I searched and searched everywhere on Google News for a grand international Muslim protest over the awarding of a knighthood to British author Salman Rushdie. All I found was Pakistani MP's talking about diplomatic crises and some ruptures in Iran.

Apparently one group of Pakistani Mullahs has decided to award Usama bin Ladin the award of Saifullah (Sword of God) in retaliation. I'm sure Queen Elizabeth will be shaking in her heels over such a frightening thought. Another group has offered 10 million rupees to anyone who beheads Rushdie. The way Pakistan's economy is going, that amount of money should buy me an upgraded PC.

Whoops, I almost forgot to mention protests by one of Malaysia's opposition parties.

Thankfully, there hasn't been a peep out of anyone else. I hope it stays that way. However, who knows where all this may go? For some Muslims, burning flags and effigies (and, in some cases, even embassies) seems to be the preferred method to respond to an offence of religious sensibilities. Its as if we think the best way to protest the honour of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him) is to disobey him!

Given the mute response to Rushdie's knighthood across most of the Muslim world (including among Muslims living in Australia), it seems the fundies arent having much fun. But where does it go from here? To understand this, heres a bit of history.

Fatwa futility?

In 1981, an advertising executive turned author named Ahmad S. Rushdie published his second novel. Midnights Children is a terrific read, a wonderful journey into the lives of ordinary Indians and how independence and partition affected them. It provides an amazing study of relations between different religious communities in the Indian sub-Continent.

Its probably Rushdie's best novel. Or so I've been told. Despite being a child (or at least grandchild) of the Indian partition, I've actually never read the novel. In fact, I've never read any of Rushdie's novels, including his fourth, best selling (and I've been told, his worst) work.

The Satanic Verses might have been one very ordinary novel. I might be able to produce a better novel by throwing the words of every Crowded House and Midnight Oil song into a bag and randomly pasting them onto a page.

Yet thanks to the late Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa, The Satanic Verses became Rushdie's biggest seller. So big a hit that the British government was forced to show its appreciation by throwing in a few security guards to keep Rushdie company around the clock.

One could argue that Khomeini issued the fatwa in an effort to gain some attention. Or perhaps to create a distraction. His attempts to export his Islamic revolution were being jettisoned by sectarian attacks, resulting in reduced support from (largely Sunni) Muslims. Further, things in Iran werent looking to rosy thanks to the West's backing of Saddam Husseins invasion of Iran.

Khomeini was not the only leader to make use of the Rushdie factor. And as we saw with the Danish cartoons fiasco, a host of Muslim leaders are quite happy to manipulate religious sensitivities they'd otherwise ignore or suppress.

What better way to garner support than to use wedge politics? Heck, it works for Western politicians like Aussie Prime Minister John Howard. Find someone or some group we can all hate and spend lots of time fanning the fires against them. Still, I cant accuse Howard of ever issuing a death sentence against anyone (apart from Afghan and Iraqi civilians). He's happy for his troops (and other people's children) to participate in other peoples wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Where does fiction end?

I wonder how many anti-Rushdie Muslim protesters actually read The Satanic Verses? No prizes for guessing. The great Muslim mathematicians of yesteryear didn't invest the zero just to make arithmetic easier.

Some hostile non-Muslims (or, in the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ex-Muslims) quote verses from the Qur'an in an effort to show that I believe in beating wives or slaughtering infidels. They want you to believe that I am a threat to you. I despise their antics because I know they are quoting the Qur'an out of context in an effort to have you suspect me. They distort the meanings.

So there you have it. I dont want non-Muslims to despise me and other Muslims. I want non-Muslims to believe me when I tell them that the verses being quoted are being taken out of context. At the same time, some Muslims are quite prepared to quote a work of fiction by a novelist as an excuse to cause him harm. Make sense?

This also begs the question: How on earth can a work of fiction be regarded as blasphemy? Heck, it isn't real. Its just fiction. You read it knowing it doesn't describe real events. Nor is it meant to.

But then, where does fiction end and reality begin? Or vice versa? I ask myself this question each time I scan the opinion pages of some of Mr. Murdoch's newspapers. So much fiction in such little space!

Some days back, Mr Murdoch's only Australian broadsheet published an article by a woman who would like to be Salman Rushdie if only she could write better. Irshad Manji is a Canadian Muslim writer who thrives on controversy and is desperate to get a fatwa to improve her own booksales.

Manji's major claim to fame is that she re-discovered the concept of ijtihad (roughly translated as independent juristic reasoning), a claim she shares with Usama bin Ladin and a host of other Muslim controversialists.

Manji's article laments the recent response of some Pakistani lawmakers to the recent award to Rushdie of a Knight Bachelor for his services to literature. What made Manji particularly upset was that Pakistani MP's spent so much time worrying about Rushdie and so little time focussing on issues of poverty and women's rights. For a change, Manji did not blame Islam itself but rather "hypocrisy under the banner of Islam." I doubt many Muslims would disagree with her, though that didnt stop cultural warrior sub-editors at The Australian newspaper from giving this article the headline "Islam's the problem."

Holding all Muslims responsible

Manji poses this question in The Australian: "In a battle between flaming fundamentalists and mute moderates, who do you think is going to win?"

Meanwhile, across the Tasman Sea, the Wellington Dominion-Post asks in its editorial: "How would the typically laid-back, live-and-let-live Kiwi react were Pakistan or Iran to threaten death to a Kiwi author who had criticised Islam and the Prophet? Probably not well. And they would expect Muslim New Zealanders to react likewise. Perhaps the grimmest part of the latest Rushdie kerfuffle is the deafening silence from the thousands of moderate Muslims who have made Britain their home. That does not bode well for the author or religious tolerance in his adopted homeland."

Why on earth should Muslims in Australia or New Zealand or the UK or US or anywhere else have to comment and pass judgment on what Muslims in Tehran or Lahore are doing? What's it to do with us? Why must we express an opinion about the statements of mullahs on the other side of the world that we have never met or even heard of? And isn't the fact that many of us are too busy or too disinterested to express an opinion not in itself promising?

Using this fuzzy logic, we should hold all Hare Krishna activists responsible for the LTTEs suicide bombing attacks in Sri Lanka. Or better still, lets insist on comment from Malaysian shop keepers of Tamil background at the Masjid India commercial district of KL. Who cares if they have never been to Sri Lanka? Who cares if many probably cannot even speak Tamil? They are Hindu. They must have an opinion. And their silence must be deemed troubling.

I hope Western newspapers such as the Dominion-Post ask similar questions of Kiwi Jews during the next Israeli offensive in Lebanon. Then again, I hope they don't. No one should have to put up with this kind of infantile reasoning.

Islamic blasphemy?

I'm not aware of anytime during the thousand-year-plus Muslim renaissance when Muslims had a problem with allegedly blasphemous books. In fact, Muslims almost turned blasphemy into an artform. On the eve of the Crusades, one Syrian Muslim scholar named Abul Ala al-Ma'arri (his surname indicating he was from the town of Maarra in Syria) was told about these nasty uncivilised European crusader thugs who even resorted to cannibalism. And his response?

"There are only two classes of people in this world those with lots of religion but little intelligence and those with lots of intelligence but little religion!"

Around a century later, in the Spanish Muslim city of Cordoba, one Sheik Musa bin Maymoun bin Abdullah al-Qurtubi was placing the finishing touches on his famous Arabic theological text called Dalalat al-Hari'in (Guide to the Perplexed). The Sheik-cum-physician devoted part of the book to comparing the three Abrahamic faiths Islam, Christianity and Judaism. He concluded that Judaism was superior to its younger spiritual twins.

You'd think that, writing this kind of hubris, Qurtubi though himself some kind of rabbi. Indeed, he was! Jews refer to him as Moses Maimonides. Muslim rulers of his day honoured him. Among them was Saladdin, who appointed Maimonides as Chief Medical Officer of his army. Yep, the Muslims liberated Jerusalem from the Crusaders with the help of an allegedly blasphemous rabbi!

Returning to Rushdie, it isnt just Muslim militants who campaign against his books. Rushdies 1996 book The Moor's Last Sigh dealt with Hindu religious chauvinism in India, and lampooned the head of Mumbai's Hindu fascist RSS party Bal Thackeray. The Indian government of the day effectively banned the book, and Hindu militants threatened Rushdie with their own deadly "fatwa."

Perhaps that tiny minority of Muslims who love wasting their time and energy on protesting against writers have realised banning books and threatening authors achieves little more than making these authors damned rich!

I'm surprised at the somewhat disingenous and flippant style of the author.. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT SALMAN RUSHDIE'S PUBLISHERS HAVE BEEN KILLED AND WOUNDED... so the threat is real and active... Pakistanis who offer bounties operate in a region where islamist terror is a constant killer! for its own people and its neighbours..

As for muslims taking responsibility why not?
When islam modernises and moderates across the globe the author's position is valid that they need not take responsibility for fringe groups...

Till islam is used as a pretext to justify violence and intolerance towards others the fight for the rights of other non muslims and dissident muslims must and will continue..

No point giving examples from other religions e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism have significantly overcome their historical weaknesses and injustices e.g. untouchability or slavery and the caste system which most hindu scholars, religious figures will not justify or condone today, but will rather condemn it and fight against it..as also polygamy, purdah, etc..

Islam as it is structured and practised has an in built element of intolerance towards other non believers, and a history of using violence and genocide in the spread of the religion..
today's islamist socieities still display lots of antipathy towards non islamic relgions

Hence the fears of most non muslims about islam..

THE FIGHT ULTIMATELY HAS TO BE FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS TO BUILD A MODERN, MULTICULTURAL, HUMAN RIGHTS RESPECTING SYSTEM.. such a system will benefit all - including tolerant and moderate muslim believers..

Lastly what is this about not reading Rushdie and being a tad proud of it..
Rushdie is a good writer, critically acclaimed and has a wit and joyfulness in his writing.. why not read him - perhaps you will like him..

gkamat, you condemn me for allegedly not reading Rushdie. Yet ou haven't bothered to read my article properly.

I have read Rushdie's reviews and a number of his essays. I do enjoy much of his writing.

But I am not responsible for what someone in Islamabad or Tehran does. Why should I be? I cannot control his behaviour. And he cannot control mine.

Should I hold you responsible for the behaviour of US fundamentalist Christians who support the Iraq war and are happy to blindly support Israel while it builds a wall around Bethlehem?

Hi Irfy
No offence meant - i certainly read your article word for word and wrote an impressionistic response! certainly when i meant "read Rushdie" i meant read his most important works like "Midnight's Children" "Satanic Verses" "Shame" "Moor's Last Sigh" ..
Rushdie is a genius - perhaps deserves the Nobel Prize like Mr VS Naipaul, and instead he is pilloried for his dissent on certain aspects of Islam?
Surely we must be tolerant of the right to dissent? and criticise?

As for taking responsibility.. i dont know how we can get away from this? e.g. as a practising Hindu, (and Buddhist sympathiser) i dont know how i can get away from some responsibility to fight against discrimination from the caste system.. and i do fight against it..
similarly for muslims especially educated ones dont they have to fight against the most rabid dispensations of their worst mullahs? e.g. indian mullahs wanting to behead Danish cartoonists?

So this is a simple position - we must fight for our beliefs - and if our religious beliefs have parts which can cause hurt to others we must fight them?

Another example is "secularism" or multiculturalism, i must fight for it, for my own and immediate religious group's sake as also for the sake of other believer groups sake.. this is a given in a democracy, and yet we see muslim leaders often shying off this fight against the most draconian and dated aspects of the shariat...

I honestly dont know, its for you to introspect and think about these positions and decide!
But one thing i'm sure of i dont suggest one group only, but would like to move towards universal positions for all - including fundamentalist christians, and other believers of faith including hindus, buddhists, sikhs, jains etc.
Best wishes

Now I guess I'm the one who has been caught out being presumtuous. I presumed gkamat was a Christian! Silly me ...

There is little use arguing with someone who thinks that reading naipul is worthwhile. He is a hindu rush limbaugh who was awarded a political prize.

Anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize for any field is honest is either naive or stupid. For god's sake they gave one to Kissinger and Arafat and have left out Vonnegut and Lewis! And as a physicist, I know for a fact that the physics and chemistry prizes are very much political.

He called the destruction of the babri masjid, a "sublime expression of faith."

As for the assertion that other faiths have moved past their periods of intolerance well... the nazis were_____, the BJP is ________, Bush thinks that god talks to him - I am not kidding! Furthermore, secularism is not ideal either - just look at the communist nations.

But I agree, muslims staying silent is like all the french who handed over their jewish countrymen during WWII - I've been kicked out of masjids for my efforts. So it goes.

As for the knighthood, well, I am with Tagore. It is a betrayal for anyone of Indian descent to bow before any Britisher, or to accept such an "honour."

Good for you gkamat. But sorry to dissappoint you, I just don't have a time to care about Rushdie.

My priorities are just plain ordinary things. Mostly about my daily bread. Sometimes we do march on the street. Condemning those who condemn Rushdie? No. Protesting war in Iraq? No. Supporting the Palestinian cause? No. Mostly it's about wage raise, and other miniscule ordinary stuffs that won't find their way to paper headlines.

Why should I spend my already small energy to address some issues in far far away land so that you can stop calling me mute?

When you blame the majority for being "mute", what exactly do you expect us to do? Do you want us to march on the street or make statements every time someone in Pakistan or India or Iran or wherever open his/her mouth?

I find most of what you say, agreeable but am surprised that you were obliged to write an article without particularly knowing either party's case. You haven't read the book but yet found it just to pass judgements about it. Funny how that works.

And FYI, the Muslims did not invent the zero - it was the Hindus from India. Go figure...

I don't feel responsible for the ACTIONS of anyone else, nor do I hold you so. I do hold myself, and you, responsible to define and defend a vision of the moral and ethical truth, and to name and deplore actions, both mine and yours, when they appear to contradict truth, or defend the false. Decisions must be made, stands must be taken, reasons must be given -- to avoid these is to deny humanity. So, neither I nor you can be responsible for the actions of those others who are members of our community, but we are responsible and must be willing and ready to speak our beliefs in the matter -- and let others do likewise. Truth will out, but not if it is unspoken. As for Rushdie, seems as if the fundies are his best publicists. For example, their opposition, now amplified by your very comments, lead me to purchase his books!

In Irshad Manji’s artricle at

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21940050-7583,00.html

she writes, ”I'm offended that every year, there are more women killed in Pakistan for allegedly violating their family's honour than there are detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Muslims have rightly denounced the mistreatment of Gitmo prisoners. But where's our outrage over the murder of many more Muslims at the hands of our own?”
Is Irshad Manji offended by the millions of women, men and children who work for slave wages to manufacture goods sold in Western democracies?

Irshad Manji wonders why are the moderate Muslims silent; they are silent, the problem is that they don’t get as much media attention as Manji does, so people don’t know about them. Manji is delusional in her sense of fairness and morality.

Has Irshad Manji spoken up about the millions of lives destroyed through bombings, destruction of infrastructure and the use of depleted uranium and chemical weapons in Iraq?

When has Irshad Manji spoken up about the hypocrisy of certain Western democracies who preach democracy and human rights, yet will engage in regime change and support brutal dictators and kings who do their bidding?

Irshad Manji wrote, “No wonder my own book, translated into Urdu and posted on my website, is being downloaded in droves. Religious authorities won't let it be sold in the markets. But they can't stop Pakistanis - or other Muslims - from satiating a genuine hunger for ideas..”

LOL :) LOL :), If her book is like this article, then she is more full of sh*t, than of any great ideas!

Irfan Yusuf, you wrote, "Apparently one group of Pakistani Mullahs has decided to award Usama bin Ladin the award of Saifullah (Sword of God) in retaliation. I'm sure Queen Elizabeth will be shaking in her heels over such a frightening thought."

The mullahs don't know what they are doing. Usama bin Laden is a CIA puppet/asset and has benefited America more than he has the MUslim world.

The mullahs should have awarded Emad Mohamed "Dodi" al-Fayed the Saifullah (Sword of God). al-Fayed was the Egyptian Muslim boyfriend of Princesses Diana. The Queen probably wished Diana rather be dead , than to see her grandchildren have an Egyptian Muslim as their stepfather. Somehow, conveniently the Queen got her wish.

Hi,

It is no good to just write satires for the sake of money and the praises of men. Those who read such things are spiritually blind who cannot analyse the Truth.

I do not want to waste my time reading Books of those that even do not know what Allah stands for? Or more precisely what is INSHALLAH and INSHMULLAH?

My Allah is Spirit in which you gain peace of mind and He has set me free from the thoughts of others as I go by INSHALLAH. My Allah or Islam is SHARIAH FREE and there are no beautiful women waiting for me but an embrace by Allah for doing His Will and not the wills or the Fatwas of Mullahs, INSHMULLAHS.

Remember that this Dark Age is of INSHALLAH and not of any Sant (INSHSANT), Bishop (INSHBISHOP), Priests, Mullahs, etc.