Killing Rushdie is easier than defending Muhammad! [Video]

Watch/Read More

Killing Rushdie is easier than defending Muhammad!

On Friday, August 12th, a 24 year old Lebanese-American Muslim named Hadi Matar jumped to the stage where Salman Rushdie was speaking on the topic of why the USA is a “safe-Haven” for persecuted writers and artists, and stabbed him around 10 times in his neck, eye, arm and side.

Matar had sympathies with the Shiite Muslims of Iran and knew that to kill Rushdie would reward him possibly $3 million due to a ‘Fatwa’ issued by the late Ayatollah Khomeini demanding his death with the reward awarded by the Iranian regime itself because of Rushdie’s 1988 book entitled ‘Satanic Verses’, which was not only critical of the prophet Muhammad, but of the Iranian regime as well.

Rushdie will most likely survive Friday’s attack, though possibly without an eye and severely maimed.

When he wrote Satanic Verses, a fictitious realistic book about the alienation and problems of identity for Indian Muslims living in the UK, there were many who vilified him, including Shabbir Akhtar, a Muslim Cambridge philosophy graduate who called for “a negotiated compromise” which “would protect Muslim sensibilities against gratuitous provocation”.

Others in the UK supported him, such as the labour MP Keith Vaz who wanted the book banned, and the Conservative MP Norman Tebbit who thought it unwise for the author to publish such a book.

But others came to his support, such as journalist and author Andy McSmith, who said, “We are witnessing, I fear, the birth of a new and dangerously illiberal ‘liberal’ orthodoxy designed to accommodate Dr Akhtar and his fundamentalist friends.” (Andy McSmith 2011, page 16)

Journalist Christopher Hitchens staunchly defended Rushdie and his book and urged critics to condemn the violence of the fatwa instead of blaming the novel or the author, writing, “The fatwa was the opening shot in a cultural war on freedom” (Christopher Hitchens. Assassins of the Mind. Vanity Fair, February 2009)

Some Muslim barristers tried to get the book banned on the grounds of blasphemy, but the Home Office responded that it would not allow further blasphemy prosecutions, declaring just “how inappropriate our legal mechanisms are for dealing with matters of faith and individual belief … the strength of their own belief is the best armour against mockers and blasphemers”.

M. D. Fletcher (author of “Reading Rushdie: Perspectives on the Fiction of Salman Rushdie) explains the irony surrounding the background of Satanic Verses when he wrote, “It is perhaps a relevant irony that some of the major expressions of hostility toward Rushdie came from those about whom and (in some sense) for whom he wrote. The manifestations of the controversy in Britain embodied an anger arising in part from the frustrations of the migrant experience and generally reflected failures of multicultural integration, both significant Rushdie themes. Clearly, Rushdie’s interests centrally include explorations of how migration heightens one’s awareness that perceptions of reality are relative and fragile, and of the nature of religious faith and revelation, not to mention the political manipulation of religion. Rushdie’s own assumptions about the importance of literature parallel the literal value accorded the written word in Islamic tradition to some degree. But Rushdie seems to have assumed that diverse communities and cultures share some degree of common moral ground on the basis of which dialogue can be pieced together, and it is perhaps for this reason that he underestimated the implacable nature of the hostility evoked by The Satanic Verses, even though a major theme of that novel is the dangerous nature of closed, absolutist belief systems.” (M. D. Fletcher (1994). Reading Rushdie: Perspectives on the Fiction of Salman Rushdie. Rodopi B.V, Amsterdam.)

Iwan McEwan, however, I think says it best when he remarked, “people who are utterly secure in their God should be above taking physical revenge when offended. Perhaps the book-burners and placard-wavers were, paradoxically, troubled by the first gremlins of doubt.”

This is probably why so many Muslims have supported the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and are rejoicing that he was attacked on Friday. They know deep down that their prophet cannot be defended historically, nor can he be supported as a model for mankind today or any day. Thus, their only recourse is to attempt to destroy anyone who dares to question him, or mock him, as Rushdie has done in his book, proving that their prophet cannot really be defended by word or deed but only with violence against those who dare to question him.

© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022
(67,420) Music: “Sweet Sunset” by Musicifiles, from filmmusic-io


Maverick City Just Released This Statement Concerning Dante Bowe. Let's Pray For Him [Video]

This is not an I told you so moment. I know what God showed me. Let's show him lots of love and support in the comments. I want him to be the best man of God he can be. I just had to obey what the Lord was showing me even when it wasn't popular. So if you will agree to pray for him let it be known in the comments just in case he stumbles across this video.