Step Across This Line Part 10

I believe we have reached a turning point. Either we are serious about defending freedom, or we are not. If we are, then I hope Mr. Major will very soon be willing to stand up and be counted as he has promised. I should very much like to discuss with him how pressure on Iran can be increased-in the European Commission, through the Commonwealth and the UN, at the International Court of Justice. Iran needs us more than we need Iran. Instead of quaking when the mullahs threaten to cut trade links, let us be the ones to turn the economic screws. I have discovered, in my conversations across Europe and North America, widespread all-party interest in the idea of a ban on offering credit to Iran, as a first stage. But everyone is waiting for the British government to take a lead. In today's London Times, Times, however, Bernard Levin suggests that fully two-thirds of all Tory MPs would be delighted if Iranian a.s.sa.s.sins succeeded in killing me. If these MPs truly represent the nation-if we are so shruggingly unconcerned about our liberties-then so be it: lift the protection, disclose my whereabouts, and let the bullets come. One way or the other. Let's make up our minds. however, Bernard Levin suggests that fully two-thirds of all Tory MPs would be delighted if Iranian a.s.sa.s.sins succeeded in killing me. If these MPs truly represent the nation-if we are so shruggingly unconcerned about our liberties-then so be it: lift the protection, disclose my whereabouts, and let the bullets come. One way or the other. Let's make up our minds.

[From The Observer, The Observer, July 1993 July 1993]

I met the writer and journalist Mr. Aziz Nesin in 1986, when I took part in an event organized by British writers to protest against the Turkish authorities' decision to confiscate his pa.s.sport. I hope that Mr. Nesin remembers my small effort on his behalf, because recently he has done me no favors at all. Mr. Nesin is now editor-in-chief of the Turkish newspaper Aydinlik, Aydinlik, and a publisher. Recently and a publisher. Recently Aydinlik Aydinlik began the publication of extracts from began the publication of extracts from The Satanic Verses, The Satanic Verses, "to promote debate and discussion." These extracts appeared over a period of weeks, under the heading "Salman Rushdie-Thinker or Charlatan?" At no time did Mr. Nesin or "to promote debate and discussion." These extracts appeared over a period of weeks, under the heading "Salman Rushdie-Thinker or Charlatan?" At no time did Mr. Nesin or Aydinlik Aydinlik seek my permission to publish any extracts. Nor did they discuss with me what extracts would be used, or allow me to confirm the accuracy or quality of the translation. I never saw the published texts. Ever since 1989, Iranian mullahs and Islamic zealots around the world have been quoting and reproducing decontextualized segments of seek my permission to publish any extracts. Nor did they discuss with me what extracts would be used, or allow me to confirm the accuracy or quality of the translation. I never saw the published texts. Ever since 1989, Iranian mullahs and Islamic zealots around the world have been quoting and reproducing decontextualized segments of The Satanic Verses The Satanic Verses to use as propaganda weapons in the larger war against progressive ideas, secularist thought, and the modern world, a war in which the so-called Rushdie affair is no more than a skirmish. I was appalled to find that these Turkish secularists and anti-fundamentalists were using my work in exactly the same unscrupulous fas.h.i.+on, albeit to serve different political purposes. Once again, I was a p.a.w.n in somebody else's game. to use as propaganda weapons in the larger war against progressive ideas, secularist thought, and the modern world, a war in which the so-called Rushdie affair is no more than a skirmish. I was appalled to find that these Turkish secularists and anti-fundamentalists were using my work in exactly the same unscrupulous fas.h.i.+on, albeit to serve different political purposes. Once again, I was a p.a.w.n in somebody else's game.

I asked my agents to write to Mr. Nesin and ask: why had his newspaper pirated my work? What were his motives for wis.h.i.+ng to publish me in the first place? Was he, for example, interested in my work as a writer? And if, as he claimed, he had fought on behalf of writers' rights for many years, would he be prepared to protest against Aydinlik Aydinlik's infringement of those rights? After a long silence, Nesin's reply was to print my agents' letter in Aydinlik Aydinlik together with a riposte that must rank as one of the most malicious, untruthful and, paradoxically, revealing texts I have ever read. He scolded me for daring to ask about his motives and then said that he didn't care about my situation: "What concern is Salman Rushdie's cause to me?" He further said that he had asked for permission to publish only as a courtesy. If we refused, he said, "I will be forced to publish the book without your sanction . . . you may take us to court." together with a riposte that must rank as one of the most malicious, untruthful and, paradoxically, revealing texts I have ever read. He scolded me for daring to ask about his motives and then said that he didn't care about my situation: "What concern is Salman Rushdie's cause to me?" He further said that he had asked for permission to publish only as a courtesy. If we refused, he said, "I will be forced to publish the book without your sanction . . . you may take us to court."

Plainly, Nesin and his a.s.sociates wished to use me, and my work, as cannon fodder in their struggle against religious zealotry in Turkey. And here is where I find myself in difficulties. For I, too, am a committed secularist. I, too, deplore, and have used every opportunity in the last five years to struggle against, the spread of religious fanaticism across the face of the earth. Only last week I was able to attend a gathering in Paris of the Academie Universelle des Cultures, an organization created by President Mitterrand under the presidency of the n.o.bel laureate Elie Wiesel and attended by, among others, Wole Soyinka, Umberto Eco, Cynthia Ozick, the great Arab poet Adonis, and, from Turkey, the novelist Yashar Kemal. As members of this academie we spent a good part of the day protesting against attacks on secularists by fundamentalists in Algeria, Egypt, and, yes, Turkey. I have believed from the beginning that the true context of the attack on The Satanic Verses The Satanic Verses was this wider war. But Mr. Nesin did not see me as a combatant. For him, my work was simply a weapon, to use as he saw fit. was this wider war. But Mr. Nesin did not see me as a combatant. For him, my work was simply a weapon, to use as he saw fit.

Now, tragically, Mr. Nesin has been involved in a violent confrontation with the fundamentalists in Sivas, Turkey. The news reports say he is alive. *21 *21 But many, many people are dead. And the newspaper reports call this a "Rushdie riot." It is hard to express how I feel today. But many, many people are dead. And the newspaper reports call this a "Rushdie riot." It is hard to express how I feel today.

However, we must not fail to lay the blame for these horrible killings where it truly belongs. Murder is murder, and the guilt for the crime must be laid at the feet of the criminals. And the criminals are, of course, the religious zealots who hounded a meeting of secularist writers, who set fire to their hotel and then prevented the rescue services from reaching the scene. I am utterly appalled by these G.o.d-driven mobs and by their wild l.u.s.t for the blood of unbelievers, and I send my grief, my sympathy, and my outraged support to the families of the dead; to all those who fight against religious bigots; yes, also to Mr. Aziz Nesin.

Will any good come out of this tragedy? Will the world's leaders, now a.s.sembling for the G7 meeting in j.a.pan, a.s.sume the moral responsibility of saying, enough is enough, terrorism cannot be supported, and countries that promote it, that train and arm and finance the killers, that point fingers across the world and demand the heads of innocent men, will suffer for their misdeeds? Will the much-spoken-of New World Order be a triumph of cynicism, of business-as-usualism, of naked greed and raw power? Or might we, at last, start to draw the lines of a more humane society and inform terrorist states that their immoral acts will have political and economic consequences? I hope that every journalist arriving in Tokyo will ask the G7 politicians to condemn the fanatical murderers of Sivas, and their "spiritual" leaders and paymasters too. These are not only the enemies of secularists and Westerners; they are also the real enemies of Islam.

[This article appeared in The New York Times The New York Times in July 1993 under the t.i.tle "The Struggle for the Soul of Islam" in July 1993 under the t.i.tle "The Struggle for the Soul of Islam"]

The following news stories are all taken from the first half of 1993.

In Pakistan, an elderly poet, Akhtar Hameed Khan, seventy-eight, is quoted as saying that while he admires Muhammad, his real inspiration has been Buddha. He denies saying this but is nevertheless accused by mullahs of blasphemy. In 1992, he had been arrested for insulting the Prophet's descendants by writing a poem about animals that the fundamentalists alleged had hidden, allegorical meanings. He managed to beat that charge, but now, once again, his life is in danger.

In Sharjah, one of the United Arab Emirates, an Indian theater group who in 1992 performed a play ent.i.tled Corpse-Eating Ants, Corpse-Eating Ants, which was held to be blasphemous, and who had been sentenced to six-year jail sentences for blasphemy, appeal against the sentence. Some members of the group are freed, but one has his sentence increased to ten years, and another has his six-year term upheld by the appeals court. which was held to be blasphemous, and who had been sentenced to six-year jail sentences for blasphemy, appeal against the sentence. Some members of the group are freed, but one has his sentence increased to ten years, and another has his six-year term upheld by the appeals court.

In Istanbul, one of the country's most respected secularist journalists, Ugur Mumcu, is gunned down in the street. Turkish fundamentalists take credit for the attack, and the Turkish government says it has evidence linking the murderers to Iran. The interior minister, Ismet Sezgin, says that at least three killings have been carried out by a group called Islamic Movement, whose members have been trained in a.s.sa.s.sination techniques "at an official Iranian facility between Tehran and Qom."

In Egypt, the a.s.sa.s.sins who in 1992 murdered the distinguished secular thinker Farag Fouda are currently being tried; however, extremist bombings and killings continue.

In Algeria, the writer Tahar Djaout is one of six secularists murdered in a killing spree by what the security forces call "Muslim terrorists."

In Saudi Arabia, a number of distinguished intellectuals forms the country's first human-rights group. Within days, many of them are fired from their posts, including university professors.h.i.+ps; many of them are arrested and jailed. Trials are pending.

In Egypt, Professor Nasr Abu-Zeid, who teaches literature at Cairo University, is charged with apostasy because of his criticisms of the Islamists. Fundamentalists ask the courts to dissolve his marriage, since it is illegal for a Muslim to be married to an apostate. The alternative would be for his wife to be stoned to death as an adulteress.

In Turkey, thirty-six secularist writers, dancers, musicians, and artists gathered for a conference in the town of Sivas are burned to death in their hotel by a mob of Islamic fundamentalists which accuses them of being atheists and therefore, in the fanatics' view, deserving of being burned alive.

The United States has recently become all too painfully familiar with the nature of the holy-or, rather, unholy-terrorists of Islam. The crater beneath the World Trade Center and the uncovering of a plot to set off more gigantic bombs and to a.s.sa.s.sinate leading political figures have shown Americans how brutal these extremists can be. These and other cases of international Islamic terrorism have shocked the world community; whereas the cases of domestic terrorism previously listed have captured relatively little of the world's "share of mind." I should like to suggest that this imbalance in our attention represents a kind of victory for fanaticism. If the worst, most reactionary, most medievalist strain in the Muslim world is treated as the authentic culture, so that the bombers and the mullahs get all the headlines while progressive, modernizing voices are treated as minor, marginal, "Westoxicated"-as small news-then the fundamentalists are being allowed to set the agenda.

The truth is that there is a great struggle in progress for the soul of the Muslim world, and as the fundamentalists grow in power and ruthlessness, those courageous men and women who are willing to engage them in a battle of ideas and of moral values are rapidly becoming as important for us to know about, to understand, and to support as once the dissident voices in the old Soviet Union used to be. The Soviet terror-state, too, denigrated its opponents as being overly Westernized and enemies of the people; it, too, took men from their wives in the middle of the night, as the poet Osip Mandelstam was taken from Nadezhda. We do not blame Mandelstam for his own destruction; we do not blame him for attacking Stalin, but rather, and rightly, we blame Stalin for his Stalin-ness. In the same spirit, let us not fall into the trap of blaming the Sharjah theater-folk for their rather macabre-sounding ants, or Turkish secularists for "provoking" the mob that murdered them.

Rather, we should understand that secularism is now the fanatics' Enemy Number One, and its most important target. Why? Because secularism demands a total separation between Church and State; philosophers such as the Egyptian Fouad Zakariya argue that free Muslim societies can exist only if this principle is adhered to. And because secularism rejects the idea that any society of the late twentieth century can be thought of as "pure," and argues that the attempt to purify the modern Muslim world of its inevitable hybridities will lead to equally inevitable tyrannies. And because secularism seeks to historicize our understanding of the Muslim verities: it sees Islam as an event within history, not outside it. And because secularism seeks to end the repressions against women that are inst.i.tuted wherever the radical Islamists come into power. And, most of all, because secularists know that a modern nation-state cannot be built upon ideas that emerged in the Arabian desert over thirteen hundred years ago.

The weapons used against the dissidents of the Muslim world are everywhere the same. The accusations are always of "blasphemy," "apostasy," "heresy," "un-Islamic activities." These "crimes" are held to "insult Islamic sanct.i.ties." The "people's wrath," thus aroused, becomes "impossible to resist." The accused become persons whose "blood is unclean" and therefore deserves to be spilled.

The British writer Marina Warner once pointed out that the objects a.s.sociated with witchcraft-a pointed hat, a broomstick, a cauldron, a cat-would have been found in most women's possession during the great witch-hunts. If these were the proofs of witchcraft, then all women were potentially guilty; it was only necessary for accusing fingers to point at one and cry, "Witch!" Americans, remembering the example of the McCarthyite witch-hunts, will readily understand how potent and destructive the process can still be. And what is happening in the Muslim world today must be seen as a witch-hunt of exceptional proportions, a witch-hunt being carried out in many nations, and often with murderous results. So the next time you stumble across a story such as the ones I've repeated here, perhaps a story tucked away near the bottom of an inside page in this newspaper, remember that the persecution it describes is not an isolated act-that it is part of a deliberate, lethal program, whose purpose is to criminalize, denigrate, and even to a.s.sa.s.sinate the Muslim world's best, most honorable voices: its voices of dissent. And remember that those dissidents need your support. More than anything, they need your attention.

[From a letter to The Independent, The Independent, July 1993 July 1993]

I find it impossible to avoid the conclusion that the world community's shameful response to the continuing annihilation of the Bosnian Muslims is in some way connected to their being Muslims. It is worth mentioning, however, that outrage at this fact is by no means confined to the Muslim community-if only because, according to your correspondent Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, the "underlying issue" is that "for years the majority of Muslims have felt misunderstood and demonised in the West. . . . Bosnia is seen as the culmination of their process of alienation."

This kind of them-and-us rhetoric of victimization, no matter how legitimate it may seem, creates as many cultural problems as it addresses.

It creates intellectual confusions, as when British Muslims rightly excoriate Europe for failing to defend its very own citizens but denigrate these same Muslims for being "Muslims in name only." Bosnia's Muslims are indeed secularized and humanistic, representing an attractive blend of Muslim and European values. By sneering at this hybrid culture, British Muslims undermine their own case.

It creates moral confusions, too: when German racists burn Muslims in their houses, the blame is very properly laid on the perpetrators; but when Islamic fanatics burn dozens to death in a hotel in Turkey, some Muslim commentators at once try to blame the targets of the mob, accusing them of such inflammatory offenses as atheism.

Worst of all, it creates the risk that the community will fall under the spell of leaders who will ultimately damage them more than their present (real or perceived) enemies. Germany's sense of national humiliation after World War I was exploited by Hitler during his rise to power; the Iranian people's wholly justified hatred of the regime of the shah led them toward the great historical mistake of supporting Khomeini; in India today, the cry of "Hinduism under threat" is rallying people to the banner of Hindu fundamentalism; and now, here in Britain, Alibhai-Brown tells us that "moderation seems an obscenity." Will the fatuous Dr. Siddiqui be followed by more formidable extremist figures?

British Muslims may not wish to hear this from the author of The Satanic Verses, The Satanic Verses, but the real enemies of Islam are not British novelists or Turkish satirists. They are not the secularists murdered by fundamentalists in Algeria recently. Nor do they include the distinguished Cairo professor of literature and his scholarly wife who are presently being hounded by Egyptian fanatics for being apostates. Neither are they the intellectuals who lost their jobs and were arrested by the authorities in Saudi Arabia because they founded a human-rights organization. However weak, however few the progressive voices may be, they represent the best hope in the Muslim world for a free and prosperous future. The enemies of Islam are those who wish the culture to be frozen in time, who are, in Ali Shariati's phrase, in "revolt against history," and whose tyranny and unreason are making modern Islam look like a culture of madness and blood. Alibhai-Brown's interviewee Nasreen Rehman wisely says that "we must stop thinking in binary, oppositional terms." May I propose that a starting place might be the recognition that, on the one hand, it is the Siddiquis and Hizbollahs and blind sheikhs and ayatollahs who are the real foes of Muslims around the world, the real "enemy within"; and that, on the other hand-as in the case of the campaign on behalf of Bosnia's Muslims-there are many "friends without." but the real enemies of Islam are not British novelists or Turkish satirists. They are not the secularists murdered by fundamentalists in Algeria recently. Nor do they include the distinguished Cairo professor of literature and his scholarly wife who are presently being hounded by Egyptian fanatics for being apostates. Neither are they the intellectuals who lost their jobs and were arrested by the authorities in Saudi Arabia because they founded a human-rights organization. However weak, however few the progressive voices may be, they represent the best hope in the Muslim world for a free and prosperous future. The enemies of Islam are those who wish the culture to be frozen in time, who are, in Ali Shariati's phrase, in "revolt against history," and whose tyranny and unreason are making modern Islam look like a culture of madness and blood. Alibhai-Brown's interviewee Nasreen Rehman wisely says that "we must stop thinking in binary, oppositional terms." May I propose that a starting place might be the recognition that, on the one hand, it is the Siddiquis and Hizbollahs and blind sheikhs and ayatollahs who are the real foes of Muslims around the world, the real "enemy within"; and that, on the other hand-as in the case of the campaign on behalf of Bosnia's Muslims-there are many "friends without."

[From a letter to The Nation, August 1993] The Nation, August 1993]

Alexander c.o.c.kburn accuses me of "spiteful abuse" of Turkish secularists (The Nation, July 26). This is a grave charge, and I hope you will permit me s.p.a.ce to reply. I heard the news of the atrocity in Sivas, Turkey, on the evening of Friday, July 2. Within half an hour I put out a statement condemning the fundamentalist murderers, and elaborated on this in a live telephone interview with the main BBC radio news program of the evening. The next day, I appeared on BBC-TV, ITN, and Sky Television, and spoke on the telephone to journalists from several British newspapers. In every case the primary importance of denouncing the murderers formed the main thrust of my contribution. July 26). This is a grave charge, and I hope you will permit me s.p.a.ce to reply. I heard the news of the atrocity in Sivas, Turkey, on the evening of Friday, July 2. Within half an hour I put out a statement condemning the fundamentalist murderers, and elaborated on this in a live telephone interview with the main BBC radio news program of the evening. The next day, I appeared on BBC-TV, ITN, and Sky Television, and spoke on the telephone to journalists from several British newspapers. In every case the primary importance of denouncing the murderers formed the main thrust of my contribution.

In the week that followed, I wrote a further text (July 6), published as the leading letter in the London Independent, Independent, in which I tried to speak up for Bosnia's Muslims and also defended those who died in Sivas against the charge that "such inflammatory offences as atheism" had provoked their murderers into murdering them. I gave interviews on this subject to several European newspapers. Finally, I published a text that some of your readers may have seen in in which I tried to speak up for Bosnia's Muslims and also defended those who died in Sivas against the charge that "such inflammatory offences as atheism" had provoked their murderers into murdering them. I gave interviews on this subject to several European newspapers. Finally, I published a text that some of your readers may have seen in The New York Times The New York Times (July 11), discussing the need to pay attention to and support the dissidents of the Muslim world-including those in Turkey-who are at present under such vicious and lethal attack. (July 11), discussing the need to pay attention to and support the dissidents of the Muslim world-including those in Turkey-who are at present under such vicious and lethal attack.

It is a pity c.o.c.kburn did not trouble to check the facts-he made no attempt to contact me or my agents or the Rushdie Defence Campaign based at Article 19 in London-before letting fly. After almost two weeks in which hardly a day has pa.s.sed without my speaking up for secularist principles and against religious fanaticism, it is really quite extraordinary to be vilified in your pages for not having done so.

The Observer Observer piece itself-as c.o.c.kburn concedes-also laid the blame for the Sivas ma.s.sacre firmly on the local religious fanatics, and expressed my outrage at what they had done. It is true, however, that I criticized the behavior of the journalist Aziz Nesin, in whose newspaper piece itself-as c.o.c.kburn concedes-also laid the blame for the Sivas ma.s.sacre firmly on the local religious fanatics, and expressed my outrage at what they had done. It is true, however, that I criticized the behavior of the journalist Aziz Nesin, in whose newspaper Aydinlik Aydinlik unauthorized extracts from unauthorized extracts from The Satanic Verses The Satanic Verses had been published in May. had been published in May.

c.o.c.kburn quotes Nesin thus: "I had met Rushdie in London and discussed the possibility of publis.h.i.+ng his book in Turkish." This is untrue. In 1986-the only time I ever met Nesin-The Satanic Verses was not even finished. Nesin goes on: "The only thing he lately cares for is whether he receives his copyright fees or not." Not so. I have no interest in receiving whatever monies may be due to me from was not even finished. Nesin goes on: "The only thing he lately cares for is whether he receives his copyright fees or not." Not so. I have no interest in receiving whatever monies may be due to me from Aydinlik. Aydinlik. I am, however, vitally interested in how, and by whom, my work is published. I am, however, vitally interested in how, and by whom, my work is published.

Nesin and Aydinlik Aydinlik published the pirated extracts from my novel in the most polemical manner possible, denigrated my work, attacked my integrity as a man and as an artist, and made a lot of money by doing so-c.o.c.kburn reveals that the paper's circulation trebled during the period of publication. Certainly these were not people I would have chosen to be the first publishers of published the pirated extracts from my novel in the most polemical manner possible, denigrated my work, attacked my integrity as a man and as an artist, and made a lot of money by doing so-c.o.c.kburn reveals that the paper's circulation trebled during the period of publication. Certainly these were not people I would have chosen to be the first publishers of The Satanic Verses The Satanic Verses in a Muslim country. Yet c.o.c.kburn believes I was wrong to defend myself, even though British Muslim "spokesmen" and sections of the British media were attempting to make me the person responsible for the Sivas killings. It appears to be c.o.c.kburn's view that all this-the theft of my work, the a.s.saults on my character, the lies about my public positions, and the responsibility for having caused a "Rushdie riot"-is just fine, whereas my wish to set the record straight is evidence of an even deeper perfidy. In a letter from the Turkish writer Murat Belge, one of the friends whose advice I sought, he says: "It is quite legitimate to criticize Nesin for his rather childish behavior. However, the way all the politicians are now blaming him for everything is infuriating. . . . It is as if Nesin has killed these people, and the murderers who actually burned them alive are innocent citizens." This is exactly my view, which I have expressed over and over again in the past fortnight. I am sad that it has not managed to get through to Alexander c.o.c.kburn. in a Muslim country. Yet c.o.c.kburn believes I was wrong to defend myself, even though British Muslim "spokesmen" and sections of the British media were attempting to make me the person responsible for the Sivas killings. It appears to be c.o.c.kburn's view that all this-the theft of my work, the a.s.saults on my character, the lies about my public positions, and the responsibility for having caused a "Rushdie riot"-is just fine, whereas my wish to set the record straight is evidence of an even deeper perfidy. In a letter from the Turkish writer Murat Belge, one of the friends whose advice I sought, he says: "It is quite legitimate to criticize Nesin for his rather childish behavior. However, the way all the politicians are now blaming him for everything is infuriating. . . . It is as if Nesin has killed these people, and the murderers who actually burned them alive are innocent citizens." This is exactly my view, which I have expressed over and over again in the past fortnight. I am sad that it has not managed to get through to Alexander c.o.c.kburn.

[From The Guardian, The Guardian, September 1993 September 1993]

I have just returned from Prague, where President Vaclav Havel reaffirmed his belief that the so-called Rushdie affair was a test case of democratic values, a test case, as he put it, for himself. The story has been widely reported-except in Britain, where, as far as I can see, it has not been mentioned by a single newspaper, nor has anyone thought it interesting until now to print the photograph of the meeting that was made freely available to the press. However, an unpleasant little story about Iran giving gold coins and tickets to Mecca to the winners of a Rushdie cartoon contest has been given s.p.a.ce by several papers.

In late July, I was able to visit Portugal, and President Mario Soares went on national television with me to declare his pa.s.sionate support for the fight against the fatwa, and committed himself to helping in every way he could. Once again, this was treated as a big story by many European countries; in Britain, however, nothing.

In my meetings with John Major, Douglas Hogg, and Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomats, I have repeatedly been told that the British government considers such trips to be matters of the highest importance and utility. They remind Iran about the wide international consensus on this issue, and demonstrate, too, the international community's growing impatience with Iran's failure to withdraw its threats, and its determination to make Iran do so. In my view they also serve the important symbolic function of showing the fundamentalists that their intimidation isn't working. The trips take enormous amounts of planning, and I couldn't make them without the help and support of many individuals, organizations (notably the Rushdie Defence Campaign at Article 19), and security forces; so it is frustrating, to say the least, that they are so comprehensively ignored at home.

It is plain that Iran is feeling the heat. In a recent interview with Time Time magazine, President Rafsanjani said that in his view the Rushdie case was a Western conspiracy to put pressure on Iran, which takes some beating as a case of upside-down, Humpty-Dumpty thinking. But if one ignores the paranoia in the first half of his comment, the second half shows that he is feeling under pressure. This is excellent news. In recent months, Speaker Nateq-Nouri of the Iranian Majlis, the same man who less than a year ago was demanding my head on a plate, has said that it is not Iran's policy to have me killed; and Rafsanjani, in his magazine, President Rafsanjani said that in his view the Rushdie case was a Western conspiracy to put pressure on Iran, which takes some beating as a case of upside-down, Humpty-Dumpty thinking. But if one ignores the paranoia in the first half of his comment, the second half shows that he is feeling under pressure. This is excellent news. In recent months, Speaker Nateq-Nouri of the Iranian Majlis, the same man who less than a year ago was demanding my head on a plate, has said that it is not Iran's policy to have me killed; and Rafsanjani, in his Time Time interview, confirmed this. Amusing as such wide-eyed, who-me-guv innocence can seem, it is at least evidence that the penny has begun to drop. It is possible that Iran is trying to find the language that will solve the problem, for the fatwa, as a senior Western diplomat with deep knowledge of the region told me, is essentially a matter of Iran's internal politics: how are they to do what the world demands and still manage to play to the home audience as well? interview, confirmed this. Amusing as such wide-eyed, who-me-guv innocence can seem, it is at least evidence that the penny has begun to drop. It is possible that Iran is trying to find the language that will solve the problem, for the fatwa, as a senior Western diplomat with deep knowledge of the region told me, is essentially a matter of Iran's internal politics: how are they to do what the world demands and still manage to play to the home audience as well?

If I'm right that Iran has begun to get the message, then this is the time to increase the pressure. The public support of Presidents Havel and Soares therefore matters a great deal, which is why the sudden jadedness of the British media is so worrying. As the mullahs' little cartoon contest shows, the problem has not gone away just because I've been getting out more. It won't go away until Iran backs down. If news editors are getting bored, that boredom plays into the hands of the terrorist censors.

Three years ago, Vaclav Havel came to Britain on a state visit and asked to meet me. The British government prevented the meeting, fearing, perhaps, for the British hostages in Lebanon. Havel had wished to make a major gesture of solidarity in front of the world's press but was restricted to speaking to me on the phone. How ironic that the meeting should finally take place with the support of the British amba.s.sador in Prague and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office back home, and then be ignored by the press!

There is a problem of news values here that goes far beyond my own case. It seems that nasty stories are news but constructive developments are not. When religious bigots recently burned thirty-six Turkish intellectuals and artists to death in the town of Sivas, the event was widely-and inaccurately-reported in our papers. When, days later, literally hundreds of thousands of Turks marched peacefully through the streets in defense of secularism and tolerance, their deeds were ignored. In this case and in others, it seems as if an old cliche is being inverted-it is not the terrorists who are being starved of the oxygen of publicity but their adversaries. It is unsettling to find the processes and values of our editorial decision-makers becoming-to use a Czech a.n.a.logy-so Kafkaesque.

[From the Daily Mail Daily Mail, September 1993]

May I congratulate the Daily Mail Daily Mail on its consistency? Mary Kenny's spiteful piece, in which I am called bad-mannered, sullen, graceless, silly, curmudgeonly, unattractive, small-minded, arrogant, and egocentric-she apparently doesn't see how funny it is to insist so sourly that someone else should "try a little sweetness"-is, after all, only the latest in your long campaign to make me the villain of the so-called Rushdie affair. on its consistency? Mary Kenny's spiteful piece, in which I am called bad-mannered, sullen, graceless, silly, curmudgeonly, unattractive, small-minded, arrogant, and egocentric-she apparently doesn't see how funny it is to insist so sourly that someone else should "try a little sweetness"-is, after all, only the latest in your long campaign to make me the villain of the so-called Rushdie affair.

Regarding the expense of my protection, I question Kenny's figures *22 *22 but have expressed my grat.i.tude for that protection publicly on many, many occasions-you don't seem to have been listening-and have also done so privately, to the police and prime minister. I but have expressed my grat.i.tude for that protection publicly on many, many occasions-you don't seem to have been listening-and have also done so privately, to the police and prime minister. I am am grateful for it. It has, in all probability, saved my life. But it's not only my freedom that is being defended but also British sovereignty-the right of British citizens not to be a.s.sa.s.sinated by a foreign power-and principles of free speech. This is a fight against state terrorism. My death would mean that Iran had won the battle. Is the defeat of terrorism and the preservation of free speech and national integrity worth so little to you that you must so frequently carp about the cost? grateful for it. It has, in all probability, saved my life. But it's not only my freedom that is being defended but also British sovereignty-the right of British citizens not to be a.s.sa.s.sinated by a foreign power-and principles of free speech. This is a fight against state terrorism. My death would mean that Iran had won the battle. Is the defeat of terrorism and the preservation of free speech and national integrity worth so little to you that you must so frequently carp about the cost?

The thrust of Mary Kenny's attack on me is that I have made criticisms of aspects of British society, and that I do not vote Conservative. She derides me for having pointed to elements of racism in Britain; in the week of the horrific attack on young Quddus Ali, can the existence of that racism really be denied? She blames me for having criticized the police in the past-does she really believe, after the recent flood of reversed convictions and discoveries of widespread police malpractice, that I have no right to do so? I have always given credit where it's due, and the Special Branch officers who guard me know very well how deeply I appreciate their work.

Kenny also sneers at my 1983 general election essay about "Nanny-Britain"; but wasn't it the Tory Party who gave Mrs. Thatcher the ultimate bad review by dumping her so unceremoniously? It's true that I am not a Tory voter; after recent by-election results, how many Britons still are? The Conservative Party is not the State. To vote Labour is not an act of treason. (Not that I am able to vote; one of the deprivations of a life at an "unknown address" is that I cannot register. Does Mary Kenny care that I have been deprived of the most basic democratic right?) Kenny goes on to suggest that I have "special social responsibilities"-but were I to suggest the same, she would no doubt instantly scream about my "arrogance." She demands that I "turn my attention to healing the rifts between mankind." I would describe the writer's role a little more modestly than that myself, but in recent weeks and months I have spoken out for justice in Bosnia, supported the fragile PLO-Israeli pact, criticized the growth of religious sectarianism that is endangering India's secular const.i.tution, demanded the world's attention for progressive, democratic voices throughout the Muslim and Arab world, and tried repeatedly to draw attention to the crimes against such people-the murders and persecutions of journalists, writers, and artists in Turkey, Algeria, Sharjah, Egypt, and Pakistan, to say nothing of my old friend the Islamic Republic of Iran. None of these efforts were reported in the Daily Mail. Daily Mail.

As for Prince Charles, his attack on me and my protection has been reported in the French, Spanish, and British press. *23 *23 It has been confirmed to me by the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, who was present when the Prince of Wales's remarks were made. This is why I treat Buckingham Palace's denials with a degree of skepticism. And yes, it's true, I did poke fun at him in return; am I-even after Camillagate-the only Briton to be denied the right to join in this national pastime? It has been confirmed to me by the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, who was present when the Prince of Wales's remarks were made. This is why I treat Buckingham Palace's denials with a degree of skepticism. And yes, it's true, I did poke fun at him in return; am I-even after Camillagate-the only Briton to be denied the right to join in this national pastime?

Let me be very clear: I do not attack the country that protects me. All countries are many countries, and there are many Britains that I love and admire; why else would I have chosen to live here for the last thirty-two years? However, I have the same right as any other citizen-the same right as the Daily Mail Daily Mail-to say what it is about this society and its leaders.h.i.+p that I dislike. I will give up that right only (to coin a phrase) over my dead body. The real arrogance lies in a.s.suming, as the Daily Mail Daily Mail and its columnists a.s.sume, that their view of this country, "their Britain," is the only legitimate one; the real bad-mannered behavior is that of a paper which daily reviles and bullies all those who don't fit into its narrow-minded, complacent worldview. and its columnists a.s.sume, that their view of this country, "their Britain," is the only legitimate one; the real bad-mannered behavior is that of a paper which daily reviles and bullies all those who don't fit into its narrow-minded, complacent worldview.

Mary Kenny is right to say that, in the Rushdie affair, freedom of speech is something we are all paying for. I am fighting with all my might to bring about the day when the financial burden can be lifted. In the meanwhile, it would be absurd-would it not?-to give up that very freedom. So I shall continue to speak my mind, and you at the Daily Mail Daily Mail will, I'm sure, continue to speak yours. will, I'm sure, continue to speak yours.

[From a statement in the Swedish newspaper Expressen, Expressen, October 1993 October 1993]

Your newspaper's decision to campaign against the continued political, economic, and cultural involvement of the civilized world with the Iranian terror-state is very important, and I welcome it. No intelligence experts doubt that the hand of Iran was behind the cowardly attack on my distinguished Norwegian publisher and dear friend William Nygaard, an attack which he survived only by a kind of miracle. Iran's is also the hidden hand behind the killing of more than twenty Iranian dissidents in Europe during the presidency of the so-called moderate Rafsanjani, who also sits on the National Security Council, in which such decisions are made.

How many more murders and a.s.saults on innocent men and women will the Free World tolerate? If we go on reacting to violence with a shrug and a cry of "business as usual," then are we not collaborating in terrorism by turning a blind eye to it? Of course Iran uses "cut-out" mechanisms and smoke screens to conceal its role; but the UN has condemned Iran's human-rights violations and use of terrorism; the United States has named it the world's major sponsor of terrorism; the EC has insisted that it improve its record in these matters before relations with it can improve. Yet this past week Germany welcomed Iran's secret service head as an honored guest-the very man, Fallahian, who is behind all the Iranian a.s.sa.s.sination teams at work around the world! This is an almost laughably cynical act.

The Nordic countries have always supported my campaign against the Iranian terrorist regime; I have long been grateful for that support. Now the terrorists have attempted revenge, by shooting an unarmed man in the back. This time they must not be permitted to get away with it. I ask that Sweden, Norway, the other Nordic countries, and all the free nations of Europe cast Iran into the outer darkness where it belongs. I ask for an instant and complete break in all political, economic, financial, and cultural links. Let the evildoers be isolated. If they seek to destroy our fragile but precious freedoms, then they themselves are asking to be destroyed. And make no mistake: tyrannical as they are, cruel as they are, murderous as they are, their hated and feared regime is fragile, too. Without the support of the West, it will fall.

Does the West wish to be responsible for keeping the fanatical mullahs of Iran in power? It is time to make a choice in this matter; not for my sake, not only for William Nygaard's sake, but for the sake of freedom itself.

[From the introduction to a doc.u.mentary film on television]

Tahar Djaout was one of the most eloquent voices in the struggle against bigotry now being waged throughout the Muslim world. He was killed because he fought against the new Islamic inquisition, which is every bit as vicious as the old Christian one. We should feel his death as a wound in our own world. The battle between progressive and regressive elements in Muslim culture-between, as Djaout says, those who move forward and those who go back, who recoil-is of immense importance to us all. Its outcome may shape the next age of human history.

Tahar Djaout wrote in French, which gave him an international as well as a national voice, and earned him the hatred of the fanatics, for it is in the nature of fanatics to be parochial. I feel close to his plurality of self as well as tongue, and to his vulnerability. Those who embrace difference are always in danger from the apostles of purity. Ideas of purity-racial purity, cultural purity, religious purity-lead directly to horrors: to the gas oven, to ethnic cleansing, to the rack.

I introduce this film tonight, even though there is a danger that the endors.e.m.e.nt of one as demonized as myself may give the mullahs a rhetorical weapon, because I believe that the killings will be stopped only when the world community cries out in outrage, and forces the Thought Police to desist. After all, the weapon that killed Tahar Djaout was not rhetorical. It was a gun.

No religion justifies murder. If a.s.sa.s.sins disguise themselves by putting on the cloak of faith, we must not be fooled. Islamic fundamentalism is not a religious movement but a political one. Let us, in Djaout's memory, at least learn to call tyranny by its true name.

[A statement read out at an evening for Sarajevo in New York, November 1993]

There is a Sarajevo of the mind, an imagined Sarajevo whose present ruination and torment exiles us all. That Sarajevo represented something like an ideal, a city in which the values of pluralism, tolerance, and coexistence have created a unique and resilient culture. In that Sarajevo there actually exists that secularist Islam for which so many people are fighting elsewhere in the world. The people of that Sarajevo do not define themselves by faith or tribe but simply, and honorably, as citizens. If that city is lost, then we are all its refugees. If the culture of Sarajevo dies, then we are all its orphans. The writers and artists of Sarajevo are therefore fighting for us as well as for themselves. On the airwaves of Radio Zid, or in the sessions of the recent Sarajevo Film Festival-what an achievement, to stage a festival of over a hundred movies in the midst of such a war!-the candle is kept burning.

To define the people of Sarajevo simply as ent.i.ties in need of basic supplies would be to visit upon them a second privation: by reducing them to mere statistical victimhood, it would deny them their personalities, their individuality, their idiosyncrasies-in short, their humanity. So, whatever the world's governments and the UN protection force may say, let us insist that culture is as important to Sarajevo as medicines or food; that the people of Bosnia need cultural convoys, too. Let us insist that in wartime, when the forces of inhumanity are at their height, culture is not a luxury; and that the fight for the survival of the unique culture of Sarajevo is also a fight for what matters most to us about our own.

[Written for the International Parliament of Writers, February 1994]

A DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

Writers are citizens of many countries: the finite and frontiered country of observable reality and everyday life, the boundless kingdom of the imagination, the half-lost land of memory, the federations of the heart which are both hot and cold, the united states of the mind (calm and turbulent, broad and narrow, ordered and deranged), the celestial and infernal nations of desire, and-perhaps the most important of all our habitations-the unfettered republic of the tongue. These are the countries that our Parliament of Writers can claim, truthfully and with both humility and pride, to represent. Together they comprise a greater territory than that governed by any worldly power; yet their defenses against that power can seem very weak.

The art of literature requires, as an essential condition, that the writer be free to move between his many countries as he chooses, needing no pa.s.sport or visa, making what he will of them and of himself. We are miners and jewelers, truth-tellers and liars, jesters and commanders, mongrels and b.a.s.t.a.r.ds, parents and lovers, architects and demolition men. The creative spirit, of its very nature, resists frontiers and limiting points, denies the authority of censors and taboos. For this reason it all too frequently is treated as an enemy by those mighty or petty potentates who resent the power of art to build pictures of the world that quarrel with, or undermine, their own simpler and less openhearted views.

Yet it is not art that is weak but artists who are vulnerable. The poetry of Ovid survives; the life of Ovid was made wretched by the powerful. The poetry of Mandelstam lives on; the poet was murdered by the tyrant he dared to name. Today, around the world, literature continues to confront tyranny-not polemically but by denying its authority, by going its own way, by declaring its independence. The best of that literature will survive, but we cannot wait for the future to release it from the censor's chains. Many persecuted authors will also, somehow, survive; but we cannot wait silently for their persecutions to end. Our Parliament of Writers exists to fight for oppressed writers and against all those who persecute them and their work, and to renew continually the declaration of independence without which writing is impossible; and not only writing but dreaming; and not only dreaming but thought; and not only thought but liberty itself.

[An open letter to Taslima Nasrin, July 1994]

Dear Taslima Nasrin, I am sure you have become tired of being called the female Salman Rushdie-what a bizarre and comical creature that would be!-when all along you thought you were the female Taslima Nasrin. I am sorry my name has been hung around your neck, but please know that there are many people in many countries working to make sure that such sloganizing does not obscure your own ident.i.ty, the unique features of your situation, and the importance of fighting to defend you and your rights against those who would cheerfully see you dead.

In reality it is our adversaries who seem to have things in common, who seem to believe in divine sanction for lynching and terrorism. So instead of turning you into a female me, the headline writers should be describing your opponents as "the Banglades.h.i.+ Iranians." How sad it must be to believe in a G.o.d of blood! What an Islam they have made, these apostles of death, and how important it is to have the courage to dissent from it!

Taslima, I have been asked to inaugurate a series of open letters in your support, letters that will be published in about twenty European countries. Great writers have agreed to lend their weight to the campaign on your behalf: Czeslaw Milosz, Mario Vargas Llosa, Milan Kundera, and many more. When such letter-writing campaigns were run on my behalf, I found them immensely strength-giving and cheering, and I know that they helped shape public opinion and government att.i.tudes in many countries. I hope that our letters will bring you similar comfort and cheer, and that the pressure they will exert will be of use.

You have spoken out about the oppression of women under Islam, and what you said needed saying. Here in the West there are too many eloquent apologists working to convince people of the fiction that women are not discriminated against in Muslim countries; or that, if they are, it has nothing to do with the religion. The s.e.xual mutilation of women, according to this argument, has no basis in Islam; which may be true in theory, but in practice, in many countries where this goes on, the mullahs wholeheartedly support it. And then there are the countless (and uncounted) crimes of violence within the home, the inequalities of legal systems that value women's evidence less than men's, the driving of women out of the workplace in all countries where Islamists have come to, or even near to, power, and so on.

You have spoken out, too, about the attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh after the destruction of the Ayodhya mosque in India by Hindu extremists. For this your novel Lajja Lajja has been attacked by zealots, for this your life was first placed in danger. Yet any fair-minded person would agree that a religious attack by Muslims on innocent Hindus is as bad as an attack by Hindus on innocent Muslims. Such simple fairness is the target of the bigots' rage and, in defending you, we also defend that fairness. has been attacked by zealots, for this your life was first placed in danger. Yet any fair-minded person would agree that a religious attack by Muslims on innocent Hindus is as bad as an attack by Hindus on innocent Muslims. Such simple fairness is the target of the bigots' rage and, in defending you, we also defend that fairness.

You are accused of having said that the Qur'an should be revised (though you have said that you were referring only to the Sharia). You may have seen that only last week the Turkish authorities have announced a project to revise the Sharia, so in that regard at least you are not alone. And here is another simple point: even if you did say that the Qur'an should be revised to remove its ambiguities about the rights of women, and even if every Muslim man in the world were to disagree with you, it would remain a perfectly legitimate opinion, and no society that wishes to jail or hang you for expressing it can call itself free.

Simplicity is what fundamentalists always say they are after, but in fact they are obscurantists in all things. What is simple simple is to agree that if one may say, "G.o.d exists," then another may also say, "G.o.d does not exist"; that if one may say, "I loathe this book," then another may also say, "But I like it very much." What is not at all simple is to be asked to believe that there is only one truth, one way of expressing that truth, and one punishment (death) for those who say this isn't so. is to agree that if one may say, "G.o.d exists," then another may also say, "G.o.d does not exist"; that if one may say, "I loathe this book," then another may also say, "But I like it very much." What is not at all simple is to be asked to believe that there is only one truth, one way of expressing that truth, and one punishment (death) for those who say this isn't so.

As you know, Taslima, Bengali culture-and I mean the culture of Bangladesh as well as Indian Bengal-has always prided itself on its openness, its freedom to think and argue, its intellectual disputatiousness, its lack of bigotry. It is a disgrace that your government has chosen to side with the religious extremists against their own history, their own civilization, their own values. Bengalis have always understood that free expression is not only a Western value; it is one of their own great treasures, too. It is that treasure-house, the treasure-house of the intelligence, the imagination, and the word, that your opponents are trying to loot.

I have seen and heard reports that you are all sorts of dreadful things-a difficult woman, an advocate (horror of horrors) of free love. Let me a.s.sure you that those of us who are working on your behalf are well aware that character a.s.sa.s.sination is normal in such situations, and must be discounted. And simplicity again has something valuable to say on this issue: even difficult advocates of free love must be allowed to stay alive, otherwise we would be left only with those who believe that love is something for which there must be a price-perhaps a terrible price-to pay.

Taslima, I know that there must be a storm inside you now. One minute you will feel weak and helpless, another strong and defiant. Now you will feel betrayed and alone, and now you will have the sense of standing for many who are standing silently with you. Perhaps in your darkest moments you will feel you did something wrong-that the processions demanding your death may have a point. This of all your goblins you must exorcise first. You have done nothing wrong. The wrong is committed by others against you. You have done nothing wrong, and I am sure that, one day soon, you will be free.

[A statement for the French press regarding the cancellation of the visit of Taslima Nasrin, October 1994]

The Banglades.h.i.+ writer Taslima Nasrin has been obliged to cancel her visit to France because of the French government's decision to limit her visa to twenty-four hours, on the bizarre grounds that France could not guarantee her safety.

This is disturbing news. France France could not guarantee her safety? France, of all countries? How is it that she can stay safely in Lisbon, in Stockholm, in Stavanger, but not in Paris? France's minister of the interior, Charles Pasqua, likes to present himself as a strong man; why, then, does he make France itself look so weak? In my experience of these matters the "safety" argument is always a disguise for the real, cynical motives for such decisions. To those of us who admire French culture, who have found inspiration in France's contributions to the language of human freedom, it seems essential that the French government should think again. France should not shun those who are persecuted by freedom's enemies but rather embrace them; it should not be a no-go area for such people but a valued refuge. I urge M. Pasqua and the French government urgently to reconsider their decision in this case. could not guarantee her safety? France, of all countries? How is it that she can stay safely in Lisbon, in Stockholm, in Stavanger, but not in Paris? France's minister of the interior, Charles Pasqua, likes to present himself as a strong man; why, then, does he make France itself look so weak? In my experience of these matters the "safety" argument is always a disguise for the real, cynical motives for such decisions. To those of us who admire French culture, who have found inspiration in France's contributions to the language of human freedom, it seems essential that the French government should think again. France should not shun those who are persecuted by freedom's enemies but rather embrace them; it should not be a no-go area for such people but a valued refuge. I urge M. Pasqua and the French government urgently to reconsider their decision in this case.

[An introduction to The Price of Free Speech The Price of Free Speech by William Nygaard, October 1995 by William Nygaard, October 1995]

The day William Nygaard was shot was one of the worst days of my life. (A worse day for him, of course.) I called Oslo constantly for news of his condition, and in between calls tried to rea.s.sure myself: he was a fit man, of athletic habits, he would be fine. But when I heard that he was going to survive I realized that until that moment I had not really believed he would. Then we learned that he was expected to make a full recovery, and I wondered if I should give up my lifelong skepticism about miracles. I went on to Norwegian television feeling relieved enough to make a joke. He had always had a back problem, I said, and now he would have an even bigger one.

In the days that followed there wasn't much to joke about. I couldn't help feeling that my friend and publisher had been struck by bullets that had been meant for me. I felt, at different times, or all at once, filled with rage, helplessness, determination, and, yes, guilt. Meanwhile William's colleagues at Aschehoug responded to the atrocity with great courage and principle. They did not waver in their resolve to keep my work in print; indeed, they printed extra copies. And when, finally, William was strong enough to take phone calls, I heard his strangely weakened voice saying an extraordinary thing: "I just want you to know," were his first words to me, "that I am very proud to be the publisher of The Satanic Verses. The Satanic Verses." William doesn't like being called heroic, but that day I understood how deep his convictions were, how tough-minded his principles.

Since his recovery, William has been standing up for those principles, defending the freedoms he cares about, and expressing his anger that those who menace such freedoms continue to be treated with deference, in a series of remarkable essays and speeches. Reading his words, I sometimes come across statements that surprise me, such as the revelation that publishers felt The Satanic Verses The Satanic Verses to be a more "difficult" book than my earlier novels (all I can say is, they didn't tell me!); and sometimes there are things I don't quite agree with, such as his description of literary agents as the "killer whales" of modern literature-because I know that had it not been for my agents' pa.s.sionate work on my behalf, to be a more "difficult" book than my earlier novels (all I can say is, they didn't tell me!); and sometimes there are things I don't quite agree with, such as his description of literary agents as the "killer whales" of modern literature-because I know that had it not been for my agents' pa.s.sionate work on my behalf, The Satanic Verses The Satanic Verses would probably not have been published in, for example, France and Spain. But with the central thrust of his arguments, I am in complete accord. would probably not have been published in, for example, France and Spain. But with the central thrust of his arguments, I am in complete accord.

The attack on all those concerned with the publication of The Satanic Verses The Satanic Verses is an outrage. It is a scandal. It is barbaric. It is philistine. It is bigoted. It is criminal. And yet, over the last seven years or so, it has been called a number of other things. It has been called religious. It has been called a cultural problem. It has been called understandable. It has been called theoretical. But if religion is an attempt to codify human ideas of the good, how can murder be a religious act? And if, today, people understand the motives of such would-be a.s.sa.s.sins, what else might they "understand" tomorrow? Burnings at the stake? If zealotry is to be tolerated because it is allegedly a part of Islamic culture, what is to become of the many, many voices in the Muslim world-intellectuals, artists, workers, and above all women-clamoring for freedom, struggling for it, and even giving up their lives in its name? What is "theoretical" about the bullets that struck William Nygaard, the knives that wounded the Italian translator Ettore Capriolo, the knives that killed the j.a.panese translator Hitos.h.i.+ Igaras.h.i.+? is an outrage. It is a scandal. It is barbaric. It is philistine. It is bigoted. It is criminal. And yet, over the last seven years or so, it has been called a number of other things. It has been called religious. It has been called a cultural problem. It has been called understandable. It has been called theoretical. But if religion is an attempt to codify human ideas of the good, how can murder be a religious act? And if, today, people understand the motives of such would-be a.s.sa.s.sins, what else might they "understand" tomorrow? Burnings at the stake? If zealotry is to be tolerated because it is allegedly a part of Islamic culture, what is to become of the many, many voices in the Muslim world-intellectuals, artists, workers, and above all women-clamoring for freedom, struggling for it, and even giving up their lives in its name? What is "theoretical" about the bullets that struck William Nygaard, the knives that wounded the Italian translator Ettore Capriolo, the knives that killed the j.a.panese translator Hitos.h.i.+ Igaras.h.i.+?

After nearly seven years, I think that we have the right to say that n.o.body has been angry enough about this state of affairs. I have been told in Denmark about the importance of cheese exports to Iran. In Ireland it was halal beef exports. In Germany and Italy and Spain other kinds of produce were involved. Can it really be the case that we are so keen to sell our wares that we can tolerate the occasional knifing, the odd shooting, and even a murder or two? How long will we chase after the money dangled before us by people with b.l.o.o.d.y hands?

William Nygaard's voice has been asking many such uncompromising questions. I salute him for his courage, for his obstinacy, and for his rage. Will the so-called Free World ever be angry enough to act decisively in this matter? I hope that it may become so, even yet. William Nygaard