After reading Salman Rushdie's self-defense in Newsweek (Feb. 12), I am compelled to read his controversial novel The Satanic Verses. Anyone who is curious to know why the world's Islamic community is (or "should be") up in arms against the novel should read it to understand the grounds on which Rushdie and his opponents base their arguments.

The Ayatollah Khomeini, however, and those who advocate Salman Rushdie's death do not want the book read or published: they claim it is insulting to Islam and have issued death threats to its publishers in order to censor it.

Such violent opposition appears to stem from a lack of both critical analysis (beyond literal interpretation) and literary open-mindedness. Of course, angry Muslims are entitled to their understanding of the book, but the Iranian government (having assumed Islamic spokesmanship) refuses to acknowledge Rushdie's recent essay which renders his novel's intended reading.

To call for Rushdie's death without first giving him a fair trial is clearly an example of closed-minded barbaric intolerance. I suppose "an eye for an eye" has left those advocates of Rushdie's death blind; so much that the verdict "death for insulting" does not appear imbalanced and unjust.

Any violent attempt at censoring literature has fierce implications that no one should educate themselves to the issue at hand. Is this what Muslims want? By the same token, why should anyone, including Muslims, simply adopt the "insulted" point of view without reading and judging the book for themselves?

I would certainly like to know how angry Muslims, including those Iranian leaders who speak for Islam, have actually read The Satanic Verses, and how many have ignorantly hopped on the bandwagon of hate instead.

The Satanic Verses is a literary work of art and it is essential to treat it as such: read it and debate it with an open mind.

One final comment for the people calling for Salman Rushdie's death: the man's novel does not pose any physical threat to its audience so why should anyone who claims to be offended pose such a threat to its author -- the pen is mightier than the sword?