When his teleÂphone rang on FebÂruÂary 14, 1989, ChristoÂpher Hitchens was thunÂderÂstruck. A newsÂpaÂper reporter was on the line, askÂing for his reacÂtion to a radio speech from Tehran earÂliÂer that day in which the theoÂcratÂic ruler of Iran, AyaÂtolÂlah RuholÂlah KhomeÂiÂni, called on MusÂlims around the world to murÂder his friend the novÂelÂist Salman Rushdie because of someÂthing Rushdie had writÂten in his book The SatanÂic VersÂes. As Hitchens latÂer wrote in his memÂoir, Hitch-22:
I felt at once that here was someÂthing that comÂpleteÂly comÂmitÂted me. It was, if I can phrase it like this, a matÂter of everyÂthing I hatÂed verÂsus everyÂthing I loved. In the hate colÂumn: dicÂtaÂtorÂship, reliÂgion, stuÂpidÂiÂty, demÂaÂgogy, cenÂsorÂship, bulÂlyÂing, and intimÂiÂdaÂtion. In the love colÂumn: litÂerÂaÂture, irony, humor, the indiÂvidÂual, and the defense of free expresÂsion. Plus, of course, friendship–though I like to think that my reacÂtion would have been the same if I hadÂn’t known Salman at all. To re-state the premise of the arguÂment again: the theoÂcratÂic head of a forÂeign despoÂtism offers monÂey in his own name in order to subÂorn the murÂder of a civilÂian citÂiÂzen of anothÂer counÂtry, for the offense of writÂing a work of ficÂtion. No more root-and-branch chalÂlenge to the valÂues of the EnlightÂenÂment (on the bicenÂtenÂniÂal of the fall of the Bastille) or to the First AmendÂment to the ConÂstiÂtuÂtion, could be imagÂined.
Rushdie went into hidÂing, but his JapanÂese transÂlaÂtor, Hitoshi Igarashi, was murÂdered, and attempts were made against the lives of sevÂerÂal othÂer transÂlaÂtors and a pubÂlishÂer. BookÂstores in EngÂland and CalÂiÂforÂnia were fireÂbombed, and many more received threats of vioÂlence. The pubÂlic reacÂtion to all of this was a bitÂter disÂapÂpointÂment to Hitchens. In his book, God is Not Great: How ReliÂgion PoiÂsons EveryÂthing, he wrote:
One might have thought that such arroÂgant state-sponÂsored homiÂcide, directÂed at a loneÂly and peaceÂful indiÂvidÂual who purÂsued a life devotÂed to lanÂguage, would have called forth a genÂerÂal conÂdemÂnaÂtion. But such was not the case. In conÂsidÂered stateÂments, the VatÂiÂcan, the archÂbishÂop of CanÂterÂbury, the chief sephardic rabÂbi of Israel all took a stand in symÂpaÂthy with–the ayaÂtolÂlah. So did the carÂdiÂnal archÂbishÂop of New York and many othÂer lessÂer reliÂgious figÂures. While they usuÂalÂly manÂaged a few words in which to deplore the resort to vioÂlence, all these men statÂed that the main probÂlem raised by the pubÂliÂcaÂtion of The SatanÂic VersÂes was not murÂder by merÂceÂnarÂies, but blasÂpheÂmy. Some pubÂlic figÂures not in holy orders, such as the MarxÂist writer John BergÂer, the Tory hisÂtoÂriÂan Hugh Trevor-RopÂer, and the doyen of espiÂonage authors John Le CarÂrĂ©, also proÂnounced that Rushdie was the author of his own trouÂbles, and had brought them on himÂself by “offendÂing” a great monotheÂisÂtic reliÂgion. There seemed nothÂing fanÂtasÂtic, to these peoÂple, in the British police havÂing to defend an IndiÂan-born ex-MusÂlim citÂiÂzen from a conÂcertÂed camÂpaign to take his life in the name of god.
This month Rushdie pubÂlished Joseph Anton: A MemÂoir, describÂing his nine-years of life in hidÂing under the AyotolÂlah’s death order. The new book’s relÂeÂvance could not be more obviÂous, givÂen the Anti-AmerÂiÂcan riotÂing that broke out in much of the MusÂlim world this month in reacÂtion to a YouTube video called InnoÂcence of MusÂlims. Hitchens died last DecemÂber, and his voice in the matÂter is soreÂly missed. But it isn’t hard to imagÂine what he might have said. In a 2009 VanÂiÂty Fair essay, “AssasÂsins of the Mind,” Hitchens wrote: “For our time and genÂerÂaÂtion, the great conÂflict between the ironÂic mind and the litÂerÂal mind, the experÂiÂmenÂtal and the dogÂmatÂic, the tolÂerÂant and the fanatÂiÂcal, is the arguÂment that was kinÂdled by The SatanÂic VersÂes.”
For a recent disÂcusÂsion with Rushdie, lisÂten to his SepÂtemÂber 21 interÂview with Studio360:




