69 million page views

Rushdie is a failed academic

Reader comment on item: Salman Rushdie, Man of the Left
in response to reader comment: Rushdie's evidence backfires

Submitted by Yasser Al Sharara (Turkey), Jan 21, 2008 at 08:42

Salman Rushdie has no credility, why is he even being discussed? (somebody who writes a gross distortion of factual matter). I really fail to comprehend how some deem his work to be a serious work of literature while it is a monumental collection of lies and fabrications.

The publishers should check on the accuracy of what they are publishing, lest our libraries become infested with incorrect and falsified books that insult 1.9 billion people (who, like me, protest peacefully save for a few misguided hooligans).

There are losers and there are winners in connection with this issue. The Muslims made their point very clear. The Rushdie book CONTAINS NOTHING BUT LIES AND DISTORTIONS.

The publishers seem to be the losers in long term. Though they made some money, the losses they incurred because of the bans on all their books in most of the Muslim nations overtook the profits they are making from the sale of this book.

The definite losers in this game are the buyers of his books. They expect to find something extraordinary in his work, but, to their disappointment they are faced with a bunch of lies.

People often raise questions such as "Why is Islam threatened by this book?" or "Is this the level of tolerance in Islam?" or "Why should Rushdie be given a death threat for what he wrote?"

Islam cannot be threatened by any means whatsoever. It stands on its own merit. When we talk about the issue of tolerance in the present context we are talking about the tolerance as to how much wrong information can be passed on to our posterity. Islam does not permit violence, and the reactions we saw were embarassing. Imagine reaction to a book questioning the extent of the Holocaust?! If some overnight author wrote that the holocaust was a myth, imagine the backlash from the powerful jewish and rogue zionist elements globally. The book wouldn't even be allowed to be published, and the author would be thrown in jail (even in Europe or the USA).

We have tolerated many a times very critical books on Islam and Muslims with extremely unfavorable conclusions. Those books weren't banned! Maybe the real intellectuals should come out and bridge the gap instead of incite hatred and lies.

I am less concerned about people killing Rushdie than people killing inaccurate literature. May sanity prevail, especially on this web site.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Rushdie is a failed academic by Yasser Al Sharara

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)