Out came a thought and then another...

Reprint of a Der Spiegel interview with Salman Rushdie. As always, the man has interesting answers

Eric Follath: While researching your books -- and especially now after the recent near miss in London -- you must be asking yourself: What makes apparently normal young men decide to blow themselves up?

Salman Rushdie: There are many reasons, and many different reasons, for the worldwide phenomenon of terrorism. In Kashmir, some people are joining the so-called resistance movements because they give them warm clothes and a meal. In London, last year's attacks were still carried out by young Muslim men whose integration into society appeared to have failed. But now we are dealing with would-be terrorists from the middle of society. Young Muslims who have even enjoyed many aspects of the freedom that Western society offers them. It seems as though social discrimination no longer plays any role -- it's as though anyone could turn into a terrorist.
...
EF: And yet there must be reasons, or at least triggers, for this terrible willingness to wipe out the lives of others -- and of oneself.

SR: Lenin once described terrorism as bourgeois adventurism. I think there, for once, he got things right. That's exactly it. One must not negate the basic tenet of all morality -- that individuals are themselves responsible for their actions. And the triggers seem to be individual, too.
...
EF: National political issues play a major role in the struggle over Kashmir, but religious issues are also key. Are you worried about the power of radical religious currents worldwide?

SR: Fundamentalists of all faiths are the fundamental evil of our time. Almost all my friends are atheists -- I don't feel as though I'm an exception. If you take a look at history, you will find that the understanding of what is good and evil has always existed before the individual religions. The religions were only invented by people afterward, in order to express this idea. I, for one, don't need a supreme "sacred" arbiter in order to be a moral being.

EF: Perhaps not, but many people seem to need a god. Religions worldwide are experiencing a comeback. Striving for spirituality is more pronounced than ever. Is this a negative development in your opinion?

SR: Yes.

EF: That's a clear answer. But also offensive to many people.

SR: In my opinion, the word "spiritual" ought to be put on an index and banned from being used for, say, 50 years. The things that are put about as being "spiritual" -- it's unbelievable. It even goes as far as a spiritual lap dog and a spiritual shampoo.

EF: You yourself once wrote: "We need answers to the unanswerable. Is this life all there is? The soul needs explanations, not rational ones but ones for the heart."

SR: Of course there are things beyond material needs; we all sense that. For me the answers are simply not in the religious, heavenly realm. But I don't dictate to anyone what to believe and what not to. And I don't want that to be dictated to me either.
...
EF: Which compromises should and could the West make in order to contain the threat of terrorism?

SR: I'm not the man for compromises, either. I think you're talking to the wrong person.

Posted by Echo/Lavanya on Friday, September 15, 2006 at 9:17 PM | Permalink