Salman Rushdie - Outrage.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Critic
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 09:50 AM

The Muslim Scientist and Philosopher Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq defined Literature as follows: "Literature is the garment which one puts on what he says or writes so that it may appear more attractive."

Of course some of the caustic commentators on here would not have read his works, but they are worth reading, unlike Mr Rushdies works.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 07:39 PM

I guess you could say Saddam was a uniter not a divider.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 12:02 PM

Guest Ibo- his work takes a little more knowledge of English than Ugh! Me Tarzan. You Jane!

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,ibo
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 05:49 AM

of course its absolutely ridiculous that idiots can over react like this,but how on earth does he get an award for such shit,that was my point.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:06 AM

Guest,Ibo---Perhaps you have not actually read the postings, or you're just trying to be cute. Some have not read Rushdie's work; some have read it and find merit to it; some have read it and, like you, didn't like it, or find it boring; some have read it and found it inflamatory towards Islam; someone has read it and thinks Rushdie should be killed so he doesn't have to write 'crap.' That last is, of course, the most enlightened position at Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,ibo
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 09:30 AM

has anybody sctually read his bloody awful books,i tried the satanic versus but couldnt stay awake long enough to turn the page.His is award for boring humanity?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 12:01 AM

But only if the dictator in question is willing to do the bidding of the governments of the US and the UK, right? Because after all, Saddam was a strong dictator, wasn't he? And he certainly did a good job of unifying the diverse collection of cultures in his country. So it really isn't about what's good for the people in those countries. It's all about what the governments of countries like the US and UK want and expect.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 11:40 PM

I prefer what will work. A good strong dictatorship is necessary.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 11:34 PM

CarolC, of course you could do a better job of unifying such a diverse collection of cultures.

Maybe not. But the only reason I can see for suppressing democracy is because one prefers totalitarianism.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 11:30 PM

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Hanlon's Razor

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 10:58 PM

CarolC, of course you could do a better job of unifying such a diverse collection of cultures.
Implementation of democracy in the Western sense is a long way off in that region. Just as it is in Iraq.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 10:48 PM

Carol: I disagree with the theory that you relayed, but I have good friends who honestly believe that is how the Bush Administration is orchestrating itself. Somewhere in the past I recall a quote without source: "Never attribute to malice what can be put down to incompetence".

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 10:44 PM

His control of the more moderate regions is shaky, and becoming more so as he attempts to bring all moderate groups under his control.

Not too difficult to understand why, if he's targeting the democratic secularists for punishment.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 10:35 PM

Well said.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 09:57 PM

"[I] found myself thinking that he would be better off dead than writting (sic) such crap."
You know, an unkind person might feel the same way about the person who wrote that despicable thought.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 09:26 PM

"...the people those people answer to..."

"...I told this acquaintance that I think the governments of the US and the UK are also covertly promoting Islamic extremism..."

Ah, finally. That tells us all we need to know about the thought processes of the poster--and like-minded individuals. It finally makes it clear why appeals to logic and requests for actual evidence--after over 400 posts-- that the knighthood was given in order to inflame Moslems-- are still going nowhere. And never will. Logic and evidence obviously play no role.

Well, at least it's a good balance for the rabid Right.

And very entertaining.

Thanks again.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 07:41 PM

The northwest frontier and Waziristan provinces constitute a large area in nortern Pakistan. The sole control is exercised by a number of tribal leaders, most of whom adhere to social forms that were prevalent in biblical times. Millions of Pushtun live in the region and subscribe to rigorous codes; the Taliban is the name of the young, those attending the madrassas, not a small, definable militant group susceptible to limited military actions.

Musharrif is unable, and never will be able, to enforce his rule over this large area and its peoples. He has made an understanding with the tribal heads that he will not interfere in the area, if they will not try to extend their fundamentalism to the more moderate regions under his rule. His control of the more moderate regions is shaky, and becoming more so as he attempts to bring all moderate groups under his control.

If some of the warlords shield alQueda (sp.) militants, there is little that he can do to stop them.

The U. S. attempts to control the Afganistan border, and Musharrif attempts to prevent militants from entering more moderate areas of Pakistan. A herculean task.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 06:49 PM

I'd go further and suggest that he's more use to them alive and free.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 05:19 PM

Likely because--assuming he's not already dead--he's more use to them alive.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:58 PM

And, without wishing to fuel the conspiracy theories even more, I think we should all ponder how it is that Osama, who's probably in Pakistan, has managed to evade capture for so long. We should ask George and the General why they don't seem to be trying very hard.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianvan
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:32 PM

Thats exactly right, Carol.

Its not a matter of freedom of speech. The point is that Muslim extremism should not be fuelled with such obvious fodder. It actually gives them more power.

You're also right about Musharraf. He only plays the game with the U.S. for his own political power. His power base is Muslim extremism and it has nothing to do with democratic principles. The sooner the U.S. faces this fact, the sooner something can be done about terrorist camps in Pakistan. Once again the U.S. is supporting another military dictator.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:49 PM

I am casually acquainted with a Pakistani national (who currently lives abroad), who told me that Musharraf may pretend that he is trying to suppress extremist Islamists in that country but the people he most often punishes are the democratic/secularists. This person says that he thinks Musharraf is actually encouraging Islamist extremism, because that helps him consolidate his hold on power.

I told this acquaintance that I think the governments of the US and the UK are also covertly promoting Islamist extremism for the same reasons, and maybe that's why the governments of the US and UK are so supportive of Musharraf.

I asked this acquaintance what the governments of the West could do to help the people of his country, or at least to not harm them, and he said they should stop supporting the army in Pakistan so that the Generals will become isolated, and then the democratic movements can use the democratic process to bring about change.

Any efforts the West can undertake to avoid energizing Islamist extremists would go a long way toward helping to promote democracy in countries like Pakistan. Things like giving Rushdie the knighthood have exactly the opposite effect.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:30 PM

No doubt. But, will I see you in heaven?

?nevaeh ni uoy ees I lliw, tuB. tbuod oN

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Cire Notpalc
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:08 PM

It gave us the greatest of pleasure to buy a copy of Satanic Verses in Spanish in Spain!!

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 12:25 PM

As noted before, "The Satanic Verses" is written on several levels. It can be read as an allegorical novel, but for fuller understanding it requires a basic knowledge of Islamic beliefs (including heresies; think of the 'gospels' not included in our bible). Helpful is a nodding aquaintance with old literature of the Middle East and an awareness of political and social change of the last 100 years. Nevertheless, it has gone through many printings in several translations as well as English and is one of the most widely read novels of recent years.
It is not the best book with which to become acquainted with perhaps the greatest living writer. He had written several others which are more 'accessible,' at least to those who claim to literacy.
His writings are not for those whose ideas of literature have not advanced beyond those embodied in romance novels or facile adventure pulp or tabloid prose.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 10:39 AM

Hmm ... there seems to be a slight discrepancy emerging in opinions on the literary merit of Satanic Verses ...

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 10:23 AM

In the bad old times, when the white male of noble descent was still the pinnacle of the creation, some of these men who had also a noble mind ventured the continents inhabited by savages to tell the white readers how the savages live and feel. Yes, they did tell their readers that contrary to some preconceptions the savages have human feelings and noble thoughts, and henceforth the "noble savage" was born. We regard this kind of anthropological writings now as patronising despite the sincere and noble motives of those who did the patronising.

The patronising of that era is out of fashion now, but we sometimes encounter a new way of supporting the feelings and actions of "nonwhites" that treats them once more as kids and not quite normal humans despite or even because of the sincere wish to support them. In contrast to the old patronising I call it matronising.

Whenever a group of "Non-Westerners" acts or threatens to act in a way that would not be tolerated or accepted at all if done by members of the in-group the matronisers show up and ask us not to treat the "Non-Westerners" as adult humans but rather as kids or "savages" whose outbreaks of temper are rather ignored than criticised. In the long run, this "support" and pampering is damaging to group it is meant to help.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Critic
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 10:21 AM

Salman Rushdies book belongs in the rubbish heap of literature. It is amongst the most utter cack ever written. The author has by international notoriety and Islamic distemper, been issued an accolade that demeans the very award itself. By default it caused inflamation of Moslems at a time when every attempt should be made to reduce such occurences. The award was ill timed, unearned, and indicates a general lack of intelligence involved in international affairs. After reading about a third of his book, I returned it to the library, and found myself thinking that he would be better off dead than writting such crap.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 08:46 AM

"Try "Shalimar the Clown." Pertinent, too. Shalimar starts out as a performer, but ends up as an Islamic assassin. In paperback now."


                               Thanks!

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 12:01 AM

Or perhaps its the people those people answer to answer to, ad infinitum. Why not.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:50 PM

Try "Shalimar the Clown." Pertinent, too. Shalimar starts out as a performer, but ends up as an Islamic assassin. In paperback now.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:40 PM

I don't personally think it was the committee. I think it was the people who were responsible for vetting the committee's decisions. That's who I've been talking about. Or perhaps the people those people answer to.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:34 PM

"...if anybody thinks that Muslim-baiting is in fact behind the knighthood..."


                It wasn't the committee, I don't think, that a number of us thought rose to the level of Muslim-baiting, it was Rushdie's literary efforts.

                But that could be totally bogus. I shouldn't be commenting on this thread, however, because I've never read anything by Rushdie. Maybe some of the more informed participants could recommend a Rushdie book that would give a reader the flavor of his literary efforts.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:50 PM

I'm really afraid that the recoil from all this jumping to conclusions that some people are doing around here is going to knock the Earth out of orbit.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 08:59 PM

Interesting. A few points.

Carol C --25 June 2007 11:53 PM: "My opinion is that it was Muslim-baiting".



Steve Shaw: I totally agree with you -- the Rachmininoff 2nd piano concerto does worlds for me more than the 3rd. Good to hear it from you. I bet the fascination with the 3rd has to do with that movie--can't even remember anything about the movie.. What do you think?

But I have to disagree on the Rushdie business.   Have you not heard of "No good deed goes unpunished?"   Why do you not think the committee, which is not required to be made up of foreign policy analysts, as far as I know, was both trying to honor a man's unquestionable literary achievement--and with classic clumsiness admittedly-- trying to build better relations between the UK and Asia--as the Guardian says? Neither of those should be a hanging crime.

However, if anybody thinks that Muslim-baiting is in fact behind the knighthood, it would seem, after over 400 posts, that perhaps it's time to start bringing out the evidence behind this theory---with source.

I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 08:49 PM

Yes, it must be admitted that Salman Rushdie does not write for the millions of sub-literates who are unable to achieve a GCSE grade D-G (the bottom level for the communication of ideas).

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 08:20 PM

I don't give a damn about "literary awards", arty-farty accolades for modern so-called "art" and all the rest.   I recorded the Beethoven 9th on DVD from the first night of the Proms as I wasn't able to watch it at the time. I read the Guardian review of it before I got round to watching it tonight. She must have been at a different concert to the one I watched. I'll make me own mind up thank you and won't be guided by some "literary prize" awarded or some "critic's" say-so. Salman Rushdie is of no interest to me or (at a guess) 99.5% of the population. I'm fed up of him and his lucky ilk getting knighted all the time. I'd like to see a lot more MBEs awarded to genuine people who've made a genuine effort in life above the call of duty and made a real difference in their communities. I can show you a woman in Cornwall who's done wonders for getting kids to play music in and out of school and damn near worn herself out in the process and she's been awarded bugger-all. So.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 07:02 PM

Best put your name with that post or it's gonna end up deleted, GUEST.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 12:13 AM

"...in the case of Sir Salman. Go out in the street and find one person who appreciates him. Such persons are as common as rocking-horse shit to be honest."

             Some of the posts are so long it's hard to get to the end of them, but isn't the point really that literary prizes have become so completely political they have little literary value anymore? They only exist, it seems to me, to promote the marketing of books, and if one can claim to have been targeted by an easily recognised enemy, that claim can serve the purpose of escalating interest in a writer's book.

             As far as the comittee who nominates knights, I'm inclined to agree with the people who contend they didn't know what they were doing. They nominated Paul MacCartney, when John Lennon, posthumously, would have been a much better choice.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 11:26 PM

If any of the posters who have criticized suggestions in this thread that Rushdie's knighthood was Muslim-baiting were referring to my posts in their criticisms, they have completely mischaracterized everything I've said (no surprise there), which is a very dishonest debating tactic. But I have no doubt that this causes them no concern whatever.

If they were not referring to anything I've said myself, then what I just said doesn't apply to them.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 10:21 PM

Now to the controversial parts. (extracted from the review, it will take me some time to reach them in my reading).
The dream-like adventures of one of the crash survivors, Gibreel, continue. One concerns "an epileptic woman, a seer, who leads a pilgrimage to Mecca, a tale evoking the Sufi theme of the immolation of the moth, the Exodus account (with the promise of the Arabian Sea parting for the pilgrims), the Pied Piper, Jonestown and other more recent religio-political movements in which the faithful follow a charismatic leader into the depths of destruction. There are many magical embellishments: The pilgrims follow a cloud of butterflies by day; their leader is literally clothed in butterflies, andd feeds upon tham for her sustenance. Her name is Ayesha, which is- but only coincidentally here, I think- the name of the youngest and favorite wife of the prophet Mohammed."
"Which brings us to the controversial part... the tales of Mahound and Jahila that embroider upon the life of Mohammed and the founding of Islam. Indeed, the title, "The Satanic verses" refer to an incident in the life of Mohammed, recorded by two early Arab historians (..named..), discredited by later commentators on the Koran, but taken up in western accounts as the "lapse of Mohammed" or his "Compromise with idolatry."
"The story goes like this: confronted by the resistance of the leading merchants of Mecca to his monotheism, Mohammed is reported to have accepted three local deities... (named..) as intercessory beings (or angels- "daughters of Allah"). This would have been a shrewd diplomatic concession, at least in the short run, since Mecca depended upon the income from the pilgrimage trade to the shrines of these deities.
"But Mohammed soon withdrew his verse of acceptance, saying that Satan had placed the words of concession upon his tongue. In the Koran, Mohammed concludes: ""Have you thought on [these deities]? Is he [Allah] to have daughters and you sons? This is indees an unfair distinction!" "They are but names which you and your fathers have invented."
"Mr. Rushdies revival of this story, the duplicitous Gibreel/Satan agonizing over his role in the incident, compounded by the story of a scribe who deliberately placed erroneous words into his transcription of the Koran, was bound to touch an angry nerve in the world of Islam, where the Koran (al-qu'ran means the recitation) is believed to be the word of God, transmitted without error. "

Grounds for complaint lie elsewhere- "particularly in the choice of the name "Mahound" for Mohammed. In the medieval Christian mystery plays, Mahound (spelled variously) is sometimes the friend of Pontius Pilate or Caesar, sometimes the friend or cousin of Herod, but always a satanic figure. (The name "Mahound" seems to have bbe created by the conflation of "Mahomet" and "hound.") How are we to understand the adoption- by a writer born a Muslim- of so defamatory a name for the prophet of Islam? And how are we to account for Mr. Ruhdie's incorporation of the name into the creed of Islam: "There is no God except Al-lah, and Mahound is his prophet"?"

"To understand the shock of this, Westerners might try a satanic substitution in the text of the Nicene Creed."
"Again, it must be remembered that this is fiction."

[I have to admit that I don't know what the Nicene Creed is].

Anyone interested in the complete review may find it by going online and looking for NYTimes- Book reviews, and then the articles on "Satanic Verses." Jan. 29, 1989.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 09:46 PM

Knighthood is not the only honor Salman Rushdie has received, it is merely the latest. He is also a recipient of both the Whitbread and Booker Prizes for literature. So he must have some knack for stringing words together. . . .

One Muslim reviewer of The Satanic Verses, after praising Rushdie for his poetic, imaginative, and thoughtful writing, says the following:

In the theme that runs through the story, Rushdie asks, "Where are the words, or verses, attributed to God/Allah really coming from?"

This reviewer (again, the reviewer was a Muslim) found Rushdie's writing thought-provoking.

Aye! There's the rub!

I might suggest that a number of Christians might ask the same question about many of the Bible verses they're fond of quoting.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 08:16 PM

"And the name 'Bostan' might prompt us to ask, isn't this precisely what the fabled oriental garden has become in our day - a terrorized, disintegrating jumbo jet?'"

Yeah, absolutely. Bejaysus, I was thinking the exact same thought meself just as I read your post. Uncanny or what. Heheh. Pour me a pint of whatever it is you're drinking, mate! :-)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 08:10 PM

Ron Davies- yours is the voice of reason. There is little place for it in this thread of mostly ignorant claims, suppositions, and knee-jerk reactions.
As a reviewer in the NY Times said at the time of the book's publication in North America (1989), "Some of the noisiest objections have been raised by people who have never read the book and have no intention of ever reading it. This opposition does little to educate a woefully ignorant and prejudiced Western public about the Islamic faith."

The book may be read surficially as a dreamlike novel of many parts, Rushdie's prose flows smoothly, often almost poetically; some of his writings are better heard than read, and a couple of the audiobook editions of earlier works are excellent. In this multi-layered book there is much to engage the reader who knows a little of the voluminous literature of the now Islamic region extending from southeastern Europe and the Mediterranean east into central Asia.

I have started to read the book, but slowly, with some aids at hand, because I would like to grasp Rushdie's implications and a little of his historical and philosophical knowledge, as well as the superficial story.

The NY Times reviewer of "Satanic Verses," A. G. Mojtabai, a writer in residence at the Univ. Tulsa at the time, exposes the multi-layered writing in the first paragraph of her review:
Salman Rushdie. author most famously of "Midnight's Children," opens his ...novel with a scene of human figures tumbling from the debris of a hijacked jumbo jetliner. The plane is named Bostan, which is both a Farsi word for garden and the title of the great didactic poem by the 13th c. Persian poet Sadi, proclaiming the virtues of justice, benevolence, self-restraint, gratitude, penitence and so on. This detail is not insignificant in Mr. Rushdie's work, where each act of naming is dense with implication. And the name "Bostan" might prompt us to ask, isn't this precisely what the fabled oriental garden has become in our day - a terrorized, disintegrating jumbo jet?"

(Dinner is calling- I will leave review of the controversial points of his book to my next post).

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 06:43 PM

You're a baby-and-bathwater man, Ron old chap. Neither you nor I nor Carol (whom you clearly target in your post) can know what was on the committee's mind when they voted "yea" for Sir Salman. Nor can we know, leaks aside, what influences they were working under. You are operating the null hypothesis - fair enough, but in the light of what's happened over Iraq and Israel/Lebanon in recent years under the stewardship of the Bush/Blair axis you really will have to cut us conspiracy theorists a bit of slack when we question the honesty of what's going on. Right, the rotten honours system always awards automatic knighthoods to ageing big businessmen and politicians falling off their perches and we all have to put up with that rubbish, but as for the rest we can at least expect a bit of pandering to popular opinion. But not in the case of Sir Salman. Go out in the street and find one person who appreciates him. Such persons are as common as rocking-horse shit to be honest. He has as much popular appeal as the average stale dog-turd. So forgive us for asking what the hell's going on. None of which is to say he shouldn't be honoured, but the only people who seem to like him are the same types who'll tell you that Rach Three is actually better than the Rach Two the rest of us love to bits just to demonstrate their "superior" knowledge (they'll put up with any amount of pain to show you how clever they are, including listening repeatedly to Rach Three just to convince themselves).   We smell a rat, Ron. Evidence, the call for which is your mantra, we have none, but saying that we suspect an element of Muslim-baiting is a lot less ridiculous than saying there's a God or the moon is made of green cheese when you think about it. Admit it. His bestowed knighthood, even in the context of our capricious honours setup, is odd in the extreme. Ask not for evidence, that what you will not get (we're talking big-time establishment here don't forget), but rather ask what's really going on.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,undertheradar
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 06:42 PM

Well said, Ron. And what do they mean by "Muslim baiting" anyway? Like Rushdie is being rewarded for ridiculing Muslim beliefs? (if that's even what he did.) Are they claiming he was paid to do it? After all, the British government later granted him protection.

Maybe That's Who Was "behind 9/11." The Brits needed America as their stooge to help them get back their empire starting with Afghanistan and Iraq. Later they'll split the oil with Cheney. He he! Must make sense to somebody somewhere.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 06:03 PM

Much arrant nonsense is written (spoken?) on Mudcat political threads--by both the Right and the Left.

On the Right we hear apocalyptic tales of what happens when we lose the Iraq war--ranging from headscarves for all Western women to that old favorite, the world-wide Caliphate. And all because we didn't have the patience to let the "surge" do its good work--which would have brought eternal peace on earth, no doubt.

On the Left we hear about the $ystem, and get the distinct impression that rather than "sinners in the hands of an angry God", these days it's pawns in the hands of an all-pervasive and all-powerful capitalist system. (In fact we're not pawns--that's a self-defeating attitude. But that doesn't bother the posters who like to wallow in that mudpit.) And the corollary, of course, is that there's no point to struggling against the situation. Furthermore, there's no difference between any two candidates--since the entire political system is owned by the International Capitalist Cabal. More nonsense.

But there's nonsense and nonsense.

The theory that Rushdie was chosen for a knighthood in order to "bait Muslims" is not only nonsense, but pernicious nonsense.

I see no reason to give a pass to anybody on the Left or the Right who writes pernicious nonsense--and somehow never can find any evidence to back up the charge.

We should be trying to strengthen moderate voices within the Moslem community. An absurd theory like this one--given more play than just on a folk music website-- plays into the hands of those who already believe the West is capable of no good. They then tell their fellow Moslems that even Western intellectuals admit the West is evil incarnate--that even something as positive as an attempt to bring the UK and Asia closer together (and recognize Rushdie's undeniable literary achievements) through this honor, was in fact an attempt to stir up Moslem outrage, in order to justify further attacks on Moslems.   And therefore, there's no point to compromise with the evil grasping capitalist West--even Western intellectuals agree. This will not encourage any Moslem moderates to push for negotiations with said evil grasping capitalist West. Just as the nightmare of the world-wide Caliphate brings out the Right to undercut any attempt at negotiation by the West--and is used as a club to fight attempts to do so.

Total drivel. And dangerous drivel. On both sides.

As I said earlier--so the knighthood committee has a tin ear for the nuances of international politics? We should be surprised? Only a self-styled intellectual blinded by his or her own fear or hate of Western regimes would immediately see the evil hand of a Western government behind the knighthood.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. And if I am, it would be appreciated if somebody on the other side of the issue would produce some actual evidence of "Muslim-baiting" being behind the knighthood. I wouldn't be as unreasonable as Teribus as to actually demand proof that "Muslim-baiting" was behind it--just a bit of evidence would be nice. However, it would have to be actual evidence, with source--as opposed to the dark absurd mumblings we've heard so far.

I'm no scientist, but I do know that a theory needs evidence. Otherwise, as I recall, it's rejected by any reasonable person.

And so far, it sounds like the "Muslim-baiting" theory is ripe for rejection.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 04:28 PM

"What's it gotten you?"

             Wisdom!

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 01:01 PM

Why, Rushdie could've been a beauty contest judge in Nigeria. He could have been a cartoonist in Denmark, he could've written presentation monologues for the Pope...

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Cluin
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 12:26 PM

A cynical reason? What's it gotten you?