Salman Rushdie

, , , , , , , , ,

In Islamic tradition, what is a fatwa? Why the demands to kill novelist Salman Rushdie?

, , , , , , , , ,
In Islamic tradition, what is a fatwa? Why the demands to kill novelist Salman Rushdie?

THE QUESTION:

In Islam, what is a fatwa? Why the demand to kill novelist Salman Rushdie?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

In 1989, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran’s theocratic ruler, ordered the assassination “without delay” of novelist Salman Rushdie because of his novel “The Satanic Verses.” Remarkably, this official fatwa imposed the duty of freelance killing in the name of God upon masses of Muslim believers in all nations, and also demanded death for the editors and publishers involved with the book.

Three decades later, a Lebanese-American stands accused of attempting to murder Rushdie by repeated stabbings onstage at New York’s Chautauqua Institution. The author suffered severe injuries but survived. Though the Muslim Council of Britain condemned the attack, the Iranian regime’s Kayhan newspaper dispatched “a thousand bravos” to “the brave and dutiful” assailant while militants in other Muslim lands celebrated. We’ll see what prosecutors and defense attorneys finally say about links between Iran’s fatwa of death and the sensational bloodshed.

Rushdie’s complex fantasy had dream sequences in which depraved enemies of Islam — not the author himself — complain about moral absolutism and treatment of women and demean the Prophet Muhammad’s wives and closest Companions. They also challenge the divine inspiration of the Quran. A Wall Street Journal op-ed correctly noted that the far greater threat to the Quran is the revisionist theorizing on its origins by the late John Wansbrough at the University of London.

The Rushdie novel resulted in book-banning and riots in the Muslim world, and the famous fatwa sent Rushdie into hiding for years. In 1998, Iran’s president declared the case “finished” during diplomatic efforts, but the regime did not actually abolish the fatwa. It was reaffirmed by Khomeini’s successor as Supreme Leader in 2017, and re-published on a government Web site five days before the Chautauqua stabbing. During the past decade, Iranian groups have pledged to pay a $3.9 million bounty to anyone who slays Rushdie.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Keeping up: Tumultuous times reshaping journalism, objectivity and even common language

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

What do pundits David Brooks and Fareed Zakaria, leftist intellectual Noam Chomsky, author Malcolm Gladwell, choreographer Bill T. Jones, chess champion Garry Kasparov, jazz leader Wynton Marsalis, novelists J.K. Rowling and Salman Rushdie, feminist Gloria Steinem, civil liberties scholar Nadine Strossen, and teachers’ union head Randi Weingarten have in common?

Not a whole lot except that they are celebrities and joined 153 critics of both President Donald Trump and “cancel culture” in endorsing a dire July 7 letter warning that “ideological conformity” is stifling “open debate and toleration of differences” in America. The signers see “greater risk aversion” among journalists and other writers “who fear for their livelihoods,” alongside editors “fired for running controversial pieces” (talking to you, New York Times).

Another large group, heavy with journalists of color, quickly issued an acerbic response that hailed the media and cultural institutions for starting to end their protection of “bigotry” and the power held by “white, cisgender people.”

Wait, there’s more. Media circles will be buzzing for some time about the resignation letter of Bari Weiss upon leaving The New York Times, made public Tuesday, which contained hints at possible legal action linked to on-the-job harassment. This was followed immediately by Andrew Sullivan's announcement of his departure from New York magazine. which he will explain in his final column Friday.

The bottom line: This is the most tumultuous time for American culture, and thus for the news media, in a generation.

In one aspect, financially pinched print journalism continues to drift toward imitation of slanted and profitable cable TV news (often quote — “news” — unquote).


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

As European blasphemy laws endure, journalists should consider how words can get them in trouble

, , , , , , ,
As European blasphemy laws endure, journalists should consider how words can get them in trouble

Here’s an explosive combination: The democratic demand for freedom of speech and the equally emotionally laden demand that sincerely held religious beliefs not be subjected to indiscriminate insults and scorn.

Religiously speaking, we’re talking about blasphemy, an issue contemporary Westerners are apt to believe is more of a concern in Muslim communities and highly autocratic nations such as Russia — and which they would be correct to conclude.

Journalistically and artistically speaking, we’re talking about the magazine Charlie Hebdo and the novelist Salman Rushdie. Both were victims of blasphemy charges by Muslim. The former ended in horrific violence.

Now, Foreign Policy magazine — on the occasion of the Hebdo attacks fourth anniversary, and the 30th anniversary of the blasphemy fatwa issued against Rushdie by Iran’s revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini — has published an intriguing analysis piece on this issue. It ran under this headline:

30 Years After the Rushdie Fatwa, Europe Is Moving Backward.

Blasphemy laws have been given new life on the continent.

Here’s a hefty chunk of the Foreign Policy essay.

But despite the unanimous rhetorical support for free speech after Charlie Hebdo, blasphemy bans have become more firmly anchored in some parts of the continent in recent years. In a recent case, the European Court of Human Rights even reaffirmed that European human rights law recognizes a right not to have one’s religious feelings hurt. The court based its decision on the deeply flawed assumption that religious peace and tolerance may require the policing rather than the protection of “gratuitously offensive” speech. Accordingly, it found that Austria had not violated freedom of expression by convicting a woman for having called the Prophet Mohammed a “pedophile.”

Some have argued that the court’s decision was a necessary defense of an embattled Muslim minority vulnerable to bigotry and religious hatred. But laws against religious insult and blasphemy are generally different from hate speech laws—which are problematic in themselves—that purportedly protect people rather than abstract religious ideas and dogmas.


Please respect our Commenting Policy