Salman Rushdie wrote Satanic Verses a work of Fiction. The book was offensive and rude to a good many people. This practice is more common in publicizing seedy movies and Rock Bands, the idea is to intentionally offend/shock. Many that use this form of marketing call it "Publicity by Infamy". A sample of the Satanic Verses is shown below :

• On (page 461), he states, "nigger eats white man's [shit]".
• On (page 529), he mocked the black brethren by saying "black shit is bad".
• On (page 80) is found: ["the sister fucking British-shits"].
• The word [Fucking] used in his book fifty-two (52) times. It describes Margaret Thatcher as a [Bitch], he also mocks her name by using the word [Toicher] instead of her name Thatcher. He was also conspiring to have one night of love with the Queen of England.

Amazing England! Rushdie prevails where a blue blooded Englishman fails. Thanks to Maggie and her British votaries of free speech.

A more extensive collection is available in the "The Satanic Verses unexpurgated". Salman Rushdie was born into Islam and he used this knowledge to good effect. As the book is a work of fiction he wrote down what he wanted with no regard to any facts or common decency.

It is well known that the Quran is the as a source of Islamic belief and practices. If he had logically concluded in his research or analyses that the Quran was not valid, that therefore it might have been revealed by Satan, many would have appreciated his insights.

He also knew about the SUNNA (means "tradition") and is the sum of the sayings and actions of Muhammad as recalled by his wives, companions and followers. As such it is second only to the Quran as a source of Islamic belief and practices. Muslims use the Sunna as a Model as to how they should behave.

He decided to revile Islam, describing verses of the Quran as satanic and revealed by the Devil. He abused the SUNNA (Prophet of Islam, his companions and his wives, describing the latter as adulteresses). All this because he felt like it.

A member of the Literary Guild and world renowned author Roald Dahl attacked Salman Rushdie, calling him a "dangerous opportunist". Dahl said this type of sensationalism did get "indifferent" hooks to the top of the best-seller list "but to my mind it is a cheap way of doing it. He later told reporters: "I think he's a twit."

Britain, defender of freedom rushed headlong to support and defend this man using as a pretext, the necessity of freedom of expression, which is in this case, the freedom of revile and curse. Even in the west no one has a right to shout fire in a crowded hall and escape the punishment for causing a possibly fatal panic.

Yet one month before the publication of Rushdie's book, the partisans of free speech violated freedom of expression when they banned the book, SPY CATCHER by Peter Wright. This inconsistency makes it clear that their freedom is to do as they desire, not as people of other religions earnestly request.

And I wonder if we were to complain to the British Judges against a person who falsely accused me of being adulterer, what then their judgment will be?!! Would they defend him and justify his right to slander?

And if not, why do they use a deviant standard of justice concerning Rushdie's book which reviled those who are a model to Muslims around the world.

Is freedom so holy to them that they scaled the feeling of 1,000,000,000 Muslims worldwide? For what reason?

When they protect such a "book" whose manner of expression is so vulgar, it makes a mockery of freedom. It is another misuse of the slogan freedom, with a profound awareness that this is not the only time that the word, "FREEDOM", has been abused.