From: zmbenhal@netcom.com (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim)
Subject: Re: Jihad in Islam (was Re:Islam Revealed #1
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:51:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.144820.10361@kth.se> d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:
>So which is the case with Rushdie?
>First of all Rushdie was given 800 000 $ by the publisher Viking/Penguin 
>in "advance money" *BEFORE* he wrote the Book.
>Nothing wrong with giving anyone advance money but *800 000 $* that 
>is alot of money...
>Why would anyone give a Z-level writer 800 000 $ in advance??? You don't 
>have to be Sherlock Holmes to understand that it smells fishy.

I don't know what a Z-level writer is but Rushdie was an award-winning writer
before the Satanic Verses. In view of the number of copies of SV sold V/P
made a pretty shrewd business decision. Please spare us from all of this
conspiracy stuff.

>Salman knew exactly what he did. He knew that his book would cause alot
>of reaction and it was because of that he wrote it. There is actually 
>*nothing* of value in his book but it is instead only written for insults.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Other people disagree with
you and they have the right to read it and talk about it.

>If someone insult you then s/he isn't doing that because s/he likes you
>but so that you should react. And as you know we Muslims take our religion 
>seriously. For example he portrays the wives of the Prophet as whores!!!
>Were is his proof that they were actually whores???? If you tell him bring

If you read thebook you'd see that the kufar had a brothel with prostitutes
given the names of the prophet's wives. It is the kufar who are insulting
the prophet as they often have. It is not a STATEMENT by Rushdie that he
considered them whores. He does not have any proof nor does he need one as
he is not claiming such a thing.

>Btw the "death penalty " wasn't given at once.
>6 months *BEFORE* Saudi-, Egyptian-, Algerian-, Jordanian, and other 
>newspapers told Rushdie that he should take that book back, several of 
>times.
>
>Rushdie was given *SEVERAL* of chances to take the book back and by that
>become forgiven.

SO WHAT? does that give them the right to call for his death because he did
not pay attention to them? The book was in publication for months before the
"fatwa" from Khomeini was issued and IT started the whole thing.

>Lets forget that he in for example p. 539 in his devilish book assassinate 
>Rama the 7th incarnation of god according to Hindu religion as a lecher, one 
>given to excessive sexual cravings and debauchery, and the *DEMON-KING* is
>portrayed as a righteous man. And that Sita is painted as a flirt.
>Let us forget what he says about Hinduism and Islam.

Ever heard of freedom of speech? I guess not!

>Well, lets take a quick glance at this masterpiece of Rushdie.

[a lot of crap :-) deleted]
So the book is full of obsenities, it is not the first or the last.
>
>Rushdie himself is a *big* whore....

You don't mind me breaking your neck for calling somebody a whore, do you?

>And then let us stop with looking at the *Biblical* verdict on Rushdie:

Ahem! I thought we were in the 20th century. Who gives a shit what the
biblical verdict.


Maybe you should trim your response a little and make sure they are less than
78 chars wide.

Zeyd