Writes Salman Rushdie near the beginning of his new book, "Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder" (commission earned).
Later, he imagines himself in a dialogue with his would-be killer, and his first question is about that word, "disingenuous" — does the attacker even know what it means? Yes, he does: "It means you pretend to be telling the truth when you’re not."
But how is that a reason to want to kill somebody?, Rushdie imagines asking the man and prodding him with the insight that many people in America "pretend to be honest, but they wear masks and lie." Do they all deserve murder? Rushdie's imagined response from the man: "Silence."
पोस्ट्स
३० टिप्पण्या:
Why engage in hypotheticals? It was Islam.
I have no idea if this is true but in my mind someone who murders or attempts to murder a human being doesn't need any reasons but afterwards they look about for excuses. I suppose because the real reason is they want to murder and their threshold is merely someone they don't like.
I haven't read any of his work. It sounds awful.
Rushdie is familiar with the Muslim culture. There is no respect for Free Speech. He can't be surprised by all of this. But with that being said, no of this is not justifiable.
In America, we don't physically attack those we disagree with. We just try to put them in jail for the rest of their lives for a bookkeeping or documents dispute.
"his decision to kill me seemed undermotivated"
It doesn't take much for a Muslim to feel motivated to kill. Salman pulling punches here, not to coddle Muslims, I think, but to curry favor with his PC prog friends. Still a brave guy.
What Dave said @ 8:17am...
I'm reading it now. It is quite compelling.
Mohammed told him not to come
He said
That ain't no way to have fun, son
"his decision to kill me seemed undermotivated"
It's an order from Muhammad straight from the Quran. What's not to understand?
Undermotivated because or your words? Try drawing a cartoon of him.
I read the whole thing.
"But with that being said, no of this is not justifiable."
Correction, "none of this is justifiable."
I'm quite amazed that the extremely erudite Salman Rushdie doesn't know the meaning of "disingenuous" (ie. specifically: falsely naive or unsophisticated - not "pretending to be telling the truth when you’re not").
Perhaps he is, for some reason particular to his story, just being disingenuous in that sentence.
Did the knifer watch a re-run of Curb Your Enthusiasm episode with Salman Rushdie and Larry David minimizing the fatwa?
Is Larry in danger?
Will the book encourage action?
I'm sympathetic to the plight of Rushdie but not enough to read his books....This might be an unfair comment, but I always had the impression that although he might dislike the mullahs, his real passion was directed against the real enemies of humanity, people like Thatcher and Reagan.....On the plus side, the fatwa against him did wonders for his book sales and enabled him to get a lot of women. Up until the stabbing, it wasn't all bad.....I salute his courage. It must be awful to undergo an experience like that and to recognize that there are others like his assailant who are still out there and they are waiting for another chance-- and then to buckle down and go on to write a book about the experience. Salman is genuinely brave.
Salman has been through 35 years of this and he still doesnt get it
The assassin’s motive is well known,
“ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Following Ayatollah Khomeini's 14 February 1989 death fatwa against author Salman Rushdie, after the publication of Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses, British musician Yusuf Islam (previously and better known by his stage name Cat Stevens), made statements endorsing the killing of Rushdie, generating sharp criticism from commentators in the West.
In response, Yusuf Islam said that some of his comments were "stupid and offensive jokes" made in "bad taste,"[1] while others were merely giving his interpretation of Islamic law but not advocating any action.[2][3] Islam also said that later in the same programme he promised to accept the judgment of a British court if it found Rushdie innocent of any crime, blasphemy or otherwise.[1]
On 21 February 1989, Yusuf Islam addressed students at Kingston Polytechnic (now Kingston University) in London about his conversion to Islam and was asked about the controversy in the Muslim world and the fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie's execution. He replied, "He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear – if someone defames the prophet, then he must die."[4]”
“ I'm quite amazed that the extremely erudite Salman Rushdie doesn't know the meaning of "disingenuous" …”
You’ve a misread me perhaps because I used the pronoun he and you don’t know which person I’m referring to. I will rewrite one of the hes into a name so that no one else makes this mistake.
There is certainly a dark humor to the idea of disingenuousness as a motive for murder. It's actually making me laugh. And now I feel bad because this hater-of-disingenuousness really did try to murder Rushdie.
rhhardin,
Both The Satanic Verses and Midnight's Children are fairly enjoyable reading. One caveat, though; I and a number of people I have talked to found that we liked whichever one we read first, better, and the second one seemed kind of repetitive of the first. YMMV.
>Ann Althouse said...
You’ve a misread me perhaps because I used the pronoun he and you don’t know which person I’m referring to.<
No misreading. It isn't about the pronoun. "...he imagines himself in a dialogue with his would-be killer" makes it perfectly clear that "he" is Rushdie.
It is about the passage (It means, etc) from Rushdie indicated by the quotation marks: "...does the attacker even know what it means? Yes, he does: 'It means you pretend to be telling the truth when you’re not.'"
That is Rushdie, in his imagination, speaking for the attacker, using his (Rushdie's) erroneous definition of "disingenuous."
Again, I want to think that that is just Rushdie himself being disingenuous for some reason.
Anyway, not terribly important, just a surprising eye-catcher.
Midnights Children has a woody allen feel to it, as if woody allen worked at Ogilvy I suppose Satanic Verses tries for a python type take, but the ummah is not amused,
"Rushdie was more than game to poke fun at the danger that has shadowed him for years, going so far as to explain to Larry the benefits of the fatwa, which included weaseling out of social obligations (Sorry, can't attend your poetry reading! You know, fatwa and all…). But most importantly, don't forget the fatwa sex, which is the best sex of all the sex, as many women find it dangerously attractive to be with a man under fatwa."
They let you do anything, grab 'em by the....
No system can be considered just, that makes Blasphemy a crime.
The prophet Muhammad sucked camel cock.
has it been asked where does Rushdie stance on 'fatwa' against JKRowling
and then to buckle down and go on to write a book about the experience
=================
nothing beats corpse' eye view of own funeral! for authentic
It must be a blow to his ego to know his killer didn't really read that much of his writing. If you're going to be assassinated, its always nice to know your words activated a strongly motivated individual who passionately hated you for good reasons. As opposed to some clown, who could barely read.
I found it strange the in the land of guns (has Rushdie attacked the NRA? No doubt) his assassin used a knife.
the real scandal is the lack of security: One local cop and one state cop. No one checked the audience for weapons or stopped suspicious characters from coming in because it was against their policy of acceptance or something. Better dead lecturer than impolite.
Whats really sad is he was almost killed by someone and Rushdie never got a royalty payment from him.
"Why engage in hypotheticals? It was Islam."
Rushdie is currently an avowed atheist, however, he has been back and forth over the same ground for decades -- I am an atheist. I am a reform-minded Muslim. I am an atheist. -- like Schrodinger's cat that cannot resolve whether it lives or not. This mastication of hypotheticals is simply Rushdie's avoidance of an uncomfortable truth regarding the culture he was raised in, which may account for the wretched history of his serial marriages, currently on Number 5. Either Rushdie repeatedly wed the wrong sort of woman, or his brides wed the wrong sort of man.
Yet again - this is why I draw him. These people - who think it's OK and condone murdering someone who says "You're wrong." - are deserving of derisive cartoon mockery.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा