Donald Trump sucking all of the oxygen out of the new cycle once again means the attack on Salman Rushdie might not have received the attention it deserves.
For the most part, his stabbing was ground through the grotesque machine of news we all turn together these days. Plenty of people, celebrating the indefensible, said that he deserved it and it was hardly difficult to find this sentiment on sites that cater to an Islamic audience, though not only there.
Nor was it difficult to find Christian fascists using the incident to attack Muslims, though not because they wanted to defend free speech but just because they hate non-Christians.
And any supposed news person offering “context” made Rushdie “controversial” as if he were, you know, the kind of person you might want to stab because back in the day said he wrote something sketchy.
It is worth remembering that when the fatwa was first leveled against Mr. Rushdie, it was as political as religious. The ayatollah was old, Iran was not doing well and he needed a distraction.
It is also worth remembering that few religious leaders of any stripe came to Mr. Rushdie’s defense. The implicit message was: yes, if you offend somebody's God you are a legitimate target.
And it is worth knowing that the supposedly offensive passages in his novel—his work of fiction—come in a kind of magic dream They are not offered up in the mouth of a king or noble leader or as non-fiction, not that any of that should matter. Among other things, this raises the question of just how sensitive the blasphemy meter is. If a five-year-old child says, “I don't believe in God” or someone who suffers from Alzheimer’s gets drunk and starts cursing the prophet should they be stoned to death?
You would think that what would be controversial is a god too weak to tolerate words.
And what is absolutely uncontroversial is that religious folks around the world should be condemning the stabbing of this man. They should be repenting and begging forgiveness. You could pray for that, but don’t hold your breath.