Rod Liddle on Rushdiephobia
Gorgeous. Someone gets it.
The decision to knight the author Salman Rushdie has brought together, in angry concordat, almost the entire world…Rushdie is loathed — and not just by the mediaevally minded bigots of Islamabad, Tehran and the Finsbury Park mosque. He seems to be loathed by everyone else, too. No sooner had his knighthood been announced than the British Right waded into attack….We give him expensive police protection when the mad mullahs order his death and he repays us by continuing to speak his mind. Beneath all this is the usually unspoken intimation of racism: Salman — well, he’s a darkie, isn’t he? A chippy little wog. Comes from Bombay or Mumbai or somewhere ghastly like that…The British Left hates him, if anything, even more. It has long carried a torch for Islam, despite the misogyny, homophobia and authoritarian impulses of the ideology.
And the death penalty for ‘apostasy’ and the slight huffiness about blasphemy and a few other not obviously left-wing details. It’s the great central mystery of our time, as far as I’m concerned, this inexplicable torch carried for Islam. Stalin, Islam – gee, parts of the left just don’t seem to have very good taste, do they.
Like most haggard and tired former commies, I have little time for the honours system; it’s an infantile, reflexive thing on my part, I suppose. Certainly I will be the first to show up with my bucket of ordure when some tenth-rate, brain-dead pop star or footballer or soap actor has a medal pinned on him out of the government’s desire to kowtow to public sensibilities.
Or, now you mention it, some tenth-rate head of a certain Council who gave it as his opinion that death was too good for Rushdie.
But if we are to have the honours, I find it difficult to think of anyone more deserving of a knighthood than Sir Salman Rushdie. While the rest of us were still worrying about the Cold War, Rushdie was warning us about the war yet to come. He addressed the Islamic revolution with sophistication, philosophical elegance and great literary inventiveness. And he did so with enormous courage and candour. He is perhaps Britain’s only writer who has successfully examined the soul of Islam and, in so doing, examined the soul of the West too…He has witnessed the most wretched of little political weasels, the likes of Keith Vaz, marching through the streets at the head of a throng of howling Muslim maniacs, demanding his book be burned.
Yes but – but – but – but he caused offence to the Muslim community! Don’t you understand, Mr Liddle? He caused offence. He caused the ‘spiritual leader’ of Iran to call for his murder – don’t you see how wicked that was? Are you blind? Are you an Orientalist? Or what are you altogether?
You’re one of the few people writing in the mainstream rags who gets it, that’s what. Have a chocolate; you deserve it.
Bloody hell – Rod Liddle actually making some kind of sense…
wonders will never cease!
:-)
Liddle is rarely sensible, so this is a nice exception. Generally I always used to think him irritating with a habit of opining about issues he clearly knows nothing about. But I’d only seen an excerable documentary about ‘militant atheists’ which was massively ill-informed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Atheism apparently, just look at the overview), and a pretty bad documentary in favour of higher immigration controls. So I looked up some more articles, and it turns out that he is good on some things, bad on others.
Good on BBC double-standards although he doesn’t really seem to come to a conclusion (http://www.spectator.co.uk/archive/30628/sweeneys-rant-at-the-scientologists.thtml), bad on Dawkins and Darwinism (http://www.spectator.co.uk/archive/features/26844/a-man-who-believes-in-darwin-as-fervently-as-he-hates-god.thtml).
Apparently he is either agnostic or CofE, but he has a marked bias against anything other than “English Protestantism” – I suspect the reason he likes Rushdie is because he hassles Islam (although the article is no less correct for that).
He seems to want to occupy the same kind of contrarian space as Hitchens, but he is not in the same league – he just seems to be saying things for the sake of contrarianism rather than due to a serious analysis.
I too find Rushdie heavy going, but would defend to death itself his right to both sensibly express his views, (and be honoured for so doing in a way which clearly pleases some fool or another among our so-called literati)…
Personally I fear that, in some ways like Joyce, he is so obscure, much of the impact of his message is lost to the majority of readers…nonetheless…
If the Islamic faith is truly so brittle and insecure that it cannot survive and thrive despite this muted ovine criticism, then the mullahs and ayatollahs really ought to roll over and give up now…
The much-maligned Christianity and Judaism have historically endured far worse, and, (owing to the peculiar western traditions of freedom of speech) continue to do so…
I do not actively adhere to any of these religions, and looking at the demented (not to say twat-like) reactions of some of their representatives I’m bloody glad to be a cynic with no chance whatever of post-mortem redemption…
I’m just an average Englishman, puzzled by the whole fuss…I simply can’t understand…if someone threatens death, (to bank cashiers in say a bank raid), then an armed response unit takes them out…if someone threatens death in a terrorist situation (eg the Embassy Siege) then an armed response unit, (in this case the SAS), takes them out…if someone threatens death to a guy who just writes a book?…
By the same logic, I guess the pakistani prime-minister and a number of others need taking out…
“[The British Left] has long carried a torch for Islam, despite the misogyny, homophobia and authoritarian impulses of the ideology.”
Not just the British left. Does anyone else read Yoshie Furuhashie (Critical Montages)? She’s a Japanese emigrant living in the US who’s dogged in her defense of Iran (and Islam in general), referring to Ahmadinejad as her “Persian Prince.” Hard to take…
BTW, can anyone recommend _The Cairo Trilogy_ by Naguib Mahfouz? I’ve had it on a shelf for months (years?), meaning to read it (along with hundreds of others). The thing is, it’s 1,313 pages, and once I start a book, it has to be veritable shite for me to give it up. So I could use a nudge. Thanks.
I don’t know from Rod Liddle – I recognize the name, but know nothing more. But he got this one right anyway.
In truth, I like Rushdie’s articles and essays more than I like the fiction I’ve read. But that’s so utterly beside the point with respect to all this nonsense that I haven’t felt like mentioning it. Anyway as far as I’m concerned they’re welcome to knight him for the articles!
I started The Cairo Trilogy – and quite liked it. Don’t be put off by the fact that I haven’t (so far) gone on; I do that a lot.
You shouldn’t do that thing about finishing if you start unless it’s really shite. Really. You should feel free to give up any book at any time. I’ve had this discussion with so many friends, who tell me they’re reading something they don’t like and can’t wait to finish. Godalmighty folks – life is short: stop now and read something you do like instead! It’s not a sin to stop; the author won’t know; Jesus won’t mind; Julie Andrews won’t shed a tear. There are far, far more books you would like than you can read in ten lifetimes; there is no point in reading stuff you don’t like (unless you really honestly think you’ll get something out of it if you try – that’s different).
Anyway, don’t think of the trilogy as one book, think of it as three. It is three, after all.
OB, thanks for that — really. I frequently do things for compulsive reasons (OCD), and really need the reminder about life being short, and that we are deluged with choices.
(Still, if I start it, the odds are extremely good that I’ll read every word. But maybe I’ll read two other books in between.)
Apologies for being trivial, but I find coincidences fascinating (although rationally I know they’re essentially meaningless). At this very moment, I have 5 CDs doing the random shuffle thing, and two of them feature Julie Andrews — _My Fair Lady_ and _Camelot_.
There seems to me an imbalance in the impression being given on B&W about the response in the UK to the award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie. On Radio 4’s “Any Questions” the panel of four (including a Labour minister and Tory and Lib Dem shadow ministers) unanimously rejected the notion that the award was an insult to Muslims or that those making the decision should consider anything other than the merits of the award. On BBC2’s “Question Time” four panellists out of five also rejected the “insult to Muslims” claim in the strongest terms (Labour minister, Tory shadow minister, Christopher and Peter Hitchens – the only time the Hitchens brothers have publicly agreed on any issue in living memory). Only Lib Dem’s Shirley Williams said it was a mistake to have awarded Rushdie a knighthood, on the grounds that “the timing is very odd” as it should be given for *lifelong* contributions to literature and that he had seriously offended Muslims. Even Tariq Ramadan said on BBC2 “Newsnight” the other evening that it is “entirely a matter for the British who they nominate for an award”.
Timothy Garton Ash in today’s Guardian:
>The issue here is not whether Rushdie’s writing merits a knighthood, nor whether leftwing, cosmopolitan writers should accept honours from Her Majesty. (My answers, by the way, are “yes”, and “why not?”) The issue is whether people should be killed, or face a serious threat of being killed, for what they say or write; and whether a sovereign, democratic state should censor its recognition of its citizens in the face of such intimidation. On this there can be no compromise, no ifs or buts. All our individual solidarity, all the necessary resources of the state, are called for at such a moment. Although this did not seem uppermost in the minds of the committee that recommended the award, when the Queen taps Mr Rushdie on the shoulder with her ceremonial sword and says “Arise, Sir Salman”, she will now be striking a regal blow for free speech.< http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2109520,00.html
Alan the trouble I find is that even though senior poloticians reject the notion that the K was an insult to islam,they always seem to qualify it by saying that they sympathise with moslem hurt feelings! Just once I would like to see a leading public figure stand up and tell the molem world what they can do with their feelings,as a 53 year old geezer I get prety ticked about a lot of things but no one has any sympathy for me!
Maybe the “K” WAS an insult to “islam” …
If so, then good.
If not, what a pity!
Doug
Samuel Johnson who,let’s face it, was nor deficient in the brains department, claimed never to have read a book from start to finish, although Boswell tells a wonderful story of SJ picking a book off a shelf at someone’s house and starting to read it with one arm resting on a mantelpiece and then reading it for so long that his arm went dead.
So there’s a good precedent for picking and choosing (having said which I’m ashamed to say that my practice is more like yours than like the good Doctor’s).
Connections between Rod Liddle’s opinions and logically defensible positions are largely random, IMHO. So saying he got this one right is very charitable of you, Ophelia! As TG points about above, he is a kind of auto-contrarian. (Also a churchgoer, if that’s relevant).
Doug – I have been struggling all my life with the overwhelming feeling that there is something morally good in finishing books once you’ve started them. I’ve only recently, more or less, managed to get to the point of not being anxious about having at least 30 partly-read books around already and then starting another one. I think it’s related to the desire for philosophical charity. But when it gets to the point that, because I don’t fancy any of the 30, I start messing around on the internet instead of starting the 31st, it’s silly.
Hitchens (major) gets it
potentilla — Maybe I’m just too charitable. Right now, I’m slogging through a book about the concept of “nothing” as it relates to cosmology and physics (_The Hole in the Universe: How Scientists Peered over the Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything_ by KC Cole), and I must admit that I’m in a bit over my head. But will I give up? Hell no. It’s not in my constitution.
Well, no, I hardly ever actually give up…..just sometimes an observer might be forgiven for thinking I’d just forgotten to take the bookmark out…
As an Oxbridge graduate and a public schoolboy, I suppose it’s only natural
Rushdie should get a knighthood. Pity his avowed secularism and opposition to
‘totalitarianism’ doesn’t include a repudiation of god-given medieval
British class distinctions.
Allen, I didn’t say Beckett said anything about hurt feelings, I said she apologized. Even given the context, I don’t think she should have. Suppose the context had been a meeting with the Foreign Minister of apartheid South Africa; would she have said ‘we are sorry if there are people who have taken very much to heart this honour given to a black person’? If she had, would that be okay or understandable? And as for ‘Salman Rushdie is only one of many Muslims who have been honoured through the British Honours system, and indeed a very senior Muslim activist in the UK received a Knighthood last year’ – she means Sacranie! He’s the guy who said death is too good for Rushdie! His ‘senior activism’ is rooted precisely in the (wholly illegitimate, in my view) 1989 fuss over Rushdie’s novel; the MCB started from that fuss, and Sacranie got his fame and seniority from that. I hardly think Beckett should take pride in that knighthood.
That said, however – I’m glad to hear the impression I’m getting is unbalanced; I’m glad to hear there are pols who reject the notion that the award was an insult to Muslims. I wish the BBC would do likewise, but I’m glad there are pols who manage it.
Ophelia writes:
>Allen, I didn’t say Beckett said anything about hurt feelings, I said she apologized.< Ophelia: I didn’t suggest you did! When I wrote (above) “Nor, in spite of some misleading headlines, did Margaret Beckett say she sympathised with Muslem hurt feelings”, I wasn’t referring to you, but to at least one newspaper headline (it may have been the London Evening Standard) indicating that Beckett said she apologised for the offence caused to Muslims. She didn’t, she said “we are sorry if there are people who have taken very much to heart this honour, which is after all for a life long body of literary work”. As I wrote above, I too am sorry that so many Muslims react in the way they do. That doesn’t mean that I’m sorry to have offended them – there really is a difference: one sentiment alludes to other people’s behaviour (they choose to be offended), and the other to mine (I offended them – which Beckett did not say), and my sense is that Beckett was using her words carefully to distinguish the two positions. But I really don’t want to get into a futile discussion on that particular issue. It pales into insignificance compared with the central issue of the inane response of some people to the award (e.g., Lord Ahmed). I don’t accept your analogy with the Foreign Minister of apartheid South Africa. Whatever one thinks of the decision to depose Saddam, the Foreign Minister of Iraq is a representative of a government that is struggling to maintain some kind of democracy (far from ideal, but a darn sight better than anything in the neighbourhood, and the only thing realistically on the cards at the present time) against vicious and violent opposition. That alone, given the fact that it is an overwhelmingly Muslim country, suffices to justify Beckett’s choosing her words carefully when responding to a question at a news conference convened for the two of them to address together. But why do we have to make an issue of Beckett, when essentially she is on the same side as us, in that she rejects the notion that the response of Muslims should be a criterion for rejecting a proposed award of an honour? There are plenty of people who should be attacked for their position on this issue, and criticising people for not expressing a position precisely in accord with the majority of “Butterflies and Wheels” contributors is getting close to a species of sectarianism. Let’s be glad Beckett made it clear she rejects attempts at outside interference with the award to Rushdie.
Sent to Normblog
I understand that the British High Commissioner was called in by the government in Canberra and given a dressing down for the way in which the Queen has insulted the Australian people by her provocative act. Sources close to the Australian government say that it is quite clear that the Queen’s intention in awarding a public honour of this kind to the superannuated sports star was simply to provide an excuse for the British media to replay TV footage of the 1981 Headingly Test, thereby humiliating Australians by reminding them of how they suffered at the hands of the English. Further, sources said that instead of taking the opportunity to honour Ricky Ponting and his team for their outstanding performances in the recent Ashes series, the Queen has impugned the sporting prowess of Australian men and insulted the whole Australian nation. Consequently, the Australian government is calling on Australians everywhere to go into English pubs and pour beer over anyone who dares to mention the name “Botham”.
The British government has yet to comment officially on these reports. However, Shirley Williams was quoted as saying that the Australian government did seem to have a point, and although she had never really understood cricket it didn’t seem right to upset people over a game that happened a long time ago. Will Self was reported to have said that since Ian Botham was a controversial figure in cricket, it was not obvious why he accepted the knighthood anyway.
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/
Ah, I see, Allen. I wasn’t sure if you meant I’d said that or not!
Fair points. (And I did get what you meant by the way you were sorry!) But…I don’t take myself to be making an issue of Beckett herself, but of what the overall attitude to putative Muslim offence should be. I don’t really think that view is sectarian…perhaps because I think it is itself anti-sectarian. I think the putative offendedness is sectarian – is all about Us and Them, Muslims and Infidels, Muslims and Apostates – and that that’s one major reason it’s entirely illegitimate as well as dangerous. I think if Leaders imply that there is something genuine about the grievance, that just tends to foster the idea that there is something genuine about the grievance, and thus does that bit more to foster self-censorship and misplaced tact.
Heh! Normblog item v. good.
Doug put the book down pick up some light reading,life is to short!
Richard, you’re right about life being too short. BTW, I saw from a recent post of yours that you and I were born within a couple of years of each other.
I rarely read anything light. In fact, the only time I read fiction is when I’m reading out loud to my wife. She enjoys novels, but I haven’t read one only to myself in at least 20 years. We just about finished a book today, and then we’re on to _The Cairo Trilogy_.
She loves narrative, but every once in a while I read a book about popular science or philosophy to her. A recent one was _The Magic Furnace: The Search for the Origins of Atoms_ by Marcus Chown. Highly recommended.
Doug I understand that feeling of duty to finish that you can get with books,I got through two and a half books of Churchills history of the second world war,I had to give up in the end although facinating it was so heavy going it was unbeleivable!I find now if I try reading the realy heavy stuff it just makes me fall asleep,my sugestion for light reading would be three men in a boat.
Equally off-topic, on the subject of Churchill’s history books. On the radio yesterday, in relation to Blair’s retirement and his previous comments about how history would treat him (specifically in relation to Iraq), Churchill was quoted as saying;
“I expect history to be kind to me, as I intend to write it myself.”
Rushdie [like Joyce] is a symbolist as
Cogidubnus, [like Henry] was a ….?
Obscurantists’like them – are the real prophets!
I did mean to include Cogidubnus/(or Togidubnus)/Henry in the obscurantists
and prophets category. Unless – perhaps, someone else knows more I do on the two characters?
‘…calling on Australians everywhere to go into English pubs and pour beer over anyone who dares to mention the name “Botham”. ‘
They’ve been doing that round Earls Court for years without prompt. I think they call it ‘bar work’.