"We are all
Salman Rushdies"
INTERNATIONAL moreover, those for whom Rushdie is only a pretext for a campaign of agitation! Those who are calling for his head to stir up crowds of the wretched of the earth, letting off steam gratuitously against a scapegoat who, in their ignorance, they blame for all the forms of oppression that they endure. And equally those who denounce the latter, protecting with their condescending hypocrisy a man who, in their eyes, belongs to a religion incompatible with their "values", a religion whose sole authentic expression is
BECAUSE a writer born into a Bombay Muslim family indulged himself in a literary fantasy by making irreverential allusions to the Prophet of Islam and his entourage, for more than two months we have been witnessing what history will doubtless record as the biggest literary scandal of the twentieth century.
SALAH JABER
ROM the burning of Rushdie's
F book in Britain and the bloody demonstrations on the Indian subcontinent to the death sentence pronounced by Khomeini, the Grand Inquisitor, this is an unprecedented international campaign of fanaticism - the first in the age of satellite communication.
What is the reason for this flood of hate?
A few pages of a novel with symbolic characters, which does not pretend to be anything other than a fictional work? Are they a more intolerable offense to Islam than the thousands of writings and speeches, overtly racist or more hypocritical, that have abounded in the
Western world for some years on the theme of the Muslim religion? Why is the hate of the Islamic fanatics not unleashed against the new crusaders of the Christian West? Why are there nowhere near as many people mobilized when fanatical Zionists in Jerusalem "profane" Islam's second holiest place?
Protecting Rushdie with condescending hypocrisy
Is Salman Rushdie a greater danger to Islam than its detractors among racists or fanatics of other religions? For Islam, certainly not; but for Islamic fanaticism, most certainly yes! Indeed, if Rushdie had belonged to one of the categories of those who abhor Islam because they abhor the Muslim peoples, he would not have been harassed.
For the fanatics of fundamentalist Islam, it would have been in the nature of things according to their conception. In fact, •fanaticism always feeds on its fanatical opposite number: as Islamic fundamentalism feeds on anti-Muslim racism, or Zionism on anti-Semitism. Or again as "Western Christian" fanaticism feeds on anti-Christian or anti-Western Islamic fanaticism.
Because they complement each other, supposedly fundamentalism. Two premises shared in their entirely by the two camps: as much by Muslim fanatics as by antiMuslims. A symbol of the only real danger for fanaticism
If Rushdie has become the incarnation of evil in the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists, it is precisely and solely because he is of Muslim origin. He cannot be accused of anti-Muslim racism in a way that reinforces the fanatics' conception of the world. As demonstrated by his works on India and Pakistan, his fight is unequivocally for freedom of thought, for secularism, for opposition to religious fanaticism. In this sense, he effectively symbolizes the only real source of danger for Islamic fanaticism: a challenge from within. This is something that cannot be compared to foreign hostility, which is always welcome because it is a source of self-justification.