Rushdie was deliberately provocative because he was describing his own cultural experience - in a sense his own commentary - on the Qur'an. He knew it was a sensitive subject since most of the world's religions protect their 'Words' very carefully, even if the bulk of their rituals are derived from regulated commentary on the 'Words', not the words themselves.

Like the Second Amendment.

But of course provocation was not his primary motive, if a motive at all. His motive was to explain how he came to be, what he had experienced. His sin was to be W*st*rn.

You can't be me, I'm taken

"He wasn't satirising or criticising."

If that is true that rather strengthens my argument.

I don't think critique, even provocative critique - and some people are provoked by everything don't need to be from the inside - whatever inside is - to be legitimate.

You probably know the term "outside agitator". Has a lot to do with the definition who inside or outside.