Naipaul Critical on Rushdie

V. S. Naipaul has no patience with the Western writers and critics who have denounced the Ayatollah Khomeini’s death threat against novelist Salman Rushdie. Instead, he blasts the so-called “good people” for their hypocrisy and short memories.

In 1981, Naipaul said, several leading critics attacked his book, “Among the Believers,” as a racist view of the Islamic world. It was almost fashionable to deplore his travelogue, which upset many Muslim readers, he recalled.

“I wrote this book and the good people tore my book to pieces,” Naipaul said, refusing to identify them by name. “My thoughts on the subject were not welcome. I was considered to be running down brave representatives of new civilizations.”

In memorable passages, Naipaul wandered through the chaos of post-revolutionary Iran and recorded his impressions in dramatic vignettes. It was an eye-opening experience for readers, showing how the cult of the Ayatollah Khomeini had brutally stamped out dissenting voices.

But it also revealed Naipaul’s dislike for Islamic culture. Tiring of veiled Iranian women, he expressed delight at the the sight of a woman in Western attire. By the end of his travels, he was critical of “This late 20th-Century Islam,” (which) offered only the Prophet, who would settle everything--but who had ceased to exist. This political Islam was rage, anarchy.”

Amid the controversy, some literary critics defended Naipaul. Roger Shattuck, for example, said: “He (Naipaul) doesn’t practice cultural affirmative action. He judges developing nations as harshly as advanced nations, and never permits himself to excuse barbaric behavior.”

At about the same time, Naipaul said, there were protests over an American paperback that made fun of Iran’s leader. The little volume, published by Bantam Books, reprinted Khomeini’s dietary and sexual edicts that are part of Islamic law, but seem bizarre in the West.

“People were saying it was ridiculing Islam and it was wrong to do this to the leader of a great revolutionary country which had overthrown the Shah,” he recalled. “The book wasn’t withdrawn, but it was apologized for and allowed to fade away.”

Stuart Applebaum, vice president of Bantam, conceded that the book stirred controversy, but nothing like the furor over Rushdie’s novel, which many Muslims believe is blasphemous. Bantam never withdrew the book, he said, but did make statements to try and ease Islamic concerns.

“I think the only thing we ever said in response was that if it did offend, we were sorry. But the intention was parody, not blasphemy,” Applebaum said.

The world has changed since 1981, and fewer artists in the West speak out on behalf of Khomeini’s revolution. It is “an oddity” that many of the same people who jumped on his book and the Bantam publication are now rallying around Rushdie, Naipaul said.

“Certain causes are good, and then other causes become good,” he noted. “Now the good people are saying something else. I wish the good people were a little more consistent.”