69 million page views

Thoughts

Reader comment on item: Khomeini vs. Rushdie, Two Decades Later

Submitted by Paul (United States), Feb 26, 2009 at 08:28

Hello,

Two things:

1. Noted you used the word "edict" not "fatwa." My guess is that there is an interesting reason for this.

2. Very important point in this paragraph. Good to expand to full oped column length article and publish widely.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dislike
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".

Daniel Pipes replies:

1. Yes, Khomeini's decision concerning Rushdie did not meet the requirements of a fatwa.

2. Thank you but I have written extensively on the Rushdie case - including a book - and so limit my comments on it at this point.

Next Comment >>

Reader comments (3) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
You are right [48 words]JohnnyMay 20, 2010 06:53173141
Khomeini [7 words]Jon PurizhanskyFeb 26, 2009 13:32151232
Thoughts [44 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
PaulFeb 26, 2009 08:28151219

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.)