Dealing with medieval losers and dysfunctional theocrats
By Ralph R. Reiland
Monday, November 12, 2001
"The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multiparty political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex."
Those are the words of Salman Rushdie, commenting on the attack of Sept. 11. For most of us, it was over a decade ago when we first heard of Rushdie, back when the Ayatollah Khomeini called for his death for allegedly defaming Islam in "The Satanic Verses."
The day before Rushdie's book was to be published in the United States, on Feb. 14, 1989, Khomeini issued a fatwa (in Islamic law, a declaration issued by a legal authority) against Rushdie and his publisher, stated as follows:
"I would like to inform all the intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book titled `The Satanic Verses,' which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran, as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, have been declared madhur el dam (`those whose blood must be shed'). I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare to insult Islam again."
In short order, the Japanese translator of "The Satanic Verses" was stabbed to death, the Italian translator was knifed and the Norwegian publisher was wounded in a gun attack. And in Tehran, religious fanatics filled the streets to burn books, call for the death of Rushdie and generally work themselves up into a hopping mad frenzy of group hysteria.
Altogether, as they torched the books, about 40 people were killed in associated street riots. On Sept. 11, a dozen years later, the same fanatical mind-set climbed aboard four American passenger jets in the United States, itching to burn even more of what it couldn't stomach. German writer Heinrich Heine said it accurately in 1835: "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings."
In Rushdie's case, the government of Iran in 1989 offered a $2.5 million bounty to anyone who carried out his assassination, a prize that was increased by $633,000 in 1998 by way of two supplementary rewards, $300,000 and $333,000, respectively, from an Iranian religious foundation and an Islamic student group. Consequently, Rushdie spent most of the past 12 years in hiding, traveling only with bodyguards and telling no one where he'd be in advance.
Following Sept. 11, Rushdie seems less afraid. His recent commentary in The Washington Post:
"How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your life. Even if you are scared. The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his worldview, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: 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. These will be our weapons. Not by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them."
I'd add some F-16s to the weapons list, but other than that Rushdie's got it right. We must agree on what matters. And yes, that means pork sandwiches and Jennifer Lopez's dress at the Grammys and freedom of thought and Manhattan and pluralism and Ellen DeGeneres and free enterprise and Jews and free speech and Kid Rock and secularism and The Who and gutsy women who aren't kept under wraps.
Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the United Nations, recently said that we should now define ourselves not only by what we're for but by what we're against. "I would reverse that proposition, because in the present instance what we are against is a no-brainer," says Rushdie. "Suicidal assassins ram wide-bodied aircraft into the World Trade Center and Pentagon and kill thousands of people: Um, I'm against that. But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we unanimously concur that all the items in the above list - yes, even the short skirts and dancing - are worth dying for?"
And can we concur that enough is enough? It was 18 years ago on that Beirut morning when two suicide bombers shattered the American barracks. Claiming credit? Shiites, religious fanatics inspired by Khomeini, acting to ignite an Islamic jihad against "the enemies of God."
And after 20 years of this, can we finally concur that we're done being a punching bag for a bunch of medieval losers and dysfunctional theocrats?
Says Rushdie: "Twenty years ago, it was already de rigueur in the Muslim world to blame all its troubles on the West and, in particular, the United States. I wanted then to ask a question that is no less important now:
"Suppose we say that the ills of our societies are not primarily America's fault, that we are to blame for our own failings. Might we not, by accepting our own responsibility for our problems, begin to learn to solve them for ourselves?"
Ralph R. Reiland, the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise at Robert Morris College, is a local restaurateur. E-mail him at rrreiland@aol.com.
pittsburghlive.com |
