Under which context did Imam Khomeini issue a religious ruling (fatwa) in 1989 against Salman Rushdie, author of the notorious novel "Satanic Verses?It is important to denote that this fatwa was a specific and not a general ruling, implying it was only applicable to Rushdie in order to set a precedence- for he was regarded as the first of his kind to create sedition in the magnitude that he did, having received multiple prestigious awards in the West, whilst the controversy led to the deaths of many Muslims in India and Pakistan, prior to the issue of fatwa.The implementation of the fatwa was left to the discretion of the masses who believed in it, rather than on the agenda of any Iranian intelligence branch, that is more difficult to contain than any careful planning of high-precision intelligence services, explaining the extent of the protection provided around the clock for Rushdie.
Crucially, the aim of the fatwa was to clarify the extent of the danger of this sedition, that had already costed lives and to prevent greater seditions and hostilities between the peoples, in addition to deterring thousands of other Rushdies from being emboldened through fear emerging from the implementation of the ruling.Rushdies works served the systemic apparatus of the Western establishment that held him to high esteem, having even been awarded Knighthood during Queen Elizabeth's Birthday in 2007.
It is a matter of fact that the American and British intelligence services did not leave any stone unturned to implement strategies that would cause sedition and spread hatred between the different sects of people, inside countries with multiple races and religions in various Arab and Islamic countries.
One does not need to look far to notice Trumps exposure of the Obama administration's role in forming, equipping and arming ISIS to serve the very same goals of sedition, with the basis of injecting huge doses of hatred and grudges amongst the people they wish to conquer.Imam Khomeini clearly saw this matter early on, issuing a fatwa to prevent such malicious means that plant the seeds of Satan in human verses, rather than planting Satanic verses in the paths of those who seek reform, that Rushdie was a proponent.
This fatwa sought to cut the plots from its roots that seek to turn Muslim majority countries into a theatre of killing and destruction, as is happening in many Islamic and Arab countries, especially in Iraq and Syria.
Likewise, to deter everyone who tempts himself to invent these means of sedition, so they can live a life in fear, waiting for the implementation of the fatwa by any individual, with the need of devices to protect them around the clock.
The message is the price one will pay if they wish to play into the plots of the superpowers to divide and rule.Moreover, it is a fact that Rushdie's security protection has been in jeopardy, which paved the way for his recent stabbing despite the fact he has been receiving protection for more than three decades.
Are there any political implications behind this? Does America potentially wish to send a message to Iran, by virtue of relaxing the security measures and granting space for individuals to act on the fatwa? The reality is that American establishment provides round-the-clock protection for those with the least death threats, take for example former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
For example, the U.S.
pays 2 million dollars a month to protect Pompeo from supposed 'Iranian' threats, especially since he is believed to have been involved in the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani.
Despite the fact that Iran did not threaten him directly, he is provided with protection that costs the American taxpayerhundreds of thousands of dollars.It is worth asking why Rushdie was left vulnerable to this kind of attack without supposed protection.
Is it a question of America being unable to provide protection for Rushdie, whilst it has been provided for decades? Is America wanting to offer goodwill to Iran, through lending Iran a more proactive position and therefore getting rid of the consequences of having Rushdie on their lands and providing him with protection, that would score as a point against them? Does America want to send a positive signal to Iran regarding not pending matters that upset the nuclear agreement when the time comes, or do they seek to use the matter as an active card against Iran, given that the fatwa could be used as a cover for such action?If the former is the case, then firstly the Biden administration needs to retract and reverse the escalatory steps outside any agreement that the Trump administration had taken and the Biden administration claims to correct, rather than playing in the same field that is proceeding in the same unjustified hostile approach.
The reality is that signs of good intentions come to the heart of the matter and in their rightful context, not in side issues like giving space for the assassination of Rushdie, as a sign of compromise towards Iran in a particular matter, which America wants to prove.If the American establishment wants to atone for its aggressive policies, they must reverse their policies and stop inciting people against each other.
It should not interfere with the different issues and intertwine them with each other to reach unjust settlements.
The most important type of correctness needed is to correct the mistakes caused by arrogant powers and the concept of sovereignty over the people of the world.