Sometime in February 1989, about a dozen or so Muslim community leaders from around the country met in New York City to discuss the controversy caused by Salman Rushdie's postmodern screed called The Satanic Verses. After long discussion, delegates crafted a statement affirming "the freedom of thought and expression guaranteed to all people in this country," yet claiming that "it is hightly imprudent and inconsiderate for an individual to completely ignore the religious sensitivities of his fellows in humanity while exercising his freedoms." The statement went on to say that Islam "does not condone violence or the incitement to violence directed against [The Satanic Verses'] author and those associated with its publication." This meeting, I was told, was an idea thought of and largely paid for by a wealthy businessman.

Sometime afterward, a committee was formed to further discuss the essence of the Rushdie controversy. After a couple of weeks of occasional conference calls, the committee concluded that the person and life of Prophet Muhammad was not very well represented in the English language and that the impact The Satanic Verses would potentially have on the public understanding of the Prophet and Islam in general is empowered to a large degree by this dearth of relevant literature. The available body of literature in English on the life the Prophet, besides the incendiary portrayals in many public school history texts, was either of orientalist vintage (mostly academic and crusading in tone) or of Muslim-world vintage (mostly third-world in production, menancingly weak in language and style, and long on sermonizing, short on soul and depth), the notable and peerless exception being Martin Lings' biography of the Prophet, which many committee members never heard of. I was on this committee. And its "findings" were hardly stunning, uneffecting the earth's rotation. But the solution the committee prescribed�to produce authentic source materials about the Prophet Muhammad�unearthed for all to see a more important, if not pathetic, "finding," namely, the existence of an authoritarian notion that a committee can come to a conclusion, push a button, and expect the faithful to run to their word processors and write a book or books�produce literature, in other words.

While this committee focused on the Prophet, the attitude, as I have seen it throughout my Muslim committee life, pervades deeply through a generation of Muslim institutional leadership that is, thank God, starting to dissipate. Meanwhile, the impact on the literary front is remarkably stunting. I felt then, as I feel now, that my brothers on the committee were living with a contemptible notion of the relationship between religion and culture. Like a snowflake in Hell, the committee evaporated. Nothing was accomplished. The sun rose as expected.

Now cartoonists have had their day. The cartoons are indeed disfigurements of the Noble Prophet. So they offended a lot of Muslims. Because these Muslims were offended that someone would carelessly associate the Prophet with violence, many Muslims went out and made violence. Now, it could be me, but I find that odd.

The overreactions to these cartoons that I have seen show an unsightliness that is antithetical to the personality and message of Prophet Muhammad. But what the intense dudgeon does reveal is a funk uncovered by the cartoons, a funk perhaps associated with a variety of things, like economic and political cul-de-sacs systemic in the Muslim east. The intelligentsia of the Muslim world needs to honestly unpack the meaning of the reactions to these cartoons because clearly something else is afoot.

Nearly every Muslim knows that disparagement of the Prophet of Islam is hardly new. Just as Medieval Europe created fear-fantasies about Jews, "Christ-killers" who apparently ate children, so too did they produce a miasma of animus directed toward the Prophet Muhammad.

Karen Armstrong points out, in her biography of the Prophet, that the energy against the Prophet Muhammad was not so much as a reaction to the marshal and political prowess of the world Islamicate as it was a theological quandary: "How had God allowed this impious faith to prosper? Could it be that he had deserted his own people." An explanation was required as to how this religion could have been so triumphant, producing a civilization of incomparable breadth that was at once prayerful and cosmopolitan.

Eighth century "biographies" of the Prophet Muhammad appeared at the outset of Islam's spread. The polemics kept coming, penned along the way by such venerable names as Dante, Voltaire, and, more recent, translators of the Muslim scripture, such as Rev. Rodwell. If the polemics failed to reach the level of theology, they at the very least have become a cultural meme that has survived to this day. Armstrong says, "In the West we have a long history of hostility towards Islam that seems as entrenched as our anti-Semitism, which in recent years has seen a disturbing revival in Europe. At least, however, many people have developed a healthy fear of this ancient prejudice since the Nazi Holocaust. But the old hatred of Islam continues to flourish on both sides of the Atlantic and people have few scruples about attacking this religion, even if they know little about it."

The Muslim response to the Medieval venom was, in the main, intellectual, secure, and civil - a reaction that reflects not weakeness but "psychological invincibility" of Muslims of the time, as the late Prof. Fazlur Rahman (University of Chicago) so aptly observed in his book Islam. The violent reactions to these cartoons today reflect, I'm afraid, vincibility.

Now this needs to be explored.

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." - Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)

I do not point the finger other than to say, it is very easy for Muslims in the West, in their cosy leather executive chairs typing into their high spec laptops and pcs to moralise. Imagine living in a place where sanctions have caused millions of deaths, there is or has been military action against an otherwise innocent population; imagine a place where you have suffered intolerable cruelty, genocide, denigration and evil of the wickedest measures. Now suffer the indignity of those same ëevil-doersí throwing stones from the other side of the world, not just stones but the worst possible insults.

It is somewhat easy for middle class moderates in the West, with their mortgages and school runs, PTA meetings and kidsí soccer clubs, to take a self-righteous 'uber-tolerant' academic approach over issues with comments such as "overreactions to these cartoons" and spewing pseudo-scholaic diatribe. Of course, who wouldn't like to liken themselves to the Holy Prophet in self-righteous indignation of events. How about the Holy Prophet the warrior, a fighter, a leader of men?

Muslims of the 'old world' enjoyed the luxuries of that time: no media, no internet, no political wranglings, no UN and above all no US. Muslims living under the blanket of protection an Islamic Empire were of course free to respond in an "intellectual, secure, and civil" manner. Times have changed. There is a campaign being waged by the West, a campaign the likes of which has never been seen before. Installations of puppet dictatorships, unlawful wars, rendition, concentration camps, genocide, televisual and media misinformation on an unprecedented global scale. This may well be the mischief making, the death throws of an ailing tribe but their impact is undeniable.

The radicalisation by the media and cowardly intelligensia of those Muslims who do 'fight in the cause of Allah', is arguably the most shameful thing in modern Islamic history.

Today, the academics have the power, the power of rhetoric. Like a pebble in a pond, it creates ripples, ripples which have an impact. If only we had more brave, strong Muslims prepared to stand up for our freedoms. Since when have the non-believers ever bowed to the intelligensia?

My father used to tell me, 'there's only one thing an Englishman understands, a bloody nose'

Just like those Arabs who, each time they dug for oil found water, I have spent a lifetime unsuccessfully trying to dispel this myth. Whilst academics find respite in their inertia, whilst they prevaricate, change rarely comes peacefully.

Avenger, you say a lot here, but did you read this article? When Rushdie's book caused a lot of non-inertia (borrowing from your word), it did nothing afterwards. Repeat: Nothing. You say, "change rarely comes peacefully," but change NEVER EVER comes though chaos and manipulation of emotions by tyrants who do only one thing with these "protests": change the subject about despotism.

Migocup: It is impossible for an action to have no consequences. The issue is, what were the consequences that did happen.

Change when it comes, can come in a number of ways; sometimes through what we perceive as chaos, other times indigence or on the back of a call to arms. You said the Rushdie saga ìdid nothing afterwardsî thats the fervour was inconsequestial. We shoud be reminded of what did happen. It allowed Muslim communities to make one very important point: ìdenigrating the Holy prophet will not be tolerated and we will protestî. If there was any previous modicum of doubt, this should have been eliminated. It showed Western governments and policy makers that this kind of free speech, the freedom to slander a Holy Prophet and insult Muslims, will not be taken lightly.

And this was the consequence. The Rushdie affair taught the West an important lesson thats perhaps otherwise might not have been made. If an issue such as this arose again, those responsible would be unable to feign a claim of ignorance or find respite in ambiguity about how Muslims would react. It set the benchmark, it drew a line in the sand.

Allah is the Creator and it his Him who is ultimately responsible for change and this change manifests itself in any number of ways. We are might not always understand what we see; nonetheless, things are precisely the way Allah intended them to be, no further forward and no further back.

I think the need for an intellectual response to the recent publication of cartoons, Rushdie, et al, is needed now more than ever, and is in no way an abnegation of responsibility to those current under occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine or anywhere.

The enemy Muslims face today is not simply US Imperialism, but Empire. The difference is that one depends on a ruler or set of rulers leading a nation(s) in conquest of others. Today, 'Empire' is more a logic of organisation with its roots in global economics, which perpetuates itself. Vote Bush or Gore, Blair or Cameron, and you will get the same international policies, more or less. The message is - shut up and buy!

I find the small slice of history recounted here interesting. Did you know Rushdie lifted passages almost verbatim out of Lings' biography of the Prophet (aws)? Did you know his University dissertation was on the life of the Prophet (aws)? Did you know his first book drew heavily on Sufism?

Zia Sardur's book 'Desperately Seeking Paradise' has a great deal to say about the Rushdie affair - especially how difficult it was to get his own book criticising Rushdie published in the UK. There may be plenty of Muslims with plush PCs living here (and I am not one of them), but finding an audience outside of the ummah is another matter.

Wasalaam

The Muslim Anarchist

The only thing the Rushdie saga and the Cartoon debacle teaches me is that some Muslims are intolerant of ANY thing that they percieve to be defamation of Islam. Intolerant to the point of violence, killing etc,.. You should not be surprised that most of the rest of the non-Muslim world has woken up to this reality as well. Go teach tolerance to those who would resort to violence, beheading etc,.. all in the name of Allah and the religion of peace...........

>Migocup: It is impossible for an action to have no consequences. The issue is, what were the consequences that did happen.

Sure it can. If you push a steel wall and it doesn't move, how much force is exerted? None. It is called wasted energy.

>And this was the consequence. The Rushdie affair taught the West an important lesson thats perhaps otherwise might not have been made. If an issue such as this arose again, those responsible would be unable to feign a claim of ignorance or find respite in ambiguity about how Muslims would react. It set the benchmark, it drew a line in the sand.

You mean like the Theo van Gogh incident? From what I read, Theo's movie was an accurate portrayal of how Muslim women were treated in an extremist Muslim community. So even if you point out some truths, if it make Muslims look bad, you are risking your life? That's the consequence?

Sad that some folks are so willfully ignorant that they take the excessive or criminal responses of a tiny minority of Muslims as typical of all - mind you, much of the media does its best to perpetuate this grotesque lie. Perhaps Al-Jazeera should get its opinions about 'the West' by interviewing the head of the Klu Klux Klan or Nick Griffen or Le Pen. Stupid white men, huh!

Wasalaam

The Muslim Anarchist

Agreed, Yakoub. Even more, what about the Evangelical orgasms over the war they pursued and pushed for, the raining of chemicals on the skins of women and children. The burning of skin, whether vigilante or approved by men in suits behind nice desks, hurts the same.

Yakoub, I did write "some". I hope that a 'majority' of Muslims disagree with the response of 'some'. I , however, do not see a large response from any muslim group/country/organization voicing dismay or indignation over the violence and the 1 million dollar reward offered for the head of the cartoonist (most of us understand that it was 12 cartoonists not just one). Saying that some are willfully ignorant just sidesteps the issue and adds nothing to the debate or saying 'stupid white men'...... Same as saying the response to the cartoons is 'Teaching the West a lesson'.

Again, the only lesson I learn is that 'some' Muslims tolerate no defemation of their religion and expect others to adhere to it on penalty of .....death?????

Some is not a tiny minority, however much you wriggle. The 100 or so demonstrators outside the Danish Embassy in London belonged to an extremist group, and probably most of their members were there. The Muslim Council of Britain and many other Muslim groups in the UK and around the world condemned the extreme responses, even if the newspapers you read and TV you watch didn't report it. In the UK, moderate Muslims organised a peaceful demo of their own in London. You hear what you want to hear, see what you want to see, which is 'other' - a group of people who are somehow less human than you because they are Muslim (and mostly non-white). It's the same thinking that allows US and British soldiers to torture and kill Muslims for entertainment. Not so much stupid, as monstrous.

Wasalaam

The Muslim Anarchist

>It's the same thinking that allows US and British soldiers to torture and kill Muslims for entertainment.

Do you think all US and British soldiers are torturing Muslims for entertainment? Or just...some?

And also do you think they are torturing them because they (the prisoners) believe in the teachings of Islam or because they think that everyone arrested is probably a terrorist and has more information to reveal?

I agree Yakoub, some is not a tiny minority. the thousands in Pakistan is definately not a tiny minority, burning consolates in Lybya, Iran and prominent Clerics calling for the beheading and offering a reward for it.....You , also believe what you want to believe. I believe that a vast majority of UK and US soldiers do not torture or kill innocent muslims.

The TV I watch reported the groups that you named objecting to the violence. The violence continues to this day however.

You tell me what I think??? I tell you what I see and read. As for me thinking you or any other person is less than human....nice opinion, does nothing to further the discourse on the cartoons and the violence that continues in the name of Allah and a religion of peace.......

Dear All,

There are some misconceptions being continued here.

FallenChristian: you said "Theo's movie was an accurate portrayal of how Muslim women were treated in an extremist Muslim community". Let me tell you about one scene I was unfortunate enough to have been shown. The film shows an almost entirely naked Muslim woman with Quríanic verses written all over her body, while she writhes around on the floor, she is being whipped and cut up. Her skin is ripped open and she bleeds on the verses, the verses (the words of Allah) are whipped, physically and literally desecrated. It is utterly unsurprising that Muslims reacted in this way. In response to my comments "It is impossible for an action to have no consequences" you made the comment: "Sure it can. If you push a steel wall and it doesn't move, how much force is exerted? None. It is called wasted energy"

Leaving aside the point that the analogy is irrelevant, the point in this context is that the Rushdie affair did send a clear, unambiguous message - "this kind of free speech, the freedom to slander a Holy Prophet and insult Muslims, will not be taken lightly". From that point on, the influencers, Governments and Western media cannot claim ignorance to these issues in the future. Theo Van Gogh knew the potential impact of his recklessness; the cartoonists knew the potential impact of their recklessness. With no doubt, the editors, whose role is to specifically ensure articles do not breach legal boundaries, to adhere to censorship rules and to ensure they are not plagiarised or offensive - they certainly knew of the impact.

The question is not whether or not those responsible knew of the potential impact but WHY and why now?

justanothervoice: You are absolutely right. Its not a few, its many hundreds of thousands, its millions. And it won't change, neither should it. The Muslim Ummah should function like a family; if one is injured or insulted, all should feel injured or insulted; if one feels pain, all should feel pain.

Wake up and smell the coffee people, it is the old classic: Divide and Conquer.

Avenger,

I wish the Muslim Ummah acted like a family and rightously. But, that is not often the case. There have been many instances in the history, where a muslim country has killed other human beings, muslim or not, unjustly - the Ummah did not protest. When a muslim killed Theo Van Gogh, he did not act rightously. That cannot be a muslim's response to an insult.

Rushdie affair did not accomplish what you are saying. All the that was done is that we slandered ourselves. West now knows how easy it is to manupulate the muslim masses. The proof is the current cartoon controversy. When the Danish newspaper published these cartoons, they knew that are about to stir up trouble in the Muslim world. They are trying to hide behind the freedom of speech, but the same newspaper did not publish controversial cartoons lampooning Jesus with the excuse that it would offend Christians.

So, who is the winner here? You should see the commentary by some of the right winger in the USA. They are using this to say 'I told you so about those uncivilized muslims. See were right when we attacked Iraq. Now lets attack Iran as well. We have to civilize these barbarians.' All the white man's burden stuff.

In the Arab world, those dispotic and corrupt governments are sighing relief as the attention of the people is diverted from their country's problem to this issue in a foreign land.

The losers, off course, are the people who want to coexist peacefully.

Mission: You are attempting to invade a nation, one living happily and relatively harmoniously within itself. You want the country's assets, the land, a political outpost, a bigger customer base or perhaps just 'another string to your bow'. The only effective way to accomplish your mission is to create factions out of the native peoples, to create discord, destroy unity.

Arguably, the biggest accusation that could be levied against the western powers is the destruction of the unity of men. Iraq is suddenly polarised into Shia, Sunni, Kurd, Christian: all of whom lived peacefully amongst themselves albeit under a dictatorial regime. India was fragmented into Hindu India, Muslim East and West Pakistan (separated 1500 miles either side of India) and the Sikh Punjab. The African example would fill volumes. Palestine and trans-Jordan was a Muslim land mass which was fragmented by the British. For a perfect example look no further than the history of the United Arab Emirates.

Before the British rule in India, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim lived side by side in relative peace and harmony. All nations have suffered historical conflicts but the country had been for many centuries been united as one 'people'. The greatest weapon the British had was to create disharmony and dis-unity.

There is no shortage of examples and no question as to the efficiency of the system.

So, in dismantling the threat of an Islamic Empire, there really is only one tried and tested option available to the West; fear, dis-unity and factionalising the Muslims into progressives, moderates, extremists, fundamentalists, Islamo-facists, Wahabists, Mohammedans, Jihadists, Shia, Sunni, Sufi. It is not a co-incidence, all you are asked to do is pick a team.

Muslims are one force, one people and one Ummah. That is the legacy of the Holy Prophet. The insults and attacks on Muslims are clearly designed with one effect, regardless of their stated ëintentionsí.

Food for thought:
Military Arms Exports in 1995: rank / country / value ë000,000 US$

1- United States 15,600
2- United Kingdom 5,200
3- Russia 3,300
4- France 2,200
5- Germany 1,200
6- Israel 775

There are currently around 193 independant countries in the World, in 1950 there were only 82.

Arshad: Assalam Alaikum. I agree with much of what you say. I am very aware of the right wing, neo-con mediaís attempts in misinforming the American public. In reference to your comment "All that was done is that we slandered ourselves"; if you will allow my friend, I will disagree with you about what the many things that the Rushdie affair accomplished. It did many things but no doubt was that it made Muslims ëlookí bad. We should not be surprised, we know this is the way of the non-believers.

ìAnd if (at any time) an incitement to discord is made to thee by the Evil One, seek refuge in Allah. He is the One Who hears and knows all things.î
Al-Qur'an, 041.036 Fussilat [Explained in Detail]

For those of us sitting at home,

ìNot equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-

Ranks specially bestowed by Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.î
Al-Qur'an, 004.095-096 An-Nisa [Women]

>>Iraq is suddenly polarised into Shia, Sunni, Kurd, Christian: all of whom lived peacefully amongst themselves albeit under a dictatorial regime.

LOL! So, different peoples, especially Muslims can only live peacefully under dictatorship!? Na'udhu billah. Maybe you are actually right about that one for now. As for India: ever hear of Ranjit Singh? People in Peshawar knew him well. Ever hear of Aurangzeeb's campaigns in the Deccan? How about Mahmud Ghaznawi? Yes, everyone lived in peace, indeed!

Avenger,

Indian example is actually goes against you. There was constant war among different small fiefdoms, the Mughal emperor and the Hindu kings before the British came. There was some harmony among the common people in some areas, but never at the top level.

To your other response:

Muslims acted in a very unislamic way in case of Rushdie, Van Gogh and the current crisis. I don't agree with you when you say 'this is the way of the non-believers' as muslims have acted and keep on acting the same way as the so called 'non-believers'. It does not take much for the power hungry cleric to exploit a news item to incite violence against people they don't like. How is that any better than the 'non-believers'.

I am not ready to blame the West for all the problems in the Ummah.

OmarG: First and foremost, I did not suggest that ìMuslims can only live peacefully under dictatorshipî. Please donít misquote.

No-one here suggests everyone lives in peace. There are however, degrees and a relative harmony.

The issue is about the attempt to fracture the Islamic world and wider, to alienate the Islamic world from the West and its neighbours. There are many examples of how and why. If you read carefully, I stated that ìAll nations have suffered historical conflicts but the country had been for many centuries been united as one 'peopleî.

Just for the record:

Ranjit Singh (1780-1839) united the region and the wider Punjab. He retained control of the Khyber Pass which then passed into Muslim control. This key strategic post is something all Afghans and Pakistanis should be grateful for. Many of his generals and high ranking officials were Muslims and the organised Army he built, held off invasion by the British.

Aurungzeb (1618-1707) the man who spread his prayer rug and prayed in the midst of battle. He memorised the Qurían. In Lahore, he built the largest mosque outside Mecca. He was a devout Muslim and vehemently intolerant of non-Muslims, especially idol worshipping Hindus and Sikhs. He destroyed temples and idols, often building mosques on those sites.

[Remembering the Al-Aqsa is built on the Temple of Solomon and the Kaaba held idols at one point which were also smashed when it came back under Islamic control]

He outlawed temple-dancing courtesans. He held a strict, conservative interpretation of Islamic Shariah rule; he banished court musicians, dancers and singers. Aurangzeb gave up traditional Hindu practices such as public appearances to ëblessí the people. Arguably, a good Muslim, in many ways strict and intolerant. The wars with the Sikhs and killings of the Gurus created a massive backlash after his death. Although he held a massive Empire, throughout his life he knitted Haj caps and copied the Qurían which he sold anonymously using the proceeds, and only these, to fund his resting place - an open air grave in Kuldabad.