:die-motherfucker: and bush continue to evade justice
If any kind of political activist offed JK Rowling, regardless of what their actual affiliations were, UK media and government would immediately declare that shooting trans people on sight will now be considered self defense
Rowling – who has previously been targeted by some trans activists for her beliefs on gender – had published a post expressing her horror at the attempt on Rushdie’s life, when one responder threatened her harm.
they're doing it already
She lives in a literal castle with (I assume, since billionaire) top of the line security.
She'll be fine.
:sicko-wistful:
castles have been successfully sieged before; i have faith in this person
Look, all I'm saying is that if I saw them sneaking around Rowlings castle and they asked me for a boost up, I'd help them.
:meow-shining:
British law will interpret this post quite badly, won't go well for this guy.
he was stabbed recently.
30 years ago he wrote a book that offended some really emotionally secure religious people who are still mad and want him dead
he also supported the american invasion of iraq, but i assume the stabbing is about the blasphemy not the support for imperialism because there are way better people to stab over that, especially if you're willing to make a one-way trip for revenge like that.
Holy shit TIL about this controversy. Two people who translated his book were stabbed to death, one publisher was shot but survived, and one translator had the hotel they were staying in firebombed by an angry mob, which resulted in the deaths of 37 people. All because the Ayatollah of Iran got offended and issued a fatwa against the author (who got put into protective custody for years). Religion delenda est.
I haven't read it and it's possible that Wikipedia is softballing it, but it seems like it has a series of segments about Mohammed's life, including a questionably true bit about him adding and then later retracting three verses from the Quran (the eponymous "Satanic Verses", since allegedly the reason they were stricken was because Mohammed realized they were told to him by Satan instead of God). Aside from that, it uses a lot of outdated language for Mohammed, Islam and Mecca that is considered offensive, and plays it fast and loose with the actual historical bits.
I dunno. I'm reading more about it rn and it's like if the Pope issued a Crusade against Dan Brown for the questionable historical interpretations in the Da Vinci Code.
edit: okay I've read a few non-Wikipedia sources and I haven't seen anything besides what I already laid out. The author was raised Muslim, and it seems that he had some knowledge about Islam-adjacent conspiracy theories that he worked into the narrative, which word of mouth spun into wild accusations that eventually reached Ayatollah Khomeini's ear.
I’m fairly certain there’s some horrible shit in there.
nah i doubt it. the crowing was always about blasphemy and I've never seen a comrade say the book is actually bad. There's a guradian article i didn't read that covers it, or you could take natopedia with a larger grain of salt.
perhaps more tellingly, i've never heard a sam harris type say the book is really good, which makes me confident it's not doing islamophobia in the post-9/11 sense.
Counterpoint: stabbing Brits
for talking shit about your cultureis good.
