Freedom of Speech for Who?

          There are people in prison for questioning the Holocaust. The First Amendment is not applied equally. Our university campus has a free speech zone. But there is no free speech on certain subjects. When Palestinian groups held displays of their cause in the early 1990s, the Jewish Student Union was able to convince the school to force the students to take down at least parts of their displays from the free speech area. They were offended if the Star of David was shown. All references to the Star of David had to be removed. The group sponsoring the display tried to explain that they were not responsible for the Israeli forces committing war crimes wearing the Star of David on their uniforms, but it did not matter. The display of any Jewish symbol within the context of a war crime was forbidden because it may offend the Jewish students. Offending the Palestinians was OK. At the same time the western nations were criticizing Muslims for being so angry about the cartoons showing the prophet of Islam, they were putting David Irving in prison for daring to say that the Holocaust did not happen. The west is hypocritical, but for Muslims, it appears hypercritical as well. Peter Singer writes in the Jerusalem Post, “We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the Holocaust” (Singer 1). Does Salman Rushdie mock religion by mocking the extremists of the Muslim religion? It depends on whether or not it is your religion being attacked. 

      Salman Rushdie is crazy – crazy like a fox. He is very sly. Salman Rushdie used satire to point out that people take religion too far. People have to agree with him or be labeled something negative – fanatic, extremist, or the favorite label in the West these days “Islamicist.” In his story, “The Prophet’s Hair” a vial with a lock of the hair of the prophet is stored and it is so valuable, but it makes people crazy apparently. Religion can make people crazy. He points out the hypocrisy of the father in the story – he was not a good man, but when the vial comes into his possession he becomes a fanatical Muslim. Only a fanatical Muslim would be offended by such a story, right?

      Rushdie is not an exceptional writer. His popularity would not be as great if he had not been so critical of the Muslims. He does not have the wit of Mark Twain or Neil Simon. His major claim to fame is making millions of Muslims mad at him, which in turn makes him the darling of those in the west opposed to Islam – guaranteed to get you a seat on Bill Maher or any other popular television program. Burton says that there are a number of ironies, “even apparent contradictions” obvious in Rushdie, and asks, “How does a self-professed iconoclast deal with having such a powerful iconic status thrust upon him?” (Burton 104). Rushdie is a Muslim, and he knew exactly what he was doing. 

      Rushdie can not honestly say he did not expect the reaction of Muslims to his book. He can only convince the Americans that do not understand the minds, hearts and history of the Muslims. The Muslims are very tired from the double standards and one sidedness of the West. After a while, it seems as though the Muslims have been singled out for attack – it is the only legal hate left in the world, and it seems that it is encouraged with every profiling, with every false arrest or arrest without charge, every lie leading to wars that kill our people. How much patience is a person asked to endure? How many cheeks does the West think we have to turn?