Daily Archives: September 14, 2012

The affair began with The Satanic Verses going up in flames in Bradford. Western Muslims lit the spark. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini fanned it into a global blaze and, with American embassies under attack in the Arab world, the fatal dialectic between Islamic rage and western free speech once again leaves death in its wake.

On the day the fatwa was pronounced, February 14 1989, Salman Rushdie attended a memorial service for Bruce Chatwin in central London. When the service ended, we watched as he was pushed into the back of a car and driven off, looking bewildered and frightened.


On this story

On this topic

IN Opinion

In his forthcoming memoir, Joseph Anton – named after the alias he chose to assume – Mr Rushdie will tell us what the next decade was like for him. I once had a glimpse inside. In the 1990s, he and his protection team drove me home after dinner. We circled the north London streets, they watched through the tinted windows and when the car came to a stop and I tried to open the door, the officer said, “Better let me, sir”, the reinforced glass and steel making it too heavy to open. Mr Rushdie was caged in glass and steel for a decade.

The affair erupted into a conflict between the European Enlightenment – reason, tolerance, dialogue, secularism – and radical Islam – theocratic, literalist and intolerant. While Mr Rushdie knew a lot about Islam, his liberal followers like me knew less. Looking back, we purchased moral clarity about our own values at the price of greater confusion about Islam.

We fell for the idea that the ayatollah was speaking for the whole faith. In reality, he was recovering from the disastrous war with Iraq, battling with the Saudis for mastery of the Muslim masses and in need of a cause célèbre to reignite an Iranian revolution becalmed. The affair was a gift from the gods and he used it to bolster a terrorist theocracy in difficulty.

The risk to Mr Rushdie was never from Islam or from its western believers, but from a terrorist state. Twenty-three years later, the fatwa, though not enforced, still hangs over Mr Rushdie, Iran lurches towards possession of a nuclear weapon, it still proclaims death to the “Zionist entity” and it is still a terrorist state. Perhaps that is what the wily ayatollah, architect of permanent revolution, wanted all along.

The imams who organised the book-burning in Bradford got what they wanted too. When I went to Bradford in the spring of 1989 to listen to Muslim leaders, their sincerity was clear enough. It was their authenticity that I questioned.

They told stories that expressed unease about what their daughters and sons were learning on the streets and unease about the compromises that western life was forcing upon them. One prosperous restaurant owner – who loudly supported death for Mr Rushdie – admitted he made his living selling alcohol to the infidel. The Rushdie affair was exactly what he needed. The angrier the reaffirmation of his faith, the more authentic he felt.

The affair gave liberals and the worldwide ummah of Muslim believers a chance to define what was sacred for each. It allowed both to express strong emotions, but neither side closed the gap between the sincerity of their emotions and the authenticity of their faith.

An authentic faith might have made us both more humble about our beliefs and more curious about the convictions of others. We might have learnt something from each other. Instead we had a painful awakening to our differences.

The affair was the moment that westernised Muslims encountered the hidden demand of life in a secular democracy. They discovered that their faith could be mocked and they demanded that freedom of expression be circumscribed by respect. Their demand was backed, at least among a marginalised and angry minority in Europe, with a threat to burn the multicultural house down.

The threat was as unacceptable as the fatwa. No one should be required to rethink the terms of free speech with a gun to his head. If it is true that no western author now will dare to insult Islam after the Rushdie affair, the death of his translators, the attack on the Danish cartoonists, then all of us will lose.

So if resentful self-censorship on the liberal side and violent explosions in European banlieues would be the worst possible consequence of the affair, what might be a positive outcome?

We need to rethink what it means to live together. Everyone in a free society shares the deepest possible interest in protecting Muslim minorities, indeed all faith communities, from discrimination, defamation, violence or incitement to acts of hate. But no free society has an interest in protecting their doctrines, beliefs and practices from criticism, scorn, ridicule or belittlement.

This is a hard bargain for faith communities. It is not pleasant to live in societies that appear to hold nothing sacred except the liberty to get rich and the freedom to be sarcastic and sacrilegious. But tolerance is a hard bargain for secular liberals too, requiring them to live with those who believe in the subjection of women, the subordination of reason to faith and the division of humankind into the faithful and the infidel.

So we come out of the Rushdie affair with one thing in common: democratic life together is a hard bargain. Each of us, Muslim believer and secular liberal, wishes the other were different. But we are not, and living together requires us to accept what we cannot change.

Living together should not be in resentful silence, each in our own ghettos. It means shouldering a burden of mutual justification without privilege. Faith has no privilege, no exclusive rights, and secular reason has none either. We are stuck with each other, with the burden of justifying ourselves, living with each other in freedom and trying to persuade the other to be different, free from menace or violence. That is what democratic life demands.

The writer teaches human rights at Harvard and the University of Toronto

On Thursday, CNN released a revealing poll. It asked people this question: “Do you think the policies of Barack Obama and the Democrats or George W. Bush and the Republicans are more responsible for the country’s current economic problems?”

Remarkably, 54 per cent of “likely voters” put primary blame on Mr Bush and the Republicans versus only 38 per cent who blame Mr Obama and the Democrats. Among registered voters, the disparity is even larger, with 57 per cent blaming Mr Bush and only 35 per cent Mr Obama.

Among subgroups, those under age 50 are much more likely to blame Mr Bush than Mr Obama; those over 50 are more inclined to blame Mr Obama, although a majority still blames Mr Bush. Those with low incomes are more inclined to blame Mr Bush than those with high incomes; those in the Northeast or in cities are more inclined to blame Mr Bush than those in the Midwest or in the suburbs. But again, majorities blame Mr Bush.

Indeed, every subgroup blames Mr Bush more than Mr Obama with the obvious exceptions of Republicans and conservatives. However, even among these groups, a significant percentage blame Mr Bush—15 per cent of Republicans and 36 per cent of conservatives. Perhaps most importantly, from an electoral point of view, 53 per cent of independents blame Mr Bush while only 37 per cent blame Mr Obama.

The CNN poll results are not unique. An August ABC News/Washington Post poll asked people, “Who do you think is more responsible for the country’s current economic problems – Barack Obama or George W. Bush?” Mr Bush was held responsible by 54 percent of respondents, with 32 percent blaming Mr Obama.

An August impreMedia/Latino Decisions poll that tracks only Latinos, a critical voting group for both parties, found 68 per cent of them primarily blame Mr Bush for the economic downturn of the last few years, with only 14 per cent blaming Mr Obama.

In July, a CBS News/New York Times poll found 48 per cent of voters blame Bush “a lot” for the economic downturn, a third blame him “some” and only 18 per cent don’t blame him at all. Regarding Obama, 34 per cent blame him a lot, 30 per cent some, and 35 per cent don’t blame him at all.

I don’t know if these results are unprecedented, but they are certainly remarkable given that Mr Obama has now been president for almost four years. One would think that as the years have gone by memories of Mr Bush would have faded, and as Mr Obama’s policies were implemented that he would in essence “own” the economy.

At least in my lifetime, new presidents have tended to get blamed for economic conditions unreasonably quickly, well before their policies really had a chance to take effect. That was certainly true for Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s.

Why so many people continue to blame Mr Bush long after he left office is intriguing. It suggests that they are far more sophisticated about the impact of presidents on the economy than is generally believed. It may also be the price Republicans are now paying for obstructing Mr Obama’s agenda in Congress.

Voters, more so than pundits, seem to know that our current economic difficulties began during the Bush administration. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in December 2007, while Bush was president, and ended in June 2009. However, polls show that the vast majority of people think the recession never ended. A Fox News poll released on Wednesday found that 80 per cent of voters believe the economy is still in recession, with another 10 per cent believing that while the recession is over another is on the way.

During the Democratic convention, former president Bill Clinton argued strenuously that the economic mess Mr Obama inherited was so severe that no president could fix it in just four years. Apparently, this is a message that resonates with many voters—and also reminds them that the seeds of our economic problems were sown during the previous administration.

Republicans clearly know that Mr Bush is an albatross around their necks, which is why he is almost never mentioned and wasn’t even invited to appear at the Republican convention last month. Mr Bush himself seems to keep out of sight as much as possible. On the other hand, Democrats haven’t done much to exploit peoples’ aversion to their last president. Perhaps they feel it is unnecessary and might engender sympathy for him.

In any event, the Bush presidency is important subtext for this year’s presidential election. Given Mr Obama’s now-solid lead in the polls, it appears that voters are more willing to give him another four years, despite a generally poor economy, than take the risk of turning the White House over again to the party of Bush.

The A-List

About this blog Blog guide
Welcome. This blog is available to subscribers only.

The A-List from the Financial Times provides timely, insightful comment on the topics that matter, from globally renowned leaders, policymakers and commentators.

Read the A-List author biographies

Subscribe to the RSS feed

To comment, please register for free with FT.com and read our policy on submitting comments.

All posts are published in UK time.

See the full list of FT blogs.

What we’re writing about

Afghanistan Asia maritime tensions carbon central banks China climate change Crimea emerging markets energy EU European Central Bank George Osborne global economy inflation Japan Pakistan quantitative easing Russia Rwanda security surveillance Syria technology terrorism UK Budget UK economy Ukraine unemployment US US Federal Reserve US jobs Vladimir Putin


Africa America Asia Britain Business China Davos Europe Finance Foreign Policy Global Economy Latin America Markets Middle East Syria World


« Aug Oct »September 2012