I apologize for the long delay in getting a response to this posted. I've been working reduced hours the past couple of weeks because I had a son born (the day after Umar's article was posted, btw).  I did respond within a couple of days, but it turns out that a a coincidental news software rearrangement caused postings from this site to silently disappear rather than going out into the world.  This is a revision of that original response.  In article <C52q47.7Ct@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes: >In article <1ps98fINNm2u@dsi.dsinc.com> perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes: >>Only a functional illiterate with absolutely no conception of the >>nature of the novel could think such a thing.  [this was in response to the claim that "Rushdie made false statements about the life of Mohammed", with the disclaimer "(fiction, I know, but where is the line between fact and fiction?) - I stand by this distinction between fiction and "false statements"]  >>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. > >You keep saying things like this.  Then, you accuse people like me of >making ad hominem arguments.  I repeat, as I have said in previous >postings on AA: I *have* read TSV from cover to cover  I had not seen that claim, or I might have been less sweeping.  You have made what I consider factual misstatements about events in the book, which I have raised in the past, in the "ISLAM: a clearer view" thread as well as the root of the "Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]" thread.  My statement was not that you had not read the book, but that you had not convinced me that you [inter alia] had.  As I said before, if you want to defend your position, then produce evidence, and respond to the evidence I have posted; so far you have not.  Of course, my statement was not directly aimed at you, but broadly at a number of Muslim posters who have repeated propaganda about the book, indicating that they haven't read it, and narrowly at Gregg Jaeger, who subsequently admitted that he hadn't in fact read the book, vindicating my skepticism in at least that one case.  So far, the only things I have to go on regarding your own case are a) the statements you made concerning the book in the "a clearer view" posting, which I have challenged (not interpretation, but statements of fact, for instance "Rushdie depicts the women of the most respected family in all of Islam as whores"), and b) your claim (which I had not seen before this) that you have indeed read it cover to cover.  I am willing to try to resolve this down to a disagreement on critical interpretation, but you'll have to support your end, by responding to my criticism.  I have no doubt as to the ability of a particular Muslim to go through this book with a highlighter finding passages to take personal offense at, but you have upheld the view that "TSV *is* intended as an attack on Islam and upon Muslims".  This view must be defended by more than mere assertion, if you want anyone to take it seriously.  >I am trying very hard to be amicable and rational.    And I appreciate it, but welcome to the club.  I am defending my honest opinion that this book should not be construed as a calculated (or otherwise) insulting attack on Islam, and the parallel opinion that most of the criticism of the book I have seen is baseless propaganda.  I have supported my statements and critical interpretationa with in-context quotes from the book and Rushdie's essays, which is more than my correspondents have done.  Of course, you are more than welcome to do so.