(References: deleted to move this to a new thread)  In article <114133@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: >In article <1phkf7INN86p@dsi.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:  >>}Rushdie is, however, as I understand, a muslim. >>}The fact that he's a British citizen does not preclude his being muslim. > >>Rushdie was an atheist (to use local terminology, not to put words in >>his mouth) at the time of writing TSV and at the time of the fatwa in >>February 1989.[...] > >Well, if he was born muslim (I am fairly certain he was) then he _is_  >muslim until he explicitly renounces Islam. So far as I know he has never >explicitly renounced Islam, though he may have been in extreme doubt >about the existence of God. Being muslim is a legal as well as >intellectual issue, according to Islam.  "To put it as simply as possible: *I am not a Muslim*.[...] I do not  accept the charge of apostacy, because I have never in my adult life  affirmed any belief, and what one has not affirmed one can not be  said to have apostasized from.  The Islam I know states clearly that  'there can be no coercion in matters of religion'.  The many Muslims  I respect would be horrified by the idea that they belong to their  faith *purely by virtue of birth*, and that a person who freely chose  not to be a Muslim could therefore be put to death."     	    	    	    	Salman Rushdie, "In Good Faith", 1990  "God, Satan, Paradise, and Hell all vanished one day in my fifteenth  year, when I quite abruptly lost my faith.  [...]and afterwards, to  prove my new-found atheism, I bought myself a rather tasteless ham  sandwich, and so partook for the first time of the forbidden flesh of  the swine.  No thunderbolt arrived to strike me down. [...] From that  day to this I have thought of myself as a wholly seculat person."     	    	    	    	Salman Rushdie, "In God We Trust", 1985   >>[I] think the Rushdie affair has discredited Islam more in my eyes than >>Khomeini -- I know there are fanatics and fringe elements in all >>religions, but even apparently "moderate" Muslims have participated or >>refused to distance themselves from the witch-hunt against Rushdie. > >Yes, I think this is true, but there Khomenei's motivations are quite >irrelevant to the issue. The fact of the matter is that Rushdie made >false statements (fiction, I know, but where is the line between fact >and fiction?) about the life of Mohammad.   Only a functional illiterate with absolutely no conception of the nature of the novel could think such a thing.  I'll accept it (reluctantly) from mobs in Pakistan, but not from you.  What is presented in the fictional dream of a demented character cannot by the wildest stretch of the imagination be considered a reflection on the actual Mohammad.  What's worse, the novel doesn't present the Mahound/Mohammed character in any worse light than secular histories of Islam; in particular, there is no "lewd" misrepresentation of his life or that of his wives.  >That is why >few people rush to his defense -- he's considered an absolute fool for  >his writings in _The Satanic Verses_.   Don't hold back; he's considered an apostate and a blasphemer. However, it's not for his writing in _The Satanic Verses_, but for what people have accepted as a propagandistic version of what is contained in that book.  I have yet to find *one single muslim* who has convinced me that they have read the book.  Some have initially claimed to have done so, but none has shown more knowledge of the book than a superficial Newsweek story might impart, and all have made factual misstatements about events in the book.  >If you wish to understand the >reasons behind this as well has the origin of the concept of "the >satanic verses" [...] see the >Penguin paperback by Rafiq Zakariyah called _Mohammad and the Quran_.  I'll keep an eye out for it.  I have a counter-proposal: I suggest that you see the Viking hardcover by Salman Rushdie called _The Satanic Verses_.  Perhaps then you'll understand.