Since 1998, many had assumed that a Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie in 1989 had died out, including the author himself, supposedly. His recent knighting had, predictably with the current events being what they are, made the intolerant army of Allah angry, calling for his death for his blasphemy towards Islam, etc., etc., and all that.
Thankfully, this continued vocal Fatwa has led to a backlash against the intolerance of the Slaves to Allah from so many intellectuals. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former MP of Holland's Parliament, and now a US citizen,
likened the new "outcry" by the fundamentalist mobs to "...a crowd of Englishmen marched in London carrying effigies of Muhammad, peace be upon him, stacks of the Koran, miniatures of the Kaaba in Mecca and Saudi flags" and making a bonfire, throwing "...the items one at a time into that fire screaming 'Long Live the Queen!' each time the flames shot up." Ayaan has had to deal with the Islamic hatred of competing belief systems, as detailed in her two books, the manifesto,
The Caged Virgin and her memior,
Infidel, which I am currently reading.
Daniel Pipes,
going against the popular belief that the knighting is a sign of "British Backbone", correctly points out that the Fatwa wasn't over in 1998, when a false sense of security fell over the Rushdie's backers after an Iranian official claimed the death sentence was over. Now with his knighting, we see the security that was imagined quickly disappear with each chant of "Death to the Queen". What Pipes gets wrong, however, is that he criticises the British government for not thinking of the "implications" of their honoring him,
a sentiment echoed by the British Conservative Party MP Stewart Jackson. Instead, perhaps we shouldn't worry about the "implications" of what people thousands of miles away think about how we use our freedoms to honor those who we find to be of value to literature and society. Perhaps we shouldn't worry about the "implications" of our continuing to be free and exercising our freedoms. In fact, we shouldn't worry about the feelings of fascists who hate free societies that don't bow to their idea of law. Such thinking is bowing to their belief system, giving them veto power over our every action.
Christopher Hitchens, close friend of Sir Rushdie has been a constant defender of him in this whole charade. In
his latest Slate column states that we should disregard the anger of perpetually outraged religious fanatics and let them be angry while we freely exercise our freedoms. All attempts to please these people are pointless, he says.
I agree with Mr. Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali that we shouldn't live at the mercy of their delicate, impoverished egos. In fact, I think it's time that we relish their miserable rage and let them threaten us with death. We already have a Fatwa on all of us right now who don't follow such disgusting practices as "female circumcision" and "honor killings". I wish more people would see that. If we cease to be a free society because we let these thugs have veto power over how we use our freedoms, then we are no longer a free society. We might as well convert right now, if that is the case.
Compatible Devices 