It’s the twentieth anniversary of the Salman Rushdie affair, which though formally over, is still alive, both for the condemned man himself, and for the European intellectual culture he represents.

Thierry Chervel of signandsight.com has written a retrospective in a German newspaper, now available in English.

The main problem, says Chervel, is that

In the confrontation with Islamism, the Left has abandoned its principles. In the past it stood for cutting the ties to convention and tradition, but in the case of Islam it reinstates them in the name of multiculturalism. It is proud to have fought for women's rights, but in Islam it tolerates head scarves, arranged marriages, and wife-beating. It once stood for equal rights, now it preaches a right to difference – and thus different rights. It proclaims freedom of speech, but when it comes to Islam it coughs in embarrassment. It once supported gay rights, but now keeps silent about Islam's taboo on homosexuality.

Set aside, for a moment, the highly debatable notion that free speech and equal rights are the exclusive domain of the Left (big L, which Chervel means those of the 1968 generation). What he's saying is significant: that the West no longer stands for anything, human rights included, aside from multiculturalism.

To review, for those too young to remember 1989:

Bombay-born Salman Rushdie, Booker Prize-winning author of Midnight’s Children, published a novel called The Satanic Verses, which he knew would be considered offensive against Islam.

The Ayatollah Khomeini, spiritual leader of the Iranian Revolution (the same revolution depicted in the movie Persepolis), issued a fatwa, a judgment, against Rushdie, condemning him to death.

I inform all zealous Muslims of the world that the author of the book entitled The Satanic Verses—which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur'an - and all those involved in its publication who were aware of its contents, are sentenced to death.

Riots and book burnings ensued, not only in Iran, but in liberal Europe as well—largely by angered Muslim residents of those countries.

The secular West may have won the struggle, Chervel argues, but only in the short run. Yes, Rushdie survived. Yes, his book became a bestseller and is today widely available. And yes, the fatwa was put in the back shed after Khomeini’s death.

But, Chervel continues, today the West’s attitude toward Islam is marked by a multiculturalist spirit of taboo. That is, in the name of respect we submit to censorship—in advance of any real controversy.

“We” (left-leaning, secular cosmopolitan types) need only look at our great success in taming Christianity to realize the importance of pushing the envelope with Islam:

Playing with the symbols, discourse and constraints of Christianity has long been taken for granted in Western culture. But playing with the symbols of Islam has been out of bounds since the fatwa, ostensibly out of "respect."

What do you think?

It seems to me that Chervel has drawn a bizarre conclusion from the Rushdie affair: that blasphemy is a duty of enlightenment, and that self-restriction out of respect necessarily constitutes submission. In fact, we restrain ourselves all the time, even when we’re entirely among those who share our culture.

It is a rhetorical trick to suggest there is no alternative between, on the one hand, embracing religion-cloaked anti-female violence, and on the other, celebrating the humiliation of that same religion. It's a false choice Chervel--and others like him--present to us.

There is a muscular civility, modeled for us by Martin Luther King and his followers, that can combine unwavering and principled judgement with kindness.

Blasphemy may be a noble calling to the transatlantic cultural élites, but it is not at all clear to me that the blasphemous life is the liberated life. In fact, to develop an idea I first heard from Slavoj Žižek: as with the senseless violence of countless urban riots, in which the property of friends and neighbors is destroyed, or with the pitiful tantrums of a two-year old, intentional offence, far from creating space for freedom, can actually be an expression of impotence and fear.

In the end, it seems to me, if Khomeini has won it is because he stands for something, while neither the multiculturalists, too timid to risk, and the Enlightenment vanguard, paranoid of restraint, stand for much of anything—they fail to define a world worth living for.

But: surely we don’t have to embrace death sentences for blasphemers. What is a better way?

[photo credit: sxc.hu member sumeja]