I was asked originally by a
muslim to write a response to
Apatrix's wu, but I am quite glad that
rk2001 beat me to it however, as he demonstrated quite astutely the distortions that occur when someone hasn't a complete knowledge of the
background or
ethos of
Islam.
Islam, believe it or not, isn't primarily dogmatic. It is much more principled, and the principles are lent a huge amount of authority from the most reliably transmitted book in the world, the Quran. What people object to when they speak of the Satanic verses, isn't the author's freedom of speech, nor his personal opinions against Islam, but the false notes struck by someone who has only a rudimentary grasp of underlying Islamic Philosophy. From a purely analytical point of view, forgetting the authority of the Quran (which is pretty well beyond dispute, in regards to historical authenticity the Quran is everything the Bible isn't, ie complete, unaltered, and untranslated, and singular. The Quran represents the epitome of the purity of that Salman spoke about and which he vehemently opposes.)
The book is dogged by pollution of the soul and weakness in the face of daily life. It rings true in many western cultures, which are even now trying to rediscover themselves (England, Spain, Poland), but it has nothing to teach Muslims.
It is sheer arrogance, a quality that you can spot in him time and again from his original works, through his interviews, and even in his most recent appearance in the media in Bridget Jones Diary. The man has little intellectual capital and seeks to attention to his mediocre style of writing by courting controversy. One only needs to compare this work, as mentioned before, with another by an author in the same field: Gabriel Garcia Marquez's "Of Love and Other Demons" to realize just how inadequate Salman's grasp of literary style really is.
I don't think this book is worth any more of my time. Though I would recommend that everyone read "Of love and other demons" because it is quite good.