Preliminary reports for the Islamic Party of
Britain by Committees A & B investigating the suggestion
that the author of Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie, is mentally
imbalanced.
As early as
September 25th, 1988, in his interview with Sean French,
Rushdie openly admitted that the classic
“psychotic-schizophrenic fall and flying sequence” of his
devil Chamcha and the Angel Farishta were, whilst
‘dificult to admit’, purely autobiographical.
Therefore, by his
own admission we must consider the voices of Farishta Rushdie
and Chamcha Rushdie as co-authors of the book, along with its
Honorary White title holder Salman Rushdie. In an interview
with James Wood in ‘The Guardian’, September 21st 1991,
Rushdie stated: “In my life I’ve always had to be a triple
person...” His vocal cords and split-personality are taken
over by extraneous powers, so that angelic-devilish
ventriloquies issue from the same mouth, in classic
schizophrenic fashion:- “it was me both times, baba, me first
and second also me... both the statement and the repudiation,
verses and converses, universes and reverses, the whole thing,
and we all know how my mouth got worked.” Actually we don’t
all know, says D. J. Enright in his New York Review of Books,
March 2nd 1989, who goes on to say, ‘it appears we are told
that God is Satan, and Satan is God, which adds up to one form
of monotheism ... Rushdie’s book is copious in thesis and
antithesis, but, not too surprisingly, synthesis hovers beyond
it." [The Rushdie File, pages 17 and 19]
The admission by
Rushdie is consistent with statements in the Qur’an which
refer to writers, poets and critics of Islam from its earliest
days to the present time, who falsely accuse God’s messengers
and prophets of being either mad, possessed or guilty of
producing revelations from their own creative, psycho-mystical
desires and experiences. These writers now include in their
ranks Salman Rushdie, together with his friends and
collaborators among authors in the American and English
branches of PEN and the predominantly secular/occult governing
establishments working in concert with news and media
institutions; populated largely by well-educated, highly
sophisticated, clever (but regrettably, all too often)
spiritually subnormal personalities, who because of their
myopian vision see nothing wrong in spreading alarm,
despondency or disinformation in order to increase, or
maintain their power to influence (for their own benefit,
financial or otherwise) what people believe, think and
worship. This is achieved in the way they edit or invent the
news or the types of story they report, often allowing the
bottom lines of balance sheets or viewing figures to exercise
editorial control of the headlines and programme contents; as
Randolph Hearst, ‘the original image manipulator’, said: “We
don’t report the news - we make it.” A point confirmed in the
famous 1930s response by John Swinton, retiring editor of The
New York Times, to a toast to an ‘independent press’: “What
folly is this, toasting an independent press? Everyone present
here tonight knows there is no such thing as an independent
press. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who
would dare to write his honest opinions, and if he did, you
know beforehand it would never appear in print. I am paid 250
dollars a week to keep my honest opinions out of the paper I
am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for
similar work.
The business of
the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to
pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the foot of Mammon, and to sell
himself, his country, and his race for his daily bread.
You know this,
and I know it, and what folly it is to be toasting an
independent press! We are the tools and vassals of rich men
behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks - they pull the
strings, and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our
lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual
prostitutes." [from The New Zealand Social Creditor,
reproduced by The Social Credit Union]
In a chapter
appropriately entitled ‘The Pen‘, the Qur’an defends itself
and its messengers from the perennial attempts of either
jealous or mentally sick writers who try to invalidate it.
Those who spread doubt about its authenticity do so because of
their consistent failure to meet its challenge to all men: to
join together and write one comparable verse. Ironically, the
defenders of Satanic Verses and its author Salman Rushdie, the
American and English organisation of authors, have elected to
be known as ‘PEN’, although perhaps in this case Poisoned PEN
might be more suitable; and even his publishers have the mark
Viking-PENguin.
Surah 68:
Al-Qalam, or The Pen
“In the Name of
Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Nun. By the pen and by
the record which (men) write, you (Muhammad) are not, by the
grace of your Lord, mad or possessed. By no means. Verily for
you is a reward unfailing. And furthermore, you stand on an
exalted standard of character. Soon will you see, and soon
they will see, which of you is afflicted with madness. Verily
it is your Lord who knows best, which among men, has strayed
from His path: And He knows best those who receive true
guidance. Therefore obey not the rejecters, who would have you
compromise, in order that they in turn may compromise. Neither
obey each feeble oathmonger and detractor, spreader abroad of
slanders and calumnies, who habitually hinder all that is
good, transgressing beyond bounds. The malefactors deep in
sin, who are violent and cruel. The ones greedy and base-born,
therewithal intrusive."
(This more
than adequately describes the modern press which Neil Kinnock
blamed for his election defeat in 1992; the Associates and
Members of PEN, The Establishment, The Media in general and
Tabloid Journalists in particular, together with some disc
jockeys and TV shows - including Kill-Roy, as distinguished
from Kill-Rushdie.)
PSYCHIATRIC REPORT EXTRACT COMMITTEE
B
(1) The book,
“Satanic Verses”, is anti-Islamic to the core. The particular
passages that have aroused Muslim protests can be seen as
being in the nature of gratuitous inflammatory devices,
superficial to the underlying theme of the book, and strike
one as being essentially ‘Nietzschean’ in character and
content.
[Nietzsche,
Friedrich Wilhelm, 1844-1900. German philosopher. ‘The man who
thought he was god’. He rejected what he called the “slave
morality” and values of Christianity in works such as ‘Also
Sprach Zarathustra’ (1883-91). He proposed a philosophy
asserting the self and - the “will to power” - Nietzsche’s
doctrine of the superman.]
(2) The core
theme in the book “Satanic Verses” is, that it is man who
creates God or the supernatural through the force of and
projection of his own desires. The Prophet Muhammad, in effect
(according to Rushdie) desires a particular verse or ayat that
will be accommodated to the Qureish tribal leaders. The Angel
of revelation, Gabriel, reflects back as it were, this desire,
in the form of the Satanic Verses. However, when these ayat or
verses cause offense to the prophet’s companions and faithful
followers, the prophet in effect seeks a new ‘ayah’ or verse
to reconcile the mess created, and Gabriel, according to
Rushdie, obliges. The prophet then sees one verse as being of
the Devil and the other from God: Rushdie, however, in effect
is saying that both are from the prophet’s own desire.
The Qur’an,
anticipating this suggestion, refutes it in Surah 22, ‘The
Pilgrimage’. We read in verse 49-54: “Say (to the people): O
mankind, I am only a plain warner unto you. Those who believe
and do good works, for them is pardon and rich provision.
While those who strive to thwart our revelations, such are the
rightful owners of the fire. Never did We send a messenger or
a prophet before you, but when he recited (the message) framed
he also a desire, and Satan threw some vanity into his desire:
but Allah abolishes anything that Satan throws in. And Allah
will establish His Revelations. For Allah is full of Knowledge
and Wisdom. In order that He may make these Satanic
suggestions [Satanic Verses for example] but a trial for those
in whose hearts is a disease, and those whose hearts are
hardened: verily the evil doers are in a schism far from the
truth. And in order that those who have been given knowledge
may learn that the (Qur’an) is the Truth from you Lord, so
that they may believe therein, and their hearts be made humbly
open to it: for verily Allah is the guide of those who
believe, to the straight way.”
(3) In
a nutshell, Nietzsche’s philosophy is that man has, in the past, projected
outwards, power that resides within himself; and this resemblent projection or
image eventually came to be worshipped as God. Therefore, as man begins to
realise this, he can take back the power into himself
and by so doing become, as it were,
superman again.
(4)
As a philosophical notion, this idea is at least worthy of
debate, and it would not be exceptional to explore and
illustrate a philosophical theory through a work of fiction.
There is, however, a big difference between knocking about the
intellectual idea of Superman, on the one hand, and feeling
one is personally becoming this Superman, on the other: This
latter prospect can be indicative of insanity.
(5)
C. G. Jung had some sympathy with Nietzsche’s philosophy -
i.e. that man projects aspects of himself into or onto
external images, which he then imbues with power. [One can
explain, for instance, some aspects of the Hindu pantheon of
gods in these terms, and the age-old techniques used in the
imitative magic process, with Aleister Crowley as one of its
better known adepts.] Recognising this process and then taking
responsibility for these forces that properly originate within
the self, was seen by Jung as an indispensable step in
becoming a mature and whole human being. Jung emphasised,
however, the need for humility in dealing with these normally
unconscious forces within the self. Otherwise he warned that
the Ego becomes solely inflated with a sense of
power-producing or rather (in Rushdie’s case) paranoid and
grandiose arrogance, with the symptoms of disintegration of
the self and frank insanity following later.
Nietzsche said ‘There cannot be a God because if there
were one I would not believe that I was not he.’ Remember,
Jung attributed Nietzsche’s own insanity to his lack of
Humility. After all, humility only comes from recognising
that, whatever the power of the self, one is ultimately a
servant of God.
(6)
It can be argued that in the ‘Satanic Verses’ Rushdie is not
simply philosophising in a literary form, but is describing
his own internal experience of psychotic inflation of the ego,
which he then projects onto his “fictional characters”.
(7)
The fact that some of Rushdie’s other books also seem to
illustrate a Nietzschean position, rules out the possibility
that it is purely coincidental in Satanic Verses - and seems
to demonstrate a fascination by Rushdie for Nietzsche, because
his philosophy resonates on the same wave-length: This appears
to explain the psychotic struggle experiences going on within
Rushdie, and mirror closely, Hitler’s fascination with
Nietzsche, and may be expressed in similar terms; there are
several indications that this latter interpretation may be the
case. Recent statements by Majorie Walace and others convert
the possibility into a probability. [Rushdie’s Mein Kampf
could perhaps be next?]
(8)
The conclusions drawn by Dr. Mohammad T. Mehdi, in his book
entitled ‘Islam and Intolerance (Reply to Salman Rushdie)’
15/12/1989, the observations and comments of Marjorie Wallace,
director of S.A.N.E. (Schizophrenia a National Emergency) and
Rushdie’s own admission as early as September 1988 in his
Observer interview with Sean French, leave little doubt that
he should be seeking psychiatric help.
While
not wishing to acknowledge outright that he and Chamcha the
devil are one and the same, Rushdie nevertheless admitted that
the fall and flying sequences were more to do with
autobiography than he cared to admit even to himself.
It
was during the radio 4 program ‘Start the week’ on February
the 5th 1990, that Marjorie Wallace inadvertently drew our
attention to Rushdie’s possible insanity by stating that
Satanic Verses contained some of the best descriptions of
self-experience, identical to those reported by
schizophrenics, which mimic the schizophrenic sensation of
falling, of being taken over by extraneous powers, of losing
self identity and feeling a blurring of the boundaries of
self. Her comments followed a discussion on Satanic Verses
with Bamber Gascoign, Edward Debono, and Professor Ahmed. In
passing she said:-
“ The
area I deal with is what I feel far more profound. I am
dealing with the ‘dark night of the soul’ area. I’m dealing
with the disintegration of thought, where the boundaries leak
out, one into the other. I mean the whole definition of
schizophrenia as the fragmentation of the personality, a
splitting off from reality, and actually, going back onto the
Rushdie, Satanic Verses (issue), I read, with absolute
excitement in this (book) some of the best descriptions of
Psychotic-Schizophrenic breakdown that I have ever read. This
fall that he has, this use of imagery of flying, and in fact
he even dedicates it to. This is a condition that most
schizophrenics often find themselves in. He describes this as
a condition that Satan lives in. Confined to a vagabond,
wandering condition...We don’t know the causes of
schizophrenia, but it is possibly based in the bio-chemical
pathways of the brain, where something is going wrong, when
the boundaries between themselves and reality have
disintegrated and they are subject to torment”. “
This
rootlessness is Rushdie’s (personal) problem, but the Muslim
world has become his victim and is expected to pay the price.”
[New York Times, Book Review Section, January 29th 1989,
Satanic Verses review by A. G. Mojabai]
Dr.
Mohammad T. Mehdi said, “If he (Rushdie) does not believe that
he has insulted one billion, two hundred million Muslims [one
quarter of the world’s population] then he must be considered
a man who is out of touch with reality.”
Any
writer, Dr. Mehdi says, who even in a work of fiction were to
call Moses “Hitler” or the blessed Virgin Mary a “whore”,
while at the same time believing that he would not be causing
offence to Jews and Christians, “must be a mental case”.
Furthermore Rushdie, he says, should acknowledge that
not only has he poured insults on the Muslims, but also on
Judaism, Christianity, black people, white people, the Queen
as head of the Church of England, not to mention Allah, His
prophets and His angels, failing which, he should plead
temporary insanity for what he has done to the feelings of the
Muslim world.
Under
the circumstances, and as it seems that Rushdie is out of
touch with the realities of life, hospitalisation for him in a
mental institution may be the best remedy and the only way out
of the present impasse! Rushdie’s friends should examine this
suggestion and encourage the man to seek help.
Otherwise for him the growing isolation and
psychological torture he is destined to endure will serve as
just punishment for his actions and suffice as a deterrent to
others.
The
Old Testament Book of Leviticus declares: “Whoever blasphemes
the name of the Lord shall be put to death”.
According to St. Augustine: “Better a heretic should
die than allow false teachings of ridicule to lead others to
eternal damnation”.
EARLIER SATANIC VERSES AND THEIR POLITICAL
CONSEQUENCES
Rushdie’s Satanic Verses have parallels in the writings
of political figures and anarchists such as Karl Marx, George
Jung, Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, Moses Hess, Pierre Proudhon,
Aleister Crowley and others.
Marx,
according to Robert Payne in his book entitled “ The Unknown
Karl Marx”, was under Satanic influence when, at the age of
23, he wrote a play which he entitled “Oulanem”. The title is
an inversion of “Emanuel”, and it bears a striking resemblance
to Rushdie’s psychotic, plummeting ventriloquies. Marx’s
father wrote to him: “You are obviously animated and ruled by
a demon not given to all men. Is this demon a heavenly one or
a Faustian one? Will you ever ... be receptive to true human
happiness?” [The portable Karls Marx, page 10]
OULANEM’ BY KARL MARX
"Till
I go mad and my heart is utterly changed, see this sword - the
prince of darkness sold it me. Yet I have power within my
useful arms to clench and crush you. While for us both the
abyss yawns in darkness.
You
will sink down and I shall follow laughing, whispering in your
ears, ‘ descend, come with me, friend’, ruined, ruined. My
time has clean run out.
The
clock has stopped, the pygmy house has crumbled. Soon shall I
embrace eternity to my breast, and soon, I shall howl gigantic
curses on mankind. Ha, eternity, she is our eternal grief, an
indescribable and immeasurable death, vile, artificially
conceived to scorn us, ourselves being clockwork, blindly
mechanical, made to be the fool calendars of Time and Space,
having no purpose, save to happen and be ruined; there is
something which devours, I’ll leap within it, though I bring
the world to ruins.
The
world which bulks between me and the abyss, I will smash it to
pieces with my enduring curses. I’ll throw my arms around its
harsh reality.
Embracing me, the world will dumbly pass away, and then
sink down to utter nothingness.
Perished, with no existence: That would be really
living."
SATANIC SUPERMAN PLAYS SAVIOUR OF THE
WORLD
In
1841, Moses Hess, brought Marx into a society called the
League of the Just, and taught him collectivist ideologies.
Hess wrote: “Dr. Marx, that is the name of my idol, is still a
very young man who will give medieval religion and politics
their death blow...” [The portable Karl Marx, page 22] George
Jung, another friend of Marx, wrote in the same year: “Marx
will surely chase God from His heaven, and will even sue Him”.
[Mystery 666, page 144]
Bukharin, one of Marx’s associates, in the ‘First
International’ was an anarchist and, by all accounts, an
ardent satanist. He wrote: “Satan is the first free thinker
and saviour of the world. He frees Adam and impresses the seal
of humanity and liberty on his forehead, by making him
disobedient.” [ibid, page 45]
Bukharin, who was secretary general of the Communist
International, revealed that as early as 12 years of age,
after reading the ‘Book of Revelation’, he longed to become
Antichrist. And realising that the Beast was the son of “ The
Great Whore”, he insisted that his mother confess to having
been a harlot. [ibid]
Aleister Crowley also longed to be known as the Beast
666 of Revelations, and was actually called it by his own
mother:- “What, however, is peculiar in Crowley’s case is not
that he chose ‘evil’ but that, in his revolt against his
parents and God, he set himself up [like Nietzsche] in God’s
place. ‘Why do you call yourself the Beast?’ I asked him on
the occasion of our first meeting. ‘My mother called me the
Beast,’ he replied to my surprise.”
“At
first, he was a devout little Plymouth Brother, taking turns
with his parents and the servants in reading passages from the
Bible... He could not, he said, even conceive of the existence
of people who were so foolish or so wicked as to doubt it. In
his childish ardour he thought of himself as a Christian
Knight, doing deeds of holiness and valour. As he grew older
his ideas took a strange turn... Now any description of
torture or blood aroused his feelings tremendously...
[Nietzsche loved blood, too]
He
liked to imagine himself in agony, and in particular, degraded
by and suffering at the hands of a woman he described as
wicked, independent, courageous, ambitious and so on. He fell
in love with the false prophet (Dajjal), the Beast whose
number is 666, and the Scarlet Woman. And suddenly, after the
death of his father - he was then eleven years old - he
discovered that his sympathies were entirely on the side of
the enemies of heaven. He had gone over to Satan, and did not
know why. He was still searching for the reason when he came
to write his autobiography at the age of fourty-seven." [The
Confessions of Aleister Crowley, page 14]
Other
early Communists, Rationalists and Freethinkers made no secret
of their sense of identification with, or “Sympathy for the
Devil”, in other words, that persistent and rebellious spirit
in man. For the Satanic propensity is in our blood according
to the holy prophet Muhammad. Its receptors circulate in the
blood-stream, waiting to respond to the 24 hour broadcast
whisperings of ‘Radio Satan’ (no doubt transmitting on 666
Mega Hurts). Fasting is recommended as the most successful
method of jamming or tuning it out, thereby screening
ourselves from the relentless bombardment of his most
successful group, ‘The Temptations’, which undenyably
influence our thoughts daily, from the soul via the heart
which handles all the blood, which reaches every feeling
crevice of physical desire within the body and the brain.
Temptations are monitored and weighed by our discerning
faculties, and then accepted or rejected according to the
level of our refined awareness or God-consciousness.
SOUL MUSIC?
The
Qur’an confirms that our own souls are responsible for our own
problems:- Surah 4:78-79: “If some good befalls them, they
say, ‘This is from God’; But if evil, they say, ‘This is from
you’ (o prophet). Say: ‘All things are from God’. But what has
come to these people, that they fail to understand a single
fact? Whatever good, (o man) happens to you, is from God; But
whatever evil happens to you, is from your own soul. And We
have sent you as an apostle to instruct mankind. And enough is
God for a witness.”
The
Qur’an clearly identifies the three phases of the human soul
which manifest themselves in the personal disposition and
behaviour of the human being:
(1)
The evil aspect is called An-nafs al-amaratun bi’l-su In Surah
Joseph or Yusuf (12), verses 51-53, the lady who tried to
seduce Joseph was subject to this temptation, and Joseph says,
“And I call not myself sinless; surely (mankind’s) soul is
want to command evil, except those on whom my Lord has mercy.
Surely my Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.”
(2)
The neutral or balancing aspect of the soul, i.e. the
conscience or internal policeman, is An-nafs al-lawamah In
Surah 75, ‘The Resurection’(Al-Qiyamah), verses 1-2, we read:
“I do call to witness the Resurrection Day; and I do call to
witness the self-reproaching soul (which eschews evil).”
(3)
The completely positive phase is An-nafs al-mutma’inna In
Surah 89, Al Fajr, verse 27, it is referred to as follows: “O
soul that art at rest, return to yourLord, well pleased and
well pleasing. So enter among My servants and enter My
Garden.” Here is an example of the evil aspect of the soul:
According to Bakunin, Proudhon, who wrote the following
Satanic Verses, like Marx, was a disciple of Joanna Southcott.
He said, “We reach knowledge in spite of Him (God). We reach
well being, in spite of Him, Every step forward is a victory
in which we overcome the Divine.” He exclaimed: “God is
stupidity and cowardice; God is hypocrisy and falsehood; God
is tyranny and poverty; God is evil. Where humanity bows
before an altar, humanity, the slaves of kings and priests,
will be condemned... I swear, God, with my hand stretched out
towards the heavens, that you are nothing more than the
executioner of my reason, the sceptre of my conscience... God
is essentially, anti-civilised, anti-liberal, anti-human.”
[Mystery 666", page 145]
Not
all Marxists are Satanists, but the majority are ideologically
aggressive, evangelising atheists, and to become a great
communist leader, one needs to be a devil. Bukharin wrote of
his associate Joseph Stalin, “He is not a man, but a devil.”
Marx had 6 children. Two daughters and one son-in-law
committed suicide, two others died of malnutrition.
According to Salman Rushdie, the first writer to
influence him was the Pakistani communist writer Fez Ahmed Fez
who was awarded an M.B.E. and ‘The Lenin International Peace
Prize for Literature’ in 1962.
(9)
Rushdie’s own “sacred” revelations issued through the mouth of
his apostle, Harold Pinter, to the assembled faithful at the
Herbert Read Memorial Lecture; show clear signs of
‘grandiosity’ and, that he is coming perilously close to
believing himself to be “superman” in the Nietzschean sense.
Rushdie appears to be saying that great literature - in which
category by implication he includes his own utterances - has
replaced religion as the means of transcendence and is now the
vehicle by which man experiences his spirituality. At one
point he even says, “I seem to be arguing in a messianic way”.
Authors, it seems, are now the high priests of the
modern age. The implications of this claim, have disturbed
even some of the Liberal Establishment.
(10)
In Rushdie’s defense of Satanic Verses, reported in the
‘Independent on Sunday’, Rushdie likened himself to [1]
Al-Hallaj, [2] Iqbal, and [3] Abdul-Hamid Al-Ghazali. And here
we see more than a touch of “grandiosity” at work in his
comparison, particularly of placing himself in the company of
Imam Ghazali.
Of
Iqbal the compiler knows too little to make a comment, except
that he is extremely well known and revered in Pakistan. On
the other hand of course, Al-Hallaj and Al-Ghazali clashed
with the Ulema or Clergy of their day, but their opposition
was based on their experiences of reality, which required them
to divest themselves of ego in order to achieve their high
status. This can only be achieved through intense humility,
and this is a quality altogether absent in Mr. Rushdie. It
would seem, therefore, that there is not the slightest
comparability between Salman Rushdie and these Muslims, who -
being serious scholars of the subject - sought to divest
themselves of wealth, position, and publicity.
The
fact that Rushdie has sought an identification with these
three figures further suggests that he is fundamentally out of
touch with reality.
Here
is not the place to explore the meaning of Al-Hallaj’s
utterance: Ana al-Haqq (I am the Truth). But the fact that
Rushdie seems to be truly identifying himself with Al-Hallaj
(who by the way was the only one of the three to be executed
for blasphemy) further indicates that he has reached a rather
advanced stage of grandiose delusion.
“Say
(to the people, Muhammad): Whosoever is an enemy to Gabriel -
For surely he revealed (the Qur’an) to your heart, by Allah’s
command, verifying that which was revealed before it, and a
guidance and glad tiding for the believers - Whosoever is an
enemy to Allah, His angels and His messengers, including
Gabriel and Michael, then surely Allah is an enemy to
disbelievers. And We indeed have revealed to you clear
messages, and non disbelieve in them except the
transgressors”. [Qur’an Surah 2, Al-Baqarah (The Cow) verse
97-99]
‘FANATICISM’ - A PRELIMINARY REPORT BY
COMMITTEE A, 21 AUGUST 1990
The
Tavistock Lectures by C. G. Jung contain important information
crucial to understanding the motivation and psychological
reasons behind Salman Rushdie’s book ‘Satanic Verses’ and the
reaction of present day Muslims to it.
“Fanaticism (both secular & religious) is always a
sign of repressed doubt. You can study that in the history of
the Church. Always in those times when the Church [in this
case Mosque] begins to waver, the style becomes fanatical, or
fanatical sects spring up, because the secret doubt has to be
quenched. When one is really convinced, one is perfectly calm
and can discuss one’s belief as a personal point of view
without any particular resentment.”
In
the introduction to an earlier lecture, Dr. J. A. Hadfield,
said: “Nothing convinces me so much of the truth of any
conception as when its creator is able to see it as a subject
of humour, and that is what Dr. Jung did last night.
Over-seriousness in regard to any subject very often displays
the fact that the individual is dubious and anxious about the
truth of what he is trying to convey.”
This
is why Salman Rushdie fanatically defends the religion of
literature and its pantheon of self-centred, self-promoting
secular gods, idols and authors. He asked via Harold Pinter at
the Herbert Read Memorial Lecture: “Is nothing
sacred?”
As
far as Rushdie is concerned, he sees the Qur’an not as a
religious revelation of the truth, but part of the world-store
of narrative whose function is to enrich rather than to
dictate how life should be lived. The book Satanic Verses, he
admits, is based partly on “a quasi historical incident, he
picked up while studying Islam at Cambridge ... racism at
Rugby Public School ... his wanting desperately to belong ...
a desire to make a reckoning ... settling old scores ...
unmaking the veil of history ... and against the bearded and
turbaned Imam Khomeini”. But that which he less readily
acknowledges is where his fears and problems reside: in the
leven of the - books and bread - he reverenced as a child;
leading on to the bread he has earned from the books he has
written. Books written with Rushdie’s own personal political
objectives in mind as a secular prophet-novelist: Books
promoting perpetual (secular) revolution and subversion, be it
moral, religious or otherwise.
He
points out that “film, the most expensive art form, is the
least subversive. Bergman, Fellini and others made the most
successful secular revolts into the territory of the sacred. I
prefer the greater possibilities of the novel.”
Rushdie’s idolisation of literature, “ The most
precious art”, and its worshipful masters, novelists like him,
confesses: “I grew up learning to kiss books and bread. Devout
households grew up kissing holy books. But we in our household
kissed everything; dictionaries, atlases, we kissed Enid
Blyton novels and Superman Comics. If ever I’d dropped the
telephone directory, I’d probably have kissed that too. This
was before I’d ever kissed a girl. But one never forgets ones
first loves. Bread and Books. One food for the body, one food
for the soul. What could be more worthy of our respect and
love? It has always been a shock to me to meet people to whom
books simply do not matter. People who are scornful of the act
of reading, let alone writing. It is perhaps almost always
astonishing to learn that your beloved is not always as
attractive to others as she is to you. My most beloved books
have been fictions, and I’ve been obliged to accept - for many
millions of human beings, they are entirely without attraction
or value.”
“We
have been witnessing an attack on the very idea of the novel-
form. [is nothing sacred?]‘An attack of such bewildering
ferocity, that it has become necessary to restate what is most
precious about the art of literature.”
“ To
answer the attack not by an attack, but by a declaration of
love. Love can lead to devotion. A devotion of the lover is
unlike that of a true believer, in that it is not militant. I
may be surprised, even shocked that you do not feel as I do
about a given book or work of art. I may very well attempt to
change your mind, but I will finally accept that your tastes,
your loves are your business and not mine. The true believer
knows no such restraints. The true believer knows that he is
simply right. He will seek to convert you even by force, and
if he cannot, he will simply despise you, for your unbelief at
the very least. Love need not be blind (but) faith must
ultimately be a leap in the dark.”
“ The
title of this lecture (Is Nothing Sacred?) is a question
usually asked in tones of horror! when some personage [Rushdie
for example] or idea [that man’s need for God is obsolete] or
value or place held dear by the questioner is treated to a
dose of iconoclasm, e.g. ‘white cricket balls for night
cricket, female priests, a Japanese take over of Rolls Royce
cars’, Is Nothing Sacred ? However it was a question to which
I thought I knew the answer. The answer was no! Nothing is
sacred, in and of itself. I would have said, ideas, texts,
people can be made sacred. The word is from the Latin -
sacrare - to set apart as holy. But even such entities, once
their sacredness is established, seek to proclaim and to
preserve their own absoluteness (and) their inviolability
[like certain novelists perhaps?]. The act of making sacred
[or un-sacred, like an act of blasphemy] is in truth an event
in history. It is the product of the many and complex
pressures of the time in which the act occurs. And events in
history must always be subject to questioning,
de-construction, even to declarations of their obsolescence.
To
revere the sacred un-questioningly [like the national debt] is
to be paralysed by it. The idea of the sacred is quite simply
one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because
it seeks to turn other ideas, e.g. uncertainty, progress,
change, into crimes."
THE DEATH OF GOD
“To
take any one such declaration of obsolescence (personally) I
would have described myself as living in the aftermath of the
death of God! On the subject of the death of God! William H.
Guss the American Novelist and Critic had this to say as
recently as 1984: ‘The Death of God represents not only the
realisation that gods have not existed. But the contention
that even such a belief is also no longer irrationally
possible. But neither reason nor the taste and temper of the
time condone it. The belief lingers on of course. But it does
so like astrology or a faith in a flat
earth.’'
There
were others, prior to William Guss and Rushdie. Gherman Titov
said, he and his fellow cosmonauts might defy God:
“Gherman Titov, the Russian cosmonaut, is reported to
have proposed that some sort of anti-religious experiment
should be carried out in space by Russian Spacemen. He is
reported to have made the proposal in a speech to a conference
on atheism held by the Communist Party several weeks ago.
‘Studying the cosmos and penetrating further and further into
the depths of the universe leaves no place (left) for God on
earth or in heaven’, he said. Titov said the cosmonauts had
decided to direct their activities more against religion. He
did not elaborate on his reference to a possible ‘special
anti-religious experiment in the cosmos.’ ” (Western Mail,
Cardiff, 1st February 1964)
The
above story confirms the predictions by the Prophet Muhammad
1400 years ago that man will achieve his life long objective
of mounting up to the heavens to see if God was there. Like
Nimrod on his Tower of Babel, and the Pharaoh of the exodus,
both suffered from the ‘edifice complex’. Both destroyed
themselves and many of their followers.
“And
Pharaoh said [like Nietzsche after him]: O chiefs! I know not that
you have a god other than me, so kindle for me a fire, O
Hamman, to bake the mud bricks; and construct for me a lofty
tower in order that I may survey the god of Moses; for behold,
I deem him one of the liars.” [Qur’an 28:38]
The
prophecy that the Marxist-Communists / Atheist- Capitalists
will declare, having conquered space, that God is dead, and
will ravage the earth, is as follows.
“After they have devoured everything they will still
not be satisfied, and will rush through the sky and begin to
fire projectiles/arrows into the heavens in order to bring
about the death of Allah. And Allah will in turn fulfill their
wish and command the angels to put blood on their
arrows/missiles [shuttles and satellites?] and return them to
earth. When they see their missiles return with what appears
to be the proof of Gods death, they will indeed believe that
they have killed Allah. Then they will say: ‘We have killed
God, now let us try to dominate the moon and the heavens.’ At
that time Allah will send down some kind of disease upon them
which will consume the flesh of their bodies. And the stench
of their corpses will spread over the world. Then it is that
Jesus the son of Mary, with all other Muslims who have hidden
in the mountains, will pray to Allah to save them from the
disease and death. Then a great cloud will cover the sky and
Allah will send down rain for fourty days. At first the rain
will be red, the colour of blood. It will then turn green and
will wash away the smell and the bodies. The rain will finally
become clear and purify everything. The believing servants who
were saved will live peacefully and serve Allah, for their
faith will be Islam.” [Israel and the prophecies of the Holy
Qur’an, page 120-121]
BACK TO RUSHDIE’S ‘IS NOTHING SACRED’
?
“I
have some difficulty with the uncompromising bluntness of this
obituary notice (God’s obituary notice). It has always been
clear to me that God, unlike human beings, can die, so to
speak, in parts. In other parts, for example India, God
continues to flourish in literally thousands of forms. So if I
speak of living after his death, I’m speaking in a limited
personal sense. My sense of God ceased to exist long ago. So I
was open to the great creative possibilities offered by
surrealism, modernism and their successors. Those philosophies
and aesthetics born of the realisation that, as Karl Marx
said, ‘All that is solid melts into air.’ To me [Rushdie]
however, my ungodliness, or rather my post godliness need not
necessarily bring me into conflict with belief. Indeed one
reason for my attempt to develop a form of fiction in which
the miraculous might co-exist with the mundane, was precisely
my acceptance that notions of the Sacred and Profane both
needed to be explored as far as possible without prejudgement
in any honest literary portrait of the way we are. That is to
say the most secular of authors ought to be capable of
presenting a sympathetic portrait of a devout believer, or to
put it another way, I had never felt the need to totemise my
lack of belief, to make it something to go to war about.
Now,
however, I find my world picture under fire, and as I find
myself obliged to defend the assumptions and processes of
literature - which I had believed all free men and women would
take for granted - and for which all un-free men and women
continue every day to struggle, so I am obliged to ask myself
questions I admit to finding somewhat unnerving:-
Do I
perhaps find something sacred after all ?
Am I
prepared to set aside as holy the idea of absolute freedom of
the imagination and alongside it my own notions of the world,
the text, and the good?
Does
this add up to what the apologists of religion have started
calling “Secular Fundamentalism”?
And
if so, must I accept that this secular fundamentalism is as
likely to lead to excesses, abuses, and oppressions as the
canons of religious faith?" [He could have mentioned the
English revolution, the French revolution, the Bolshevik
revolution, World War I, World War II, Auschwitz, Korea,
Vietnam, Polpot, the Iran-Iraq War, Tiennemen Square, the
US-Iraq War, in order to conclusively illustrate the excesses,
abuse, and oppressions brought about by the can(n)ons and
artillery of secular fundamentalism together with the rule of
art for art’s sake, artists, international law and global
banking. But he chose not to do so.]
C. G. JUNG: WHY WE NEED
RELIGION
“What
are religions? Religions are psychotherapeutic systems. What
are we doing, we psychotherapists? We are trying to heal the
suffering of the human mind, of the psyche or the human soul,
and religions deal with the same problem. Therefore our Lord
himself is a healer; he is a doctor; he heals the sick and
deals with the troubles of the soul; and this is exactly what
we call psychotherapy. It is not a play on words when I call
religion a psychotherapeutic system. It is the most elaborate
system, and there is great practical truth behind it. I have a
clientel which is pretty large and extends over a number of
continents, and where I live we are practically surrounded by
Catholics; but during the last thirty years I have not had
more than about six practising Catholics among my patients.
The vast majority are Protestants and Jews.” [Analytical
Psychology, page 181-182]
JESUS CHRIST: JUNG’S SOUL
DOCTOR
“When
you shall know the world, you shall see that I have spoken the
truth, and so shall you know the truth in every prophet. Know
you, then, that there be three kinds of worlds comprehended in
a single name: the one standeth for the heavens and the earth,
with water, air and fire, and all the things that are inferior
to man. Now this world in all things followeth the will of
God, for as saith David, Prophet of God: ”God hath given them
a precept which they transgress not."
The
second standeth for all men, even as the “house of such an one
[say the house of Israel]” standeth not for the walls, but for
the family. Now this world, again, (also) loveth God; because
by nature they long after God, for as much as according to
nature everyone longeth after God, even though they err in
seeking Him. And know ye wherefore all long after God? Because
everyone longs for infinite good without any evil, and this is
God alone. Therefore, the Merciful God hath sent his prophets
to this world for its salvation.
The
third world is man’s fallen condition through sinning, which
has transformed itself into a law contrary to God, the creator
of the world. This makes men behave like demons, God’s
enemies. And this world our God hateth so much that if His
prophets had loved this world - what think ye? assuredly God
would have taken from them their prophecy. And what shall I
say? As God liveth in whose presence my soul standeth, when
(Muhammad) the Messenger of God shall come to the world, if he
should conceive love towards this evil world, assuredly God
would take away all that He gave him when He created him, and
would make him reprobate: so greatly is God contrary to this
world.
...the scribes and priests, having understood that he
spoke against the traditions of the Elders, were kindled with
great hatred. And like Pharaoh they hardened their hearts:
Wherefore they sought occasion to slay him, but found it not."
“Jesus departed from Jerusalem, and went to the desert beyond
Jordan, and his disciples that were seated round him said to
Jesus: ‘O Master, tell us how Satan fell through pride, for we
have (always) understood that he fell through disobedience,
and because he tempted man to do evil... Said Jesus: ‘When you
are invited, remember not to seat yourself in the highest
place, in case a greater friend of the host comes, and the
host says unto thee: - ”Arise and sit lower down!" which would
be a shame unto you. But go rather and sit in the meanest
place, in order that he who invited thee may say: “Arise
friend and come and sit here above!” For then you shall have
great honour: for every one that exalts himself shall be
humbled, and every one that humbles himself will be exalted.
Verily I say unto you, that for no other reason than
his pride did Satan become reprobate. Even as saith the
prophet Isaiah, reproaching him with these words: “How art
thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, that wert the beauty of
the Angels, and didst shine like the dawn: Truly to earth is
fallen thy pride!”
Satan
(having) presented himself before the woman [Eve] like a
beauteous angel, said to her: “Wherefore eat you not of those
apples and corn?” Eve answered: “Our God hath said to us that
eating thereof we shall be unclean, and therefore He will
drive us from Paradise.” Satan answered: “He saith not the
truth. You must know that God is wicked and envious, and
therefore he brooketh no equals, but keepeth everyone for a
slave. And hath only spoken thus to you in order that you may
not become equal to him.
But
if you and your companion do according to my counsel, you
shall eat of those fruits like the others, and you shall not
remain subject to others, but like God, you shall know good
and evil, and you will do that which pleases you, for you
shall be equal with God." [The first cry of ‘Liberté,
Equalité, Fraternité’]" [From The Gospel of Barnabas]
Any
organisation or individual wishing to reprint or copy the contents
of this website may do so as long as the information is kept in its
original form, names of all authors and sources are kept intact and
is used for non-malicious purposes. An acknowledgement and link to
this website would be HIGHLY appreciated.