A Mirror For Our Times: ‘The Rushdie Affair’ and the Future of Multiculturalism. Paul Weller. London: Continuum, 2009. 227 pp. Paul Weller’s book, A Mirror For Our Times: ‘The Rushdie Affair’ and the Future of Multiculturalism reverts our attention back to 1988 when Salman Rushdie published his ignominious novel, The Satanic Verses. In his text, Weller relies heavily on “raw materials†that include newspaper reports, editorials and journal articles published between 1988 and 1989 to exhibit key incidents surrounding the Rushdie affair as well as more recent reports on terrorism, freedom of expression and religious hatred. Weller uses these detailed accounts as a “magnifying mirror†for incidents that have shaped individual and communal rights and to “reveal the existence of differing value-systems that can inform contrasting and sometimes conflicting world-views†(10). Weller begins by chronicling the events and reactions taken by a variety of key actors associated and affected by the publication of The Satanic Verses as well as the fatwa, or religious ruling issued by Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran calling for Rushdie’s death. Avoiding steep generalizations, Weller specifies individual writers, political leaders, and Muslim organizations that displayed their support for Rushdie and openly spoke out against the fatwa. It also discusses those who castigated the novel by picketing its publisher Viking Publishing, burned it in public demonstrations, and called for its ban. Weller’s examination of the Rushdie affair transitions into the second half of his text that discusses multiculturalism in the 21st century. Weller addresses the “relationship between believing and belonging in the twenty-first century; religion, art, and values in contention†(101). In doing so, he explains steps British Muslims have taken to integrate themselves into society and the complications involved in establishing a religiously founded communal identity in a culture where ethnicity and lifestyle tend to be the main determinants for personal identity (111). In his conclusion, Weller contends that perhaps the world has not learned much from the Rushdie affair and that similarly, Islamophobia and misunderstandings of the Islamic faith have only been inflated during the past two decades in light of recent terrorist attacks including 9/11. To combat hatred directed at religious groups and to offer a platform with which the Muslim community can speak from, Weller supplies ten “Learning Points†from the “Rushdie Affair,†“Seven Working Principles for Religion(s), State and Society Relationships, and “Six “points of Challenge†on “the Other Side of Terror/The War on Terror.†Weller’s usage of media accounts to illustrate the events of the Rushdie affair effectively speaks to a 21st century modern sensibility keen on acquiring an up to date chronological account of most issues. Weller also presents a rather balanced discussion of the “affair†never favoring one particular voice over another. For example, he provides accounts of the discourse within Rushdie’s literary world, a secular discourse articulated by voices from the Arts Council, for example, describing the fatwa as “intolerable†(19). Weller also thoughtfully examines the outrage within the Muslim community and researches socio-cultural norms and theological constructs to explain why portions of the novel offended Muslims who felt the text desecrated their religious figures and values. Weller’s text falls short in its organizational breakdown. Weller overuses section headers, which disrupts the transition between arguments and distract the reader from fully engaging with portions of the material. As well, Weller might have benefited from devoting less time to his description of the Rushdie Affair and more time to his analysis of multiculturalism. His concluding proposals, which are essentially the culmination of his research, are only afforded a six-page space. While they offer constructive suggestions such as the calling for “national and political self-understandings that exclude people of other than the majority religious traditions,†they leave readers questioning whether or not these proposals are merely hypothetical constructs or if their implementation is suitably viable (204). Weller ought to have drawn these points out more thoroughly throughout his book in order to display their potentially advantageous nature. Ultimately, this text benefits social policy makers/reformers, individuals working towards inter-faith dialogue and academics interested in how the Rushdie affair has affected freedom of expression and the need for individuals to find new means for respectfully and peacefully sharing divergent viewpoints. Readers anticipating in-depth inquiry into multiculturalism might be disappointed. While Weller does offer his own position in the form of his proposals, readers might have gained more insight into the state of multiculturalism if Weller had suspended his heavy reliance on “raw materials†and expressed his own concerns and critiques. BM
