disrespectful fictional history of early Islam. He should explain as to why he couldn’t convey his artistic vision without insulting the Holy Prophet^saw, his wives and his companions.

In the novel, Gibreel is a popular Indian Muslim movie star who, after a traumatic accident, finds himself struggling with his faith. In his dreams, he finds himself in early Islamic history as an arch angel where he encounters the Holy Prophet^saw as a very ambitious individual who makes compromises to consolidate power and finds it hard to resist pleasures. The dreams also portray the wives and companions of the Holy Prophet^saw in a highly offensive manner. According to Rushdie, these dreams of Gibreel, were not meant to insult anyone but were merely metaphorical representations of Gibreel’s loss of Islamic faith.[5]

Rushdie argues that the “passages that have particularly offended Muslims do not aim to ‘vilify’ or ‘disprove’ Islam but portray…a soul in crisis; a reference to Salman the Persian’ is not intended to ‘insult and abuse’ the Prophet’s^saw companion Salman al-Farsi^ra but is rather an ironic reference to the novel’s author. Rushdie claims ‘such highlighting is a proper function of literature. Similarly, the ‘shocking representations of the Prophet’s^saw wives as whores are not to be taken literally but rather as images which juxtapose antithetically ‘the sacred and profane worlds’.”[6]

Figurative representations of history that present historical heroes in a negative light have not always been received well even with western audiences. A precedent exists where a play by Rolf Hochhuth was removed from public viewing because, to convey a figurative message, he depicted Churchill as a murderer of a Polish politician. The defenders of the play argued that in Shakespeare’s play Richard III, Richard is presented as a criminal psychopath even though the historical evidence suggests otherwise. Drawing this analogy, Hochhuth’s defenders argue that his  representation of Churchill as a murderer should not be considered objectionable.[7] In light of this, Newton argues that “clearly the difference was that whereas in the case of Richard audiences had ceased to care about the historical figure, with Churchill they still did care and this made it difficult for audiences to respond to the play as a figurative representation, as they could with regard to Richard…Muslim opponents of Rushdie could exploit such a case in order to claim that the only difference between Muslim and non-Muslim readers of The Satanic Verses is that they cannot be indifferent to Rushdie’s depiction of the Prophet; the literal force of the text is too strong for them to set it aside in favour of the figurative.”[8]

That is why Newton argues that “Muslim readers…have reasonable grounds for rejecting such a claim. However, even more worrying for defenders of Rushdie is the fact that contemporary critical theory casts doubt on the view that even in literary texts the figurative or rhetorical should have priority over the grammatical or literal”.[9] “Even the works of a writer such as Shakespeare must be read contextually and politically in a very specific sense.”[10] Rushdie, on the other hand, rejects contextual and political reading of literature. He points out that “If religion is an answer, if political ideology is an answer, then literature is an inquiry; great literature, by asking extraordinary questions, open doors in our minds…literature is, of all the arts, the one best suited to challenging absolutes of all kinds”.[11] Rushdie seems to believe that the purpose of literature is to shake the foundations of cultural and religious absolutes. If literature is an inquiry that is, according to Rushdie, free from political and contextual realities, what then are the parameters that define the framework of this inquiry? What is the inquiry grounded in?  If it lacks this grounding, an inquiry is baseless. A baseless inquiry is a frivolous venture of the intellect and degrades the literary arts it claims to be a part of.

Significance & Ramifications of “read the novel as a work of art”

Rushdie has bestowed his novel The Satanic Verses with a mission. He claims that “Islam, Muslim world, at the moment, is in a condition where it finds itself unable to permit discussion of itself” [12]  in the way that Judaism and Christianity does. He wants to see the growth of “skeptical tradition”[13] in Islam. He felt “colossal envy”[14] when he reviewed the new collection of stories from Isaac Bashevis Singer because of his “colossal blasphemies, talking about God’s mistakes, talking about how Satan’s not such a bad person after all, rewriting Bible stories right, left and centre, and he doesn’t get fundamentalists after him, he doesn’t get governments banning his book.”[15]

It seems that for Rushdie intellectual freedom is tantamount to committing “colossal blasphemies”. To him, imagination in the service of blasphemy is scholarship. He finds it very sad to see the Muslim “community closing itself off to the processes of imagination and to the processes of scholarship. All you have is this crazy literalism. And if you go against that, you are called a bad person”.[16] Rushdie is frustrated with “crazy literalism” and demands the emergence of the skeptical tradition within Islam.

A famous playwright once said, “Art is not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it.” Rushdie, arguably, thinks of literature as a hammer that can reform the Muslim world and he hammered the Muslim world with an offense hoping that it would somehow motivate or inspire the Muslim world to change. It seems odd to try to change people by attacking what they cherish. This strategy gives an impression that Rushdie is not so much interested in changing the Muslim world, as he is in provoking it. Imagination is harmless and, in fact highly meaningful as long as it teaches, guides, and inspires us to consider what could be. But an imagination that feeds misinformation and entrenches prejudices, should not automatically qualify as a work of scholarship. By celebrating imagination that twists history and offers explicit insult, one facilitates freedom of speech indeed, but undermines facts as well.

Role of Novels in a Globalized world

Does literature have a responsibility towards social and global peace? This is an important question. In previous eras, literature had a limited audience. For example, Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy, written in the early fourteenth century and widely considered to be a masterpiece of western literature, draws a highly offensive portrait of the Holy Prophet^saw. But this book did not cause any serious tension, if any, between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. But now our world has become a global village where comments, good or bad travel with the speed of light across the globe and carry with them vast cross-cultural implications.

Art must be free to explore human truths, but this freedom should not become a license to insult. Granted that definitions of insult vary across cultures and societies should be careful not to become too sensitive about art that may question and perhaps even judge their beliefs but responsibility also lies with an artist to be careful not to cause offense for no reason other than to cause offense and thereby seek to instill an immunity to supposed sensitivities.  Authors should demonstrate at least some responsibility in their writings.

In the global village where, peace in one part of the world is connected to peace in another part of the world, it is important for artists to be responsible. Art is important and it is indeed a source of human truth but what constitutes decent art varies across the world and depicting what is sacred to one culture, as lewd and profane and is less artistic than it is political and perhaps even ideological, taking into consideration Rushdie’s departure from the faith before he wrote the book.

Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, the founder of the Ahmadiyya community said, more than 100 years ago in India, that people who “vilify the Prophets of other faiths…sow the seed of enmity and discord among mankind”.[17] In the end, he advocated a treaty of mutual respect between Hindus and Muslims. According to the proposed treaty, both sides were required to respect each other’s faith. Perhaps in this spirit people of all faiths and beliefs, including Muslims of course, should show respect towards the faiths of others. Mutual respect does not mean that people of different faiths cannot disagree. Respect means that what can be said decently and with dignity must be said decently and with dignity. If a person thinks that Islam causes violence, he is free to say so and furthermore should outline the reasons behind such a view, so an opposing viewpoint may be able to address the former’s concerns in a valid and intellectual fashion, thus laying out the foundations for inter-religious dialogue. However, drawing a cartoon or writing a novel which is knowingly offensive, is neither a matter of inquiry or even judgment, but  simply  provocation. Art exceeds borders and the boundaries of culture and faith because it encourages dialogue, it is best when it speaks to our common humanity, not when it stifles or inflames it.   The nature and purpose of art has always been a subject of philosophical discussion. There are a number of definitions of art being debated in the academic world.[18] This debate is likely to continue forever. But this academic debate must grow into a global dialogue which highlights that the manner in which art is communicated across cultures is as important as art itself.

Conclusion

Instead of passing fatwas and resorting to violence, Muslims have a responsibility to “repel evil with good”. (13:23). To this end, they must intellectually engage the supporters of Rushdie in a decent fashion as taught by the Holy Prophet^saw that “a believer does not taunt, or curse or abuse or talk indecently”.

Rushdie and his supporters should acknowledge the obvious that The Satanic Verses is bound to offend Muslims even if it is a work of art. There is no harm in critically evaluating early Islamic history but why does one need to degrade the Islamic Prophet^saw and his wives and companions to make this point? It is clearly counterproductive to try to reform and enlighten Muslims by offending them. Writers should understand that freedom of speech is a sacred and powerful concept but it is common courtesy if writers agree to exercise this right intelligently without resorting to insult and offense and instead striving to build bridges.