Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Point of Technicality
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:16:11 EDT
Followup-To: misc.legal,rec.arts.books
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
Keywords: permissible killing
Summary: a call for symmetry

In article <1992Oct3.145702.26669@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
afadel@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ayman Fadel) writes:

AF:
>I've heard the use of the work death sentence or death threat.
>
>The technical legal term for what Ayatullah al-khomayni
>did is called fatwa, which is the response of a scholar to
>a question.  Someone asked him whether it was permissible
>to kill Salman Rushdy, and his answer was yes.  I haven't seen
>a text of this response (fatwa), so I don't know exactly
>what his evidence was.
>
>So actually what he said was that it was permissible to kill
>him.  He didn't say it was a good thing to kill him no matter
>what consequences resulted from such an action.  Nor did
>he say it was obligatory for Salman to be killed.
>
>I'm sure from the Liberal's perspective this distinction is
>meaningless, but it does make a difference for people who
>know about these things.  And for the sake of accuracy, I would
>hope people would begin referring to al-khomayni's ruling on
>the permissibility of killing Salman, not "Death Sentence" or
>"order to kill Salman."

Very well, let us put the shoe on the other foot.  I am a student of
philosophy, which from the fundamentalist religious perspective may be
characterized as secular humanism.  Someone, whose name I do not recall,
has put to me a question of whether it would be (note the subjunctive)
morally permissible to kill the successors of Ayatolla Khomeini, currently
responsible for maintaining the bounty on the life of Salman Rushdie.  My
answer was that from the perspective of Western Culture, such an action
would not only be permissible, but morally commendable, insofar as it would
constitute legitimate defense of innocent human life (cf. John Locke's
Second Treatise on the Government, II.11, III.16-8, and XVIII.203ff.); to
those Western scholars who know about these things, my ruling on the
commendability of killing men knowingly responsible for deliberate
endangerment of innocent human life is known as a "thought experiment".

Now, in my capacity as a private citizen endowed with a moral sense, I am
hereby putting up a reward of US $100, NOT for the morally unexceptionable,
and indeed commendable action of killing the said ayatollas transgressing
against the Fundamental Law of Nature (cf. Locke, loc. cit.), but for
bringing an end to the fatwa BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.  Naturally, none
of the parties responsible for or connected with maintaining the fatwa are
eligible to receive the reward.  Furthermore, I call upon all like-minded
individuals to follow my example.  If the response should warrant it, I am
prepared to open a trust account for the reward funds.

It is to be hoped that Mr Rushdie, as well as some of his numerous Western
defenders, in this forum and elsewhere, will see fit to contribute towards
the elimination of the continued threat against his life, which also
constitutes a menace for the cardinal principle of Western culturee, the
idea of freedom of expression.  I sincerely hope that all participants in
the current debate would agree that this action makes the situation more
fair and equitable.

>ayman

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49102 talk.abortion:40021 alt.activism.d:3469