Join Daniel Pipes on a
trip to Israel's Negev desert, with side visits to explore the recent
Gaza war. For more information, please click here.
By
way of explanation of the fourth paragraph of the introductory talk: I
referred specifically to Wilders, Robert Redeker, Lars Vilks, Kurt
Westergaard, and Lars Hedegaard because they were all present and
addressing the same event. Indeed, I was the only one of the six
panelists who does not live under police protection.
Yours
sincerely,
Daniel
Pipes
______________________________________________________________
The
Rushdie Rules, 25 Years Later
Danish Free Press
Society Conference
November 2, 2014
  Be the first of your friends to like this.
Multimedia for this item
Click Image to ViewClick Image to View Video
|
[N.B. Two transcripts follow, corresponding to the two videos. The
first contains Mr. Pipes' introductory remarks, slightly edited for
style. The second contains the give-and-take between him and Geert
Wilders of the Netherlands.]
Introductory
Talk
Thank you so much; it's a great pleasure to be here.
Let me start by remembering the 2nd of November 2004. It
happened to be an election day in the United States, when George Bush
beat John Kerry, it was a very exciting day. I was in California and I
was awoken about six o'clock in the morning by a friend who announced to
me this murder. I then went on to Al-Jazeera where I debated an Islamist
who was justifying this action because of the provocation that Theo Van
Gogh had engaged in. It was a very memorable and awful day.
What I would like to do is survey, not justs the ten years since that
horrible day, but the twenty five years years since Salman Rushdie
published The Satanic Verses. There has been a pattern that began
that year, that has repeated itself over and over again.
First in 1989, it was Salman Rushdie and The Satanic Verses. In
2004 there was the murder of Theo Van Gogh and Geert Wilders came under
protection. In 2006 Robert Redeker had to go into hiding. In 2007, Lars
Vilks, had to do the same. Kurt Westergaard was attacked in 2010, Lars
Hedegaard was attacked in 2013. The same happened to many others not in
this room.
Over and over again when these attacks take place we see a pattern.
First Westerners say or do something critical of Islam, then Muslims
respond with name calling and outrage, demands for retraction, threats of
lawsuits and violence, and actual violence. Finally the Westerners, hem
and haw, prevaricate, debate and finally give in.
I shall argue two points, first, that this is really ultimately not
about free speech: yes the battleground is free speech, but the issue is
Western civilization, free speech is but the battleground, the issue is
whether Western civilization will survive or not. Secondly, due to what I
call the Rushdie Rules, the right of Westerners to say critical,
provocative things about Islam has declined in the last 25 years.
By "Rushdie Rules," I refer to the edict of Ayatollah
Khomeini of February 14 1989, when the supreme leader of Iran watched on
television as Pakistanis responded with violence to the publication of
Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses. Outraged by what he saw,
Khomeini put out an edict against Rushdie's life.
This act was unprecedented, as no one had ever done anything remotely
like this – the head of one government calling for the execution of a
novelist living in an other country. This surprised everyone, from the
Iranian governing officials to Rushdie himself. No one imagined that a
magical realist novel, with people falling out of planes and surviving, animals
that talk, and so forth, might incur the wrath of the ruler of Iran. No
one expected this.
This edict led to physical attacks on bookstores in Italy, Norway and
the United States; and on translators of The Satanic Verses in
several countries. The greatest violence was in Turkey where 36 people
were killed, including an attack on the translator. Other violence in
Muslim countries led to 20 deaths.
The Khomeini edict contains four different elements.
First and most important, by taking offense to Rushdie's description
of Muhammad, in what he called "Rushdie's opposition to Islam, the
Prophet and the Koran," Khomeini delineated a wide range of sacred
topics that may not be discussed without invoking a death sentence.
Secondly he targeted "all those involved in the publication who
are aware of its contents," and by doing this he said he's not just
attacking Rushdie, but everyone in the cultural establishment, editors,
advertisors, distributors and others who had some engagement with this.
So it's not just one person, but a whole body of cultural activity.
Third, by ordering Rushdie's execution, "so that no one else will
dare insult the Muslims' sanctities", Khomeini made clear that his
purpose was not just to punish one writer, but to prevent future such insults
or ridicule.
And finally, by demanding that those unable to execute Rushdie
themselves, "report him" Khomeini called on every Muslim world
wide to become part of informal network of intelligence and potentially
of attack dedicated to upholding Islamic values.
So there are four features: don't touch certain subjects, everyone
involved in the production will be harmed, this should never happen
again, and there's an informal network of Muslims. These are the Rushdie
Rules. They have since then been applied over and over again.
Now I said that I have two main points to make; the first is that
Westerners generally percieve Rushdie Rules violence as a challenge to
their right of self expression – and indeed it is that. But the current
pattern of Islamist uproar exists to achieve deeper goals, not always
articulated, that go well beyond prohibiting the criticism of Islam.
The first goal is to establish the superior status of Islam. You may
criticize any other religion but you may not criticize Islam. The free market
of ideas exist for every other religion, say what you will, you can have
plays, operas, books, novels critical of them, but not about Islam. There
are no free market of ideas about Islam.
Secondly, Muslims are superior and Westerners, or kafirs, are
inferior. Islamists routinely do and say things that are offensive to
Westerners, and that's okay, but not the other way around. If you look at
the kind of cartoons in Muslim publications you'll find egregious insults
to Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Bhuddism; that's fine, but not the
other way.
Should this imbalance, of Muslim on top and non-Muslim below continue,
one reaches what's called the dhimmi status, and this allows People of
the Book, particularily Jews and Christians, to continue the practice of
their religion under Muslim rule, subject to many restrictions. In turn,
establishing the dhimmi status leads to a third and final ambition of the
Rushdie Rules, which is to establish Sharia, the Islamic law, that Lars
Hedegaard was just talking about.
The Sharia regulates both private and public life. The private
dimension includes intensly personal matters, bodily cleanliness,
sexuality, child bearing, family relations, clothing, and diet. In the
public realm, Sharia regulates social relations, commercial transactions,
criminal penalties, the staus of minorities, slavery, the nature of rule,
the judiciary, taxation, and warfare. In brief, it includes everything
from toilet etiquette to the conduct of warfare.
As Lars pointed out, Sharia deeply contradicts the deepest premises of
Western civilization. The unequal relations between male and female,
between Muslim and non-Muslim, between owner and slave cannot be
reconciled with equality with rights that are precious and intrinsic to
our civilization. The harem cannot be reconciled with mogonomy, Islamic
supremacism contradicts freedom of religion and a sovereign god cannot
allow democracy.
Were Islamists to achieve a Sharia order, they would effectively
replace civilization with Islamic civilization. Closing down discussion
of Islam paves the way towards this end conversely, retaining free speech
about Islam represents a critical defense against the imposition of an
Islamic order.
In short, keeping our civilization requires an open discussion of
Islam; Islamists want to close this down because they want to close down
our civilization. So it's not just about freedom of expression, but about
something much much larger.
My final point is about what's happened since 1989. In retrospect,
responses to the Ruhdie edict among intellectuals and politicians in 1989
were noteworthy for the support they gave the imperiled novelist,
especially on the Left. Leftist intellectuals were more likely to stand
by Rushdie than intellectuals on the right, in part, becuase Rushdie was
a self defined man of the Left.
Nor was it just intellectuals. François Mitterrand, the socialist
president of France at the time, called the threat to Rushdie an
"absolute evil." The Green Party in Germany sought to break all
economic agreements with Iran. A European Union resolution supported
Rushdie as "a signal to assure the preservation of civilization and
human values." The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution that
declared its commitment "to protect the right of any person to
write, publish, sell, buy, and read books without fear of intimidation
and violence."
Times have changed. A recent book by an American intellectual named,
Paul Berman, called, The Flight of The Intellectuals, excoriates
his fellow liberals for "fumbling badly in their effort to grapple
with Islamist ideas and violence". In short, the Left has it wrong
about Islamism.
For every exercise in free speech since 1989, such as the Danish
Muhammad cartoons, uncountable legions of writers, publishers, and
illustrators have shied away from expressing themselves. I could give you
example after example of artists, playwrights, authors, novelists who
say, "I don't want to get near the subject of Islam."
Changes since 1989 result mainly from the growth of three isms, three
new political forces: multiculturalism, left-fascism, and Islamism.
The multicultural impulse regards no particular way of life, belief
system, or political philosophy as better or worse than any other. It
reminds me of a discussion of what shall we do for dinner tonight, shall
we go to Japanese or Italian? They're both very nice, both very tasty, it
doesn't really make a difference does it? Well that's how the
multiculturalists see much more profound things than dinner, it doesn't
really make a difference.
There's no real difference between environmentalism or Wiccism;
they're prefectly valid alternatives to the Judeo-Christian civilization.
Why fight for one's way of life when it has no claim to superiority over
any other?
Second is Left-Fascism, which says, if you look closely Western
civilization, actually, you see it is worse than any other. A combination
of Western racism, imperialism, and fascism has made life terrible for
non-Westerners. Led by such figures such as the late Hugo Chávez of
Venezuela, this Left-Fascist movement sees Western power, which they call
Empire, as the world's main threat, with the United States and Israel
seen as the chief offenders.
And finally, of course, there is Islamism, the radical Islamic impulse
to apply Sharia which has grown enormously since 1989. Look around and
note how ISIS, Mohamed Morsi, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other such
phenomenon dominate today's headlines. Wherever you look in
Muslim-majority countries, the Islamist surge is underway. Worldwide, it
has become the most powerful form of radical utopianism. Fascism and
Communism are hardly to be seen, Islamism is nearly everywhere.
It forms an alliance with the left, dominating civil societies,
challenging many governments and taking over others; it has established a
beachhead in the West, and is advancing its agenda in international
institutions.The United Nations, for example, has passed resolutions
against the defamations of religions, i.e. the defamation of Islam.
The yin of Western weakness, in short, and in clonclusion, has met
with the yang of Islamist assertion. Defenders of Western civilization
must fight not only the Islamists but also the multiculturalists who
enable them and the leftists who ally with them.
Discussion of
Islam by Daniel Pipes and Geert Wilders
Daniel Pipes: As you know, [Geert,] I admire your courage and
your clear analysis. But I also disagree, as you know, with one thing
you're saying. You said there will never be a moderate Islam. I don't
know how you know that. Islam has changed — I'm a historian, and a
historian studies change over time. Everything human changes over time. I
took up the study of Islam in 1969, 45 years ago. Islam is very different
and much worse than it was in 1969. If it can get worse, it can get
better. Islam changes. I could spend an — we could have a summit on it.
I'll tell you about how Islam has changed. How do you know it can't get
better? How do you know there can't be a moderate Islam? Why are you
rejecting this possibility beforehand? Lars is skeptical. I accept that.
But you're saying, "Absolutely, no, it can't happen."
Geert Wilders: Well, Daniel and I have known each other for a
long time. We do respect each other and we have had the discussion many
times before, and sometimes we can agree to disagree. But, indeed, I
don't believe that Islam will ever change. Islam is the word — look at
the Koran. The Koran is, together with the Hadith and the Life of
Mohammed (the Sira), the Koran is the way, the basis of Islam.
And the Koran, Muslims believe, is the word of God. It cannot be changed.
And of course people change, Daniel. I believe that. I don't believe that
Islam has ever changed in the past. When it got worse — and indeed it
did, it's worse every day — then it's because people changed. And people
changed unfortunately for the worse, not for the better. So yes, I
believe that even though today, it gets worse every second — look at the
Islamic State, look at what is happening in your country, my country — and
that will not change. But the people can change. And I'm not a
theologian. I believe that once again, why people, and why people believe
in Islam is none of my business. But I am a politician. I'm a lawmaker.
And I'll tell you I just told you before, that I'm not interested in
changing [them] or not. I'm interested in the people. And if you adhere
to our values, you are welcome and if you do not adhere to our values,
you have to go. You have to leave. I don't care if it will change, or it
will not. I care about the people in my society: Will women in
Copenhagen, in Amsterdam be free to walk the streets or will they be
harassed? Will children be free to walk our streets? Will homosexuals be
beaten up in Amsterdam by Moroccan youths or not? This is the question we
should answer, and if the [answer] is "no", we should send them
away and stop the immigration [from] countries where we have this
aggression. That is the only question that I want to answer.
Moderator: Daniel, do you want to comment on that?
Daniel Pipes: Yes, we have argued this for decades and more.
And I agree with your point about the actions being unacceptable and
people changing, so we agree on that. Still, you made very clear in your
opening remarks that Islam, moderate Islam can — there'll never be a
moderate Islam. So let's put aside the actions of people. Why can there
not be a moderate Islam? It's — the Koran remains the same, but
interpretations of it change. Let me give you one example. There's a
short phrase in the Koran, la ikraha fi'd-din, meaning "there
should be no compulsion in religion." This is a phrase which over
the millennia has changed in its understanding, its interpretation. I wrote
an article in which I showed some dozen different historical
understandings of what this term means, from the most rigid and limited
to the most liberal. Now, every aspect of the Koran can be dealt with in
this same way. For example, the contradictions in the Koran. As it is
now, it tends to be the more severe that are accepted and the less severe
which are rejected. That could change. This is human. This is not divine;
this is interpretation of the Koran. Interpretation of the Koran has
changed and is changing, and it has changed for the worse and the more
severe. Why don't you admit the possibility of a change for the better?
Geert Wilders: Well, you know, the Koran, in Islam there is a
rule called "abrogation." And abrogation means that the latest verse
in the Koran is valid and invalidates everything that was written before.
That's a rule that even moderates in Islam agree with. So indeed, yes,
there are passages in the Koran that were saying maybe not the harshest
things but they were, at the end of the day, replaced through abrogation
by many parts of the Koran, which I don't believe but many Muslims
believe in, that this the fact today. Second point: it's the word of God.
It's the word of God [that] there are not interpretations today about; there
are no Arab or Islamic yeshivas being active today, but where people
study and interpret the parts of the Koran, they are non-existent. So
please, let us once again agree to disagree; just let us not focus on
something that I believe will never happen, and you believe that it might
happen in five thousand years. But I am interested in what will happen
today, and tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and our countries should
be safe, and safe from the brutality of Islam.
Related
Topics: Freethinking & Muslim
apostasy This text may be reposted or forwarded
so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and
accurate information provided about its author, date, place of
publication, and original URL.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment