Understanding knighthood of Rushdie
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
IN THE past week, the controversy of the knighthood of author Salman Rushdie dominated our international/world news. In many newspapers, it was front page news. On television, first segment. It was leading news in every news channel and in many parts of the world.
It is because in Muslim-populated countries, the knighthood of Rushdie is considered an affront towards Islam. Muslim communities label the British government as insensitive towards Muslims, while on the other hand, the British and the West would see Muslims as oversensitive.
The British government awarded the knighthood as its tradition to appreciate Islam. Whether Rushdie is practising or leaving the faith, he was born a Muslim from Muslim parents, and his works introduce readers to the Islamic faith.
Does he misrepresent the teaching of Islam? Perhaps he does. That is, of course, if we refer only to his controversial novel "The Satanic Verses" (1988).
Let us try to understand why the British government awarded Salman Rushdie, an author born in Mumbai. He went to school in UK, moved and lived a short while in Pakistan and worked for a television company, before finally became resident in UK.
He worked as a copywriter for an advertising agency before writing novel and then found his way to stardom. Even though his first novel, "Grimus", was published in 1975 and followed by other works, his works never got our attention until 1988 (when he published "The Satanic Verses") and now (when he was awarded a knighthood by the British government).
Rushdie has written many novels, short stories, plays, travel reports, and essays on modern and popular culture, politics, including on football (on his book:" Step Across This Line: Collected Non-fiction 1992-2002", published in 2002). On top of that, he swept every prestigious award ever given by the British and other countries' institutions. His second novel, the acclaimed "Midnight's Children", was published in 1981. It won the Booker Prize for Fiction, the James Tait Black Memorial Prize (for fiction), an Arts Council Writers' Award and the English-Speaking Union Award. In 1993 it was the Booker of Bookers, the best novel to have won the Booker Prize for Fiction in the award's 25-year history. The critic Malcolm Bradbury acclaimed the novel's achievement in The Modern British Novel (Penguin, 1994) as "a new start for the late-twentieth-century novel".
His third novel, Shame (1983), which many critics saw as an allegory of the political situation in Pakistan, won the Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger. In "Good Fiction Guide" (2001), Jane Rogers praises him: "He is richly inventive writer who straddles cultures and draws on the traditions of both East and West." Rushdie also achieved awards from several other countries in Europe and from the US.
Looking at the list of his prestigious achievements, one can now understand as why the British government thinks he deserves the award. In this post-colonial era, Britain can be said as lacking notable writers. It is after the era of the glorious British literature, which we all learn at schools and universities — Jane Austen, TS Elliot, DH Lawrence, etc. Now, the only British writer schoolchildren remember is JK Rowling (Harry Potter). Britain understandably needs to put the glory of British literature in the world map once again. Now with the knighthood and the controversy following it, people all over the world, at least those who have a passion for literature, will start browsing over the Internet or buy his books. If not for the sake of admiration, then for curiosity.
He is noted by some critics as the master of magic realism, and his touch of history is highly praised. For British readers, his works may be considered exotic. It is quite unfortunate that people only know his name by the controversy sparked by "The Satanic Verses" and this knighthood award. The novel is a satire and a compelling exploration of good and evil, religious faith and fanatical belief. Some critics say, the fatwa to kill him overshadowed the quality of his book.
However, it is now understandable why the British government defends their choice, despite many protests from all over the world. There is an assumption that the British government has a political agenda by choosing a sensitive time. If there is no political agenda, some critics question, why Salman Rushdie wasn't honoured years ago, since all his praised works were written in the '80s. Rushdie himself is a distant man, who likes to contradict himself when he speaks. He says: "I love story, and comedy, and dreams, and newness. Novel, as its name suggests, is about the making of the new." And: "None of this is quite true; all of it is true enough."
In 2004, critic Garan Holcombe wrote: "Whatever Rushdie does next will be a literary event: it could not be anything else." Now, it might not a literary event, but this knighthood is well noted for a literary figure. Britain gave Rushdie the award for his lifelong body of work and not for the one book Muslims feel is a slight to Islam. Does this call for a rush to judgment as seen in the streetrage of a vociferous minority calling for blood and vengeance. Is it not better to register a protest in a civil manner or just ignore the event altogether.
News agencies reported last Friday that the Pakistan Ulama Council, a private body that claims to be the biggest of its kind in the country with 2,000 scholars, has said it had given Osama the title "Saifullah", or Sword of Allah.
"We are pleased to award the title of Saifullah to Osama bin Laden after the British government's decision to bestow the title of "Sir" on blasphemer Rushdie,' council chairman Maulana Tahir Ashrafi said.
"This is the highest title for a Muslim warrior," he said.
This honour for a man who Washington holds responsible for the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people has not sparked any protests in Washington or London or any other western city. The western media has also generally ignored it — thus not giving it the importance it does not deserve. The Brunei Times
It is because in Muslim-populated countries, the knighthood of Rushdie is considered an affront towards Islam. Muslim communities label the British government as insensitive towards Muslims, while on the other hand, the British and the West would see Muslims as oversensitive.
The British government awarded the knighthood as its tradition to appreciate Islam. Whether Rushdie is practising or leaving the faith, he was born a Muslim from Muslim parents, and his works introduce readers to the Islamic faith.
Does he misrepresent the teaching of Islam? Perhaps he does. That is, of course, if we refer only to his controversial novel "The Satanic Verses" (1988).
Let us try to understand why the British government awarded Salman Rushdie, an author born in Mumbai. He went to school in UK, moved and lived a short while in Pakistan and worked for a television company, before finally became resident in UK.
He worked as a copywriter for an advertising agency before writing novel and then found his way to stardom. Even though his first novel, "Grimus", was published in 1975 and followed by other works, his works never got our attention until 1988 (when he published "The Satanic Verses") and now (when he was awarded a knighthood by the British government).
Rushdie has written many novels, short stories, plays, travel reports, and essays on modern and popular culture, politics, including on football (on his book:" Step Across This Line: Collected Non-fiction 1992-2002", published in 2002). On top of that, he swept every prestigious award ever given by the British and other countries' institutions. His second novel, the acclaimed "Midnight's Children", was published in 1981. It won the Booker Prize for Fiction, the James Tait Black Memorial Prize (for fiction), an Arts Council Writers' Award and the English-Speaking Union Award. In 1993 it was the Booker of Bookers, the best novel to have won the Booker Prize for Fiction in the award's 25-year history. The critic Malcolm Bradbury acclaimed the novel's achievement in The Modern British Novel (Penguin, 1994) as "a new start for the late-twentieth-century novel".
His third novel, Shame (1983), which many critics saw as an allegory of the political situation in Pakistan, won the Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger. In "Good Fiction Guide" (2001), Jane Rogers praises him: "He is richly inventive writer who straddles cultures and draws on the traditions of both East and West." Rushdie also achieved awards from several other countries in Europe and from the US.
Looking at the list of his prestigious achievements, one can now understand as why the British government thinks he deserves the award. In this post-colonial era, Britain can be said as lacking notable writers. It is after the era of the glorious British literature, which we all learn at schools and universities — Jane Austen, TS Elliot, DH Lawrence, etc. Now, the only British writer schoolchildren remember is JK Rowling (Harry Potter). Britain understandably needs to put the glory of British literature in the world map once again. Now with the knighthood and the controversy following it, people all over the world, at least those who have a passion for literature, will start browsing over the Internet or buy his books. If not for the sake of admiration, then for curiosity.
He is noted by some critics as the master of magic realism, and his touch of history is highly praised. For British readers, his works may be considered exotic. It is quite unfortunate that people only know his name by the controversy sparked by "The Satanic Verses" and this knighthood award. The novel is a satire and a compelling exploration of good and evil, religious faith and fanatical belief. Some critics say, the fatwa to kill him overshadowed the quality of his book.
However, it is now understandable why the British government defends their choice, despite many protests from all over the world. There is an assumption that the British government has a political agenda by choosing a sensitive time. If there is no political agenda, some critics question, why Salman Rushdie wasn't honoured years ago, since all his praised works were written in the '80s. Rushdie himself is a distant man, who likes to contradict himself when he speaks. He says: "I love story, and comedy, and dreams, and newness. Novel, as its name suggests, is about the making of the new." And: "None of this is quite true; all of it is true enough."
In 2004, critic Garan Holcombe wrote: "Whatever Rushdie does next will be a literary event: it could not be anything else." Now, it might not a literary event, but this knighthood is well noted for a literary figure. Britain gave Rushdie the award for his lifelong body of work and not for the one book Muslims feel is a slight to Islam. Does this call for a rush to judgment as seen in the streetrage of a vociferous minority calling for blood and vengeance. Is it not better to register a protest in a civil manner or just ignore the event altogether.
News agencies reported last Friday that the Pakistan Ulama Council, a private body that claims to be the biggest of its kind in the country with 2,000 scholars, has said it had given Osama the title "Saifullah", or Sword of Allah.
"We are pleased to award the title of Saifullah to Osama bin Laden after the British government's decision to bestow the title of "Sir" on blasphemer Rushdie,' council chairman Maulana Tahir Ashrafi said.
"This is the highest title for a Muslim warrior," he said.
This honour for a man who Washington holds responsible for the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people has not sparked any protests in Washington or London or any other western city. The western media has also generally ignored it — thus not giving it the importance it does not deserve. The Brunei Times
Business Besides Oil
