On average, how much thought does the everyday American give to their First Amendment Rights? For the majority of Americans, censorship is seen as something inherently alien most associable with repressive autocratic regimens abroad. The freedom of speech is considered to be inseparable to the very meaning of being an American or as a citizen of the “free” world. However, the Chautauqua Attack on famed novelist Salman Rushdie revisits a rather pertinent question: what is the best way to define freedom when codified as an element of free speech in America? Without freedom of speech, our first amendment rights would cease to exist. Is this to imply we can voice or publish whatever, wherever, or whenever we want & to whomever no matter how inflammatory, incendiary, undermining, & polarizing the actual message or content? In its definition of free speech, US Courts.gov maintains freedom of speech does not include constitutional protections to make, voice, or distribute obscene materials. When broken down, the obscene encompasses words like indecency, vulgarity, & crudeness.
It is for this reason why images like swastikas & public executions on the evening news are not considered tolerable or appropriate expressions of our first amendment rights under aliases, clauses, & protections of free speech. Salman Rushdie has undoubtedly gained great fame & notoriety as an outspoken atheist & dedicated secular humanist. By his own admission, Rushdie actively self-identifies as a “hardline atheist.” However, if Rushdie is indeed a hardline atheist, is he also an equal opportunity one? To paraphrase Rushdie when called out on his Islamophobia, Rushdie responded: “no, it is unfair to label Islam violent, but to my immediate knowledge, no writer has never gone into hiding for criticizing the Amish.” As a Muslim-American, I cannot resist wondering: has Rushdie criticized the Amish in the same way he criticizes Islam & Muslims? Rushdie’s magnum opus, the Satanic Verses, is arguably most describable as a work caught somewhere between religious romanticism, pre-Islamic mythological allegory, & new age metaphysics centered on the duality of man.
Every character in his seminal novel carries equal capacity to be their own protagonist in a subplot of the greater narrative where the storyline imagery never seems to leave the Judeo-Christian inspired Garden of Eden. If Rushdie really wanted to prove he is in fact not an Islamophobe, why did he limit his focus of the Satanic Verses to Islam? Why not develop the Satanic Verses into a multiple volume trilogy equally targeting Christianity & Judaism the same way Rushdie targeted & subsequently attacked Islam? Could the author that wrote the Satanic Verses write a novel on a Jewish concentration camp inmate coming to age by assuming the identity of an SS commander because one night he received divine revelation prophesying Hitler as the long-lost messiah to deliver the chosen people from their corruption due to hidden knowledge of Hitler’s paternal Jewish ancestry? Had Rushdie wrote such a forbidden albeit distasteful novel, would we continue to hail & cherish his work as a champion of free speech in the “free” world? In a sociocultural reality where any ounce of criticism weighted against Israel is considered instantaneously synonymous with antisemitism, the basis for such a plotline seems unimaginable, as it should be.
Such a forbidden yet hypothetical plotline revisits a very real double standard alive & well in America & the West. That reality is: some groups & ideas are touchable, but others are indeed untouchable & not to be challenged or interfered with. From Rushdie’s standpoint as a public figure & leading influencer in an otherwise “free” society, is it truly responsible to incite unprovoked backlashes from people when exploiting free speech to criticize with intent to attack important beliefs, teachings & traditions held sacrosanct by 1.8 billion Muslims in the world? Has Rushdie’s Satanic Verses assisted in furthering dialogue to bridge disconnects with the Muslim world specifically & the global south generally to modernize & emerge out of the developmental backwater? Or has it produced the opposite effect? How can one engage distinct groups of people when antagonizing them simultaneously only to cite press & speech freedoms when offering an elusive & ultimately nonexistent logos to the same groups of people one seems intent on undermining?
As a free society, we share a civic responsibility to use our first amendment rights to build bridges rather than create, antagonize, exacerbate, or reinforce divisive barriers if we have any hope in restoring “defamatory equality” & justice in speech & press freedoms. We do not tolerate antisemitism; therefore, we should not tolerate Islamophobia.
An edited version of this article was originally featured by the Star Tribune on 8-17-2022.