From: David James Alexander Hanley <U55870%uicvm.uic.edu@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: A non-Muslim scholar on Islam & Rushdie
Date: Friday, 14 Aug 1992 22:49:00 CDT
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

  It's amazing that all the muslims that I've asked about the death
threat hanging over rushdie never said it was wrong.  Not one.  They
always seem to try to change the issue.  "How would you feel if..."
They bring up some situations that might get me angry, but NONE of
which would make me think that person deserved death.  I guess this
is a case of dosplacement, when they assume everyone is a worse
barbarian than they are.

In article <9208131726.AA26751@rutgers.edu>, RBNXHS@rohvm1.bitnet says:
>
>In this part (last of the series), I shall present a view expressed
>by a *non-Muslim* scholar on the subject of Rushdie affair.

  I *HIGHLY* doubt he is non-muslim.  I have heard this claim used by
muslims many times to make them appear unbaised.
  I guess lying is okay?

>Prof. John Esposito is a Professor of Religious Studies and Director
>for the Center of International Studies, College of the Holy Cross.
>He is an author of several books on Islam. Among his recent publica-
>tions are Islam: The Straight Path (Oxford University Press) and
>Islam and Politics (Syracuse University Press). The following article
>is an abridged version of his article which appeared on "The
>Minaret", Spring, 1989 (Los Angeles, CA).

  Abridged version?  Did you take out words like "not"?

>===========================
>....
>What is the source of moral outrage of many Muslims throughout the
>world at the publication of the Satani Verses? Is Salman Rushdie
>simply the innocent victim of what what the press has often called
>'fundamentalist fanaticism'? ..

  Yep. The following article just supports this.  Wht did you post it?

>
>Basic to understanding the controversy over The Satanic Verses is
>an appreciation of the place of the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad
>in Muslim belief and piety. The Qur'an and the example of the
>Prophet Muhammad are the cornerstones of Islam. The former is
>believed to be the literal, perfect and complete word of God, and
>the latter (Muhammad) is regarded to be the primary instrument of
>God, the embodiment of God's will and Islamic values. Throughout

  This is just what christians beleive about the bible and jesus, but
the author of "last temptation" was not executed.  Why?

Note:  I'm not a christian.  But it's less dangerous than islam,
IMHO.  Less fanatical.

>history of Islam, Muslims have looked to the word of God and the
>example of the Prophet for inspiration and guidance in their
>everyday lives. Muslims sought to discover and preserve the example
>of the Prophet (what he said and did) scruplously. Any student
>of Islam or Muslim societies knows the special place of the
>Qur'an and of the Prophet Muhammad in the lives of more than 800
>million Muslims who constitute the second largest of world
>religions. Therefore, it is not surprising that for a broad
>spectrum of Muslim believers to question the authenticity of the
>Qur'an or to allude to the Prophet, his wives or companions in
>anything but the most reverential terms would be blasphemy. ...

  So they're fanatics.  I hold Alain Jourgenson  in the highest
regard, and seek to discover and preserve his example, but I don't
try to kill those who profane his name.  Also, does the book REALLY
do the things you claim?  I don't think so.

>
>As those of us in the Western society try to understand Muslim
>responses, it is important to remember that we live today in a
>more secular society. Thus we tend to forget that the death
>penalty was the prescribed punishment for blasphemy in the
>Hebrew scriptures and in Christian history

  What one religion may have done in the past is of no concern to us at
all.  It justifies nothing.  If a sect in tibet burns muslims at the
stake, is it okay for us to do it too?  No, of course not.  The "you
were barbarians too!" arguement just admits you are in fact
barbarians, and does not help your case one whit.

>not only because
>of the individual's sin but also because such an example could
>undermine the moral fabric of society itself. The public protest
>against Rushdie's book must be seen against this background as
>well as the broader context of the history of Muslim-Christian
>relations...

  How so?  Rushdie is a muslim!  I don't see any muslim-christian
involvement at all.  Bzzz.  Next.

>
>Within the context of the belief that Islam and Muslims have often
>been misunderstood, ridiculed and under attack form the West,
>the writing of the Satanic Verses by one who was born into a
>Muslim family and its publication in Britain and the United States
>engender a sense of outrage, powerlessness and victimization.

 This is just plain stupid.  The only way you might feel
powerless is because you couldn't stop the book from being published.
if you must get your way all the time, which many muslims seem to
think, you really have psychological problems.  Victimization???
Ha!!

>
>In a modern context, how would Jews feel if in the name of creative
>imagination the memory of the Holocaust and its victims, like
>Ann Frank, were distorted or denegerated?

  The jews probably wouldn't buy the book, or buy books from stores
that carried it.  This is a decent and civilized action.
  By the way, there are many books and people who try to deny the
holocaust ever occured, and thereby profane the memory of anne frank.
These people do not have contracts on their heads.
  It's revealing that you take a cheap shot on the jews as well.


DAVE!