From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Diatribe against Rushdie (was: Jihad in Islam)
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:17:31 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Gani Skepi has repeatedly attacked Salman Rushdie and his book "Satanic
Verses."  This in itself I do not mind, but I do mind that he is using
tactics which he himself condemned when used against the Koran, ie: quoting
out of context to condemn the book.  For instance, Mr Skepi claimed that the
following 5 word excerpt not only proves that Rushdie thinks that blacks 
eat the feces of whites, but that Rushdie also thinks they like to eat it:

> Let us take a look concerning what he says about black people:
> Page 461 ".. Nigger eat white man`s shit .."
> 
> Oww, first *NIGGER* and then white man's *SHIT*.
> What a *BEAUTIFUL* book.
> So the black man like eating the white mans shit.

Firstly this one quote, without the surrounding context, proves nothing of the
sort.  Such stilted quotations, ripped from surrounding context can easily be
used to show the opposite of what the author intended.  For instance, it
would be highly dishonest to quote only part of the line:

	 "No man should say that the Koran is a lie." 

and thus quote that man as saying: 

	".. The Koran is a lie .."

Now I do not know if this sort of literary abuse was used in the presentation
of Mr Skepi's quotation, but without proper context it is impossible to tell.

Secondly Mr Skepi, you are insisting on only one of several possible
interpretation of that phrase, and it's a rather stilted interpretation at
that.  The phrase as stated, "Nigger eat white man`s shit" only makes an
observation in a rude and emotionally striking manner, but it does not make
any assertion that the observation was a "good thing." In fact I have heard
similar sentiment expressed in speeches by Malcolm X, describing the state of
blacks, under white rule. 

Thirdly Mr Skepi, since this book was written as fiction, it is also very
important to know the context of who in the book made the statement, and why. 
Was the statements made by the sympathetic protagonist of the book, and was
the statement proved true and desirable (ie: thereby being a statement of
support)? Or was it a statement made for plot and/or character development (eg:
was it said by an unsympathetic character, or said by a sympathetic character
who learns that it is not true or not desirable).  An author does necessarily
believe or support any of the statements made in his book.  For instance, if I
were to write a book with a nazi antagonist, I can guarantee that I would not
support any of the nazi dogma which I would have that nazi spout, and
conversely it would be ridiculous for me have a nazi antagonist that only
stated support for my personal beliefs as he would thereby not be a nazi. To
insist that Rushdie must support all the statements in "Satanic Verses," is 
equivalent to saying that George Orwell must support all the views expressed 
in 1984.

I have the same complaint about the rest of Mr Skepi's quotes from Rushdie's
book.  And so Mr Skepi, since you do not give us the full context of the
quotes you presented, or who said them and why, and further you yourself have
complained about abused quotes from the Koran, then not only are your
accusations in no way compelling, they are a bit hypocritical as well. 

As an minor aside, I would point out that the last interview I saw from Rushdie
(either on "60 Minutes" or "20/20"), made clear that he did not consider
himself Muslim.  So I have to ask where you got your information that he now
considers himself a Muslim.  Do you have a quote from a verifiable source, or
is your claim unfounded and apocryphal?

Lastly Mr Skepi, while it does not bother me that you criticize and
rebuke Rushdie for his book, it does indeed disturb me that you state
those who insult you or your religion, deserve to be beaten or killed:

> If you offend my mother calling her a bitch I'd propably blow your head 
> off... (well it is hard to be a South European.. we have it in our 
> blood......).

and

> If someone would say infront of me that my mother is made for fucking
> and throwing over I would probably break his nose (:-).. i,e if he doesn't
> look like Arnold Swartzneiger as I in that case would have to get some help).
 
and 

>> Ok, do you agree then that Salmon Rushdie deserves the death sentence ?
> 
> My personal opinion is yes. 

and

> Ayatollah Khomeni (may he rest in peace, no matter what the western 
> media says he wanted good) based his fatwa on the below written verse:
> In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
> (5:33-34)" The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and
> His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this,
> that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and
> their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be
> imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and
> in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, Except those 
> who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is 
> Forgiving, Merciful."

I have to state that I find your standard to be repellent and not at all
consistent.  Yes Rushdie gave insults to Muslims, but Khomeni gave no less
insult to America and Americans, and he too had repeatedly been warned about
his rhetoric.  Would you see America as being thereby justified in calling for
a holy death sentence against Khomeni? You say that to insult Islam and cause
mischief is to deserve murder, crucifixion, disfigurement and etc.  Would you
see Khomeni's insults and "mischief" as deserving public castration, or the
removal of his tongue and right hand, or his being drowned in pigs blood? (By
the way, I picked these particular means of death to get across to you how
offensive I find your enumerated "punishments.") Somehow, from your seeming
support for Khomeni, I truly doubt that you would support such a sentence.  If
so, then why is it appropriate to punish Rushdie for his insults to Islam, but
not Khomeni for his insults to Americans? And how about yourself Mr Skepi,
have you ever given strong insult to another man and not gone back and
explicitly apologized for your insult? If so, then do you thereby deserve to
have your head blown off? Or would you see yourself as merely giving an honest
expression your feelings, which does not deserve punishment? Somehow, from
your simultaneous condemnation of Rushdie and support of Khomeni, I do not see
you as judging all strong insults as deserving of punishment, but rather, only
the insults directed as persons with which you agree or admire.  If so, then
that is hypocrisy. 

To sum up my feelings about vengeance for the sake of injured pride Mr Skepi, I
would state my strong agreement with the words of Mahatma Gandhi: "An eye for
an eye, will make the whole world blind," and add that I find you even more
pathetic than those who would demand "an eye for an eye," because you would
make the "whole world blind" for the sake of an offending word. 
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    Nothing dies so hard, or rallies so often, as intolerance.
				Henry Ward Beecher
				American Clergyman
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27757 alt.pagan:15988