Salman Rushdie and Raed Salah

Written by: Sohail Kiwan
A young American of Lebanese origin, according to American sources, stabbed the novelist, Salman Rushdie, during a press conference at a public publicity party for the writer in New York.

Salman Rushdie was taken to the hospital for intensive treatment, possibly losing an eye.

It is likely that the twenty-three-year-old who stabbed him did this by a personal decision and under the influence of the incitement to which the writer was subjected from various Islamic currents, the most prominent of which was the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini, who shed his blood three decades ago, and announced a reward of three million dollars for whoever kills him.

However, this fatwa had been canceled, and Rushdie had denied that he had intended in his book Satanic Verses the personality of the Messenger Muhammad (PBUH).

The novel does not have an Arabic translation, so I tried to read it in Hebrew years ago, but I could not, as it is very boring. The discussion here is about the principle of freedom of expression and creativity!

First, any creative work must avoid touching the feelings of the masses belonging to any faith, and in my opinion, the creator can communicate his idea, whatever its dimensions, without hurting the feelings and beliefs of others.

Freedom of expression does not mean indifference to the feelings of millions of people, and whoever decides to be blatantly provoked is like someone who strips off his clothes in the public street under the pretext of personal freedom.

In my humble opinion, Salman Rushdie miscalculated in the way his novel The Satanic Verses was formulated, and even in its provocative title, and it seems to me that he took this risk into account, and the favor of fame outweighed him! But he certainly did not expect death fatwas issued by a leader of millions like Ayatollah Khomeini.

Is the creator supposed to take these caveats into account?

I believe that there are writers and thinkers much greater than Salman Rushdie, who discussed beliefs, including Islam, the crucifixion of Christ, the Jewish Torah, and others, in a deeper way, but with prudence and without provocations, such as Naguib Mahfouz in the novel “The Children of Our Alley,” who was also subjected to an assassination attempt, but he was not a provocateur to the masses. He continued to roam freely in the Cairo markets, the goal being to communicate an idea, not to provoke the masses.

On the other hand, attacking a writer, thinker, or artist is a fundamentally unacceptable act, and it has no justification!

In my humble opinion, the Islamic nation and its faith are greater than the provocations of a writer, artist, painter, or politician who attacks it, and its thinkers, writers, and preachers can respond “in the best way” to any literary or artistic work in the language of dialogue and persuasion. distorts the simple truth.

When Khomeini issued his fatwa, it seemed as if a billion Muslims were facing an individual person, while the West adopted his protection and allocated a special guard for him. comprehensive, and once in the name of defending the values of freedom and democracy and always in defense of the occupation, whatever it does.

The Lebanese youth who assaulted Salman Rushdie deserves punishment like any criminal aggressor. At the same time, a true creator must avoid provoking people's feelings for any ideology, not put himself at war with the masses, avoid incitement to violence, and his duty to present his ideas aesthetically. Without degrading to provoking the dogmatic sentiments of hundreds of millions.

We do not deny the existence of takfiri groups that practice violence for the most trivial reasons, but they are a minority in a sea of tolerant masses who are able to coexist with different opinions, ideas, doctrines, sects and beliefs, and discuss or leave them without resorting to violence.

Sheikh Raed Salah again..

The Ministry of the Interior, with the signature of Minister Ayelet Shaked, issued an order banning Sheikh Raed Salah from traveling outside the country, under the pretext of his security risk. Sheikh Raed has been targeted for a long time, and he has suffered from imprisonment, travel bans, and house arrests, in addition to multiple invasions of his home, harassment and incitement against him and his family in his personal life, and Sheikh Raed's basic crime is political, not criminal, or security!

If there were evidence of security violations, they would have presented them in indictments! The truth that everyone knows is that persecuting Sheikh Raed is a systematic policy, which our people rejected and rejects, and realizes that it is part of the price paid by those who struggle against racism, the occupation, and the policy of the fait accompli.

About "Arab 48"