75-year-old “The Satanic Verses” author Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie was attacked on Friday 12th August at the Chautauqua Institution in Western New York where he was to speak about the importance of America giving asylum to exiled writers.He sustained multiple life-threatening injuries and was put on a ventilator1. 24-year old Hadi Matar has been arrested following what has been described by the District Attorney, Jason Schmidt as as “targeted, unprovoked, preplanned”2 attack on Rushdie and is facing two charges: “one count of attempted second-degree murder” and “one count of second-degree assault” on Ralph Henry Reese who shared the stage with Rushdie and runs City of Asylum (an organisation that provides sanctuary to writers under threat of political persecution)3.
Matar’s home in New Jersey was searched by the FBI that found that the alleged attacker’s social media accounts show his sympathy to “extremist Shi’a causes and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps”4.
The attack was condemned by world leaders such as US President Joe Biden, and French President Emmanuel Macron. Current UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and Rishi Sunak (prime minister candidate) championed free speech in their messages of support5. Both shared their thoughts on twitter, with Sunak tweeting “A champion of free speech and artistic freedom. He’s in our thoughts tonight”, whilst Johnson wrote that he was “Appalled that Sir Salman Rushdie has been stabbed while exercising a right we should never cease to defend”6.
Satanic Verses and Controversy
The Satanic Verses, published in September 1988 delves into the heart of core Islamic beliefs, using elements of magical realism and dream-like sequences. The plot involves two Indian Muslim expatriates in England as the protagonists, Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamacha, who following the explosion of their plane over the English Channel, take on the personas of the archangel Gabriel (Farishta) and that of a devil (Chamcha). Farishta, who has transformed into Gabriel, has a series of dreams about a character called Mahound – based on the Prophet Mohammed. This dream involves a revisionist history of the founding of Islam, where Mahound wants to found a monotheistic religion in a polytheistic town. He receives a vision allowing the workship of three goddesses, before realising this revelation was sent by the Devil (Chamacha) and later recants7. The dream-sequences in the Satanic Verses echo, in parts, Islam’s traditional account of the archangel’s encounters with the Prophet Mohammed, with some Muslims seeing such stories as mocking some of Islam’s most sensitive tenets and casting doubt on the divine nature of the Qur’an8. Further, the name chosen for the Prophet “Mahoud” was an alternative name for Mohammed used during the Middle Ages by Christians who considered him a devil9.
Upon release, the book had a divisive reception. By October 1998 Rushdie needed a bodyguard in the face of an array of death threats. Pakistan banned the book in November 1988, and on the 12th February 1989, 10,000 protestors gathered against Rushdie in Islamabad. During the protests, six died in an attack on the American Cultural Centre. As violent protests against Rushdie’s book spread to Srinagar and Kashmir, India banned the importation of the book10. Following the protests, on February 14th 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khoemeini (then supreme leader of Iran) issued a fatwa calling on all Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie and put a several million dollar price on his head11. In the UK, book burning also occurred in January 1989. Ishtiaq Ahmed, of the Bradford Council of Mosques recounts the moment members of the mosques council read a copy of the book and concluded parts were “grossly insulting to Islam”12. He added that a specific “spot was selected – it had a symbolic meaning … a faith community demonstrating and saying ‘We matter, we exist, we are here, out our presence matters”13. Ahmed concluded by commenting that Khomeini’s fatwa however, ““hijacked” British Muslims’ battle for recognition and did them a “great disservice”14. Inayat Bunglawala, a then 19-year-old student at Queen Mary College, London, who attended a large protest against The Satanic Verses in Hyde Park recalled “I’d never seen those kinds of numbers and we’re talking 20 or 30,000 Muslims – British Muslims who had come together”15. But, some months after the demonstration Inayat questioned the protests achievements, finding himself particularly troubles by the message some protests were sending. “The whole book-burning thing conjured up very horrible images, you know of Nazi Germany, and clearly most people find that a lot more disturbing […] It just played into this stereotype of Muslims being opposed to modernity or incapable of adapting to modernity, of being narrow minded, not willing to listen to the arguments of others”16.
In February 1989, Rushdie himself expressed remorse, saying: “I profoundly regret the distress that publication has occasioned to sincere followers of Islam”17.
Some scholars, such as Gregory Rubinson (University of California Los Angeles) have defended The Satanic Verses and argued that Rushdie’s “irreverent mockery” has intended to explore the possibility of separating fact from fiction, for example Gibreel’s inability to decide what is real and what is a dream18. For others, such as literary critic Anshuman Mondal, the framing of the Rushdie affair as “a battleground between free speech and Muslim fundamentalism belies a refusal to engage seriously with a reality that is more complex. What is lost in this characterisation is the fact that many Muslim readers hold conflicting, multi-faceted views about Rushdie and his text”19.
Muslim Responses to the attack
Following the attack, most British Muslim leaders have expressed unconditional condemnation of the attack. In a tweet, The Muslim Council of Britain wrote that they “condemn the attack on Salman Rushdie. Such violence is wrong and the perpetrator must be brought to justice”20. Shaykh Dr Umar Al-Qadri a leading Irish Muslim cleric and Theologian (founder and chairperson of the irish Muslim Council and Chief Imam and Mufti at the Islamic Centre of Ireland) also condemned the attack. “Most Muslims are upset” he said, “we condemn this, just like we condemn violence against Charlie Hebdo […] I believe that the attack is absolutely not justified. There is no justification for violence, especially not when someone has written a piece of satire”21. Al-Qadri further added that he does not “stand with the fatwa and there are many Muslim scholars around the world that simply say there is no need to respond to it”22.
In Michigan, both Sunni and Shi’a Muslim leaders met in the city of Detroit to condemn the attack against Salman Rushdie, the killing of four Muslim men in New Mexico and to discuss ways to promote unity and discourage extremism23. Both of these cases have generated debates within the Michigan Muslim population, which is among the largest in the US. Mahmoud Al-Hadidi, chairman of the Michigan Muslim Community Council said that he condemns “the attack on a writer or a speaker in such a way. I do not endorse it. That’s the feeling of most people in our community, that that should not happen”24. Prominent Islamic Imam Mohammed Ali Elahi of the Islamic House of Wisdom in Dearborn Heights, Detroit, also criticised the attack in a Facebook post: Rushdie “didn’t deserve … this bloody attack“25. However, he did add that “insulting the sacred symbols of Islam or other religions is wrong and unacceptable” and any responses to Rushdie or others who may disrespect any religions should be expressed peacefully26.
Free Speech Versus Extremism
Simultaneously, some of the commentaries frame the incident as an opposition between speech vs fundamentalism binary. For example the headline for the Financial Times read “Attack on Salman Rushdie underlies threats of free speech: Freedom of expression needs to be defended with even more vehemence”27, and the Firstpost (an online Indian news and media website) wrote “Salman Rushdie: Why the world gives Islam such a long rope” followed by the exert “Rushdie may lose an eye if he survives, but the rest of us cannot shut out eyes to the everyday barbarism called Islamist violence”28.
Monica Marks (Assistant Professor at NYU Abu Dhabi) responded on twitter to the Islamophobia of the media following the attack on Rushdie. Following a feature on BBC News hour she tweeted: “I’d braced myself for knee-jerk Islamophobia (painting most Muslims as despisers of free speech) in reaction to the sickening act of fascistic terrorism against Salman Rushdie. But I didn’t expect to hear it featured at the top of @BBCNewshour for minute after gut-churning minute”29. Marks did commend BBC News presenter Razia Iqbal for pushing back against playwright Hanif Kureishi’s “sweeping generalisations against Muslims. But Kureishi doubled down, saying ‘most Muslims buy into an ideology based on hatred. You know, think of the Taliban”30. Marks continued to condemn the attack of Rushdie and argue that huge advocacy for free speech was indeed needed, but we should not smear everyday Muslims who are often the first victims of despots and terrorists.
The attack on Rushdie has renewed free speech debates but the focus on the free speech versus fundamentalism” polarity will lead to an increased discrimination towards Muslims31.
