Re. The article "Salman Rushdie was never safe"

Submitted by Bryan Taplits (United States), Aug 19, 2022 at 11:38

Very nice column, Dr. Pipes.

Here's my two cents: The fatwas issued in 1989 always would put Rushdie in danger, no matter how many years passed.

Why? Because as Rushdie and Christopher Hitchens maintained-it was less likely that as the years passed an Iranian agency of the Iranian Govt. would attack Rushdie.

But what was ignored: It was more probable that a fanatical student of Islam would read and be mindful of the fatwa (perhaps he learned of it in an Islamic school or in a violently radical Mosque. Or maybe from new Islamism friends)-and he would then try to execute it. The students of radical Islam ever generate, irrespective of the years gone by.

After all like most religions Islam puts a high rating on what has passed in the past- This is why Rushdie and Hitchens were wrong about Rushdie's safety-and you were right. I guess the phrase, "whistling past the graveyard" strikes this cautionary note and has passed down to us for a reason.
Rational people become a bit more cautious at night-not less. It's true they generally are not worried about a Mafia hit; what they are worried about are young muggers who aren't worried about breaking the law.

However the fatwa would be read and absorbed.

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".