Most remember the case of novelist Salman Rushdie and the stark assault not only against him but against the principle and practice of free speech in the West.
If not, let me remind you. Mr. Rushdie is a British citizen of Indian origin who is one of Europe's most celebrated authors. His many novels frequently deal with the theme of the East intersecting with the West. In 1988, he came out with a novel called Satanic Verses that was interpreted by many as being anti-Islamic. As a result, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa (a legal pronouncement, in this case, a death sentence) against him or anyone else connected with the publication of the book, calling on anyone of his religion to carry it out.
In spite of the on-going fatwa, Rushdie has survived with his life. Others connected with the book either have lost their lives or have been seriously wounded. Many have lost their lives participating in riots which have been in protest against the book. This whole affair has once again surfaced in the news because of Queen Elizabeth's recent bestowal of a knighthood on Mr. Rushdie. Another influential cleric in Iran, the Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, reminded his worshipers recently that the deadly fatwa against Rushdie was still in effect. Although reprisals against writers for "blasphemous" writings has occurred in the West, the idea that someone could lose his or her life over the publication of a novel is now foreign to most Westerners. Even more strange is the idea that a prominent religious leader would authorize it.
There are many issues involved in this on-going Rushdie Affair in addition to freedom of speech. For instance, the Rushdie Affair raises the issue of the role of a novel within a society. Most successful novels in the West have been granted a prestigious position and most have been oppositional to traditional values in some manner. (Many novels, such as Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code are highly objectionable to Christians, yet still circulate free of any censorship.) This idea of a novel, of course, does not sit well within almost all Islamic societies, where novels are not held in such high regard nor are they allowed to criticize religious values. (see:"Notes for Salman Rushdie: The Satanic Verses", Paul Brien)
Do all regard freedom of speech as a primary value?
Not all cultures regard freedom of speech as a primary value. But for many of us, especially here in the West, the right of the individual to freedom of speech is regarded as indisputable and universal in its application. It surprises us that this is not the case everywhere.
In general, the most notorious Muslim thrust throughout the world is spearheaded by radical elements that resist Western, liberal modernization. In their often outrageous and sometimes murderous attempts to purify themselves against Western influence, they incongruously try to expose Western culture as being void of wholesome values. In some respects they reveal genuine corruption in the West. Nevertheless, they sometimes regard freedom of speech, especially because it may confront Islam, as one of those suspect values.
Even moderate, educated Muslims living in the West have been silent regarding anything pertaining to the Rushdie Affair, whether it is in defense of Rushdie or against him or even against the mindless, violent reactions that have taken the lives of innocent Muslims in Muslim protests worldwide. One exception to this is Irshad Manji, the author of The Trouble with Islam Today, who is calling for fellow Muslims in the West to denounce violence in the "good name of Allah and Islam." According to Ms. Manji, speaking out and taking advantage of their right to free speech is not being practiced by Muslim people even in the United States.
There are reasons for this devaluing of free and open dialogue that come from within Islam itself. Relatively speaking, within Islamic tradition there is less internal theological debate or tolerance of dissension than in Christian tradition. Because of this, it is of no surprise that there is a lesser regard for freedom of speech in the overall society. To be sure, in the Christian West you have a long tradition of vigorous theological debate within orthodox Christianity itself. This characteristic eventually would give license--and in some cases, legitimacy-- to even its detractors and help foster within society freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and also freedom of debate. Also, in Islam there is a propensity towards the merging of the state-- characterized by authorized force-- with Islam itself that results in forceful religious censorship.
In contrast to this propensity to merge Islam with the state, in the West you have had an evolving tradition of institutional separation of religion and state. This separation can be derived by implication from Christianity itself. On the one hand, it is true that within Christianity religion is thought to have relevance to the state. In terms of the Biblical record, it is asserted that the people of God have a duty to speak prophetically, yet respectfully, to the state in terms of values. However, by the time that the Christian Church is created, a growing institutional distinction is made between church and state. (Matthew 22: 21, Romans 13:1-7) Even though that separation has been blurred throughout history, currently here in the West we see that such a practice predominates.
What can we learn from all this regarding freedom of speech or the role of dialogue within society?
1.Sometimes we don't value something until it is being challenged, as in this case. The very overt assault on free speech that this case represents is unusual in the West, but it reminds us of the situation of hundreds of years ago, when free speech was not the norm. It was during that time people died to gain that right. That time may return.
2.Certainly we learn in the long run that the responsible employment of freedom of speech not only aids religion, but it also aids society. It is important not just for the individual or the minority group, but for the society in general. It brings forth new and profitable ideas that, in turn, cause good to come to the society.
3.Salman Rushdie chose to speak about religion. Likewise people of various faiths, instead of making criminal threats, have the recourse to speak out also.
4. People of faith in the West, including Christians, have not taken advantage of their right of free speech especially in resisting the Western trend to invalidate traditional, religious values. Battles can be won not by repression on the part of some nor self-censorship on the part of others, but rather by persuasion through dialogue.
5.Christians would do well to form civic alliances with moderate Muslims, who often come from repressive, non-democratic societies, in order to promote and impart values that have to do with civil discourse and freedom of speech. (from private correspondence with Robert Osburn, the director of the MacLaurin Institute.)
Unfortunately, people of faith have “bought into” the idea promoted by some that all religion should be private and that religious arguments have no right in the public arena. In the long run this does not work, and furthermore, when some are silenced, everyone suffers. Not only does this weaken society, it also weakens the right to free speech. The right to free speech implies that vigorous debate by all is good for a society. To ignore this right or to limit it unfairly means that eventually the whole society will suffer. That society will be deprived of the contribution of a whole segment of its population and the truths they may have. For a religion to ignore its own right to speak out on issues means that eventually its role in that society will be diminished and perhaps its very existence. Salman Rushdie is an atheist who has every right to satirize religion. Likewise religious people have every right to peacefully and civilly defend their religious ideas and promote them in the society at large.
