jeudi 20 septembre 2012

Salman Rushdie "accuse l'islam" dans Le Monde

L'écrivain britannique d'origine indienne Salman Rushdie publiait mardi ses mémoires sous le titre Joseph Anton, son pseudonyme de fugitif depuis que sa tête a été mise à prix par une fondation religieuse iranienne après la fatwa de l'ayatollah Khomeyni, qui lui reprochait d'avoir écrit un livre "impie". L'objet de la colère iranienne ? La publication en 1988 des "Versets sataniques", roman jugé blasphématoire, déplore la régression de l'islam actuel, "comme une blessure auto-infligée".
Celui qui est devenu au fil des ans un symbole de la lutte pour la liberté d'expression et contre l'obscurantisme religieux se retourne aujourd'hui contre l'islam dans les colonnes du Monde.
Dans un entretien accordé au Monde du vendredi 21 septembre, il accuse directement l'islam et regrette que cette religion soit en pleine "régression" : "C'est une tragédie que l'islam régresse à ce point", explique-t-il.
L'essayiste reconnait que sa vision de l'islam a évolué : C'est vrai, ma vision des choses est plus tranchée aujourd'hui. Il faut dire que j'ai traversé une épreuve qui m'a obligé à prêter attention à ce qui se passait dans le monde musulman. Or quelque chose a mal tourné au sein de l'islam. C'est assez récent. Je me souviens, quand j'étais jeune, beaucoup de villes dans le monde musulman étaient des cités cosmopolites, de grande culture. On surnommait Beyrouth le "Paris de l'Orient". L'islam dans lequel j'ai grandi était ouvert, influencé par le soufisme et l'hindouisme, ce n'était pas celui qui est en train de se répandre à toute vitesse. C'est pour moi une tragédie que cette culture régresse à ce point, comme une blessure auto-infligée. Et je pense qu'il y a une limite au-delà de laquelle vous ne pouvez plus blâmer l'Occident. Parfois, vous savez, les problèmes sont vos problèmes. Cela dit, s'il y avait le moindre signe qu'une société musulmane était capable de créer une démocratie ouverte, je changerais d'avis. "
Mais attention, il assure que ses propos sont le fruit de ses expériences et d'une réflexion, et non de préjugés. Selon lui, il doti etre possible de critiquer l'islam sans être taxé de xénophobe ou de raciste : " Je n'ai aucune tolérance à l'égard de la xénophobie et du racisme, que j'ai toujours combattus. Ceux qui s'attaquent aux minorités, aux musulmans ou aux homosexuels, par exemple, doivent être condamnés par la loi. L'islamophobie, c'est autre chose, c'est un mot qui a été inventé récemment pour protéger une communauté, comme si l'islam était une race. Mais l'islam n'est pas une race, c'est une religion, un choix. Et dans une société ouverte, nous devons pouvoir converser librement au sujet des idées. "
Quant à son cas personnel, il estime que sa condamnation par les autorités religieuses était le signe d'un changement plus profond : la "fatwa" le visant était selon lui "le début d'un conflit plus large".


Yes, This Is About Islam
By SALMAN RUSHDIE Published: November 2, 2001

LONDON -- "This isn't about Islam." The world's leaders have been repeating this mantra for weeks, partly in the virtuous hope of deterring reprisal attacks on innocent Muslims living in the West, partly because if the United States is to maintain its coalition against terror it can't afford to suggest that Islam and terrorism are in any way related. 

The trouble with this necessary disclaimer is that it isn't true. If this isn't about Islam, why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations in support of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why did those 10,000 men armed with swords and axes mass on the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, answering some mullah's call to jihad? Why are the war's first British casualties three Muslim men who died fighting on the Taliban side?

Why the routine anti-Semitism of the much-repeated Islamic slander that "the Jews" arranged the hits on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with the oddly self-deprecating explanation offered by the Taliban leadership, among others, that Muslims could not have the technological know-how or organizational sophistication to pull off such a feat? Why does Imran Khan, the Pakistani ex-sports star turned politician, demand to be shown the evidence of Al Qaeda's guilt while apparently turning a deaf ear to the self-incriminating statements of Al Qaeda's own spokesmen (there will be a rain of aircraft from the skies, Muslims in the West are warned not to live or work in tall buildings)? Why all the talk about American military infidels desecrating the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia if some sort of definition of what is sacred is not at the heart of the present discontents?

Of course this is "about Islam." The question is, what exactly does that mean? After all, most religious belief isn't very theological. Most Muslims are not profound Koranic analysts. For a vast number of "believing" Muslim men, "Islam" stands, in a jumbled, half-examined way, not only for the fear of God — the fear more than the love, one suspects — but also for a cluster of customs, opinions and prejudices that include their dietary practices; the sequestration or near-sequestration of "their" women; the sermons delivered by their mullahs of choice; a loathing of modern society in general, riddled as it is with music, godlessness and sex; and a more particularized loathing (and fear) of the prospect that their own immediate surroundings could be taken over — "Westoxicated" — by the liberal Western-style way of life.

Highly motivated organizations of Muslim men (oh, for the voices of Muslim women to be heard!) have been engaged over the last 30 years or so in growing radical political movements out of this mulch of "belief." These Islamists — we must get used to this word, "Islamists," meaning those who are engaged upon such political projects, and learn to distinguish it from the more general and politically neutral "Muslim" — include the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the blood-soaked combatants of the Islamic Salvation Front and Armed Islamic Group in Algeria, the Shiite revolutionaries of Iran, and the Taliban. Poverty is their great helper, and the fruit of their efforts is paranoia. This paranoid Islam, which blames outsiders, "infidels," for all the ills of Muslim societies, and whose proposed remedy is the closing of those societies to the rival project of modernity, is presently the fastest growing version of Islam in the world.

This is not wholly to go along with Samuel Huntington's thesis about the clash of civilizations, for the simple reason that the Islamists' project is turned not only against the West and "the Jews," but also against their fellow Islamists. Whatever the public rhetoric, there's little love lost between the Taliban and Iranian regimes. Dissensions between Muslim nations run at least as deep, if not deeper, than those nations' resentment of the West. Nevertheless, it would be absurd to deny that this self-exculpatory, paranoiac Islam is an ideology with widespread appeal.

Twenty years ago, when I was writing a novel about power struggles in a fictionalized Pakistan, it was already de rigueur in the Muslim world to blame all its troubles on the West and, in particular, the United States. Then as now, some of these criticisms were well-founded; no room here to rehearse the geopolitics of the cold war and America's frequently damaging foreign policy "tilts," to use the Kissinger term, toward (or away from) this or that temporarily useful (or disapproved-of) nation-state, or America's role in the installation and deposition of sundry unsavory leaders and regimes. But I wanted then to ask a question that is no less important now: Suppose we say that the ills of our societies are not primarily America's fault, that we are to blame for our own failings? How would we understand them then? Might we not, by accepting our own responsibility for our problems, begin to learn to solve them for ourselves?

Many Muslims, as well as secularist analysts with roots in the Muslim world, are beginning to ask such questions now. In recent weeks Muslim voices have everywhere been raised against the obscurantist hijacking of their religion. Yesterday's hotheads (among them Yusuf Islam, a k a Cat Stevens) are improbably repackaging themselves as today's pussycats.

An Iraqi writer quotes an earlier Iraqi satirist: "The disease that is in us, is from us." A British Muslim writes, "Islam has become its own enemy." A Lebanese friend, returning from Beirut, tells me that in the aftermath of the attacks on Sept. 11, public criticism of Islamism has become much more outspoken. Many commentators have spoken of the need for a Reformation in the Muslim world.

I'm reminded of the way noncommunist socialists used to distance themselves from the tyrannical socialism of the Soviets; nevertheless, the first stirrings of this counterproject are of great significance. If Islam is to be reconciled with modernity, these voices must be encouraged until they swell into a roar. Many of them speak of another Islam, their personal, private faith.

The restoration of religion to the sphere of the personal, its depoliticization, is the nettle that all Muslim societies must grasp in order to become modern. The only aspect of modernity interesting to the terrorists is technology, which they see as a weapon that can be turned on its makers. If terrorism is to be defeated, the world of Islam must take on board the secularist-humanist principles on which the modern is based, and without which Muslim countries' freedom will remain a distant dream.

Salman Rushdie is the author, most recently, of "Fury: A Novel."

Aucun commentaire: