This essay will discuss three prominent issues that gained potency because of both the controversy around Salmon Rushdie’s novel the Satanic Verses and; the Charlie Hebdo shooting in January 2015. Firstly, and most prominently - the extent to which society should value freedom of expression including what role ‘blasphemy’ should have both legally and culturally, and what exceptions if any should be made to protect minority groups. Secondly, how attitudes towards Islam and the Muslim community have changed and; finally, how these events have shaped western relations with the Middle East domestically and in the context of global foreign policy. This investigation will also contextualise these events within dramatic changes in politics, culture and interfaith relations between 1989 and 2015. Thus, by doing so, prove the necessity of civil liberties to protect the sovereignty of democratic nations and that a rise in Islamophobia over this twenty-five-year period has contributed greatly to the differing responses on the respective controversies.
It is worth noting some of the key differences between the two that had a direct result on the discussion following the respective events. Firstly, the content of the supposedly blasphemous works was materially and substantively different. The content of the Satanic Verses was described by the CEO of Penguin publishers – Peter Mayer as “a serious book by a serious writer.”[1] Whereas Charlie Hebdo is not by any means a scholarly body, nor does it offer much in the way of sophisticated prose. It is a satirical magazine that publishes crude and often offensive material. This difference is irrelevant in terms of the issue of free speech, as a novel by a well-respected author should have just as much protection under freedom of expression as the symbolic speech expressed by Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons. The importance of the difference in medium is that many of those involved in the Rushdie affair, especially those denouncing the book, are unlikely to have read the novel or at least not have read it in its entirety.[2] Whereas the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are more straightforward, one has simply to look at the image to understand the message being transmitted. This consequently resulted in more people being able to understand the issue rather than the abstract way in which people engaged with the Satanic Verses without the full context of the narrative, or a sophisticated understanding of Islam and blasphemy.
The second important difference between the two events is their respective cause and effect, the Rushdie affair gained infamy after the fatwa was issued by Ayatollah Khomeini in which Rushdie and his publishers were “condemned to death”.[3] Whereas the Charlie Hebdo shooting was the inverse, the violent attack appeared to be a random incident, there had been no coverage of Charlie Hebdo in the national press and the readership of the magazine was relatively small. This is an important difference, unlike the Rushdie Affair in which there was an abundance of Rushdie detractors ready to denounce the Satanic Verses; there were relatively few who were willing to speak out in defence of the Muslim community when the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were circulated in the media and online. This is likely due to the nature of the Charlie Hebdo massacre; the visceral images of cartoonists being gunned down in the street is a jarring reminder of violent extremism that could strike at the heart of western Europe as opposed to the abstract decree issued by a Mullah in a foreign country, that had little direct impact on the lives of people in Europe. Furthermore, the shooting in Paris took place in 2015, a radically different period of international relations between Europe and the Middle East, the shooting happened in the wake of the September 11th attacks, the 7/7 bombings in London and the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (IS). This, along with outside factors such as the Iraq War and the military campaigns in the region that followed has led to a climate of fear towards Muslims and refugees from the Middle East. Consequently, an event such as the Charlie Hebdo shooting seemed to typify many of the stereotypes of the ‘barbaric’ Islamists (defined as proponents of Islam as a basis of government), who oppose Western democratic freedoms.
By far the largest issue that arose out of both controversies was surrounding the democratic principle of free speech. For the purposes of this study, free speech will be defined as the right of citizens to freely express themselves without fear of legal reprisal from the state. This includes the right to freely practice one’s religion, the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition and protest the government. Note that this definition which has been adopted by many democratic nations worldwide grants only the protection of speech from the government, although violent reprisal from a non-state actor is just as obvious a violation of this principle. In the cases of Rushdie and Charlie Hebdo very similar discourse was used and many of the same arguments were presented. As stated above the offensive material in Satanic Verses is a complex narrative and it is not obvious why Muslims would find the book blasphemous. Ayatollah Khomeini does not give details as to why he deemed the book to be blasphemous, simply that the book was “against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Qur'an”.[4] However, other prominent Muslim’s across the world have given more explicit comments on the blasphemous aspect, such as opposition Member of the Parliament of India - Syed Shahabuddin. According to him, these include: “the very title”, in Islamic mythology there is a story of the Prophet Mohammad removing two verses from the Qur’an as they had been a deception from the devil who tricked Mohammad into believing they were divine revelations from the angel Jibreel.[5] Mohammad is satirised as “Mahound” a derogatory term for Mohammed used by crusaders, the character is presented as a con-artist and the Qur’an as a forgery. Finally, Mohammad’s wives are depicted as prostitutes in a brothel delineated as the Masjid al-Haram.[6]
The chapters that sparked the controversy around the Satanic Verses are a very small part of the novel, they are also framed as a dream sequence of one of the main characters – as a fiction within a fiction. Rushdie does not attempt to make these chapters appear as a real history of Islam but rather uses the subversion of the life of Mohammad as a narrative device to describe the character’s internal struggle with cultural identity and loss of faith.[7] Despite this, Rushdie is not absolved of responsibility for the offence caused, Rushdie commented in a 1989 interview that the dream sequences start from a “historical or quasi-historical basis”.[8] Akhtar also remarks that the passages from the Satanic Verses are “too close to actual Islamic history for Rushdie’s claim to be convincing” - with respect to Rushdie arguing that his writing is a fictional work outside of a true-false dynamic. Based on Rushdie’s own personal background as an Indian-Muslim immigrant, the reader of the Satanic Verses will be aware of Rushdie’s apostasy and obvious attempt to mock a religion to which he no longer subscribes. This does not mean that Rushdie should not have written the text, nor does it mean that practising Muslims do not have the right to be offended by the text. Furthermore, this does not mean that anyone has the right to threaten, prompt or enact violence against Rushdie, the Muslim community, or anyone else exercising their right to freely express themselves. This is especially true for the Charlie Hebdo shooting, it is totally legitimate to criticise the magazine for its offensive portrayals of religious figures, especially those that belong to an already oppressed minority group – such as Muslims in France. Therefore, it is intellectually consistent to be fully supportive of Charlie Hebdo when they are attacked by terrorists (defined as violent actors in pursuit of a political goal. In this case Islamism), and to also be free to denounce them when they act reprehensibly by mocking the death of Aylan Kurdi – a six-year-old Syrian refugee.[9] As in both cases, the idea of freedom of expression is being upheld in tandem with the notion that no idea in a secular democracy is beyond criticism; it is the idea that is being supported rather than the message.
Many of the criticisms levelled against Rushdie can be found condensed into John Le Carré’s Guardian editorial from January 1990 titled: a book not worth the bloodshed. This article was published almost a year after the Ayatollah’s fatwa; consequently, Le Carré appears rather flippant about Rushdie’s current state of hiding after being bombarded with very credible death threats. He consistently places blame in the wrong place and goes far beyond reasonable boundaries to the point where he defends those who seek to commit violence against Rushdie. “you make light of the Book [the Qur’an] at your peril.”[10] This idea sets a horrific precedent, claiming that it is not the fault of those seeking to commit violence, but rather Rushdie for inciting them by offending their religious sensibilities. No other belief system is held to this height of reverence, other than religion. He continues this line of argument by defending religious fervour: “American Presidents profess to it almost as a ritual, we respect it in Christians and Jews.”[11] This is plainly a false dichotomy, never in modern history has the President of the United States asked for someone to be killed by vigilantes in the name of Christianity. If they had, it is likely they too would face a similar public criticism to what had been placed onto Ayatollah Khomeini. La Carré then continues to set up a strawman argument in which he confuses freedom of expression with being immune from criticism. There was nobody arguing that Rushdie’s Satanic Verses was above being criticised or mocked; Rushdie was not in hiding because of legitimate literary and theological disagreements, he was and is to this day under threat from Muslim zealots who want to murder him. Finally, La Carré places all the moral outrage onto Rushdie: “I could not live with the thought that by continuing to insist that my book be published, I would be inviting further bloodshed.”[12] This is tantamount to blaming Salmond Rushdie for every riot and murder that took place because of other people’s response to his work. Furthermore, it is a statement that we should not speak freely because we are afraid of how others might act violently against us – thus achieving the goal that terrorists set out. Despite the intensity of the feud between Le Carré and Rushdie at the time, it would be something Le Carré would later come to regret.[13]
The more sophisticated polemics against Rushdie come from Richard Webster and his commentary on Liberalism’s Holy War, many of these arguments fall under what Webster refers to as “authoritarian liberals”. By this, Webster makes the case that the way liberals see freedom of speech is expressed in the same sacred terms as religious zeal.[14] Before continuing with this analysis of Webster’s expanded argument, it is worth pausing to critique this initial premise. It is true that many who do not subscribe fully to a religious dogma find ideals elsewhere - in ideas of democracy, equality and justice for example. It is illegitimate to apply the same measure of unbridled devotion to those who advocate democracy and the free exchange of ideas, as those who place all their faith in a religious value system. This is because there is no epistemic distance in support for a democratic system of government, whereas religious faith requires one to suspend any other commitment to rationality. History has shown that the most equal and stable governments are democracies as they best represent the will of the citizens to live freely and prosperously rather than accepting the unaccountable decree of a religious leader or holy text. Thus, freedom of expression is held to such a high standard – it is an essential check on the power of a democratically elected government. This is significant context for the Rushdie affair, as in this instance there were calls to ban the sale of Rushdie’s book due to it causing civil unrest between different sections of the public.[15] Banning a book to maintain order gives the government the power to dictate the range of thought available to the public, or prevent authors from exposing government corruption such as when the British government attempted to ban Spycatcher - the memoirs of a former MI5 agent who exposed highly embarrassing plots by the UK special forces, such as their attempts to assassinate Egyptian president Nasser during the Suez crisis and assisting the CIA in plotting against Prime-Minister Wilson.[16]
Webster argues that there are restrictions on freedom of expression and that Rushdie is entitled and naïve to believe that he should have the right to publish the Satanic Verses with impunity. This point is not altogether unfounded, there are certain restrictions on what is considered “protected speech”, for example in the UK hate speech is not considered protected political speech under the Race Relations Act (referenced by Webster in 1990, the act has now been repealed and replaced by the 2010 Equality Act).[17] This, as well as many other pieces of legislation, prohibits language that promotes hatred based on protected characteristics such as race, gender and sexual orientation. The United States alternatively does not restrict hate speech - per the Brandenburg v. Ohio supreme court decision, a person cannot be prosecuted under the law for using inflammatory speech unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".[18] This is a much more reasonable standard for the limits of free speech than what is being suggested by Webster; that the state should not have control over what types of speech are acceptable, especially in something as abstract as hate speech. After a blanket ban, one could make the case that Rushdie’s book, the fatwa issued against him, and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons be made illegal. It is almost tempting to agree that despicable speech, such as what one might hear at a Ku Klux Klan rally should be made illegal; however, giving the government power to decide what is “hateful” is dangerous for a democracy. It would be simple for the government to decide that protesters and whistle-blowers be put in jail for committing hate speech against the state. It is imperative that we be fully committed to freedom of expression, even if we do not agree with what is being said. Freedom of speech exists to protect speech that might be deemed radical or extreme. Easy speech that everyone agrees with does not need protecting. This is not to say that all speech is accepted, under the Brandenburg decision Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa would still be illegal, inciting violence is not protected speech.
Finally, Webster refers Rushdie back to the British common law of Blasphemous Libel (abolished 2008). He claims that the social unrest caused by Rushdie’s text would be solved by expanding the blasphemy law to include those of other faiths. Webster does this by invoking the words of Lord Scarman: “the offence belongs to a group of criminal offences designed to safeguard the internal tranquillity of the kingdom.”[19] However, the European court of Human Rights rejected an appeal to ban the Satanic Verses as “freedom of religion did not include a right not to be offended.”[20] This is the opposite of the middle eastern responses to the Satanic Verses and later the Charlie Hebdo attacks. The book was banned in several countries with high Muslim populations, including Iran, India and Saudi Arabia. Each of these nations had their own uniquely political reasons for issuing the suspension of the book. Some were in the name of peacekeeping such as India, which since its independence, has had a fierce and divisive tension between Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent.[21] Consequently, there existed a real potential for major social unrest and violent outbursts, as allowing the publication could appear as a government endorsement of the novel. Saudi Arabia alternatively both banned the book, as well as funded campaigns across the world to have the book censored.[22] This is because Saudi Arabia is an autocratic theocracy and uses Islam as a tool to subjugate its population - a book by a Muslim apostate that can easily be framed as blasphemous gives the Sunni nation an opportunity to rally support for its existing power structures against a foreign adversary. Iran initially had very little animosity towards Rushdie or the Satanic Verses, one Iranian literary scholar claimed that the novel “distorted Islam” and “lacked artistic credentials”, but did not refer to it as blasphemous.[23] It is then likely that the fatwa was part of Khomeini’s political machinations, of which he would have any number of reasons for issuing, such as: to distract attention away from the embarrassing conclusion to the Iran-Iraq war, that left hundreds of thousands dead with very little to show for; [24] fuelling the aggression amongst Iranians for the West which had a long history of derogatory literature against Islam;[25] and to re-capture the support for the Islamic Revolution by matching the Saudi outrage against the Satanic Verses is a more public and obvious manner.[26] The issuing of the fatwa caused massive diplomatic upset in the UK, prompting all British envoys to Iran to be removed from the country.
The western response to the Rushdie affair now appears rather mild in comparison to the public and political responses to the Charlie Hebdo shootings. This is due to the differences described above as well as the rise of social media which allowed the prevalence of the twitter hashtag #JeSuisCharlie (I am Charlie). This phrase was adopted in solidarity with the victims of the shooting and a defence of the principle of free speech. There was, however, some backlash against this social movement, as the phrase is a direct endorsement of the Islamophobia expressed by the magazine, which led to the counter hashtag #JeNeSuisPasCharlie.[27] It seemed that in the condemnation of the terrorists, and the reverence paid to the martyrs at Charlie Hebdo, the Muslim community in Europe faced yet another blow to their personal identities and a further widening of social discord. This act of terrorism created a heightened sense of fear amongst those across western Europe and ironically became the vessel for more restrictive and authoritarian policies to enter the public discourse. This is best seen in the Sun’s response to the shooting in which the editors issue a full-throated support of Charlie Hebdo as well as believe that the best solution to stopping terrorism is to expand government surveillance and continue aggressive foreign policy in the Middle-East.[28] This advocacy for a heightened surveillance state is a far greater threat to civil liberties than terrorism; government spying is an indirect assault on freedom of expression as it passively influences who citizens contact, where they congregate and the activities that they participate in for fear that they may be branded a ‘person of interest’. While terrorist acts are terrifying and shocking, they are also infrequent and should not be used by government security agencies to turn the entire population into potential suspects; or limit what is considered acceptable political speech, as was attempted in France less than a year after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.[29]
In conclusion, both controversies had large scale impacts on the discussion regarding freedom of expression and the western cultural view of Muslims and blasphemy. Very few issues are successful in animating the population to defend civil liberties in the way that these events have prompted a heightened awareness for freedom of expression. To assume that the extent of the outrage was not in large part the result of Islamophobia would be enormously naïve. despite this, the conversation regarding the limits of free speech are hugely necessary and it is vital that this essential democratic right is protected, even if the discussion assists in normalising bigotry. This is because the freedom to express dissatisfaction with the state is the primary defence of the rest of our rights as citizens, which cannot be abridged regardless of the cost. These events led many to conclude that the idea of blasphemy is an outdated concept belonging to a more uncivilised period of human history, sometimes seen in oppressive autocracies in the Middle East, which has led to the perception of a large cultural divide between Islam and the West. These events furthered the belief amongst Muslims that people outside their own communities would support any form of denigration towards the Prophet Mohammad or the Qur’an, leading to a rise in animosity and a decline in community cohesion. It is unclear what further consequences the Charlie Hebdo attack will have on the cultural zeitgeist due to the recentness of the event, however it can be reasonably inferred that this case study will remain prevalent to discussions regarding Islam, freedom of expression and Middle-East policy just as the Rushdie affair did – as both cases are a perfect storm of conflicting ideologies and cultural divergence.
Bibliography
Akhtar, Shabbir. Be Careful With Muhammad!. London: Bellew, 1989.
BBC (1989) 14th Feb. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/14/newsid_2541000/2541149.stm retrieved 22/12/2016
BBC (2016) 13th Jan. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35306906 retrieved 01/01/2017 retrieved 01/01/2017
Brooks, David (2015). ‘I am Not Charlie’. New York Times 8th Jan. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html?_r=1 retrieved 01/01/2017
Bulloch, John and Morris, Harvey. The Gulf War: Its Origins, History and Consequences. London: Methuen Publishing Ltd, 1989.
Choudhury v. the United Kingdom http://caselaw.echr.globe24h.com/0/0/united-kingdom/1991/03/05/choudhury-v-the-united-kingdom-854-17439-90.shtml Retrieved 01/01/2017
Greenwald, Glen (2016). ‘Where Were the Post-Hebdo Free Speech Crusaders as France Spent the Last Year Crushing Free Speech?’ The Intercept 8th Jan. https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/where-were-the-post-hebdo-free-speech-crusaders-as-france-spent-the-last-year-crushing-free-speech/ Retrieved 05/01/2017
Hawting, G.R. The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Isa Patel, Ismail. Mis/Representations of Islam: Reading Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, London 1998 https://www.scribd.com/document/107049639/Mis-Representations-of-Islam-Reading-Salman-Rushdie-s-The-Satanic-Verses-By-Ismail-Isa-Patel-London-1998accessed retrieved 02/01/2017
Le Carré, John (1990). ‘A Book Not Worth the Bloodshed’. the Guardian, 15th Jan.
Malik, Kenan. From Fatwa to Jihad. 1st ed. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House Pub., 2009.
"Observer and Guardian v. The United Kingdom". http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"dmdocnumber":["695582"],"itemid":["001-57705"]}
Parker, Richard A. (2003). "Brandenburg v. Ohio". In Parker, Richard A. (ed.) Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Ruthven, Malise. A Satanic Affair. 1st ed. London: Chatto & Windus, 1990.
The Telegraph (2012) ‘Le Carré regrets Rushdie fatwa feud’. 12th Nov. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9671959/Le-Carre-regrets-Rushdie-fatwa-feud.html retrieved 01/01/2017
The Sun (2015), ‘Freedom Fight’ 9th Jan. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/7504/freedom-fight/ retrieved 01/01/2017
Webster, Richard. A Brief History of Blasphemy. Southwold: Orwell Pr., 1990.
[1] Malik, Kenan. From Fatwa to Jihad. 1st ed. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House Pub., 2009. p.11
[2] Ibid. p.2
[3] BBC (1989) 14th Feb. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/14/newsid_2541000/2541149.stm retrieved 22/12/2016
[4] Ibid.
[5] Hawting, G.R. The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. pp.130-6
[6] Malik, From Fatwa to Jihad. p.2-3
[7] Ruthven, Malise. A Satanic Affair. 1st ed. London: Chatto & Windus, 1990. p.27
[8] Akhtar, Shabbir. Be Careful With Muhammad!. London: Bellew, 1989. p.129
[9] BBC (2016) 13th Jan. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35306906 retrieved 01/01/2017
[10] Le Carré, John. A Book Not Worth the Bloodshed, the Guardian, 15th Jan. 1990
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] The Telegraph (2012). ‘Le Carré regrets Rushdie fatwa’ feud 12th Nov. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9671959/Le-Carre-regrets-Rushdie-fatwa-feud.html retrieved 01/01/2017
[14] Webster, Richard. A Brief History of Blasphemy. Southwold: Orwell Pr., 1990. p.60
[15] Le Carré “Withdraw his [Rushdie] book until a calmer time has come.”
[16] "Observer and Guardian v. The United Kingdom". European Court of Human Rights. Section II. A. Point 14: Subsection a-e. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"dmdocnumber":["695582"],"itemid":["001-57705"]} Retrieved 01/01/2017
[17] Webster, Blasphemy. p.45.
[18] Parker, Richard A. (2003). "Brandenburg v. Ohio". In Parker, Richard A. (ed.). Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. pp. 145–159.
[19] Webster, Blasphemy. p.65
[20] Choudhury v. the United Kingdom http://caselaw.echr.globe24h.com/0/0/united-kingdom/1991/03/05/choudhury-v-the-united-kingdom-854-17439-90.shtml retrieved 02/01/2017
[21] Malik, From Fatwa to Jihad p.3
[22] Ibid. p.6
[23] Ibid.
[24] Bulloch, John and Morris, Harvey. The Gulf War: Its Origins, History and Consequences. London: Methuen Publishing Ltd, 1989. p.xvi
[25] Isa Patel, Ismail. Mis/Representations of Islam: Reading Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, London 1998 https://www.scribd.com/document/107049639/Mis-Representations-of-Islam-Reading-Salman-Rushdie-s-The-Satanic-Verses-By-Ismail-Isa-Patel-London-1998 retrieved 02/01/2017
[26] Pipes, Daniel. The Rushdie Affair: The Novel, the Ayatollah, and the West. New York, NY: Carol Pub. Group, 1990. p.133-4
[27] Brooks, David. I am Not Charlie. New York Times 8th Jan. 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html?_r=1 retrieved 01/01/2017
[28] The Sun (2015), ‘Freedom Fight’ 9th Jan. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/7504/freedom-fight/ retrieved 01/01/2017.
[29] Greenwald, Glen (2016). ‘Where Were the Post-Hebdo Free Speech Crusaders as France Spent the Last Year Crushing Free Speech?’ The Intercept 8th Jan. https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/where-were-the-post-hebdo-free-speech-crusaders-as-france-spent-the-last-year-crushing-free-speech/ Retrieved 05/01/2017
