.... Another interviewee was ex-Muslim Sadia Hameed. She robustly, and rightly, argued against the idea of a law to protect religion. However I rather sympathised with Azhar when he explained that he found some of the irreverent swipes at Mohammed/Islam used by the Council of ex-Muslims a little divisive – it strikes me too as a shame not to capitalise on the many crucial things liberal Muslims have in common with ex-Muslims. (Again, I should note that Azhar was unambiguous in supporting her right to insult and make fun of Islam.)
The programme concluded, dispiritingly but not very surprisingly, with Azhar attempting to do a vox pop in Bradford only to have the novel snatched away from him and burnt to the clear approval of at least some of the passers by.
Azhar was obviously very frustrated by that response – but in some ways Sean O’Grady’s review of the programme in the Independent was still more shocking. Like the programme itself it came with a sting in the tale.
He concluded:
"Rushdie’s silly, childish book should be banned under today’s anti-hate legislation. It’s no better than racist graffiti on a bus stop. I wouldn’t have it in my house, out of respect to Muslim people and contempt for Rushdie, and because it sounds quite boring. I’d be quite inclined to burn it, in fact. It’s a free country, after all."
The flippancy as well as the sheer illiberalism of this comment is quite breathtaking. [Harry’s Place] Read more
