|
When the mainstream media went to
town depicting the absence of Rushdie as a loss for India’s
liberal traditions and democratic ethos, it was indeed a naive
analysis. To properly take cognizance of this matter and
deliberate on its repercussions, a dialectical inquiry is
necessary to contextualize the larger historical and literary
issues touching the Rushdie affair. Not only does this issue
impact freedom of speech, it is also part of the overarching
narrative constructed by the Western intelligentsia regarding
progress and civilization.
The imperative is that, despite the
overwhelming noise generated by liberal activists of all hues,
there was simply no alternative for Indian Muslims but to oppose
the visit of an individual who indulges in reinforcing a demonization and denunciation of everything that they visualize as
sacred.
First and foremost, it goes without saying that there is nothing
like absolute freedom of speech. Anyone who says so is at risk of
fooling himself as well as others. To illustrate, no country worth
its salt can tolerate disrespect to its national symbols – even in
India, despite all the talk of ancient liberal ethos embedded in
Indic culture, you cannot stand up and abuse the national flag or
the national anthem or the Father of the Nation. Nationalism has
become sacrosanct in the modern narrative, which is often used to
further jingoistic tendencies in the masses by right-wing
politicians.
Next, in order to specify Rushdie’s literary genre, we have to
look back at the European tradition perfected in the Middle Ages
which was bent on vilifying Islam as the Dark Other — Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh) was often painted in this literary tradition as
the Anti-Christ and a paedophile and war-monger (may God forbid!)
— Dante’s Divine Comedy is a perfect example of this kind of
demonization.
Historians and orientalists like Margoliuth and
Bernard Lewis look upon Islam as a major problem to be tackled on
the intellectual level by denouncing all its traditions as pagan
in origin. A concerted effort was made to prove scientifically
that the (Arab) Muslims are not descendants of Abraham, that
Abraham never went to the Hejaz and that the Black Stone at Makka
is a pagan relic rather than established by Ibrahim and Ismail (pbut).
It is another matter that sometimes these overzealous
pseudo-rationalists ended up making fools of themselves like in
the case of Margoliuth who denied that Jahiliya poetry even
existed — when this was picked up by one of his students in Egypt,
the scholars of Arabic there cried foul and the fake history of
Islamic scholarship by Westerners was exposed. Malik Bennabi has
done a great exposé of the same in his works where he severely
critiques those depicting the Prophet as either an epileptic or
while being most generous, as having copied from the Jewish
scriptures.
It was Edward Said, the Palestinian professor who for
the first time, revealed the subtle nature of Orientalism which
has its hallmark in depicting the Orient as the land to be
rightfully conquered and liberated (aka civilized) by the West.
For one who is well-conversant with the same tradition, it is easy
to locate wherefrom Rushdie has picked up his moorings – Ziauddin
Sardar makes the same point in one of his writings while
critiquing Rushdie.
Culture of Muslim-bashing
It should be borne in mind here that the demonization of Islam
started by first of all cutting it off from its Abrahamic source —
by illustrating against all textual evidence, that the son of
sacrifice is Isaac and not Ismail (pbut). This was important
because only once a conclusive de-linkage of Islam with the
Judaeo-Christian tradition had been established, it could become
easy to wage war against the heathens who threatened to overrun
Europe. This paved the way for demeaning everything Islamic
ranging from the alleged promise of 72 houris in Paradise to the
number of the Prophet’s own wives – sexual deviancy was the next
step in depicting Muslim culture, and one can see the
manifestations of the same even in current western writings about
Islam.
The reverse impact this had on Muslim minds cut off from
the richness of their own tradition, was in thinking of Islam
itself as a monolithic culture, and not appreciating how to
interact with the modern world. For instance, the Quran has
already told that metaphorical verses are argued and deliberated
upon only by those in whose hearts is a disease, and it is these
very same verses which are often used by Orientalists to emphasize
their point about Islam’s incompatibility with science or reason,
a fact which can never sink in one’s consciousness unless one
approaches text with biased mindset.
While Muslim armies only settled down to rule wherever they went
from India to Spain, the European colonizer devalued history of
the land and left the natives in an empty shell. In the words of
Macaulay, the aim of European education in India was “to create
Western-minded individuals who would be dark in skin but European
in taste”.
As if the repudiation and intellectual draining of the Muslim mind
was not enough, entire disciplines were constructed around the
paradigm of Western supremacy — Anthropology is a perfect example
of this kind of craftsmanship — the basic premise of an
anthropologist rests in the assumption that Western civilization
is the apex of human culture and refinement and all other cultural
traditions are studied as poor imitations of the former. Thus Arab
and by extension, Muslim (including South Asian) culture was at an
underdeveloped tribal stage still to shed off its primitive ethos!
It is only in recent times that an effort has been made by some
scholars to study anthropology from a Muslim perspective.
Another manifestation of the same historical criticism, in which
many Muslims themselves got entangled, was the denunciation of all
Hadith literature as Chinese whispers. Thus, with utter disregard
to the scientific tradition developed by the Hadith scholars, the
entire corpus was sought to be rejected as mere aphorisms. This
despite the fact that the modern-day Biblical criticism has itself
learnt a lot from Hadith criticism. The objective, of course, was
to rework Muslim tradition to make it malleable to new notions of
European sensibilities. The frank discussions of marital and even
sexual issues in Muslim tradition are interpreted as being a proof
of Eastern promiscuity which reflects a tribal sensuality —
forgetting that Islam or religion as a way of life, has no need to
brush away any sensitive issue under the carpet. Thus Rushdie and
his ilk feel no shame at giving fictional prostitutes the names of
the Prophet’s wives, while critiquing Muslims for indulging in
harems in the tradition of their Prophet!
Faith versus Nihilism
The larger issue in this maze of liberal emancipation is that one
cannot delink Rusdhie and look at him as an actor in isolation —
there already exists an established tradition of degrading Islam
with all its nuances and cultural manifestations. It is amazing
that India’s image can be affected by catering to the sentiments
of some 18% of its population, but Switzerland becomes an ideal
democracy while banning minarets on the basis of a majority vote.
Yes, to prevent a democracy from degenerating into a mobocracy,
one has to define certain red lines which cannot be impacted by
group behaviour — however, the issue here is not one of freedom of
expression as was falsely portrayed by the miniscule of
over-the-top shouting television anchors — the issue here was an
abuse and attack on the religious identity of a very large
population.
It goes without saying that irrespective of the post-modern notion
of the liberated individual, large sections of populations in both
the East as well as the West, think of religion as the only way of
life they know. The traditions of India, whether it is in the
mutts in Karnataka or the Deras in Punjab or the ziyarats in
Kashmir have always been a source of strength to its citizens.
Even in Europe, the holiness of the Vatican and the Church has
remained undisturbed. Local pastors cater to the religious needs
of their localities in the US, which is the supposed liberal
paradise. The liberal minority is itself most restrictive of
freedom of expression by indulging in much clamour and little
understanding of what shapes and defines the lives of large
sections of peoples. It would not be too far to say that the
majority finds religion liberating rather than restrictive, for
man is at heart a spiritual and moral being whose thirst for the
same can only be satiated by faith.
The contextualization of Rushdie helps us understand why precisely
he is lapped up by the West as a symbol of expressive emotion
while denying the same right to Muslims in their midst – for the
uninitiated, Satanic Verses as a term is not invented by Rushdie,
this term was propagated by the Orientalists as proof of the
Prophet (pbuh) being overtaken by Satan while reciting the Quran
and thus compromising and admitting of a multitude of gods. In
stark contrast to this, the Quran has already said several
centuries ago that no one can interfere with Divine revelation:
“When you read the Quran, seek God's protection from Satan, the
rejected one” (16:98). The nature of Revelation is such that it
comes from on high, which the Quran describes as being “guarded
against all rebellious devils” (37:7).
At other places, the Quran
affirms that everything in this universe is guarded by God,
whatever we do is within His grasp — it is fine if one does not
believe in God himself, yet to suggest that a Prophet receiving
Revelation is getting inspired by Satan is the zenith of lunacy
and blasphemy. Thus, while Revelation places a great importance on
guardianship both by God as well as humans, those with a Satanic
bent of mind are wont to degrade everything holy and break off the
sanctity which appears to them as a yoke.
The war of words witnessed here is not between Islam and any other
faith, but between the God-centered view of the universe with the
theory of nihilism which ends up denying one’s own existence —
Rushdie belongs to the same genre which insults the Virginity of
Mary, whom the Quran describes as one “who guarded her chastity”.
It is another matter that today by and large it is only a section
of Muslims who hold these values dear and are eager to articulate
their point of view. The tragedy here is that due to the ridicule
heaped on Islam, it becomes difficult for ordinary Muslims to make
sense of striking the balance between tradition and modernity and
they either become desacralized or withdraw into their shell.
Where is the Loony Fringe?
Finally, it would be a safe assertion to make that most of those
clamouring for the side of Rushdie have either not read the book,
or not understood the tradition of which he is definitely a part.
To compare him with MF Hussain is not really germane, because the
latter is not part of any tradition of vilification of Hindu
goddesses by Muslims. In fact, MF Hussain while not any paragon of
virtue, has not strayed too far from what is already part of Hindu
tradition in the artisan engravings at Khajuraho.
Rushdie on his
part has not only willingly become part of a well-established
western tradition of abuse but is also guilty of treachery to the
culture of the nation he was born into — it is no wonder that he
had to run away to lead a lascivious life with unending affairs in
the West. This is symptomatic of a number of ex-Muslims or born
Muslims who make it their hobby to bash Islam and everything it
holds sacred — whether it is Ayan Hirsi Ali or Irshad Manji or Ali
Sina or Taslima Nasrin — Islam-bashing is the fastest way to get a
Western passport and all the temporary luxuries of this life!
It is immaterial why Rushdie was not opposed on earlier visits or
why he was opposed at the eve of elections. Irrespective of these
sidetracks, the non-admission of Rushdie on Indian soil is a
blessing in disguise, for people of all faiths can still hope to
come to an understanding with each other about the purported
secularization of tradition and demonization of Muslims, in
particular. And yes, it is not just the loony fringe which
demonizes Rushdie rather any believer with his entire soul would
denounce the loony tradition of Islam-bashing.
The author is a management graduate. He may be reached at
shad.shahid@gmail.com.
Above article appeared in The Milli Gazett's upcoming issue dated
February 01.02.2012
|
Comments
|
Quick links