Last week, Salman Rushdie, the 75-year-old author of “The Satanic Verses”,
was stabbed on stage at an event in New York where he was to give a lecture on
artistic freedom.
اضافة اعلان
The author has been facing death threats for more
than 30 years since the publication of the above book, which was banned in
India, his country of birth, as well as in many others even before Iran’s
Ayatollah Khomeini issued his infamous fatwa that called for killing anyone
involved in the publication of the book and offered reward to those who took
part in the murders. That fatwa has never been formally annulled, even though
Rushdie apologized to Muslims. He has been in hiding as a result.
What is most shocking about this recent stabbing is
not necessarily the attack, as the writer has always faced threats and this
risk, but that the assailant was not even born when The Satanic Verses was
first published, nor during the period when the original fatwa was issued.
According to the police, there was no indication of a motive for the attack,
which suggests that it was fueled by a radicalism that affects even young men
who live in Western societies.
The incident happened at a time when many countries
are developing and funding de-radicalization programs in at-risk communities.
It brings into focus a critical issue for modern times: the concepts of liberty
of thought and freedom of expression.
The Rushdie incident has brought the issue of radicalism back to the surface; it is important to consider it according to modern Arab intellectual Hisham Sharabi’s approach, using dialectical rational logic.
There is an inherent tension between respect for
religion and freedom of expression, particularly when it comes to addressing
extremism. On both sides fundamental compromises are made in order to protect
the sanctity of life. Do some people’s interpretations of religious expression
and action justify the killing or harming of others?
It is with sadness that we remember what happened to
Jordanian writer Nahed Hattar, who was killed because of the interpretation of
a cartoon by a fanatic.
The struggle against radicalism is not limited to
one group, it is a complex issue often made more difficult or leveraged by
certain groups. It is fueled by drivers that may be difficult to address, such
as failure to integrate in society, psychological problems, lack of cultural
depth and historical context, but often the most difficult issue is the
political manipulation of such cases.
The Rushdie incident has brought the issue of
radicalism back to the surface; it is important to consider it according to
modern Arab intellectual Hisham Sharabi’s approach, using dialectical rational
logic.
It is also worth remembering that a fatwa issued
over 30 years ago remained potent enough to inspire this attack by someone who
was not born at the time and lives in the US.
This kind of radicalism, it can be argued, is not
just about religion, but also a consequence of socio-economic and political
issues. The real issue is how to address religious fanaticism that has become
the shelter for those suffering from socioeconomic and cultural problems.
Amer Al-Sabaileh is a Jordanian university professor and geopolitical
expert. He is a leading columnist in national, regional, and international
media, offers consultancies to think tanks and speaks at international
conferences on Middle East politics and developments.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
