The Spectator’s Coffee House blog have a post on the knighting of Salman Rushdie:
I can’t really comment on Salman Rushdie as a literary figure, since I tried and failed three times to get beyond the opening 50 pages of Midnight’s Children. I can comment on him as a public figure, however, having followed his career attentively since the fatwa of 1989.
I supported Mrs Thatcher’s response of cutting off diplomatic relations with Iran and giving Rushdie unlimited protection: I even wrote to my MP saying the government was pusillanimous in failing to prosecute those demonstrators who called for his execution. Yet I never could stand the man, and found his gracelessness and ingratitude overwhelming at the time and since.
Read the rest here. And from the comments:
Backing him against the terrorists - I have no problem with that position, but the gist of RDE’s post was to question why he was knighted. I find myself completely in agreement. He writes unreadable tosh, is a self-publicist beyond belief, offer nothing, appears to be a “celebrity” (define the word), a troublemaker… Could someone pleas explain why Salman Rushdie and not David Beckham - at least the latter has skill; or is that just too terribly politically incorrect?
And another comment:
Almost everyone surely is going to say a plague on both their houses. I tried to read Satanic Verses but just couldn’t wade through the treacle. Rushdie is also a graceless bu**er, and I can’t see why we should feel so strongly that he should have a knighthood which we know is going to p*ss so many people (of more than one persuasion) off. OK, so he’s got it now, and we can’t have people making threats. But really. All so totally unnecessary.
And finally in another post:
Yesterday, I was happily thundering away against all the hand-wringing over the Rushdie knighthood when a friend brought me up short my making a rather good case against it. The argument goes that we defended, rightly, the Satanic Verses on free speech grounds and we are always telling these protestors, Voltaire-style, that while we might not agree with what is said—or in the case of the Danish cartoons, drawn—we defend their right to say it. But HMG giving Rushdie an honour blurs this line and suggests that the State has a position not only on Rushdie’s right to speak freely but also on the worth of his statements.
39 comments ↓
Well I’m convinced. Rushdie must be an utterly crap writer because three comments on a blog said so.
A shiny gold coin to the first Austrolabe writer who admits that they’ve never actually read any of Rushdie’s novels.
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,
That article is actually a truncated version of an article she wrote in the London Daily Mail yesterday: Self-pitying, pretentious and ungrateful - so why has Rushdie been knighted?. She compares him unfavourably to Ayaan Hirsi Whatshername and “Ed” Husain. I commented on it on my blog here.
I’m a non-Muslim who read Satanic Verses in the late 90s. Like many Westerners, pre-9/11, I had little knowledge of Muslim theology and history. At the time I was left scratching my head as to what was so offensive about it. Mohammad was led into temptation in the book, but it really didn’t seem like a big deal, and didn’t even take up a big chunk of the book. I’d seen stacks of stuff - from Monty Python to Mel Brooks - that presented Moses and Jesus in irreverent light.
Blasphemy-wise, to my non-Muslim, non-Christian eyes, Satanic Verses seems no worse than the Da Vinci Code positing Jesus lay with Mary.
Regarding Rushdie’s talent, I was blown away by his imagery and storytelling. The language and structure was a bit of hard work, but this seemed stylistically appropriate as he was referencing ancient scriptures and epics.
All the Best with this site; I really like it, Joe
Assalamualaikum
The Rushdie knighthood is bizarre as well as offensive. Why knight a man who doesn’t even live in the UK and whose only contribution to literature was to offend millions of Muslims with a sordid and unreadable book?
A good article on the whole Rushdie episode in on ummahpulse.co.uk.
Wassalam
Umm Ammara
I’ve read the Satanic Verses to see what all the fuss was about and tried to read the Moor’s Last Sigh. Whether Rushdie is a good writer or not is a matter of taste and personal preference, but that isn’t the only argument that has been raised against him being given this award. It has also been pointed out by others that he has spent most of his life attacking the very institution he is now benefiting from; and, secondly, that by giving him this award, the British government has effectively gone beyond merely defending his right to say what he likes but has ‘taken sides’ as to the content.
As for his having “offended” Muslims: give me a break. We’re not talking about temperamental children, so why treat them as such? You don’t like the book - don’t read it.
And what’s the deal with threatening the UK with terrorism and trying to suffocate the freedom of speech in free countries? Even you, Ammara, should stand against this.
Regardless of whether or not you consider Rushdie’s novels literary masterpieces, you should oppose the behavior and rhetoric of oppressive regimes on principle. We are, after all, defending a man’s freedom of expression and a queen’s freedom of action.
Amir,
“secondly, that by giving him this award, the British government has effectively gone beyond merely defending his right to say what he likes but has ‘taken sides’ as to the content.”
I think this argument is a little bit weak. Perhaps if Rushdie hadn’t won the Booker for Midnight’s Children, and had first come to prominence with the Satanic Verses, this argument would carry more weight.
Furthermore, there have been any number of ‘unusual’ knighthoods recently: Alex Ferguson, Mick Jagger, not to mention Elton John, who has gone out of his way to make some not so complementary remarks about organized religion. Was the British government taking sides in the above cases? Can we assume that they must be Man U fans who approve of sex, drugs, rock n’ roll and rocket men?
Polina,
There are two different issues here: firstly, should Rushdie be allowed to say whatever he wants; and, secondly, should he have been given a government award like this.
On the first point, I agree 100% that it is wrong to try and stifle his right to free speech and the Iranian fatwa and all that followed it was terrible. Muslims should have just ignored him and his book, just as we ignore the myriad of other petty insults and offenses that have appeared since.
On the second point, I don’t think it was a good idea for him to be given this award because, leaving aside the points raised by other commentators about the hypocrisy of him accepting such an award, I don’t think the British government has anything to gain from making what, regardless of the intent, would always have been seen as a statement on the content of The Satanic Verses rather than a broader tribute to Rushdie’s other literary contributions. Also, it is not the Queen who chooses these awards, but the Blair government (which makes all this animus directed at the Queen in the Iranian press seem somewhat misguided).
That said, I don’t think much is to be gained from burning effigies or threatening people either. He has been given a knighthood and that’s more a reflection on Tony Blair and his position than anything else, and we should just move on.
Not necessarily taking sides but perhaps revealing something of its values and tastes.
Anyway, to be honest, I don’t really care that they gave Rushdie an honour but I just thought it useful to highlight that it’s not just some Muslims who are questioning the decision but also others (and for different reasons).
Amir,
“[it] would always have been seen as a statement on the content of The Satanic Verses rather than a broader tribute to Rushdie’s other literary contributions.”
So because it was (and is) bound to cause trouble, the British government and anyone else is forever barred from recognizing Rushdie in any form? Realpolitik triumphs over (not widely disputed) literary merit?
Polina: “We are, after all, defending a man’s freedom of expression and a queen’s freedom of action.”
The queen’s freedom of action includes lovingly greeting the massmurderer Suharto who was responsible for a Holocaust, supported by the leading rogue states - Britain and the United States.
Rushdie’s freedom of expression includes stopping a play which “postulated” his death. This production was planned by Brian Clark but Rushdie thought well to exercise Voltaire’s best principles by ticking of Mr Clark. Furthermore, Voltaire also didn’t mind dedicating his work “Mahomet” to the Pope.
Quote from Austrolabe entry: “But HMG giving Rushdie an honour blurs this line and suggests that the State has a position not only on Rushdie’s right to speak freely but also on the worth of his statements.”
This is the crux of the matter. By “honouring” Rushdie, it is not established that “they” support a noble ideal like freedom of expression, not after their noble plans to bomb Al Jazeera, but that they can lubricate the war-on-terror propaganda. I’m told Tony Blair may break down any moment. This should give him a reason to hold his head up for a few seconds.
No, people can recognise him and they can give him whatever awards they think appropriate but it’s slightly different when it is an award from the state.
As these awards are decided by the government, not the Queen, and are therefore automatically politicised or, at least, guided by political considerations, it is difficult to determine whether Rushdie was given this award purely and solely on the basis of the quality of his writing; or whether it is meant to make some sort of political point.
I guess it begs a further question: Why do knighthoods still exist in this day and age? (Or even does the state have any business officially recognizing anyone, OBE’s, Order of Australia et al).
Rushdie is one of those “literary” authors everyone gushes over, but no one reads. He’s a media whore, more famous for all the scandal than the integrity of his work.
So he won a Booker. He’ll never be as widely read as other authors. So please tell me what he’s being recognised for?
Actually, don’t bother. The truth is, I could care less that he’s been “knighted”. It’s such a pointless title nowadays anyway.
It’s an interesting question and I think it has some merit. There were not, after all, riots in Pakistan in 1993 when he was awarded the Booker of Bookers even though, arguably, this was a far greater accolade for a writer to receive.
Maybe it would just be better if these awards were once again given by the Queen and not by a bunch of politicians?
Here
Conservative MP Stewart Jackson:
He has been a critic of the UK, a country whose taxpayers have paid for the protection he required from the fatwa. He’s only semi-resident in this country and his books are rubbish, tedious and without literary merit….There’s no question that we can rescind the award, it would make us look weak and it’s not for Britain to kow-tow to extremists but perhaps it would be appropriate for Salman Rushdie to make the decision not to accept this award.
More:
“I am not entirely certain myself whether Salman Rushdie is deserving of a knighthood given his ingratitude to the taxpayers of this country for protecting him from the fatwah for the best part of 10 years, and the fact that he is not normally resident in the United Kingdom, and the fact that essentially he writes rubbish books - for all those reasons he does not deserve a knighthood.”
Holding public rallies and burning effigies……doesn’t seem to be the way that Muslims should respond to events. Intention is crucial, we should not respond to events from the basis of a sense of agrieved Muslim nationalism.
Rushdie is a non-issue for Muslims, why give the apostate such attention and time, Allah (SWT) will deal with him Inshaala.
What does emerge from these events is the weakness of Muslims in today’s era; diplomaticaly, politicaly….socially.
Should we not be just as agrieved by our lack of relationship with the Quran, Sunnah, Salat….Duah! If we don’t feel the sense of shock and regret at us leaving these things then we should not be surprised at our lack of success in this Dunya.
May Allah (SWT) forgive us and send His mercy upon us.
Not everything is about Muslms OK.You complain that the MSM always zooms in on the “Bad Stuff” but c`mon guys, the palace gives him a Knighthood and you look for underlining causes.Maybe the palace thought he deserved it I don`t know,but let`s have a break from victimhood yeah?
Talane, absolutely.
Tancredi, most people I know have read at least one Rushdie book and love him. I guess the circles one hangs out in have a lot to do with one’s perception of Rushdie’s true popularity.
BTW, Midnight’s won the Booker of Bookers, not just the Booker. He has not only won every award available, but he has sold untold millions of books. You can’t tell me that no one who bought him wasn’t just a little curious. Curiosity can often lead to reading.
Anyway: Satanic Verses is thus: A lot of literary fat that should have been cut by a tougher editor, interspersed with (to mix a metaphor) absolute gems. Real linguistic and literary genius emerges every so often in that huge tome. The trick is to read it once through. Have a stiff drink (non-alcoholic, of course. Hot chocolate is nice). Then open it again, skim through the reams of crappy bits and reread closely those bits that didn’t initially repel you. You may be pleasantly surprised.
And for crying out loud, Muslims! Be strong! Toughen up! Be intelligent! There is nothing greater than Allah, Muhammad is his final prophet, and no mere literary expedition is going to harm either. Allah is responsible for everything: including Rushdie. So read him and try to work out what Allah might have been up to in inspiring such a strange literary foray.
But far more important than Satanic is Rushdie’s book, Shame. Even if you hate Rushdie’s style, it’s got to be the single greatest exposition of how Muslims are destroying themlves today. How Din is misused in the furtherence of the filthiest politics and vilest corruption. It’s a short book, but harrowing. It behoves every Muslim who considers himself intellectually curious to read Shame.
Midnight’s was OK but didn’t blow me away. Same with Moor’s. Again, too much fat. And the rest of his post-fatwa body of work is an absolute disaster. Self conscious and precious. But for those gems buried inside Satanic and Shame, I am very grateful that Rushdie quit his job in advertising and took up the pen.
Always less messy than the sword.
I do agree that if you are going to burn effigies and jump up and down about a book and its author, you should at least read it first. After I read it, I just thought the reaction was so completely over the top and the only people who really benefited from the reaction were Khomeini (who bolstered his attempts to make Iran the new Alpha Male in the Muslim world) and, to some extent, Rushdie who almost certainly experienced fame, sales and popularity that he might never have received otherwise. That said, I still think Rushdie is something of an acquired taste: no amount of stiff drinks (in my case, coffee) were ever able to get me through the Moor’s Last Sigh and, as for the Verses, then it was only the promise — sadly, unfulfilled — of being transformed into a flag-burning reactionary myself by it that motivated me to finish it.
That’s great. Really. He needs as many public kudos as he can get since awards don’t equal mainstream popularity or appeal.
Now after you typed that did you relax back in a leather couch, legs crossed at the knee and arms outspread, possibly a cigar perched in your mouth?
I agree. One’s “circles” will indeed affect how one spends his or her time. For example, I was shocked on more than occasion to discover that people I know read books by such esteemed authors as Dan Brown and Dean Koontz.
So, you see, I realise now that the problem is with my circle. If I had a different circle, perhaps I’d better understand how widely read Rushdie is.
Incidentally, Rushdie was a pip in Bridget Jones’ Diary. You should check it out sometime.
As for the rest, I never thought the reaction to Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses was worth it. I’m firmly in the “Muslims have a tendency to overreact over nothing” camp. But I don’t have to think he deserves a knighthood.
Absolutely, bilah.
Midnight’s Children is tremendous and affected me quite deeply. Satanic Verses certainly had its share of moments as well. Maybe it’s a desi thing?
Also vehemently disagree with the opinion some have expressed that mainstream appeal equates to great literary genius. There’s life outside of J.K. Rowling and Dan Brown, okay.
At what point did anyone suggest mainstream appeal equates to literary genius?
The comments about the “Dan Browns” of the fiction world was tongue in cheek. I wasn’t suggesting sales = talent. The point I was attempting to make is that the ‘circles’ bilah speaks of are small.
Don’t get me started on the elitism of literary arty-fartiness.
Sorry, Sara. The above comments made me think that you were implying that because he – as you perceive it – doesn’t have a wide readership, he doesn’t deserve any kind of acclaim for his writing at all. Apologies if I misunderstood.
OK null, before you accuse me of being a Dan Brown reader, let me clarify.
In my humble opinion, awards and acclaim would mean little to me if my readership was small or if my books were being used to balance tables, etc. Because yes - as I perceive it - he doesn’t have a wide readership. I, like many, find much modern literature extremely dull and wooden. That is another topic altogether however.
Rushdie is gushed over because of what happened with The Satanic Verses not because of Midnight’s Children, which might well have been highly regarded for years to come without the ensuing scandal (also another topic unto itself).
The knighthood, while undeserved, is also of little significance to me, and I wholeheartedly agree that as a “group”, Muslims need not pay it any attention. However, if a Muslim happens to think about this, as a person, using his or her brain, and concludes that Rushdie is an underwhelming presence in the writing world, then please, let him or her be.
Finally, I’m feeling a bit fragile now, so I need to assure you that my “circle” does consist of people who read fancy books, and not one of them has ever espoused the virtues of Rushdie. So are we wrong or just entitled to our own opinion?
Fair enough. Though, I disagree entirely.
I find that this is the crux of the argument for a lot of Muslims (and non-Muslims) who are disagreeing with his knighthood etc. The official citation says he is being awarded for his “services to literature”, and considering he got the Booker of Bookers for Midnight’s Children, I really have no reason to suspect he’s being rewarded solely - two deaceds after the event - for offending some Muslims with the Satanic Verses.
I have to agree with Talane above: not everything is about us. And I think Muslims who attempt to reduce Rushdie’s life work to the supposed offence caused by the Satanic Verses, apart from being highly self-absorbed, are shooting themselves in the foot. He was widely recognized as a great writer even before the Khomeini fatwa brouhaha.
I think we’re all in agreement over these main points:
1. Knighthoods – what a bore.
2. Burning effigies in protest of a knighthood you happen to think is undeserved or misplaced – who has a time, really?
Sure thing. Likewise, if a Muslim happens to think about this, as a person, using his or her brain, and concludes that Rushdie is a great author and sees nothing at all wrong with his receiving honors for his writing, then please, let him or her be.
I belieeevee youuuu!!
Salaam
Sara Tancredi,
I’m sorry you’re feeling fragile. It was never my intention to imply that our circles differed by virtue of education or intelligence - just that folks tend to gravitate to others with similar tastes.
One thing to keep in mind: Rushdie has always been a writer’s writer. He single-handedly sparked a generation of English-language, Sub-continent extracted genre of literature. Even many non-subcons (eg Zadie Smith) aped his style. He liberated what had been a large sector of the world (post-colonial immigrants and their children) without a voice.
When we see Moroccans going wild in Holland, Algerians nuts in France, and Lebanese behaving badly in Oz, what we see is a confluence of many factors. What we see particularly is a failure in the state’s ability to provide Dutch-ness, French-ness, or Australian-ness (to a much lesser degree, of course) to these people, and the failure of these youths to establish an identity for themselves. While Rushdie is certainly not the answer to these ills, he alone started a movement that has the power to counteract somewhat the sense that these young folk have nothing to say and nowhere to say it. The more a pissed off young second generation type can garner respect and honour through art, perhaps we’ll see a little less of that terrifying inarticulate rage that makes the blood run cold on occasion. Certainly sparking a literary genre of that scope is worthy of a small kiss from the lovely Queen?
But let’s say, for a minute that there is nothing redeeming in Rushdie’s work at all. It is still incumbent upon us as Muslims, who have consented to abide by the laws of our State, and who take the injuntion against murder (and its corrollary, incitement) as seriously as both secular and religious law demand, to speak forcefully.
It is not enough that we say that the nutcases are distasteful. We must get very Voltaire on this one. Otherwise - apart from anything else - we tacitly diminish the currency of our own faith and people. We allow the nutters to dictate the debate’s perameters.
Null, I agree with you entirely about the manifold reasons for Rushdie’s award, and the very narrow view that is required to assume it is nothing but a slight against Muslims.
I appreciate your comments null and bilah.
Just one thing to clarify:
I never said that. I said the scandal over the book provoked lots of gushing in general. Seriously, one could easily argue that Salman Rushdie is more famous for that than his body of work.
But since we’re all getting along, and I haven’t needed to invoke Dan Brown again, I’ll stop.
A Google search on the esteemed Rushdie brought up this juicy little morsel.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/.....cer/11167/
Craig Murray has a post with interesting comments on this issue:
Craig Murray’s blog
Is it a provocation to the Muslims ?
bilah: “The more a pissed off young second generation type can garner respect and honour through art, perhaps we’ll see a little less of that terrifying inarticulate rage that makes the blood run cold on occasion.”
Salaams,
We know this isn’t entirely true. I think what we have here are not one but two Rushdies. Rushdie may have been a voice of “art” once upon a time, but there is a paradigmatic shift from the post-Satanic Verses crisis. I don’t know whether he was influenced by his fascist friend Christopher Hitchens more or it was the other way round, but what you call giving a voice to “Moroccans going wild in Holland, Algerians nuts in France, and Lebanese behaving badly in Oz” is false. The Rushdie we now know would dismiss these same people as “Islamo-fascists”. And if you read some of his interviews or articles, you’ll find contemptuous references to Islam. He describes Muslims as averse to “kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world’s resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love.” Nothwithstanding the Socialist ideals, we find in his words a condescending tone, as if Muslims don’t have “freedom”, “music”, “beauty”, “love” etc. He claims to have all these. What’s he on anway? Wife number four. We poor Muslims should stretch our hand for that bacon sandwich as well. Primayvada Gopal in the Guardian hit the bull’s eye:
“The Sir Salman recognised for his services to literature is certainly no neocon but is iconic of a more pernicous 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.”
No wonder he supported the bombings of Afghanistan and Iraq…on “humane” grounds, if he wasn’t pompous already. Sept 11, 2001 (as different from Sept 11, 1973) got him to reinforce how horrible Islam was to the men in suits and ties. But he wasn’t showing any humanity for Muslim victims. They are all the same. He’d rather understand the war criminal Paul Wolfowitz. They’re both “good” men.
Salman Rushdie, Apostasy and Khomeini’s Fatwah”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e7zeuXIcio
I’d bet that a very large proportion of knighthoods over the past 100 years or so have gone to “unworthy” recipients. Remember (as so few non-Anglophone Muslims seem top understand) that the Honours list is compiled by the government of the day, not the monarch. Political cronies get knighted, as do financial backers of political parties, with a light sprinkling of people from the Arts, social servies and so on.
… which is not to say, of course, that I think there’s anything remotely ’suspicious’ about Rushdie being knighted. How could the winner of the Booker of Bookers NOT be in line for honours?
Leave a Comment