The current controversy on Rushdie’s knighthood has several dimensions. Amid the knee-jerk reactions alluding to the grand-conspiracy-against-Islam, it brings out various layers and levels of literature’s role and position in societies and now in the globalized world.
I was once a fan of Rushdie and avidly devoured his books with great admiration. From Grimus to The Moor’s Last Sigh, I marveled at his playfulness with the English language and its idiom which undoubtedly he has enriched. The collection of essays titled Imaginary Homelands was a combination of disparate but original writings. Somewhere during this process came the ridiculous Satanic Verses which other than its blasphemous content and brazen disrespect for a vast majority of Muslims was a bad piece of writing!
The decline of Rushdie as a writer, finally, was confirmed by the trashy Ground Beneath Her Feet. Thereafter, one read strange, ignorant pieces of his non-fiction in the Western mainstream media that needed his stature to find a rationale for the imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Shalimar the Clown, his recent novel was even worse as it proved to be bereft of subtlety and re-invoked all the crappy, soul-destroying images and cliches of our times. In a non-serious piece, published in the Friday Times (Pakistan) in December 2005, I wrote:
Salman Rushdie’s new novel, Shalimar the Clown, is enough to add to ones misery. I finished browsing it; what else can you do with such stuff posing as quality fiction? As if the name of the central character “Shalimar” was not enough to offend a native reader such as I, the heroine “India Ophuls” changing her name to “Kashmira” was the ultimate illustration of cheap exoticism and a hackneyed dive into passe magical realism. Alas, Rushdie has started believing in his own mantra and the twisting of historical narrative. It simply does not work now. He is more of a bard for the ascendancy of the global tide against Islamism and perhaps he should stick to that. Better if he were to provide some intellectual depth to Fox News, or even better, if he started writing scripts for his young wife’s tele-plays. Shalimar successfully completes the trilogy of Rushdie’s worst novels, the other two being The Ground Beneath Her Feet and Fury . Aijaz Ahmad, a US-based academic, argued a long time ago that Rushdie and Naipul were avatars of oriental consciousness. Small wonder that they are reviewed, exalted and globally hyped.
Much to my delight, a friend – an aspiring critic – sent me the review by Theo Tait of the London Review of Books: Noting what Rushdie’s style produces in the novel, Tait writes that it
… is a cross between a piece of magic realism which displays all the worst vices of the style, and the contemporary international thriller. It is passionate, well-informed and sometimes interesting; but also hackneyed, simplistic and often very, very silly…
Today, I read this brilliant article published in the Guardian written by a noted academic, Priyamvada Gopal that essentially is a lament of all that Rushdie and his new writings stand for:
Sir Salman, on the other hand, is partly the creation of the fatwa that played its role in strengthening the self-fulfilling “clash of civilisations” that both Bush and the other side find so handy. Driven underground and into despair by zealotry, Rushdie finally emerged blinking into New York sunshine shortly before the towers came tumbling down. Those formidable literary powers would now be deployed not against, but in the service of, an American regime that had declared its own fundamentalist monopoly on the meanings of “freedom” and “liberation.” The Sir Salman recognised for his services to literature is certainly no neocon but is iconic of a more pernicious trend: liberal literati who have assented to the notion that humane values, tolerance and freedom are fundamentally western ideas that have to be defended as such.
Vociferously supporting the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on “humane” grounds, condemning criticism of the war on terror as “petulant anti-Americanism” and above all, aligning tyranny and violence solely with Islam, Rushdie has abdicated his own understanding of the novelist’s task as “giving the lie to official facts.” Now he recalls his own creation Baal, the talented poet who becomes a giggling hack coralled into attacking his ruler’s enemies. Denuded of texture and complexity, it is no accident that this fiction since the early 90s has disappeared into a critical wasteland. The mutation of this relevant and stentorian writer into a pallid chorister is a tragic allegory of our benighted times, of the kind he once narrated so vividly.
In its editorial the daily DAWN rightly comments that “Like the Danish cartoons, Rushdie’s knighthood will widen the chasm [between Muslims and the West].” At the same time the newspaper condemns the talk of suicide bombing by responsbile quarters in Pakistan stating that such irresponsible talk overshadows the real issue that requires reflection and a well argued reaction to this provocative title.
This dubious honour is yet another endeavour to reward the constructed clash of civilizations. The fact that Rushdie has accepted it, further confirms his degeneration as another script writer of this “theory”. Meanwhile, the protests in Iran and Pakistan only reinforce this vicious cycle of neo-orientalism .
However, the sanest comment on Rushdie saga is from AD, a politically charged friend:
“Clearly, lack of self-awareness and an inability to be self-critical is a global phenomenon. Rushdie was just another Booker-prize winning author hailed by the British literary establishment and unknown otherwise. He is a western icon today, because he is the poster-boy for the Western construct of a Muslim-bashing “civilized Muslim.” That is why he has been knighted and why he is so hated. Just because he is the poster-boy of Western Islamophobia, Rushdie should not be awarded the status of hate-figure in the Muslim world. By elevating him so, it is in fact Muslim extremists who place him in a position of centrality instead of the insignificant and irrelevant place he deserves.”
I call my genetor a “sir” sometimes, so no big deal for me. I try not to joke about anybodys religion regardless Muslim,Hindism or Buddism etc., because it may hurt somebodys feelings. But to write a book about it and get awarded that is pretty low to me.Indecency is not westernized or broaded mindedness.
Salamalikum,
Two sentences, one from Nazir and one from Akif Nizam, caught my attention.
Nazir:”No I guess we should stand by the Mullahs who by their terrorism giving the good name to Islam and its founder.”
Does it leave any doubt in my mind that your information and views on Islam/Muslims is severely affected by media (western)? No! Why so? Please show me where in any Muslim culture/society/discussion (even those discussion at the fringes of being considered a religious) do you find Rasoolillah (saw) being addressed as “founder” of Islam? This comes directly from the media. I hope this was just an innocent sentence and hopefully you don’t really think that Rasoolillah (saw) founded this religion of yours and mine.
Akif Nizam:”…textbooks in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan which are required readings for young impressionable minds. These have passages which specifically refer to Jews as monkeys and pigs, …”
Another example of media-affected thinking process and writing. With due respect, I urge you and challenge you to tell me of a textbook, and it must be a textbook taught in schools, in Pakistan that teach this. They way you have written your statement is how newspaper and media writes and gives a general impression that in “schools” of Muslim countries such language is used. I can bet most dime-a-dozen religious madaaris in Pakistan don’t have this language let alone most schools that fall under the general definition of “schools in Pakistan”.
I don’t know how old you are and when you studied in Pakistan. But, I was born in the 80’s and yes grew up studying in a culture that was “Zia-affected” (and this is sarcasm for those who love to use the in-fashion dig on Ziaul Haq) and my friends or I never came across teachings that you mentioned.
Salamalikum,
Ibrahim Sahib,
Doesn’t Allah, the all-knowing, know who is innocent and who is not? And wouldn’t He, the Just and Fair, do justice on his own even if you didn’t pray for someone’s forgiveness?
You make Him sound like a Pakistani patwari who needs to be sifarshofied or bribed all the time.
Of course, you are right that Allah subhan wa taa’al is all-knowing and just. And, of course He will do justice regardless of whether I pray for somebody or not. But, I am surprised you are even raising this issue. If some Muslim you know dies, would you not pray for Allah’s mercy for him? Would you not do istaghfar for him? Would you not beseech Allah to enter him in Jannat? This is a basic issue and it’s a fardh on Muslims to make duaa and ask Allah for jaaiz things. Or, would you say ‘Oh well, Allah is just. I won’t make duaa for this person. Allah is going to do justice with him anyway’? Yes, Allah will do justice regardless of you pray for a person or not. But, of course it is highly recommended that you pray.
Allah even instructs us to send salam and salawaat on Rasoolillah (saw). Do you think Rasoolillah (saw) really is in danger of not getting enough “peace” from Allah? Of course not! But, still we make duaa (and if you note the words of durood it starts with Allah-humma so it’s a duaa) for Rasoolillah (saw).
Now, with cases where there have been killings and you don’t know about someone’s innocence and in the light of the hadith mentioned earlier I think I would say may Allah give them what they deserve because Allah knows all. Don’t turn a basic reminder into an issue that is clear-cut and shouldn’t need a discussion. Allahu musta’aan wAllahu alam
Mazhar Butt Sahib, your story of meeting or knowing Rushdi’s father and his business difficulties is irrelevant to this discussion. And so is your recollection of Rushdi being a drinker, a womanizer and a “bad son” when you you say you knew him back in the 80s.
The point of discussion here is: Has the British government awarded Rushdi the knighthood on his merit as a gifted writer or has it done it just to provoke the Ummah? And a related point is: are Muslims justified in issuing fatwas of death against Rushdi or are they simply wasting their breath or cutting their own nose to spite the face, as it were?
I remember those days in 1981 when Salman Rushdie’s father dragged himself heaviluy from one estate agency to another in Karachi to ‘hunt’ for some party who could take over his mortgaged factory and a 3000 yard bungalow in defence. By some stroke of luck as all evil people are wont to he bumped against me in an estate agency near Punjab Colony. The estate agent was regularly handling my purchase of Industrial properties implored me to take over his factory namely Shah Textile Mills 51 sector 28 Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi, where the Rushdies Terry towel factory was lying idle.I have intentionally given the address of his factory to substantiate the truth of my experience with Rushdi’s father. So, I finally bought his factory and got him emancipated from his bankruptcy. During my interacton with him I found him a simple and not so talkative person
He told me that his son, the rascal Salman then lived in London, they beonged to Delhi and Salman carried a typewriter to punch down his satanic thoughts on the paper. At that time he had not written his ”satanic book’ and his fame merely rested on his ‘midnight children”. I was also not so familiar with him at that time. Anyway, when I took over his factory I wanted to appoint my own guards there at which the old guard who had been serving under the Rushdies came to me and requested me not to dismiss him. At that point I asked him some question about the history of the acquired unit and some insight on reasons for the closure . In reply the guard told me was horrible. He told me The Rushdies delved in debauchery not only at their homes but also at the factory. Salman Rushdie had no interest in business nor did he care the least for his father. Drinking and womanizing was all that went there! Salman had left his father in lurch during his last years as a broke in Karachi. He held dual natonality …British and Pakistan. Well, this is all I know about the Rushdies and due to his shameful attitude towards his real father I hate him and infer that he couldnt be any better towards others. He certainly does not deserve any honor and the one mistakenly given him should be stripped off him immediately. His English is not such as that it warranted appreciation,,,,, his writings are bullshit and not literature at all !