Rethinking Salman Rushdie

If someone insults you mother, you can clock him. There is nothing you can do as a man. Although it may not strictly be legal, it is perfectly acceptable. If you do not want to be clocked, please don’t insult any mother. He may not be right legally. Morally, though, he’s right.

Free speech is not without limits. Legal, legal, and moral. There are legal consequences for shouting fire at a packed theater, as well as the possibility of being sued by someone’s mother.

Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses didn’t violate the legal limits of free speech. Even his most staunch defenders admit that it was intentionally offensive to Islam. Rushdie, who now describes himself as a “hardline atheist”, was actually born in Mumbai to a Muslim family. Mumbai is home to an extensive Muslim community. He was aware of what he was doing. He was aware that he was offending two billion Muslims all over the globe. He was not offering an intelligent criticism of their faith. It was like he mocked it. This is not an incidental part of the book. For Rushdie’s biggest fans (like Christopher Hitchens), it’s part of the appeal.

No. He didn’t deserve the stabbing last week. This should be obvious. However, being stabbed does not make one a hero. The contrary. Rushdie, a brilliant wordsmith but an extremely blasphemer, is not. He was shallowly and flippant in his treatment of Islam, which Muslims are entitled to condemn. Because some people have reacted badly, we are not obliged to celebrate him.

It feels low to make this argument just days after an attack. It would be better not to. However, liberty pundits started to work on making Mr. Rushdie a martyr of free speech as soon as it was announced.

Over at National Review, Charles Cooke issued an ultimatum: “You either support free speech or you don’t.” According to Cooke,

Certainly, the people who don’t believe in free speech have different reasons for their opposition: They want to protect people’s feelings or to aid public virtue; they think that the religion they believe in is too important; they fear the consequences of bad people hearing bad words. Who cares anyway? It is not clear if we should have a clergy of people who can tell others what they think.

If any fundamentalist Muslims read Cooke’s blog they will be chastened immediately and vow to never do that again. What about us, though? This argument is a great example of what we can learn from it. Anyone who does not uncritically back Rushdie is as cut from the same cloth that Ayatollah Khameni.

Later, Cooke mentions the Charlie Hebdo shooting of 2015. Although the comparison may be apt, it is not what he believes. The magazine’s offices were targeted by radical Muslims over their crude, satirical drawings of Mohammed. The attack resulted in twelve deaths and eleven injuries.

And what’s the point? What was the purpose of those 12 people giving their lives for? Answer: Insulting Muslims. Speaking to the press after the attack, Charlie Hebdo‘s editor said they would go on mocking the faith “until Islam is just as banal as Catholicism.” That’s it. But dying for a cause doesn’t make it right, and Charlie Hebdo doesn’t even have a cause. They take offense just to be offensive. It is so tragic.

Similarly, just because someone attempted to kill an author does not make those books any less valuable. This seems to be common sense. Douglas Murray, however, disagrees. He thinks we should respond to the attempt on Rushdie’s life by reading The Satanic Verses. He writes, “The rules of literature cannot be dictated by the illiterate.” “The enemy of freedom cannot be permitted to squash it .”

But a novel’s point is not “free expression.” Anybody can put words on paper and express himself. Teenage girls have diaries. Literature must strive for more. Ironically, none of these tributes to Rushdie will explain why he is a great author. Reading them, you have no clue whether there’s anything good or true or beautiful in The Satanic Verses. All you can glean is that it pissed off a bunch of Muslims in the ’80s.

As it happens, the majority of Muslims–however pissed off–have responded to The Satanic Verses quite peacefully. But Charles Cooke, Douglas Murray and others don’t credit them for exercising “free expression.” Because they’re just so earnest. It’s cool to make fun of other peoples’ religions. But it is not right to be offended when they mock your religion.

This what Rushdie’s supporters are actually trying to get at. Whatever Cooke may say, most critics of The Satanic Verses don’t think the book should be banned or its author beheaded. These critics believe that people should respect each others’ convictions. It is not acceptable to treat religion as banal. Art should not be viewed as a joke.

These are not literary criticisms, but moral judgments.

They’re completely fair. If Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited ended with Charles Ryder still mocking the Flyte family’s Catholicism, it would fail as a novel–not because Catholicism is true (though it is), but because mocking other people’s religion is childish. It’s also boring. This is not art.

Rushdie is defended by people who don’t seem to care much about his literary merits. It has nothing to do art, and all things to do politics. They only care about “free speech.” They reduce The Satanic Verses to a propaganda piece. Rushdie’s art is discredited. This misses the point of literature. This also compromises freedom of speech.

With the exception of libertarian ideologists, nobody really believes all expressions should be equal. The majority of people aren’t prepared to split humanity into Rushdie fans and Khomeini acolytes. It is possible to condemn violence extremism while not embracing nihilism. While we can be supportive of free speech, we should also urge our fellow citizens to use that right responsibly.

We can and should. This is because if we do not, it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cooke says to Rushdie’s critics that they should join the Ayatollah. The problem is they may eventually believe Cooke. Most people will pick violent extremism over frivolous nihilism if they have to choose. They are already there.

This is what libertarian conservatives have in common. They are loyal to legal abstractions. If somebody insults your mother (or God), you should shake their hand and say “I might not agree with your words, but I will defend your rights to speak it!”

Subscribe Today

Get weekly emails in your inbox

This is why Russell Kirk used the term J.S. Russell Kirk referred to J.S. Mill as the most classical of liberals. It is because a man who will fight for God or his mother means that he cares more about something than himself. In the name of this love, he might even do horrible things. He might have his heart in the wrong place. He still has a heart. But what do classical liberals possess? Theories. White papers. White papers.

I don’t desire the freedom Rushdie’s fans offer, nor should you. This eliminates all distinction between beauty, ugliness and good, evil and truth, and between lies and truth. It’s the enemy poetry, art music, love, friendship, community and worship. It allows us to laugh and joke, but not to love or to hate. It may protect us from certain death but it does not give us any reason to live.

Natural rights do exist. However, they are only due to the human nature. We will lose the former if we neglect the latter. Most men will choose loyalty if they are forced to make a choice between liberty or loyalty. You can make endless blog posts that insist on the First Amendment’s right to offend mothers. You will be clocked if you attempt to use that right.