|
|
Blasphemy: a burning issue?
THE KNIGHTING of Salman Rushdie, now ‘Sir Salman’,
by the queen has re-ignited the furore that followed the publication of
his novel, The Satanic Verses, in 1988. The Ayatollah Khomeini, supreme
leader of the Iranian Islamic Republic, issued a fatwa calling for
Rushdie’s death, on the grounds that his novel was an insult to Islam.
The threat was undoubtedly serious: Rushdie had to go into hiding under
police protection, his Japanese translator was assassinated, while his
Italian translator was seriously injured.
At that time, we published a comment by LYNN WALSH
on the Rushdie affair in our predecessor, Militant International Review
No.40, summer 1989. This anticipated many of the issues that have become
even more inflammatory in the post 9/11 world, and we therefore consider
it worth reprinting today.
Ironically, Rushdie, who was formerly seen as a
left-wing critic of the establishment, has meanwhile become a wealthy
member of the transatlantic media elite. He supported the US-British
military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and declared himself
"humbled to receive this great honour", his ‘sir’, from the queen.
Nevertheless, defence of Rushdie’s right to publish without fear of
deadly reprisals, is part and parcel of our defence of fundamental
democratic rights.
SALMAN RUSHDIE is in hiding. But he is in good
company. Some of the most illustrious authors in world literature have
been condemned by religious hierarchs. The philosophers of the French
enlightenment, Voltaire, Rousseau and Diderot, who subjected religion to
rational criticism, all suffered censorship and persecution.
Charges of blasphemy were often linked with
allegations of lewdness, as with The Satanic Verses. Appearance on any
list of prohibited books is no guarantee of literary merit, nor of
correctness. But that is not the issue. Freedom of speech, including
freedom of literary publication, is a fundamental democratic right.
Voltaire’s aphorism is justly famous: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but
I will defend to the death your right to say it’.
In the 18th and 19th centuries the radical
representatives of the bourgeoisie fought the absolute monarchs, the
church, and feudal oligarchies for freedom of expression. In reality,
however, bourgeois-democratic rights – freedom of speech and assembly,
the right to vote – were secured only by the struggle of the working
class, along with the crucial right to strike and form political
organisations. Today, these rights are threatened by the power of
capital and the bourgeois state. Their defence rests on the labour
movement.
Yet in response to the denunciations of Islamic
leaders and Khomeini’s death threat, some Labour MPs like Max Madden
have called on Rushdie and his publishers to withdraw The Satanic
Verses. Others like Jack Straw have even called for the broadening of
Britain’s archaic blasphemy laws to make it an offence to outrage
Islamic as well as Christian dogmas. This smacks of the panicky counting
of votes. How on earth could a ‘voluntary’ ban (in the face of death
threats) or tougher blasphemy laws protect the rights or interests of
British Asians?
Under the headline, ‘Labour must repay the loyalty
which the Muslim community has shown’ (Tribune, 7 April 1989), Max
Madden [then left Labour MP for Bradford West] tried to make a case.
"Why", he asks, "is the Labour Party so hooked on Rushdie’s freedom of
speech to insult Muslims but so uncaring of Muslim distress?" This
echoes the general secretary of the Bradford Council of Mosques:
"Equality of justice is our right. We are told that one man has the
right to write a book, but no one talks about the rights and sentiments
of thousands of Muslims in Britain".
But this equation is false. The right to follow a
religion, which the labour movement must defend, is not the same thing
at all as the right to censor literature on religious grounds. It is not
just ‘Rushdie’s freedom of speech’ which we are ‘hooked on’, but freedom
of speech in general. Blasphemy laws are incompatible with democracy. In
reality, they are incompatible with religious freedom, as a little
thought will show.
Presumably, a ‘multi-racial’ blasphemy law would
have to protect Christian doctrine, Islamic faith, Jewish beliefs, and
Hinduism. And why should Buddhists, Jehova’s Witnesses, Shintoists, and
other minority cults be denied protection? But there’s the rub. One
congregation’s divine truth is another’s satanic falsehood. How could
they all be protected against heresy or theological denigration –
simultaneously?
But "their [British Muslims’] taxes were spent in
suppressing Spycatcher", says Max Madden, raising another of the Muslim
leaders’ arguments. [During 1987-88 the British government took legal
action, ultimately unsuccessful, in Australia and Britain to prevent the
publication of the revelations of a former senior secret service
officer, Peter Wright, who revealed, among other things, a MI5-CIA plot
to bring down the Labour government of Harold Wilson.] Unconsciously, he
stumbles onto a vital point. Censorship on religious grounds has always
been linked to political censorship. In the eyes of the rich and
powerful, blasphemy has always been associated with subversion. No doubt
Max Madden opposed the suppression of Spycatcher. But Muslim leaders who
use this argument do not challenge the Tories’ exercise of state
prerogative to suppress the book.
In Iran it is not possible to publish books or
newspapers which oppose the government. Tens of thousands who opposed
Khomeini have been tortured and executed. Nor is there unrestricted
freedom to publish in Pakistan. In India, there is a long list of books
banned on religious, political and ‘security’ grounds.
Perhaps different considerations should apply in
Britain? British Muslims "feel under communal siege", writes Max Madden.
"They look back with anger over the Thatcher years. They are scarred by
unemployment, poverty, and discrimination of all types. They see the
rubble of their discarded and eroded civil rights".
True. Workers generally have suffered eroded living
standards and a loss of rights under Thatcher. Black and Asian workers,
among the most exploited workers of all, have especially suffered. But
how will the suppression of a ‘blasphemous’ novel help them?
British Muslims "are entitled to political
representation" from the Labour Party, says Max Madden. "If such
representation is not forthcoming, it could be very damaging for the
Party". Again, true. But what kind of ‘representation’?
The labour movement must organise the defence of the
black and Asian community against racist attacks. It must fight
discrimination. That means fighting for jobs, a living wage, and decent
homes for black workers. Above all, it means fighting for socialist
policies to root out the atrocious conditions in which racism breeds.
Labour’s failure to ‘represent’ them on these basic issues has led to a
bitter disillusionment among many black and Asian workers. Various
community organisations, run by the highly-paid professionals of the
race relations ‘industry’, have also failed them.
Unable to see a way forward, some Asian workers and
youth have turned back to Islam to search for answers. In contrast to
the shifty double-talk of politicians, Islamic fundamentalism may appear
to offer reassuring certainties. Instead of passive suffering, it may
seem to promise radical action.
Radical currents in Christianity (and other
religions too) have often played a similar role among oppressed peoples
and classes. But from the stand-point of socialism, what have the
mullahs and the imams to offer? On social issues, such as the position
of women, education, and the exploitation of Asian workers, the leaders
of the mosques in Britain can only be described as reactionary.
As in other European countries, the Islamic leaders
in Britain welcome the growth of fundamentalism. New additions to the
Islamic community had been reduced to a trickle by diminished
opportunities and racist immigration laws (to which Labour governments
contributed). The second generation, born in Britain, had begun to adapt
to a different society.
The reassertion of fundamentalism allows the Islamic
leaders to reassert their control, to combat the growing loss of belief
and submissiveness within their communities. When The Satanic Verses
appeared, they seized the opportunity to step up their campaign for
separate schools, single-sex teaching, the avoidance of mixed bathing
and sex-education, and so on.
The labour movement must defend the interests of
Asian workers. But it is not for Labour "to express their anger and
resentment at their anguish over The Satanic Verses". Blasphemy is an
issue for religious people, not the labour movement. The labour movement
must uphold the rights of all sections of society. This includes the
right of people to practise the religion of their choice. But religion
is a private matter. The intervention of the state inevitably favours
some religious groups and infringes the freedom of others.
Religious freedom also means the right to reject
religion altogether. Whether in an Islamic or a Christian community,
children must have access to an education unfettered by religious dogma,
the right to question and criticise traditional beliefs, and to adopt
ideas of their own. "The Labour Party must come off its secular fence",
says Max Madden. But since when has it been the task of socialists to
uphold the authority of ayatollahs and imams, any more than the
authority of priests and bishops?
Max Madden does not support book burning. But his
call for the publishers to "stop printing further new editions of the
book" is far from being ‘a sensible compromise’. It would not stop
there. The imams would demand the censorship of other ‘blasphemous’
books, films, television programmes, and so on. Already, the
book-burning has provoked a reaction. "Our religion is not written on
our faces", commented one black leader in Bradford. "I’m not blaming the
Muslims but unfortunately the entire episode will be used by right-wing
racists to have a go at black people – Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs...
anybody". Only hours after a demonstration in Bradford against Rushdie,
the premises of the Council of Mosques was vandalised. Later, an
arsonist was arrested trying to attack London’s Regent Park mosque with
a petrol bomb. Needless to say, those responsible were not acting out of
concern for Rushdie’s freedom of speech.
The path of the Islamic leaders leads to a dead end,
to a beleaguered ghetto. Perhaps the imams imagine that, under a state
of Islamic siege, they will have more power within their community. But
for their disciples, it will not produce jobs and decent houses, proper
health services and education.
Whatever the religious inspiration, in the material
world it offers no hope. Worst of all, a turn towards an Islamic ghetto
would divide Islamic from non-Islamic Asians, black workers from white
workers.
Max Madden wants to return to the "urgent task of
electing a Labour government, enjoying the full support of all Britain’s
ethnic minorities and fully committed to the removal of all
discrimination". We all agree. But this aim will not be achieved by
short-sighted concessions to the Ayatollah Khomeini or the Bradford
imams. No, we must fight to unite all workers, regardless of their
religion, around socialist ideas.
|