Salman Rushdie. Earth to Leftists....

[JayB]

Good interview in The Independent.

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article1868548.ece

 

Excerpts:

 

"If tomorrow the Israel/Palestine issue was resolved to the total happiness of all parties, it would not diminish the amount of terrorism coming out of al-Qa'ida by one jot. It's not what they're after," he adds, his foot tapping against mine as he leans forward. "Yes, it's a recruiting tool, rhetorically. Many people see there's an injustice there, and it helps them to get people into the gang, but it's not what they want. What they want is to change the nature of human life on earth into the image of the Taliban. If you want the whole earth to look like Taliban Afghanistan, then you're on the same side as them. If you don't want that, you're not. They do not represent the quest for human justice. That, I think, is one of the great mistakes of the left."

 

He senses soft racism in the refusal to see Islamic fundamentalists for what they are. When looking at the Christian fundamentalists of the United States, most people see an autonomous movement of superstitious madmen. But when they look at their Islamic equivalents, they assume they cannot mean what they say. "One of the things that's commonly said by Islamists is that it's acceptable to bomb a disco, because a disco is a place where people are behaving in a disgusting way. Go away and die - that's all bin Laden wants you to do. It's not just about Iraq, it's about ham sandwiches and kissing in public places and sex with girls you're not married to." He pauses. "It's about life."

 

It horrifies Rushdie that so many people in his natural political home - the left - don't get it. They seem to imagine that when people call for a novelist to be beheaded for blasphemy, they are really calling for a return to the 1967 borders, or an independent Kashmir, or an end to the occupation of Iraq. As he says this, I blurt out a repellent question: was there a small part of him on September 11 that felt almost relieved - that thought: " Now they'll understand"? He pauses, a long pause, the only one in this interview. Have I offended him? But he answers with the same contemplative calm as before. "It wasn't, actually. What an awful thing to think. But... but I remember after 9/11 that a lot of people did finally get it, and I remember thinking - it's a shame that 3,000 people had to die for something pretty obvious to get through people's heads."

[jordop]

Yanks have a tough time getting the Globe and Mail, but if you can check out Doug Saunders's column yesterday (it's "premium" content on their web page ).

Edited June 4, 2021 by jordop

[Stonehead]

Interesting article, JayB. Although I wouldn’t describe Leftists in the general terms that this article seems to imply, that is, Leftists see more enemies within rather than without. There is truth in what Rushdie says, bits and pieces, but isn’t that characteristic of relatively good writers?

 

I imagine that Rushdie as an atheist or secular humanist is seen by true believers as a medium of evil in that he disparages, mocks and casts doubt on their faith. Rushdie seems to want to set himself up in opposition to make his persona appear larger than he actually is. With that, it seems that the tides of time are going against him. He will be relegated to a footnote in history.

 

But I did like the story about one of his favorite quotes from Sam Bellow’s novel The Dean's December, a scene which involves the barking of dog and the character therein imagining that the dog is raging against his limitations of experience. “For God’s sake,” the dog is saying, “open the universe a little more!” Now, what is this really saying about God and the Universe?

 

I wouldn’t have been more surprised if Rushdie had repeated a quote reputedly uttered by Hassain-i Sabbah, “Nothing is true, everything is permitted.” This quote, in itself, taken with today’s worldview represents the atheistic attitude that the fundamentalists rail against. Then again, if it didn’t represent the atheistic spirit would it take on an occult meaning, one that diverges from a world ordered by traditional laws and orthodox authority? Doesn’t Rushdie appear more in alliance with the latter? He fancies himself a potential reformer or revolutionary? A voice crying in the wilderness?

 

For historical reference, there actually was a Hassain-i Sabbah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan-i_Sabbah. He was a practitioner of the Nizari sect of Ismailism. http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/islam/shia/ismal.html http://www.ismaili.net/timeline/2006/20061012agakhan-interview.html A successor, Iman Hassain II proclaimed, “The Chains of the Law have been Broken.” This announcement referred to the abrogation of Shari’a and the ending of the doctrine of Concealment (Taqiyya, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya).

 

I don’t make a claim that this is what Rushdie thinks. But his message is perceived to represent a particular threat (or it did), i.e., the threat of secularism fueled by technological and scientific change which is anathema to religion, really to conservatism in general.

 

Maybe all this talk about the ‘clash of civilizations’ and reactionary religion won’t make an ounce of difference. Maybe the real attitude to have is summed up thus:

 

"Because we do not know when we will die, we get to think of life as an inexhaustible well. And yet everything happens only a certain number of times, and a very small number really. How many more times will you remember a certain afternoon of your childhood, an afternoon that is so deeply a part of your being that you cannot conceive of your life without it? Perhaps four, or five times more? Perhaps not even that. How many more times will you watch the full moon rise? Perhaps twenty. And yet it all seems limitless..."

--source: http://unusualdeath.blogspot.com/2006/09/brandon-lee-son-of-bruce-lee-was_01.html

 

Live your life.

[JayB]

Looks like the Independent's turned the link to premium content, but you can read the whole thing here:

 

http://johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1002

[cj001f]

what are Islamic fundamentalists exactly? why are they a greater threat than some other mechanism (please showcase casualties and costs they've incurred) like, perhaps, homegrown rightwing nutjobs (see recent British case)

 

why aren't cubans who blow up airplanes terrorists?

[Jim]

The Battle for God - by Karen Armstrong is a good read on this subject.

[lI1|1!]

i find myself agreeing strongly with rushdie, but would take it to a more basic, visceral level. i think much of the islamic militant movement is essentially a hate crime; it is people "getting off" on the rewarding (in the skinnarian sense) aspects of feeling and venting rage and anger. like any hate crime it is directed at some members of an out-group who can be somehow be defined as non-human. it's primary participants are young males whose behavior is strongly influenced by testerone; it is an emotional outlet for confused young males who are otherwise well behaved and conform to societal expectations. like most forms of aberrant or self destructive behavior it is an exaggeration of normal tendencies.

[JayB]

I happened to come across this speech by Rushdie the other day where he holds forth on this subject for a half-hour or so.

 

Rushdie MP3

 

There's a ton of other great audio content available on this site that should appeal to quite a few folks on this site. Check it out here:

 

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?page_id=72"

[cj001f]

can't you just post pictures of the hotties he sleeps with instead?

[olyclimber]

[billcoe]

Saw Denis Miller in Vegas years ago: his concern and take on the whole thing, he was suspicious that when you broke down Rushdies last name, you get...

 

 

RUSH to DIE

 

Whoooohhh there. Hot pics Oly. Hey now, he's either got a 6 figure bank account or a multiple digit digit......looks like he's getting the 67 virgins (or whatever that number is ) before he leaves earth, wonder what that tells the Islamic Fanatics? That dead Ayotollas can't play Whack a Mole worth a shit?

Edited November 15, 2006 by billcoe

[archenemy]

Whoooohhh there. Hot pics Oly. Hey now, he's either got a 6 figure bank account or a multiple digit digit......looks like he's getting the 67 virgins (or whatever that number is ) before he leaves earth, wonder what that tells the Islamic Fanatics?

You are so right, all women are for sale.

[prole]

More leftist straw-men, JayB? Honestly who the fuck is he talking about?

 

What they want is to change the nature of human life on earth into the image of the Taliban. If you want the whole earth to look like Taliban Afghanistan, then you're on the same side as them. If you don't want that, you're not. They do not represent the quest for human justice. That, I think, is one of the great mistakes of the left."

 

What exactly is the mistake? Who exactly on the left (names?) thinks that Islamic fundamentalism represnts a progressive force? Seems to me that most of the analysis coming from the Left is in crystal-clear agreement with Rushdie on the ideological and political aims of the Taliban, et al. Perhaps the mistake he's refering to is the Left's stubborn refusal to take Rushdie's banal truisms as a cue to accept an ahistorical and reactionary "clash of civilizations"-style foundation for the rise of political and militant Islam. Rushdie accepts that Israel/Palestine is a driving force for recruiting Islamic militants but proceeds to brush that reality (Kashmir and Iraq as well I suppose) aside in favor of some ideological infection these people have caught (the new Islamist virus) removed from any historical context. Is this position helpful?

Perhaps the Left's mistake is not following Rushdie down the "clash of civilizations"' primrose path to its logical conclusion: War with the Middle East, a number of which he has supported. If not falling for that line of bullshit and its conclusions is a mistake, then it's one I'll stand by.

Where are these Leftists he's on about? His point in a nutshell is that there are "bad people" in the world, they actually exist. Where are those who would deny this? Like the "lock em' up and throw away the key" solution for domestic criminals (damn, why're so many new prisons?), Rushdie would have us accept a decontextualized "Islamofascism" and "wipe em' out" instead of dealing with the past and present realities that are feeding and shaping this conflict. Where has that gotten anyone to this point?

I suspect that he's been spending too much time at cocktail parties with the likes of Hitchens and Wolfowitz.

[Fairweather]

I consider your creeping political ideology - notably your past expressed desire for "agrarian reform" - more of a threat to national security and my well being than any of the current crop of Islamic fanatics. You claim to represent free thought and expression, but too often demonstrate contempt for the truest forms of those ideals.

[cj001f]

You are so right, all women are for sale.

 

Really? Where? I've only found leases.

[mattp]

I don't always go for Prole's arguments, Fairweather, but in this case I'd say he is spot on. Rushdie makes a compelling argument for the fact that Islamofacists are an evil force in this world, but this little smippet of prose hints at ignoring the reality that the adherents to this ideology are able to exploit events and policies on the ground to their advantage. Does Rushdie call for jihad against the jihadists? Does he think it is possible to wage war against an ideolgy? Do YOU think that we could stamp out Islamic fundamentalism with military action or economic sanctions or some other program? Would it be a good idea to try?

 

And what does some past argument about "agrarian reform" have to do with it, or the fact that you think the guy suffers from some "creeping ideology?"

 

Tell us: do you think we could do something we have not already tried with military or covert activity that might actually stamp out a movement that is founded in history fifteen hundred years old? Has the war in Iraq made us safer? Has our conduct of the war in Afghanistan been executed in the most appropriate manner? Our frequent lack of intervention elsewhere in the region? Does our generally blind support of Israel help or hurt our efforts to combat terrorism? Are you one of those who thinks the answer lies in Armageddon? Where is it that any member of the mainstream left which you so despise has ever argued that Islamic fundamentalism is a good force in the world, or that we should somehow coddle to such an ideology?

[JayB]

I think that if you have some time to plug this url:

 

http://libsyn.com/media/pointofinquiry/10-27-06.mp3

 

into your browser and let the podcast play in the background while you are at work, or in Prole's case - writing fan mail to bell hooks asking for an 8.5x11 glossy during recess/between lectures - you will probably hear Rushdie's answers to most of the questions that you've posted. The lead-in features Ibn Warraq, and Rushdie comes in about 15-20 minutes into the podcast.

[Mr_Phil]

You are so right, all women are for sale.

 

Really? Where? I've only found leases.

 

Check Aurora for the rental market.

 

Also across Westlake from the Seattle Times.

[tvashtarkatena]

Tell us: do you think we could do something we have not already tried with military or covert activity that might actually stamp out a movement that is founded in history fifteen hundred years old? Where is it that any member of the mainstream left which you so despise has ever argued that Islamic fundamentalism is a good force in the world, or that we should somehow coddle to such an ideology?

 

The discussion here assumes several generally accepted 'truths' regarding terrorism that do not hold up against studies of suicide bombing and other terror tactics to date.

 

Truth 1) Terror attacks are conducted by Islamofascists bent on spreading their ideology worldwide.

 

In fact, terror attacks are primarily used by a weaker force against a stronger occupier for political, not religious, purposes. As an example; prior to the Iraq war, the Tamil Tigers, a non-religious separatist group, conducted half of all suicide bomb attacks prior to the Iraq. They are always carried out by political organizations, only some of which use religion as a unifying force. These organizations favor suicide attacks as a military tactic because they are inexpensive, extremely effective in killing and terrorizing a stronger enemy, virtually unstoppable, garnish the most publicity, and never want for volunteers. The bulk of today's terror attacks are carried out by organizations with some connection to various Islamic sects, including a minority of extreme fundamentalism, but this is a very recent trend that has spiked since the invasion of Iraq.

 

Truth 2) Suicide bombers are primarily 'lost' young men indoctrinated and driven by fundamentalist Islamic ideology.

 

Profiles of suicide bombers to date quickly debunk this widely held idea. What we do know about suicide bombers is that they are primarily young, relatively educated, middle class people with reasonably normal social lives. A growing number of them are women, and now children; target countries do not profile these as threats and such attacks attract much more publicity. In addition, most suicide bombers (according to pre-attack statements and post attack interviews of suicide bombers who failed their missions) seem to be motivated by an altruistic impulse to do something important for their political cause rather than religious zealotry.

 

Truth 3) The Islamofascists are out to destroy our way of life and take over the world.

 

The very term 'Islamofascist' is misleading in that it implies a serious effort to politically, militarily, and religiously occupy some or all of the Western world. It might apply to groups bent on imposing sharia on specific regions; the Taliban in Afghanistan, for example, but no terrorist group anywhere seriously believes that it can or will dominate the globe. Calls to kill westerners anywhere in the world in no way implies this goal; they are merely an effective tactic to terrorize an entire population, regardless of geography. Even Osama bin Laden, according to his public and intercepted private messages, has outlined specific political goals (the expulsion of U.S. forces from Arab territory being the primary one) at various times. If the goals of Al Qaeda are unclear today, it is because the movement has splintered and spawned many independent groups, including rogue actors (Zarkawi was the most notorious) with political agendas that vary widely in scope and specificity, and that may or may not include localized ethic cleansing. Thank you, George Bush, for providing an excellent, destabilized sandbox in Iraq for such groups to play in.

 

What the 'Left', or any detractor from the so called 'War on Terror', want, I believe, is to cease the misguided rhetoric that governs American thinking on terror (they're hate our freedom, blah, blah, blah) and recognize what these groups are really about and who makes fills their ranks. It was, in part, because of this rhetoric that we sent troops into Iraq to 'fight the War on Terror', a policy which has predictably increased terrorist attacks.

 

I think what the 'Left' would like to see is a switch to policies that recognize the true nature of the threat and have either worked in the past or hold real promise for the future. This might include funneling some of the 8 or so billion dollars we burn in Iraq each month into cutting off terrorist funding, a strategy which has worked. It would certainly include improving diplomatic relationships to garner intel, infiltration, and focused military or law enforcement action, as well as incentives. It will probably include engaging (non-military) nations such as Iran in an effort to reduce their support of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. In the end, it should include strategies for these groups to lay down their arms and join the political process. (Recent elections in Lebanon and Palestine suggest that we’d best address this last issue sooner than later). A re-definition of our relationship with Israel should also be on the table.

 

Such a program must include the abandonment of the misguided pipe-dream of replacing Islamic ideologies with western values (so far at the point of a gun). Policies based on THAT ideology have only spawned more terrorism. We should focus on stopping the use of terrorism as a tactic, rather than besting ideologies that we assume, wrongly in most cases, drive the use of that tactic. This should not be limited to impossible goal of exterminating these groups, but rather focus more on addressing the political environment that motivates them to kill.

 

For the few, if any survivors of this post, here are a few of many links about suicide bombers:

 

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB408.pdf

 

Some decent summaries:

 

http://worldnews.about.com/od/islamreligionpolitics/a/islam_terrorism.htm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Wi...icide_Terrorism

[JayB]

The ideas under discussion in this thread are those of Salman Rushdie, who is emphatically not a neocon nor a professional apologist for America.

 

Instead of addressing his arguments, you provided a "Yeah, but the Neocons...." response, which I think is rather telling. If you care to acquaint yourself with what the guy is actually saying, and respond to those, I've provided the links.

[tvashtarkatena]

Funny, you didn't similarly respond to pics of the hotties that are so central to Rushdie's ideas.

 

Nice try at tit for tat. I mistakenly thought you'd be above that.

 

As always on spray, the audience decides the relevance of a post. Thank you for one man's opinion.

Edited November 15, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

You're welcome. It just sounded to me like you were responding to a set of talking points from the Project for a New American Century, instead of what someone who is intimately familiar with the subject on a personal level, and would probably agree with most of your points, has to say.

[cj001f]

JayB-

Shouldn't you be writing an angry pro-Hayek (the ugly one) screed to Scientific American?

[prole]

You're welcome. It just sounded to me like you were responding to a set of talking points from the Project for a New American Century, instead of what someone who is intimately familiar with the subject on a personal level, and would probably agree with most of your points, has to say.

 

If Rushdie is in agreement with most or all of the points made above, then what exactly is the *mistake* being made by leftists? Where/who are the phantom leftists he's on about? bell hooks? Huh? Is it possible that Rushdie's intimate relationship with and personal danger from Islamic fundamentalism has clouded his thinking? On the one hand he makes perfectly sensible arguments and his critique of American power and its use is quite good, on the other he's making unfounded alarmist claims against an absent Left and throwing rational analysis out the window in the discussion of militant Islam. While not a neocon, he seems willing to accept many of their premises that contradict a rational, beneficial reading of the situation. How to explain this contradiction? Maybe he's given himself a Cassandra complex.

[tvashtarkatena]

I was responding to several comments made by posters on this very thread, actually. Rummy and Co. were not involved.