The Fatwa

Ayatollah Khomeini and the legacy of the Salman Rushdie affair. 

BY KENAN MALIK | JULY 15, 2010

A frail old man, wearing a black turban and ankle-length robes, stepped out of an Air France 747 into a chill February morning. His back hunched, he clutched the arm of a steward as he took faltering steps down a portable ramp to touch Iranian soil. After 15 years in exile, Ruhollah Khomeini had come home, the 78-year-old spiritual leader of a popular revolution that had toppled the shah of Iran and humbled SAVAK, his American-backed secret police force. Several million people from all across the country thronged into the capital to welcome the ayatollah, lining the 20-mile route out to Behesht-Zahra cemetery, where many of the martyrs of the revolution were buried. "The holy one has come!" they shouted triumphantly. "He is the light of our lives!" At the cemetery Khomeini prayed and delivered a 30-minute funeral oration for the dead. Then a boys' chorus sang, "May every drop of their blood turn to tulips and grow forever. Arise! Arise! Arise!"

In the decade between Khomeini's return to Tehran and the imposition of his fatwa on Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses -- and it was almost 10 years to the day that the one followed the other -- Islamism mutated from being a minor irritant to nationalist regimes in Muslim countries into a major threat to the West. The Rushdie affair, and the fatwa in particular, seemed like a warning that the seeds of the Iranian revolution were being successfully scattered across the globe, not least into the heart of the secular West.

And yet the fatwa was an expression as much of the failure of radical Islam as of its success. In 1989, the radicals in Tehran were on the defensive. Iran had been forced, the previous year, to abandon a bitter and bloody eight-year war against Iraq that cost the lives of up to a million Iranians. Khomeini was facing increased domestic opposition from reformers such as the speaker of the parliament, Ali Hashemi Rafsanjani, who had condemned the "shortsightedness" of Iranian foreign policy for "making enemies without reason" and was pushing for improved relations with the West.

The fatwa was an attempt by the radicals to regain the initiative. And it set a template for what was to happen over the next two decades: the political failure of radical Islam matched by an increasing turn toward violence and terrorism -- and matched, too, by exaggerated fears in the West about the threat it was facing.

Through the 1990s, Islamist parties grew in influence in Turkey, Palestine, and elsewhere, shaking the very foundations of secular government. In Algeria a vicious and bloody civil war broke out in 1991 between the Groupe Islamique Armé and the secular military government, a war that spilled over into acts of terror in France. The Taliban imposed its medieval rule on Afghanistan. The creation of Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon posed a mortal threat not just to Israel but also to secular organizations such as the PLO. Radical groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir gained a foothold within Muslim communities in Western Europe. And terror worked itself into the political landscape, from suicide bombings in Palestine and Lebanon, to bombings on the Paris Métro, the attack on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and eventually the horror of 9/11.

While all this was happening, the Berlin Wall collapsed, and with it the vision of global socialism. Many young Muslims who had previously been attached to left-wing radical movements were now left politically homeless and searching for new ideological shelter. The collapse of the Soviet Union had also opened the way for the umma physically to extend its reach beyond the old Iron Curtain to embrace the new Muslim states of Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Balkans.

Many analysts expected Islamists to sweep to power across the world. The former U.S. ambassador to Algeria, Christopher Ross, who in the wake of 9/11 would become a "special coordinator for public diplomacy and public affairs," declared in 1993 that the Middle and Near East were "fated to witness a wave of Islamist revolutions, successful or failed, over the next decade." A decade later, a CIA report predicted that Islamists would "come to power in states that are beginning to become pluralist and in which entrenched secular elites have lost their appeal."

It never happened. There was no second Iranian revolution. In places like Egypt, Jordan, and Malaysia, where the Islamists once held high hopes of repeating Khomeini's success, their influence has been curtailed, admittedly often through brutal repression. Outside of the rare cases where social convulsions shaped the political landscape for a short period, such as in Algeria in 1991, when elections took place on the eve of civil war, and with the single exception of Hamas in Gaza in 2006 (and the disputed Iranian elections of 2009), no Islamist party has ever won more than 20 percent of the popular vote. Parties that have broken through the 20 percent barrier (in Algeria, Tunisia, and Turkey, for instance) have done so largely by shedding their Islamist trappings, renouncing their dreams of a caliphate, and becoming ordinary political parties with Muslim leanings -- and in the process often becoming better democrats than the secularists they toppled.

OLIVIER LABAN-MATTEI/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: IRAN, ISLAM, MIDDLE EAST
 

Kenan Malik is a writer, lecturer and broadcaster, and senior visiting fellow at the Department of Political, International, and Policy Studies at the University of Surrey. His books include Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides Are Wrong in the Race Debate and From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and its Legacy, from which this essay is adapted.

HUGH

5:18 AM ET

July 16, 2010

Can I return this article as its sell by date has expired?

This article feels like it was written in late 2001 and Kenan Malik's found it in the bottom of his drawer and only now got round to sending it in to FP.

If strident multiculturalism remained the ideology of western elites as it was pretty much before 911, then he'd have a point, but I don't think it's the case today, especially when it comes to Islam. Sure, multiculturalism gave the Islamists self-confidence as their views were given credence when everyone was willing to listen to the voices of the 'other'. But that's not the case today: France has just banned the niqab, atheists like Dawkins and co are never off the best sellers charts, and when was the last time you heard someone say 'diversity is strength'? No one seriously entertains the Islamists as either an intellectual or existential challenge to the West, simply because they've been found wanting on every level. The Islamists are a terrorist threat to the West but even the Weekly Standard has binned the idea of "World War Four" of us vs the Jihadis because as with Malik's article it's, like, soooo 2001.

 

SAJANAS

10:29 AM ET

July 16, 2010

I agree... when you see a

I agree... when you see a constant press for Sharia law for Muslims in non-Muslim countries like England and France, and 'secular' countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey ship their own Muslim clerics abroad to keep first world Muslims in line with their much more conservative believes, I see a significant more problem than just revolutions. It doesn't have to be a revolution, or even a majority to get conservative laws that restrict human rights to pass in a country. I imagine Egypt and Jordan have deep problems with the religious radicals and their dealings with Israel that will not just go away. The lack of liberalism in Islamic thought needs to be addressed, and I'll be honest, I'm not sure how one should go about it.

 

SHIVEH

10:30 AM ET

July 16, 2010

The inevitable process

Ahmad Kasravi, a renowned Iranian historian and philosopher who was assassinated by Islamic fanatics in mid 20th century, famously said we owe mullahs access to the pillars of the government for one last time. It is only after our people have witnessed the true nature of their government that they will start a secular drive to modernity and prosperity without ever looking back.

The fever of Islamic fundamentalism will pass. What the future generations remember will include the filth it brought to surface in all of our societies and that’ll show them the way to a rational and sustainable coexistence. Man willing.

 

DISIGNY

10:42 AM ET

July 16, 2010

The missing comments

When you are discussing the anger of young Muslims, how about the hundred year campaign the West has conducted against "modernism" in Islam? Starting with being Allies in WW1 against Germany, it has gradually evolved that the whole idea was for the rest of the "Allies" to recreate their empires, at Arab expense, and drop totally the idea of "Self-Determination". England and France chose the Wahhabist , redneck "Leaders" of the Arab puppet states they created, the very ones we Liberals complain about having medieval attitudes. What better puppets to have than the Saudis? Of course any educated Arab is going to be furious at this ongoing Hypocrisy. And it doesn't help that the secular puppets are mostly Kleptocrats, giving "democracy" a bad name.

 

DKJACK

2:02 AM ET

July 18, 2010

You don't know what you're talking about

I just love self-styled historians who try to impress with bogus assertions they depend won't be fact-checked. When your rant is coherent, it's wrong. IN FACT, the British wanted to grant Middle-East hegemony to the moderate Hashimites of Transjordan and Iraq, on behalf of Anglo-Persian (later British) Petroleum. It was the AMERICANS who sponsored the Wahhabi Saudis on behalf of Standard Oil, et al., and because of FDR's personal alliance with them during WWII, the Saudis gained M.E. hegemony when their American patrons gained world hegemony following the war. Secular "kleptocrats," religious mass murderers -- yep, that's the choice when speaking of Muslim regimes. Corruption, mendacity, ignorance, murder, brutality, slavery are the Arab/Muslim "gifts" to the world without the help of the West.

 

MRPOLITISHQ

12:52 PM ET

July 16, 2010

defeat?

"But the fatwa itself was a sign of weakness rather than of strength, an attempt by Khomeini to distract attention from defeat in the war with Iraq and the erosion of political support at home. "

How did Iran end-up losing that war?
Iraq invaded and was sent back and Iran retained lost territory... Saddam was so frustrated by the Iranian onslaught that he resorted to chemical weaponry...
and called for a ceasefire on many occasions...

and Iran lost the war? How?

 

JJACKSON

8:05 AM ET

July 19, 2010

Like most wars, everyone

Like most wars, everyone lost.

 

YOURSTRULY

1:17 PM ET

July 16, 2010

A bit simplistic view of radicals in Muslim countries..

Kenan's essay over-dwells on the Iranian mullahs and their fatwa against Rushdie and in doing so sets himself up to missing major points.
Islamic radicals in each of so-called Islamic countries are the misfits of those societies. For generations they have sought to impose their dogmas on the remainder of their own societies and have failed, except in Iran.
We have two rivals competing to fund and support the misfits in Muslim societies around the world. The theocratic oligarchy in Iran is focusing on Shias around the world and on the Palestinians, because it suits their agenda perfectly, and because it one-ups their rivals who have been loath to support the Palestinians because of the perceived threat to themselves from the Palestinians. Their rivals are the theocratic authoritarians in Saudi Arabia, who have left no stone unturned, since finding their oil produced wealth, to creating hoards of misfits and supporting trouble seekers in the Sunni part of the Muslim world. I have to remind Mr. Malik that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack came from Saudi Arabia and not from Iran.
And so did Bin Laden. Then, besides these two major sponsors of radicals you have a host of free lancing misfit leaders in countries like Indonesia, Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon and others, who will accept support from anyone. So by nature, the support of radicalism in Islamic societies is coming from regimes whose leaders are there for life.

On the contrary, the Western societies, because of their commitment to four-year governments, are finding themselves in disarray in dealing with the trouble and threat being created for them by Saudis and Iranians. Facing life-long trouble sponsors, the West only has politicians who just have myopic four-year agendas. And that has worked out quite well even for the right wing and war mongering entities within the Western societies themselves. Dick Cheney found the 9/11 attack as god sent to get a war going in Iraq, so his benefactors, US companies like Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Raytheon, Blackwater and others could get back into the business of taking in trillions of dollars. Cheney's boss, Mr. Bush, successfully used the 'Islamic boogeyman' to get support for a 2nd war and to get re-elected for another term, with his ‘orange’ and ‘red’ levels. Ironically, very few in the world's best educated American society realized that removing Saddam Hussein would only strengthen the position of Iranian mullahs. Even Israel supported the ill-advised US war in Iraq to its detriment. Removal of Saddam only hastened the pace to an Iranian nuclear weapon.

What has been the response in the remainder of the West? More exploitation of the 'Islamic boogeyman'. Morally corrupt politicians like Sarkozy used it well to take over in France. Right wingers and anti-immigrant in all other European countries have found the actions of Islamic misfits as god sent as well. Exploiting a picture of some Afghani women wearing veils, it has become a past time for majorities in France, Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland and other countries to engage in frivolous campaigns like 'ban the burqa' and 'ban the minaret' What will these comic campaigns do to counter the affect of Saudi supported madrassas in Pakistan, and Iranian supported centers in Lebanon, churning out radicals by the hundreds, perhaps hundreds of thousands? See July 2010 issue of National Geographic's article on Pakistan's madrassas. The choice for each new generation in Pakistan is stark. With no jobs, poverty and chaos in the Pakistani society, to survive you either join a madrassa or a kidnapping for ransom gang.

The West's confused and comical response to the undeclared war against them by the Saudis and by the Iranians is only exacerbated by their 24-hour news channels, who by their nature of needing to fill in every minute of their 24-hour airtime, too find the actions of Islamic radicals as god sent, enabling them to keep their viewers captivated by sensationalizing news and events and to keep them engaged in campaigns like 'ban the burqa'. Their viewers don't realize that by letting themselves fall for the propaganda of these news channels they lose their capacity of rational thinking and find themselves bringing knee jerk and racist politicians to the fore, whether it is the 'burqa' issue or the immigration issue.
And that is what the Iranian mullahs and the Saudi monarchs cherish to see happen.
It makes me think of a soccer match in which players on one side are skilful and life long, while the other side is disoriented and demoralized and changing its whole team every four to six minutes. Guess which side has better chances to prevail?