Ah, the "good Muslim" ploy, like the "good Germans."



I note that a Muslim hailed as a "moderate" is a professional Holocaust denier. Being a professional Holocaust denier would not rate you moderate in civilized countries.



Everybody needs to read Marshall Sahlins's "How Natives Think," which does not mention Islam at all, for a reality check about imposing western thought patterns on non-western people.

From the article:



"The word ‘fatwa’ came to prominence in February 1989 when Ayatollah Khomeini pronounced one on Salman Rushdie. An Indian Muslim steeped in the traditions of upper-class English disdain for conscience and values, Rushdie deliberately published a satire on Islam entitled ‘The Satanic Verses’, a reference to passages in the Koran allegedly inspired by The Devil. Rushdie knew that it would provoke a furious reaction, but he went ahead anyway, and the death fatwa tied up very expensive police resources in protecting him for many years. I have believed since February 1989 that Rushdie should have been invoiced for every penny.
"



To state that Rushdie should be billed for exercising free speech in a country which guarantees it is, to me, most foul.



Regards,

We're seeing a lot of values clarification, aren't we?



In my youth, it could be assumed that, with the exception of Stalinists, everybody was pro-liberty. Either we were wrong, or things have changed.



Now we have people like Kiesling frankly denigrated democracy and being lauded as "classy."



Orrin does not like the interlude between Coolidge and Reagan. Me, I consider the '50s the GoldenAge. The 21st century is too much like the 1930s to suit me, and seems to combine most of the worst features of 1938 and 1600.



Trahison des clercs, indeed. And also trahison of the slobs.

The bad thing is that Muslims don't seem to talk against extremism, except some do when forced by circumstance to defend the religion in discussion with non-Muslims. The extremists can point to teachings and justify the worst actions. Our politicians won't go near it because of political correctness. So our leaders and their leaders cannot speak frankly about the subject. Everyone ignores the elephant in the room.

It doesn't mean peace, it means submission.

Not a bad article.



I'd say he was wrong about Rushdie. The Satanic Verses was an obnoxious piece of writing but his being given a death sentence was a political ploy by Khomeini and Rushdie was expressing his opinion as was his right.



Secondly while only a minority of Muslims go out on protests there'd be a very small number who aren't opposed to Israel.



And Islam has always had a radical nutjob fringe dating back all the way to the first four caliphs. Although shutting off the flow of petrodollars and shoving democracy and economic reform down the throats of the Arab world may at least partially solve that problem.

Ali:



I'm pro the Rushdie fatwa. Nothing wrong with keeping blasphemers on their toes.

Submission is peace, of a sorts, but only to those who submit. For all others, it seems any means are acceptable to bring them to submission.

OJ:



Have you read The Satanic Verses?



More to the point, what could he possibly write about any religion that would justify his living under a death threat?



It is ironic that religions, which have so little respect for others' beliefs, get so darn touchy when it comes to their own. Well, on second thought, maybe it isn't.



Mr. Kelly's statement, and your agreement, are excellent examples of why secular government is so important.



Regards,

So how about a fatwa on all the Muslims regularly demanding death to the Great Satan? Is that blasphemous or not? If not, explain.



The section on the village overwhelmed by butterflies in Satanic Verses is the greatest single piece of English prose composed during my lifetime, Waugh's books not excepted.



I still think that the US should explicitly announce that we are putting our military up against Allah, last man standing wins. The Bonifacian approach.



Ecrasez l'infame!