To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=102635
475 messages

Salman Rushdie - Outrage.

19 Jun 07 - 09:52 AM (#2081014)
Subject: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Tunesmith

I see that the Muslim world is up in arms over writer Salman Rushdie being awarded a British knighthood. And Muslim countries wonder why many in the West think they are primitive and dangerous. Such an outcry doesn't help their case at all.

19 Jun 07 - 09:54 AM (#2081015)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Tunesmith

This belongs in the non-music section. Unless Salman is a closet folkie!

19 Jun 07 - 09:56 AM (#2081018)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

It was also ham handed in the extreme with the MIddle East in it's present state of flux, to choose now to make the award. I knew the minute I heard the news, that there would be an outcry from Iran et al.
Giok

19 Jun 07 - 09:56 AM (#2081019)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Folk Form # 1

The Muslim world is having another hissy fit. Gee, what a surprise.

19 Jun 07 - 09:59 AM (#2081021)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: The Borchester Echo

Salman Rushdie was up on stage with the Incredible String Band in about 1968 at the RFH.
I think that counts, though I don't think the recognition was for his musical abilities, exactly . . .

19 Jun 07 - 10:15 AM (#2081040)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Midchuck

Not as "ham handed" as ordering him killed for writing something that disagreed with their religion. I hate to say it, John, but I think you're running sort of a double standard here.

Peter.

19 Jun 07 - 10:30 AM (#2081053)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: George Papavgeris

I have to agree with John, Peter. The one doesn't cancel the other. The fatwa was and is outrageous, wrong, ridiculous, stupid, and anything else you'd like to call it. But this doesn't stop this honours move being insensitive, crass, provocative and illogical in today's world.

The two wrongs don't make a right, and a comparison makes no sense, because bad is bad. No double standard, quite the opposite: I condemn both, with the same logic.

19 Jun 07 - 10:35 AM (#2081056)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

Oh I agree with you Peter, however I think a little bit of discretion would have been the better part of valour. How are we all going to feel when someone dies in a bomb attack because of this?
It looks like, and probably is, an act of deliberate provocation on the part of the UK government, and as such it is as infantile a reaction as that of the Ayatollah Khomeni in ordering the original fatwah.
Two wrongs never did make a right!
Giok

19 Jun 07 - 10:55 AM (#2081081)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: guitar

I'm glad that he was made a sir and the Muslims having a hissie fit, I mean that's just them, you know its our way or no way

19 Jun 07 - 10:55 AM (#2081082)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: 282RA

While I don't fault the Muslims for what they do to Americans since we were stupid enough to involve ourselves in their affairs, this "Kill Rushdie" stuff is incredibly idiotic.

They're acting like bad-tempered children. This is why we should never have involved ourselves with these crazy bastards.

19 Jun 07 - 11:06 AM (#2081090)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Ian cookieless

Am I understanding some of these arguments right? We should curtail our own literary endeavors and freedom of speech by not honouring a very successful and respected writer whose sophisticated literature and free speech others tried to curtial by an order to murder, just in case those same attempted murderers don't like it? Should we also, in the 1960s, have laid off giving Martin Luther King the Nobel Peace Prize in case the KKK objected? Should I resign from Amnesty International in case terrorists, state murderers and torturers the world over object to me sending letters?

19 Jun 07 - 11:10 AM (#2081093)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Wolfgang

Rushdie knighthood 'justifies suicide attacks' (link to GUARDIAN article)

Ils sont fous les...

I would appreciate a common unequivocal reaction of the EU.

Wolfgang

19 Jun 07 - 11:11 AM (#2081094)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Richard Bridge

I suppose that Sir SR got his K for services to literature or something. Objecting to it on other grounds is foolish. I mean, imagine (just imagine for a moment) that Gary Glitter wrote a series of wonderful musical pieces, and then got a K for services to music. Would we object on the grounds that not only he was a convicted paedophile but also that some of his earlier "musical" works were thinly disguised paeans to paedophilia?

19 Jun 07 - 11:12 AM (#2081095)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

We have been interfering in their lives for quite along time, not surprised they're a bit hacked off with western meddling.
G.

19 Jun 07 - 11:17 AM (#2081100)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

Having read the article linked by Wolfgang, I would just point out that Pakistan is regarded by the west as an ally, in their fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
G.

19 Jun 07 - 11:19 AM (#2081103)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Ian cookieless

Richard, don't get your point. What non-literary thing is it that Salman is to be blamed for? Or have I missed the point?

If Pakistan's sabre-rattling threat is to be seen as OK, is it also OK for me to track down anyone on this thread who I feel insulted by and kill them? Or invite others to do the same? Do they really think their God is so small that he needs protecting against insults - by death squads?!

19 Jun 07 - 11:20 AM (#2081105)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

So, Giok, when an Islamic nation does something that upsets us, we are supposed to be understanding and not object, while if we do something they do not approve of, it is our fault, and our responsibility to backpedal?

Sounds as if you do not think that Islamic nations should be treated as "adults" but as immature, ignorant children who are not responsible for their actions. I do not agree with such bigotry about ANYONE.

19 Jun 07 - 11:25 AM (#2081113)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

I agree that the fatwah was a gross over reaction, I am merely pointing out that we do meddle an awful lot in their affairs, and also presume to tell them how they should live their lives.
It is really none of our business what they do in their own country.
Giok

19 Jun 07 - 11:29 AM (#2081122)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Ian cookieless

Threatening to kill a British citizen, none of our business? Is this none of our business?

19 Jun 07 - 11:31 AM (#2081124)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Stilly River Sage

I agree with Ian.

George P. said: But this doesn't stop this honours move being insensitive, crass, provocative and illogical in today's world.

Not so. Suspending all such recognition until things settle down in the Middle East surely condemns writers like Rushdie to no acknowledgement of their life's work. That would be silly. There many are people in the Middle East (and other nations with large Muslim populations, such as India, where he is actually FROM) who are not part of the current madness and who still care about these kinds of things. Ignore the "squeaking wheel" for once and give others a chance at enjoying a bit of normalcy.

Stop acting as if this madness that George W. Bush has escalated and Israel has exacerbated to its fullest is ruling the entire Muslim world. It isn't, and many people who aren't terrorists would like to get on with their lives and perhaps some of them who aren't fundamentalist zealots even enjoy his work. Let them.

SRS

19 Jun 07 - 11:35 AM (#2081129)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

It is really none of THEIR business what WE do in OUR own country.


Must be true, since it is what you said about them...

19 Jun 07 - 11:41 AM (#2081136)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

Correct Bruce, it works both ways.
However we [the UK] have deliberately provoked an unnecessary piece of unpleasantness, and that is why the Pakistan parliament is voting in the way it is.

G.

19 Jun 07 - 11:42 AM (#2081138)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: concertina ceol

Apart from being a fairly obscure author - has anyone read any of his books? - the poor bloke is famous for two things - this dreadful fatwa and "naughty but nice" - which may be a desciption applied to the knighthood perhaps?

19 Jun 07 - 11:44 AM (#2081143)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

On the menu at a fast-seafood resaurant:

Salmon Rushedy.

19 Jun 07 - 11:46 AM (#2081146)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: heric

should be a fatwah on you for that joke

19 Jun 07 - 11:51 AM (#2081150)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

However THEY [the Islamic nations] have deliberately provoked an unnecessary piece of unpleasantness, and that is why the West is acting in the way it is.


If the West were to react the way the Islamic nations have, YOU would certainly be vocal in criticising it- So, why are you giving tacit approval to the Islamic nations reations?

Double standards indicate a failure to view one side or the other as fully human, and responsible.

19 Jun 07 - 11:51 AM (#2081151)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

I always have the fatwah trimmed off before it leaves the kitchen. Salmon, however, need no trimming.

19 Jun 07 - 12:04 PM (#2081165)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Bill D

You have to be careful when you insult religious icons...

from 2nd Kings:
"2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

attempts at explanation here

I am tired of this sort of attitude...from ANY group. There is a huge difference between being slandered in such a way that it causes demonstrable harm, and merely disliking what others say about you or your beliefs. There are remedies for the former, but pronouncing death sentences for imagined 'insults' is beyond the pale.

I wonder if Rushdie was consulted and if this outcome was debated before the public announcement. Surely *HE* realized there would be a reaction? In a world full of irrationality, one takes one's chances....and sometimes it is worth pushing the envelope to make a point.

19 Jun 07 - 12:24 PM (#2081179)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

Bruce, it would appear that you in common with your president and our prime minister, don't subscribe to the old bible proverb, "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger."
The Bible, Proverbs 15:1.
G

19 Jun 07 - 12:33 PM (#2081194)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ebbie

John Hardly, I *always* trim the fat off salmon. Truly. Especiazlly off the king.

19 Jun 07 - 12:38 PM (#2081200)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

hmmm...

...so the fatwah was calling up untrained bears -- right out of the woods -- to kill Rushdie?

19 Jun 07 - 12:49 PM (#2081208)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Bill D

Not exactly....Elisha asked GOD to send the bears. Presumably, God made the decision as to the fairness.

The fatwah is assuming the role of GOD and calling on ignorant humans to assume the role of bears. very presumptuous

19 Jun 07 - 12:49 PM (#2081209)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Jean(eanjay)

Islamic extremists have placed an £80,000 bounty on the writer's head.

19 Jun 07 - 12:52 PM (#2081215)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: concertina ceol

you'd never get the head through passport control with a bounty on it

19 Jun 07 - 12:59 PM (#2081222)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

"Not exactly....Elisha asked GOD to send the bears. Presumably, God made the decision as to the fairness.

The fatwah is assuming the role of GOD and calling on ignorant humans to assume the role of bears. very presumptuous "

That's what I was getting at. I might view the Rushdie circumstance differently if what was called for against him required the supernatural to determine the "fairness".

Instead, you compare the two.

19 Jun 07 - 01:00 PM (#2081223)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: kendall

Giok, by way of balance, they started it all around 700 AD when they invaded North Africa and Spain. They butchered tens of thousands in their zeal to expand Islam.

19 Jun 07 - 01:18 PM (#2081236)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

I agree with George - this knighthood was a bloody stupid idea.

19 Jun 07 - 01:25 PM (#2081243)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Jean(eanjay)

If I was Salman Rushdie I wouldn't want the knighthood if it was going to cause all this trouble.

19 Jun 07 - 01:32 PM (#2081253)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: dick greenhaus

Mybe it's just me, but when I read some of the above can't help thinking about the story of two social workers that stubled across a battered, bleeding body in the street. Said one," The man who did this....he really needs our help"

19 Jun 07 - 01:33 PM (#2081254)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

Luke 22:36

36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

19 Jun 07 - 01:33 PM (#2081255)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: M.Ted

Knighthood? Whatever.....

19 Jun 07 - 01:48 PM (#2081271)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

"It's my can of petrol. What rightbhave you to you suggest I shouldn't pour it on that bonfire."

19 Jun 07 - 01:51 PM (#2081276)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

I wonder if it has anything to do with something in the water.

19 Jun 07 - 01:53 PM (#2081281)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,mg

Bloody stupid idea agreed. mg

19 Jun 07 - 01:56 PM (#2081284)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

McGrath,

So you agree that the Islamic nations are wrong for threatening Israel and the West? You agree that Iran does NOT have the right to violate international law and build those uranium enrichment olants? You agree that Iran and Syria are wrong for supplying arms to terrorists in Lebanon?

If not, YOU are the one pouring gasoline on the fire.

19 Jun 07 - 02:03 PM (#2081287)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

Sorry Bruce, but sometimes you sound the tensy weensyest bit Paranoid!
G.

19 Jun 07 - 02:06 PM (#2081291)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

And YOU sound like you do not think that the Islamic nations should be held to the standards YOU hold the Western ones to: Is that because of their racial "inferiority", or do you just think that they are right and we are wrong?

19 Jun 07 - 02:09 PM (#2081293)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

Fundamentalists are arseholes.

19 Jun 07 - 02:09 PM (#2081294)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: heric

cultural room-for-improvement-in-some-details maybe

19 Jun 07 - 02:12 PM (#2081295)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

It is wrong to expect other nations to share our standards, you know little things like democracy?
Not that our version of democracy ios anything to shout about!
G

19 Jun 07 - 02:16 PM (#2081298)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

"It is wrong to expect other nations to share our standards"

So, you are saying that WE should not expect them to meet OUR standards, but it is OK to require US to meet THEIR standards???????


You really don't consider them to be equal to the West, then?

19 Jun 07 - 02:21 PM (#2081300)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

When it comes to breaches of international law and refusal to comply with UN resolutions the USA and Israel are not really in any position to point the finger.

But that's thread drift.
..........................
My point is, there is a duty to take into account the predictable consequences of our actions. Sometimes there are adequate reasons that justify doing things which we know will have some undesirable consequences. I don't think that this is the case when it comes to this public honour for Rushdie.

19 Jun 07 - 02:28 PM (#2081305)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

There is a duty to take into account the predictable consequences of ANY actions. Sometimes there are adequate reasons that justify doing things which is known to have some undesirable consequences. I don't think that this is the case when it comes to the actions ond declarations of many Islamic countries.

Why are THEY not held to the standard you hold the West to?

Do you really think they are that inferior to you?

19 Jun 07 - 02:37 PM (#2081312)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: greg stephens

McGrath: your position is impeccably logical and ethical. Now, the Taliban don't allow instrumental music, they think it is irreligious. So, have you thrown away your guitar? And if not, why not?

19 Jun 07 - 02:42 PM (#2081313)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

Nor do they allow the use of alcohol. But you seem to think the West should comply with the standards of the Islamic nations...


And no more pork products. It might annoy them.

19 Jun 07 - 02:44 PM (#2081316)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

You don't get it do you, why should we expect them to meet our standards, or vice versa, what we haven't tried is leaving them alone to get on with their lives.
I would have thought that America after their experience in Vietnam would have been wary of getting into another situation like that, yet still they walk into Iraq, and our damn fool of a Prime Minister backs them. Why can't we leave them alone?
They have different standards to us, leave it at that.

19 Jun 07 - 02:48 PM (#2081319)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: 282RA

Then there was Theo Van Gogh who directed a short film written by a Muslim woman concerning violence against women in Islamic culture.

Van Gogh was gunned down in cold blood by a Muslim man living in Holland. Van Gogh's last words were, "Can't we talk about this?" as he lay dying in the street. The killer's response was to shoot Van Gogh several more times.

19 Jun 07 - 03:23 PM (#2081334)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

"Britain has voiced "deep concern" after a Pakistani minister appeared to state that Salman Rushdie's knighthood justified suicide bombings."

Definitely something in the water . . . .

19 Jun 07 - 03:28 PM (#2081339)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

"Rushdie was forced to go into hiding for years after the spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a death sentence against the author for blasphemy in a fatwa (edict) in 1989."

19 Jun 07 - 03:31 PM (#2081343)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

'80,000 pounds bounty on head of Rushdie

London, June 19: Protesting against Britain's decision to Knight Salman Rushdie, an Iranian Group on Tuesday announced an 80,000 pound bounty on his head prompting the authorities to review the security of the controversial India-born author.

The Scotland Yard is reviewing security around Rushdie, who turned 60 today, and is all set to get round the clock police protection.

The bounty was offered by the Tehran-based hardliners 'the organisation to commemorate the martyrs of the Muslim world', which said it would pay an 80,000 pounds reward for anyone "who was able to execute the apostate Salman Rushdie".

Rushdie spent a decade under the threat of an Islamist death sentence after his book the satanic verses was deemed blasphemous over its irreverent depiction of the prophet.'

Great bunch of folks. Their edicts just reek of love.

19 Jun 07 - 03:39 PM (#2081353)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

This has nothing to do with the 'sacred culture of the Muslim world'. This has to do with fucking maniacs who have gotten away with terror for too many bloody years. Perhaps world leaders should get permission before they say anything that might upset the greatest group of lunatics on the planet. Yeah. That would be a good thing to do.

Gee, Islam--or which ever group of fucking fundies speaks for you today, would it be OK for us to hold an election? Wake up.

19 Jun 07 - 03:42 PM (#2081354)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

If I were in a community where they were dead opposed to music on religious grounds, such as is the case with some extreme Protestant and Islamic Fundamentalists I'd be careful about singing on the street corners, that's true enough. That wouldn't mean I'd agree with the bastards, it's about common sense.

If I were Salman Rushdie I think I'd be very pissed off at the British Government for stirring the shit like this.

Here lies the body of old John Gray
Who died defending his right-of-way.
He was right — dead right — as he rolled along,
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

19 Jun 07 - 04:00 PM (#2081374)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

Hey, M,

Which are the protestants who are demanding a music free nation?

19 Jun 07 - 04:03 PM (#2081377)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: greg stephens

McGarth: in point of fact, if you were Rushdie you'd have been asked if you wanted it.

19 Jun 07 - 04:07 PM (#2081381)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

Fuck Islam and its Fatwas. Arseholes.

19 Jun 07 - 04:09 PM (#2081383)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

This 'blame the victim' shit is taking over too many mindsets.

19 Jun 07 - 04:15 PM (#2081392)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

They had the bounty for years. Rushdie is still alive.

19 Jun 07 - 04:17 PM (#2081394)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Jean(eanjay)

It can't be much fun living with that hanging over you.

19 Jun 07 - 04:18 PM (#2081395)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

Yeah, I suppose that's so greg. The line between stupidity and courage is hard to define sometimes. But the chances are he'll be all right. Others might not be so lucky.

There are times when it's worth sticking your neck out for a principal. But when it's other people's necks, and there's no principal involved... (I mean, accepting a knighthood in the Queen's Birthday Honours is not a principal.)
...............
I should have said "is or has been", John - the trouble is the Muslims are still bang in the middle of their Reformation.

19 Jun 07 - 04:24 PM (#2081398)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

And the lunatics are winning.

19 Jun 07 - 04:29 PM (#2081404)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: katlaughing

Giok, it's just another spew ethnic hatred thread, no sense in trying to talk sense to those who want to slag off and use broad generalisations.

19 Jun 07 - 04:30 PM (#2081406)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

Bullshit!

19 Jun 07 - 04:32 PM (#2081408)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

Next we're going to have the offended folks telling us that the Fatwas are simply expressions of faith and the bounty is the logical result of consulting the Holy Book.

19 Jun 07 - 04:37 PM (#2081413)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,meself

Okay, now what's the general feeling over there - was Rushdie going to receive this anyway, or was this done as a nose-thumbing at Iran?

It makes a difference - to me, anyway.

19 Jun 07 - 04:45 PM (#2081417)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: heric

I wondered that myself meself. But, if I understand the nature of the honor correctly, he's receiving something that 2,600 people per year receive. With such a number I suspect he is a well qualified recipient.

19 Jun 07 - 04:45 PM (#2081418)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

"...the trouble is the Muslims are still bang in the middle of their Reformation."

Exactly where is the sign of that?

19 Jun 07 - 04:45 PM (#2081419)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Jean(eanjay)

GUEST,meself - Islamic extremists say that it was done deliberately. I can't, for one moment, imagine that is true but concertina ceol made the point that he is a fairly obscure author. I haven't read anything written by him (not that that means a lot!). You're right though - it would make a difference to me too.

19 Jun 07 - 04:51 PM (#2081426)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

The British say no, Iran and Pakistan say yes.

19 Jun 07 - 04:53 PM (#2081427)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

'In a second day of small-scale street protests, more than 100 supporters of various religious groups demonstrated in front of the press club in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore. About two dozen followers of a Sunni Muslim group chanted "Hang Salman Rushdie," while Shiite activists torched a British flag and chanted "Down with U.K.!"

In the southern city of Karachi, about two dozen supporters of a religious political party chanted "Death to Salman Rushdie!" and burned an effigy of the author.'

19 Jun 07 - 04:54 PM (#2081428)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Tunesmith

He is very famous in the UK - for all the wrong reasons. And, of course, I'm sure many book-shops world-wide have not stocked his books for fear of extremist reactions!

19 Jun 07 - 05:00 PM (#2081431)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,282RA

The West, as usual, has it backwards. We go to the Middle East where we show the people there no respect for their laws or culture but instead torture and kill them by the thousands. But when the Muslims here start bombing and shooting people over the most trivial crap imaginable, we're supposed to respect their customs.

No, over there we must respect their customs. Over here, they respect ours. If they don't, I say deport the filthy lot of them. When you're in my house, you damned well better behave yourself and if you don't then get the fuck out.

But we must not bend to Muslim threats of violence over those things that we do here in the West or they will simply resort to it every single time until we finally get the balls to kick them out of our borders.

I don't want it to come to that but if we don't stop this idiotic "we must respect their feelings" care-bear crap, that's what it will come down to.

I do not understand how we can crack down so hard on Muslims over there and run off like scared dogs from the Muslim extremists over here.

Here's my message to Muslims extremists in the West: Take your fucking asshole prophet and GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!!!!

19 Jun 07 - 05:05 PM (#2081434)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

Reformation? The history of the Sixteenth Century is full of parallels with the religious fanaticism and extremism that has been seen in the Islamic World as True Believers have set out to eliminate what they see as the laxity which has crept into their religion, and to purify it by going back to their version of Islam.   

When the Taliban destroyed those ancient Buddhist monumental statues, that was an echo of what happened in various parts of Europe in Cathedrals and churches as they were "cleansed of idolatry".

One shouldn't read too much into dates, but in the Islamic calendar the year is 1428.

19 Jun 07 - 05:11 PM (#2081438)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

There are two Islams. The Islam of the common people and the Islam of the idiots, just as there seems to be two Christianities. I have NO respect for fundamentalists in either. When that arsehole (Robertson?) said it would be good to kill Chavez, many people supporting this bullshit from Iran and Pakistan talked against Robertson. So what's the friggin' difference all of a sudden? Two-faced is what it is.

19 Jun 07 - 05:32 PM (#2081459)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

Robertson is an idiot. But he did not order the death of Chavez. He foolishly commented that it would be a good thing, but he did not order it. Nor is his "religion" one where anyone misunderstood it as an "order" like a fatwah. If anyone did misunderstand it, it was exactly that -- misunderstood.

The problem is not how "fundamental" a religion is. The problem is what the fundamentals are.

19 Jun 07 - 05:34 PM (#2081461)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Don Firth

Before we go off totally half-cocked here, I'd like to mention that I've heard a number of interviews with Muslims who are absolutely horrified and disgusted by what Muslim extremists are advocating and doing. They point out that you can comb through the Koran and cherry-pick verses, ignoring context, to justify whatever atrocity you want to commit.

Of course, one should not forget that the same holds true for Christian extremists who cherry-pick verses from the Bible.

How much are you going to let someone else's irrationality dominate the course of your life?

Don Firth

19 Jun 07 - 05:42 PM (#2081471)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

As Don said, there are plenty of Muslims who are horrified and disgusted by this kind of fanaticism. But this knighthood business has just made it a lot harder for them trying to make some headway against the True Believers.

19 Jun 07 - 05:43 PM (#2081473)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Ian cookieless

What I don't get is why some contributors to this thread can't see that Pakistan and all their fundamentalist ilk are behaving like a brutal father, husband, school bully or gangster: "Do exactly as I say and don't upset me or I'll beat the shit out of you."

Now it's true that many western countries have done or still do behave this way. That doesn't make it OK for us or for other countries to do it.

And I can't see that being fearful (or just plain sloppy-headed) and just handing over your money, brains, freedom, will and knighthood to a fascist bully is the best way forward.

Mmmmm. If it is, then everyone on this thread send me $1,000,000 or I'll send the boys round with bombs strapped to their sorry asses.

19 Jun 07 - 05:44 PM (#2081474)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Bill D

Idiocy and narrow-minded attitudes come in many, many flavors. One of the problems with idiocy in Islam is that there is little central authority to stand up and say "behave yourselves!" It has become culturally accepted among zealots to listen to ANY local Imam who issues a call to "kill Americans and anyone else *I* claim has insulted Mohammed".....as long as the sane, quiet Muslims are afraid to defy and/or condemn violence, it will continue...
....and as long as wild-eyed young people can be convinced thru nis-reading of the Koran that Paradise awaits those who commit suicide in the name of some whim of a radical cleric, it will not only continue, it will get worse.

You cannot negotiate or explain anything to those who BELIEVE you are evil.

Even Musharrif in Pakistan is afraid to directly condemn violence against Westerners.

19 Jun 07 - 05:52 PM (#2081481)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

Is it merely idiocy when some authority figure orders the death of someone? Robertson is an idiot. An Imam or Ayatollah who orders the death of another is something more than an idiot.

19 Jun 07 - 05:58 PM (#2081493)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Bill D

no, it's narrow-minded..(as I said) hateful, arrogant...etc..but what good is it to think up lists of adjectives?

I'm just trying to understand HOW it works.

19 Jun 07 - 06:00 PM (#2081494)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

I don't think anyone is suggesting handing over a knighthood to anybody. Apart from those who think that handing one to Salman Rushdie was a good idea.

19 Jun 07 - 06:18 PM (#2081517)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I suspect, in being given this honor, Mr. Rushdie is getting long-due recognition for his services to the U.K. government in the form of Muslim-baiting. The exquisite irony of which is the fact that awarding him this honor is, in itself, a rather spectacular instance of Muslim-baiting, and an extremely successful one, if the majority of responses in this thread are any indication.

Congratulations to the government of the U.K.! Brilliant plan indeed!

19 Jun 07 - 06:24 PM (#2081522)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Bill D

It's dangerous to assume motivation....call it foolish, but take care 2nd guessing what was intended.

19 Jun 07 - 06:31 PM (#2081528)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

Well no surprise to see you here Carol, I wondered when you would show. Mr Rushdie has not indulged in Muslim baiting, the book which caused the original Fatwah, The Satanic Verses was published without any comment, until a group of Muslims in the English Midlands, somewhere like Bradford I think, declared it to be blasphemous. This ties in with Bill D's post above. Up till those people decided it was an insult to Islam, nobody had taken much notice of the book, and it certainly wasn't a book written with the intent of insulting anybody.
Salman Rushdie is I believe an apostate, one who converted from Islam to another religion, apostasy is forbidden, and punishable by death in Islam, so he was never going to get a fair hearing was he?
He has throughout maintained a dignified silence on the subject, and has not commented or retaliated in any way as far as I know, against those who threatened his life on a whim.
I suggest you read this ONE book which has been the cause of all the anger against him from Islamic fundamentalists, and then you come back and make an INFORMED post on the subject.
Giok

19 Jun 07 - 06:40 PM (#2081536)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

Ahem. I do like the idea that our glorious nation can honour its citizens who do public good. But I look at the MBEs and OBEs and see some genuine people who've done genuine good by sheer hard graft and I'm inspired and uplifted. Then I look at the CBEs and the knighthoods and, by and large, I see big businessmen, wealthy lords, and lucky millionaires such as Sir bloody Cliff, Sir bloody Bob, Sir bloody Alan, Sir bloody Paul, Sir bloody Mick and who's that scruffy sod who runs Virgin and is so bored with life that he has to fly silly balloons around the world, I forget his name.   To be honest, if I were Sir Salman I'd say to the queer old dean at the sword-swatting ceremony that I'll settle for an MBE, old girl - I really don't fancy joining the wealthy toadie brigade! Let's keep the whole silly charade in proportion! :-)

19 Jun 07 - 06:42 PM (#2081540)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

I forgot the worst one of the lot - Sir bloody Elton!

19 Jun 07 - 07:15 PM (#2081563)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

By their fruits, Bill.

One doesn't avoid engaging in Muslim baiting (or any kind of racial or ethnic baiting, for that matter) to protect the extremists, such as the ones who issued or who support the fatwas. One rejects the practice of Muslim baiting to protect the Muslims who do not agree with the fatwas, and those who support them, from the kind of generalized hatred of all Muslims and all forms of Islam that we see so amply demonstrated here in this thread.

19 Jun 07 - 07:19 PM (#2081565)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I think I've said all I need to say here in this thread, Mr. MacKenzie.

19 Jun 07 - 07:47 PM (#2081593)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

There is no question but that the Satanic Verses is indeed "blasphemous" for Moslems, and that Salman Rushdie, as a Moslem (and only a Moslem could have written the book) was aware of this. The question has always been, what is the right response which people should make when a book is published which is blasphemous in terms of their religion and felt as deeply offensive.

I think that most people would agree that the way that book burning and threats of death are not the right way, and that that response did a great deal of harm, not least to Moslems. It is right to challenge that response. But what is not right is to underestimate the extent of the sense of injury which induced it. That sense of injury was felt by Moslems who are in no way extreme, including those who are horrified at then very notion of death threats.

19 Jun 07 - 07:53 PM (#2081601)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,282RA

It doesn't matter if it was Muslim-baiting or not (and that's just your opinion), that doesn't excuse the behavior of Muslim extremists threatening violence. Goddamn it, all the man did was write one fucking book--ONE FUCKING BOOK--and they want to kill him over it.

Bearded Bruce is right. You people excuse their hatred and violence (and you do so don't bother denying it) but condemn it in yourselves. That is patronizing. That is saying that you are morally superior to them and hence you do not EXPECT them to understand anything as clearly as you do and so we must not do anything that will irritate the little buggers.

While my own moral ground is weak when I say that Muslims over here need to behave better and understand I don't give a shit about sharia when we're invading their lands and blowing the shit aout of everything that moves, I still expect the Muslims over here to behave. They're people, they're adults--I expect them to act mature and civilized even when I don't. And I expect them to expect the same of me.

If the Queen wants to knight Salman Rushdie, then so be it. Just accept it because that's how it is. This idea that I'm going to kill him or pay somebody to kill him because a book I don't like is bullshit and it's inexcusable and abominable behavior. It's unacceptable in any country that considers itself civilized.

Yes, America and Britain need a good arse-kicking and they are getting one. But civilized human being needs to act like a civilized human being no matter where he lives or under what circumstances.

19 Jun 07 - 07:58 PM (#2081607)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

282RA, please show me where I have excused the behavior of the extremists.


I draw your attention to this post of mine, which you seem to somehow have missed...

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 07:15 PM

By their fruits, Bill.

One doesn't avoid engaging in Muslim baiting (or any kind of racial or ethnic baiting, for that matter) to protect the extremists, such as the ones who issued or who support the fatwas. One rejects the practice of Muslim baiting to protect the Muslims who do not agree with the fatwas, and those who support them, from the kind of generalized hatred of all Muslims and all forms of Islam that we see so amply demonstrated here in this thread.

19 Jun 07 - 08:26 PM (#2081624)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Bill D

"By their fruits"

That is a pretty short, ambiguous answer....but...I assume you suggest that you...that is, *YOU* 'can' extract motivation and/or mindset from behavior. I congratulate you...I cannot. I have been suspicious in many cases, and could make guesses, but I have also been mistaken.

I usually try to restrict my accusations and condemnations to behavior, in so far as *I* find it inappropriate. I have had my own motives called into question on occasion, and had to simply leave the 'discussion' when the issue became whether or not I 'thought' a certain way...(they were wrong).

"Congratulations to the government of the U.K.! Brilliant plan indeed!" ....I doubt it. It may be a very bad move, but a PLAN to 'bait Muslims'?

19 Jun 07 - 08:49 PM (#2081635)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I said "suspect" bill. That is somewhat short of a direct accusation. And I do suspect it, as I suspect the government of the US of fomenting hatred of Muslims for political reasons. The results (many hundreds of thousands of dead Muslims) are too obvious to ignore. It's far easier for people to accept their governments' killing of groups of people if the citizens are convinced that those who are being killed deserve killing.

19 Jun 07 - 09:00 PM (#2081644)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

"An estimated 180,000 people have died and 2 million have been displaced in the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of western Sudan where militias have targeted civilians in attacks the United Nations warns could rival the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which more than 800,000 people died.

"The people of Darfur are suffering a catastrophe -- terrible crimes have been committed against them," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said.

The killings of mostly black African Muslims have been blamed on an Arab militia known as the Janjaweed. Like their victims, the Janjaweed are Muslim, but are accused of ethnic atrocities, including burning and destroying villages in parts of Darfur and of slaughtering men, women and children."

19 Jun 07 - 09:01 PM (#2081645)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

Why does that not cause outrage in Iran and Pakistan? Or in the rest of the world for that matter?

19 Jun 07 - 09:09 PM (#2081646)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

TODAY!

"Oxfam pulls out of largest Darfur refugee camp, citing attacks on aid workers
Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Tue, 06/19/2007 - 20:05.
International aid agency Oxfam has announced it is pulling out of Gereida, the largest camp in Darfur, where more than 130,000 have sought refuge. The agency cited inaction by local authorities from the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), which controls the region, in addressing security convers and violence against aid workers. Oxfam urged the international community to do more to pressure all parties to the Darfur conflict to end attacks on civilians and aid workers."

And these dumb fucks are worried about a guy who wrote a book?

19 Jun 07 - 09:11 PM (#2081647)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Why does that not cause outrage in Iran and Pakistan?

How do you know how the average Iranian or Pakistani feels about it? Or if they even know about it?

19 Jun 07 - 09:35 PM (#2081667)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

No one ever knows.

We Didn't Know
Words and Music by Tom Paxton
We didn't know said the Burgomeister,
About the camps on the edge of town.
It was Hitler and his crew,
That tore the German nation down.
We saw the cattle cars it's true,
And maybe they carried a Jew or two.
They woke us up as they rattled through,
But what did you expect me to do?

[Cho:]
We didn't know at all,
We didn't see a thing.
You can't hold us to blame,
What could we do?
It was a terrible shame,
But we can't bear the blame.
Oh no, not us, we didn't know.

We didn't know said the congregation,
Singing a hymn in a church of white.
The Press was full lf lies about us,
Preacher told us we were right.
The outside agitators came.
They burned some churches and put the blame,
On decent southern people's names,
To set our colored people aflame.
And maybe some of our boys got hot,
And a couple of niggers and reds got shot,
They should have stayed where they belong,
And preacher would've told us if we'd done wrong.

[Cho:]

We didn't know said the puzzled voter,
Watching the President on TV.
I guess we've got to drop those bombs,
If we're gonna keep South Asia free.
The President's such a peaceful man,
I guess he's got some kind of plan.
They say we're torturing prisoners of war,
But I don't believe that stuff no more.
Torturing prisoners is a communist game,
And You can bet they're doing the same.
I wish this war was over and through,
But what do you expect me to do?

[Cho:]

19 Jun 07 - 09:43 PM (#2081676)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Interesting smear tactic. However, you still haven't indicated how you know the feelings of the average Iranian or Pakistani on this matter if they do know about it. This just looks to me like an attempt to spread hatred using the scattershot method.

19 Jun 07 - 09:58 PM (#2081688)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

I have absolutely nothing to indicate or say to you.

19 Jun 07 - 10:00 PM (#2081692)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Good.

19 Jun 07 - 10:04 PM (#2081695)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

"Duncan Campbell and Julian Borger
Wednesday June 20, 2007
The Guardian


The committee that recommended Salman Rushdie for a knighthood did not discuss any possible political ramifications and never imagined that the award would provoke the furious response that it has done in parts of the Muslim world, the Guardian has learnt.
It also emerged yesterday that the writers' organisation that led the lobbying for the author of Midnight's Children and The Satanic Verses to be knighted had originally hoped that the honour would lead to better relations between Britain and Asia."

19 Jun 07 - 10:27 PM (#2081726)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

From the same article...


He added that it would be for the main committee to assess any other aspects of the honour. The Foreign Office is represented on the main committee by the permanent secretary, whose job it would be to raise any potential international ramifications...

.....

...Pakistan's foreign minister, Kurshid Kasuri, said on a visit to Washington that Britain could not have been surprised by the outrage.

The chairman of the all-party group on Pakistan, the Conservative MP Stewart Jackson, also attacked the decision to knight Rushdie. "We do not need a situation where we are gratuitously offending our allies in the fight against terror," he told the ePolitix website. "I think the prime minister's office should think very carefully about that decision."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2106965,00.html

19 Jun 07 - 10:34 PM (#2081738)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

'IRAN TO PERFORM SALMAN RUSHDIE KNIGHTHOOD
      
IRAN last night offered to perform Sir Salman Rushdie's forthcoming knighthood ceremony saying recent television footage suggested the Queen was no longer "up to the job".



A traditional Iranian 'knighting sword'Mohammad Al Inseini, a spokesman for the Iranian government, said the Queen had taken up to three goes with her sword during recent ceremonies – and still failed to even draw blood.

He described the scenes as "shocking and barbaric" and said Iran had a number of well-trained professionals who could deal with the Satanic Verses author "in a oner".

Mr Al Inseini said: "Your Queen is a fine old lady who knows how to strangle a pheasant. There is no shame in her passing the sword to a younger man."

He said the Iranian government would happily supply its own top ceremonial swordsman, Al-Bert Pierrepoint, for the occasion.

"We promise you that with Al-Bert in charge Rushdie's knighthood will be conferred upon him swiftly and humanely," he said.

Mr Inseini said Iran would welcome the author to Tehran for a mass outdoor ceremony, but could also send its sword specialist to Buckingham Palace if that was easier.

Ejit Ul-Haq, editor of the Islamabad-based magazine Executions and Executioners, said that Pierrepoint was one of Iran's top swordsmen with a good eye, a firm grip, and a sharp blade.

"Al-Bert knows exactly what to do when someone kneels before him, and is very used to performing in front of crowds," he said. "He also has a huge chopper."'

from The Daily Mash

19 Jun 07 - 11:36 PM (#2081791)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Obscure writer?
Long reviews of his books appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and other organs reviewing new literature. "Satanic Verses" was on the best seller lists; it is available from all good bookstores in the paperback edition.

The Viking-Penguin (London) signed 1st printing of 1988 already is over $500 for a fine copy and the U. S. signed 1st is over $400. Unfortunately, mine is the second printing.

His "Shalimar the Clown" traces the development of a clown into an Islamic terrorist; it is a book that should be widely read (paperback editions available).

19 Jun 07 - 11:45 PM (#2081798)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Bill D

"I suspect, in being given this honor, Mr. Rushdie is getting long-due recognition for his services to the U.K. government in the form of Muslim-baiting. The exquisite irony of which is the fact that awarding him this honor is, in itself, a rather spectacular instance of Muslim-baiting, and an extremely successful one, if the majority of responses in this thread are any indication."

'suspect' is meant to apply to the ENTIRE paragraph? Seemed to me the 2nd sentence went well beyond 'suspect'...but who am I to read your mind and assume too much....

19 Jun 07 - 11:54 PM (#2081802)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Any Moslems who don't like Rushdie being honored are welcome to choose not to honor him in their countries. They are not welcome to put a price on his head--and it's amazing to read any excuses for their doing so--or far-fetched theories about how the UK planned to outrage Moslems.

If Mudcatters can't realize that there is absolutely no excuse for killing an author just for what he has written, it does not speak well for those who don't realize this.

If those on the left of center feel the UK government should not have honored Rushdie for fear of what a small segment of Moslems--by no means representative of Islam-- might think, they (left of center Westerners) need to think about what freedom of the press is.

19 Jun 07 - 11:59 PM (#2081804)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Fair point, Bill. Let me rephrase...


"I suspect, in being given this honor, Mr. Rushdie is getting long-due recognition for his services to the U.K. government in the form of Muslim-baiting. The exquisite irony of which is the fact that awarding him this honor looks like a rather spectacular instance of Muslim-baiting, and if so, an extremely successful one, if the majority of responses in this thread are any indication."

19 Jun 07 - 11:59 PM (#2081805)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Rushdie has received awards from several countries, including India.
The India-Pakistan tensions perhaps contributed to Pakistan's condemnation of the knighthood.

It should be noted that Rushdie is a graduate of Kings College, Cambridge.
He has also written children's books, one of which received the Writers Guild of Great Britain Award.

20 Jun 07 - 12:02 AM (#2081807)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Ron, one doesn't avoid engaging in Muslim baiting (or any kind of racial or ethnic baiting, for that matter) to protect the extremists, such as the ones who issued or who support the fatwas. One rejects the practice of Muslim baiting to protect the Muslims who do not agree with the fatwas, and those who support them, from the kind of generalized hatred of all Muslims and all forms of Islam that we see so amply demonstrated here in this thread.

20 Jun 07 - 12:02 AM (#2081808)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

"That sense of injury was felt by Moslems who are in no way extreme, including those who are horrified at then very notion of death threats. "

It would be great to hear from some of those folks. (The average guy in Iran and Pakistan doesn't get too much press. And the average woman in Iran and Pakistan doesn't really get any.) But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon. Unfortunately.

20 Jun 07 - 12:05 AM (#2081811)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

What Rushdie wrote--and writes--is literature. It's not Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And regardless of the terrible influence that book had, I would suspect that very few Westerners would feel even its author--who provided propaganda which was used for the most evil of purposes--should be killed for writing it. And if Russia, for instance, had chosen to honor its author, the West, while condemning the idea, would still have not put a price on the author's head.   And anybody who did would be harshly criticized--or arrested.

Civilization must mean something-----and it sounds like some Mudcatters are finding excuses for barbarism.

20 Jun 07 - 12:08 AM (#2081813)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

The idea that giving the honor to Rushdie is "Moslem baiting" is, so far, no more than your theory. Please provide some evidence.

20 Jun 07 - 12:13 AM (#2081816)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

Well said, Ron.

It is not Muslims doing the talking for Islam. It's a few maniacs--religious leaders who spew hatred and ambassadors from governments that are up to their necks in terrorist activities. It is for them there is no excuse. The tired 'burn the flag' and denounce the west garbage is getting old. Condemn the west for a war that is killing innocents; condemn the west for its greed. But condemn those leaders in your own realm who are no better. I really wonder how many Muslims could say what they really think and still be alive the next day. Many have no option but silence. And many have the choice yet say nothing!

20 Jun 07 - 12:21 AM (#2081821)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Just read the thread, Ron. The evidence is all around you. Every time something like this happens, the result is always the same... huge numbers of people people start jumping on the "hate all Muslims" bandwagon. If the US and the UK weren't so deeply involved in the wholesale slaughter of Muslims in more than one country at the present time, something like this might be taken for a coincidence. But with the UK being a part of the aggression against Iraqis and Afghans, as well as participating in beating the war drums for a nuclear attack on Iran, any time we see the kind of result we're seeing with this particular episode - a drastic increase in hate rhetoric against Muslims, we need to consider the likelihood that we are being softened up for some new act of aggression that our governments are planning against Muslim countries.

20 Jun 07 - 12:35 AM (#2081826)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

Don't tell us about what the UK and US governments are planning in the Mideast. That's more of your speculation--and, more than that, not the issue at hand.

You have been politely asked to provide any of your own personal evidence that the UK planned to "bait Moslems" by this honor.

We are still waiting patiently for any of your own personal evidence. So far, the silence on that point is deafening.

20 Jun 07 - 12:56 AM (#2081828)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Ron, I'm not going to get drawn into a big back and forth with you about this. You do it for sport. I've made my point. It's a valid point. My point is directed to the people who allow themselves to get sucked into these kinds of hate-fests towards all Muslims every time some Muslims behave outrageously. I think the US and UK governments are helping this along. You don't agree. No problem.

20 Jun 07 - 03:45 AM (#2081869)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

IF you had read the thread Carol, you would find that several people have defended the Muslims against blanket condemnation, and been upbraided for doing so!
G.

20 Jun 07 - 04:01 AM (#2081875)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I did read the thread, John. And I noticed (and appreciated) your defense of Muslims against blanket condemnation (and that of a few other people). But more people were expressing hatred towards all Muslims than those who were defending them against blanket condemnation, and that is what I have been addressing. I did not say "all" posts in this thread. I only said a "majority" of posts in this thread.

20 Jun 07 - 07:28 AM (#2082001)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

As you might imagine, I believe I may just be able to survive regardless of what motive you impute to me for my statements on this topic. It so happens that I actually believe what I say on this subject--and many others--and that it is not just "for sport". But if you don't believe that, as I said, I'll get by somehow.

Back to the topic:

Very few things are blazingly clear in life. But two aspects of this are:

1) Any country has a right to honor any person for whatever it may choose, without citizens of another country putting a price on the honoree's head.

2) Nobody deserves to be killed for what he or she has written--and nothing else.


Now, can we have a clear statement of agreement with both of these propositions from you, Kevin, Giok, et. al?

We can--and probably will--argue forever the wisdom of knighting Rushdie--but these two statements should be something we can all agree on.

20 Jun 07 - 07:35 AM (#2082013)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--



Also, you have in fact raised the theory that knighting Rushdie was intentional "Moslem baiting". We are still eagerly awaiting any evidence that this is the case--or your admission that you have no such evidence.

20 Jun 07 - 09:16 AM (#2082110)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,undertheradar

From Wikipedia:

"On February 14, 1989, the Ayatollah broadcast the following message on Iranian radio: "I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Qur'an, and all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death."[2]As a result, Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese language translator of the book was stabbed to death on July 11, 1991; Ettore Capriolo, the Italian language translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing the same month, and William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, survived an attempted assassination in Oslo in October of 1993. On February 14, 2006, the Iranian state news agency reported that the fatwa will remain in place permanently."

So who's baiting who? And what kind of infidel baiting will there be when Iran has its atom bombs? Something to think about.

20 Jun 07 - 10:07 AM (#2082165)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

Predicting that something is going to happen and explaining why it is going to happen is not the same as excusing it.

The strange thing is that people who are generally pretty clear thinking so often seem to find that distinction very hard to understand.

I have every right to leave my car keys sticking in the lock. If you see me doing that, please point it out to me. I promise that I will not accuse you of implying that, if I leave the keys there, a passing thief would be entitled to steal my car.

20 Jun 07 - 11:20 AM (#2082238)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: heric

The largest problem with that analogy is that the British Government didn't forget not to give Rushdie his knighthood. Once deciding that he was a desrving recipient (has anyone offered up anything to suggest that he was undeserving relative to other recipients?), they continued on a deliberate course without appeasement of the assassinators. It was the noble and proper course of action to stand by him in the face of his (eventually lifelong) tribulations.

20 Jun 07 - 11:40 AM (#2082251)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I believe I may just be able to survive regardless of what motive you impute to me for my statements on this topic

I haven't imputed any particular motives to you on this particular topic, Ron. I just know from long experience that allowing myself to get into long drawn out debates with you is extremely unproductive, and a big waste of my time. So I'm not going to do it.

But if you are trying to suggest that I have in any way attempted to excuse the behavior of the extremists who have made the death threats, please show me where I have done it.

20 Jun 07 - 11:50 AM (#2082260)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

So who's baiting who? And what kind of infidel baiting will there be when Iran has its atom bombs? Something to think about.

Oh, I think it's pretty obvious that there's plenty of 'infidel' baiting going on as well. But Iran won't nuke anyone because that would mean their certain destruction. Plus, the US and the West are the only ones who have been threatening anyone with nuclear attack (you seem to be advocating it yourself). Iran has made no such threats against anyone. The US does have a previous history of nuking another country. Iran does not. The US has a previous and recent history of unilaterally attacking other countries. Iran does not.

So how do you manage to post under multiple user names, GUEST,undertheradar, and not have your posts get deleted by Joe Offer?

20 Jun 07 - 12:10 PM (#2082283)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

That wasn't the analogy I was drawing, heric.   I was just trying to get across the very simple point that predicting or explaining something isn't the same as excusing it.

20 Jun 07 - 12:21 PM (#2082293)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Kipp

Here in the west say all kinds of things against christians it matters if they are true or not the same goes for Jesus but no one orders the death of anyone. We live in a some what civilized society and by the rule of law. So now we are supossed to change that we have to tip toe around the Muslim world well I think we should aply that both ways if any one ofends mohamad or Jesus or christianity or Islam off with their head.
Kipp
PS You can still offed anyone else yet it is not PC not to

20 Jun 07 - 01:29 PM (#2082359)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Tunesmith

Where would we be if the Pope had ordered assassins to kill Dan Brown for writing "The Da Vinci Code"?

20 Jun 07 - 02:40 PM (#2082434)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

Deploring the actual orders, but admiring his literary taste.

20 Jun 07 - 02:47 PM (#2082440)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Tunesmith

Literary taste? The Pope? I've heard that he reads the same book every day - and has done so for all his adult life!

20 Jun 07 - 03:17 PM (#2082452)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

What book?

20 Jun 07 - 03:23 PM (#2082455)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,meself

THE Book - the good one!

20 Jun 07 - 03:44 PM (#2082482)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Pakistan demanded not only withdrawal of the award of knighthood, but also Rushdie's British citizenship.

Just wondering- did the English press demand citizenship withdrawal when Salman Rushdie made this comment about the Beatles in the novel, "The Ground Beneath Her Feet"?
".... but the beatles, for goodness' sake, the beatles are white English trash trying to sing like American girls. Crystals Ronettes Shirelles Chantels Chiffons, Vandellas Marvelettes, why not wear some spangly dresses, boys, why not get some beehive hairdos instead of those lovable moptops, and have the sex change operations too, go the whole way, do it right."
Spoken like a true Cambridge graduate, but also echoing what some others of us thought. The Beatles, or at least one of them, went the knighthood route too.

20 Jun 07 - 04:04 PM (#2082500)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

This is another little thing we have to thank Pakistan for.
Some allies to have in the war against the Taliban huh?
Giok

20 Jun 07 - 04:32 PM (#2082530)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

I see from here that The Ground Beneath Her Feet "has been turned into a major new performance work combining music and film that will premiere at the inaugural Manchester International Festival in England on 29 June 2007."

That might turn out to be rather a lively night.

20 Jun 07 - 04:39 PM (#2082536)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,282RA

>>Just wondering- did the English press demand citizenship withdrawal when Salman Rushdie made this comment about the Beatles in the novel, "The Ground Beneath Her Feet"?
".... but the beatles, for goodness' sake, the beatles are white English trash trying to sing like American girls. Crystals Ronettes Shirelles Chantels Chiffons, Vandellas Marvelettes, why not wear some spangly dresses, boys, why not get some beehive hairdos instead of those lovable moptops, and have the sex change operations too, go the whole way, do it right."
Spoken like a true Cambridge graduate, but also echoing what some others of us thought. The Beatles, or at least one of them, went the knighthood route too.<<

Alright. Insulting Islam and questioning its practices is one thing but insulting the Beatles???????????

I hereby order Salman Rushdie's death by any true lover of rock/pop music. We cannot allow for this blasphemous behavior. It must not go unpunished. The one who does the killing gets a free set of CDs of every single Beatles' release including early recordings with Pete Best and Tony Sheridan, alternate releases, and never-before-heard discarded studio takes. Includes a 10-page booklet outlining the career of the Fab 4 from the holy city of Liverpool. Put out by joint effort of Apple Enterprises and Parlophone Records and including an in-depth interview with George Martin. Don't be the last on your block to own this wonderful collection!

Be the first to kill blasphemous scum-sucking infidel Salman Rushdie who has dared not to like the greatest pop group of all time and this amzing CD collection is yours! You don't need love--all you need is a warm gun and the infidel's head on a spit. Death to Salman Rushdie and all such Beatle-blasphemers! This fatass shall never be lifted until the deed is done. I have spoken.

282RA, Holy Imam of 60s pop/gum.

20 Jun 07 - 05:50 PM (#2082592)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

The ultimate "Muslim baiting" may be drawing a non-Islamic breath, living outside of the call of the muezzin, and reading a good book that doesn't include verses (satanic or otherwise) by Mohammed (pbuh).


As for Salman, the mere fact that he wrote a book found deeply offensive by certain aged relics who instead of residing in rest homes for the terminally insane were made rulers of a once great country is actually neither here nor there for those who believe in free expression, (and of course even more deeply offensive for those who believe in controlled thought).

BTW, Carol, WELCOME BACK! Gawd how I missed you!

20 Jun 07 - 06:05 PM (#2082614)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

The ultimate "Muslim baiting" may be drawing a non-Islamic breath, living outside of the call of the muezzin, and reading a good book that doesn't include verses (satanic or otherwise) by Mohammed (pbuh).

You're not particularly given to hyperbole, are you, Mr. Matic?


I saw on the Wikipedia page about Satanic Verses that Mr. Rushdie's mother spent her final years in Pakistan, where she received a lot of support from ordinary Pakistanis.


BTW, Carol, WELCOME BACK! Gawd how I missed you!

I don't know whether to take this as sincere or as (barbed) irony.

20 Jun 07 - 06:07 PM (#2082620)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

(And I'm not really back. I don't have time any more to devote to regular participation in these kinds of threads. But I will make an occasional exception if I think it's important enough.)

20 Jun 07 - 06:52 PM (#2082648)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Bill D

Well...the ISSUE is important- in that it causes people to examine more closely their own value systems and decide whether principle or pragmatism is more important.

*IF* the purpose of the knighthood was merely to honor one man's literary accomplishments..(and it is hard to 'prove' anything else)..then both Rushdie and Britain need to decide how to proceed in the face of more threats. It may be that there is no easy way to approach reasoning with people whose view is: 'ANYTHING said about our religion which we don't approve of merits violent response'....

Obviously, most religions don't have quite so extreme a view...and it is hard to tell exactly what % of Muslims accept this, but the % is getting larger, and the extremists seem willing to kill other Muslims, as well as blasphemers, in order to promote this attitude.
It makes protest from within a bit awkward and dangerous, at least in some countries....and I can well imagine a situation where moderate Muslims are caught in the crossfire all over the world.

I see no easy solutions, only sad scenarios........

20 Jun 07 - 07:48 PM (#2082693)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

That's the issue that's important to you, Bill, and I can understand that. The issue that is more important to me, and the one that caused me to decide to post in this thread, is the one I have addressed already - the tendency of many people to generalize anger and/or hatred towards all members of some groups because of behavior they find objectionable on the part of some members of the group.

20 Jun 07 - 08:15 PM (#2082712)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

Well said, Carol. Irrational Islamophobia seems to be becoming the 21st century equivalent to "send 'em all back to where they came from - they've no right to come over 'ere taking all our jobs" of the 60s and 70s. It's an attitude the government is keen to engender. While we have an "enemy," no matter how distant and tenuous, what goes on at home will be far easier to get away with. Shades of 1984, eh? If it wasn't for Muslims we'd have to find someone else!

20 Jun 07 - 08:16 PM (#2082713)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

You're not particularly given to hyperbole, are you, Mr. Matic?

Mr. O'Matic, if you please ;-)&

Well, given much Islamic rioting in was it Nigeria over a relatively inoccuous comment on the Prophet's possible approval of a beauty contest, world wide rioting over political cartoons, and such things as Holocaust cartoon contests and regular weekly "mar el Amerika" salaams, I think my hyperbole (if any) is derivative of my subject, not vice versa.


I saw on the Wikipedia page about Satanic Verses that Mr. Rushdie's mother spent her final years in Pakistan, where she received a lot of support from ordinary Pakistanis.

I had a Pakistani roomate once. Swell fella. If your point is that there are nice Pakistani people, I'm way ahead of ya.


"BTW, Carol, WELCOME BACK! Gawd how I missed you!"

I don't know whether to take this as sincere or as (barbed) irony.

Sincere!

But I'd love an example from you of how to barb some irony!

20 Jun 07 - 08:35 PM (#2082719)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Thanks Steve. Muslims (and Arabs) are the official scapegoats of the West in the 21st century.


Well, given much Islamic rioting in was it Nigeria over a relatively inoccuous comment on the Prophet's possible approval of a beauty contest, world wide rioting over political cartoons, and such things as Holocaust cartoon contests and regular weekly "mar el Amerika" salaams, I think my hyperbole (if any) is derivative of my subject, not vice versa.

Except that it wasn't the innocuous comment that was the real reason for most of the anger and rioting. This has been discussed quite a bit on threads that were current at the time, and I gave my arguments about this subject on those threads. The real reason for most of the anger and rioting (as explained by those who were angry and rioting) was perceived discrimination. But it is a part of the orchestrated efforts at inspiring and spreading hatred towards Muslims generally that the media in western countries did not cover this aspect of it, and instead promoted the falsehood that it was about the "innocuous comment".


Sincere!

No accounting for taste, eh?


(That was irony, but not so much barbed as self deprecating.)


Anyway, thanks!


(But I still don't have time to play with you much. I have furniture that I need to make into art.)

20 Jun 07 - 08:38 PM (#2082720)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

And I'm supposed to be painting my bedroom so I haven't as much time to support Carol as I'd like. There are a few of us out here though, Carol! :-)

20 Jun 07 - 08:43 PM (#2082723)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Correction: I was referring more to the rioting over the cartoons rather than the rioting over the beauty contest. I would suggest that the rioting over the beauty contest was not so much over the comment as it was over the pageant itself, which I would say is a good example of extremism among some Muslims.

20 Jun 07 - 08:44 PM (#2082724)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Need any art furniture to put in your painted bedroom, Steve?


;-)

20 Jun 07 - 09:02 PM (#2082731)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: heric

>Well said, Carol. Irrational Islamophobia [etc.]<

Well, that fine. I'll support Carol on that point as well. (Not all Muslims are bad.) However, I do not see much upside to a knighthood-as-Muslim-baiting (passive-aggressive) ploy. Doesn't quite add up as I look at it. But, then, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of bureaucrats.

20 Jun 07 - 09:13 PM (#2082736)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianavan

Considering the fact that Conrad Black has exposed knighthood as a ridiculous tradition, why would anyone care about 'honoring' Rushdie or anyone else in this way? The only worth this hollow ceremony would have at this point is to provoke the Muslim world.

Unless, of course, Rushdie takes some kind of pride in joining the ranks of Conrad Black and his ilk. No wonder the Muslim world is concerned about the influence of Western culture.

20 Jun 07 - 09:20 PM (#2082737)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Wig Head

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 07:19 PM

I think I've said all I need to say here in this thread, Mr. MacKenzie.

CarolC, since making that statement, you've posted an additional nineteen times.

20 Jun 07 - 09:38 PM (#2082752)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Hey, GUEST,Wig Head, how do you manage to post under multiple user names without having your posts get deleted by Joe Offer?

20 Jun 07 - 10:13 PM (#2082759)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Bill D

There IS, sadly, the "... tendency of many people to generalize anger and/or hatred towards all members of some groups because of behavior they find objectionable on the part of some members of the group."

And also, unfortunately, there is the tendency of some people to label all criticism of certain groups AS 'generalized anger and/or hatred'. I see 'leaders' like Al Sharpton doing approximately that when Blacks are called to task for their behavior. It instantly gets labeled 'racism'.

I put myself on the line in the US civil rights movement, and would do it again, and yet I sometimes see African-American culture helping to fuel problems that certainly are not universal among African Americans, just as I see Muslim culture failing to deal internally with many of the problems that they are being condemned for.

It is WORK to sort out and maintain perspective in these issues when some want to paint every issues black or white.

'Most' of my critiques here are about careless reasoning and hasty generalization, rather than specific support for or against some ideological position....and I see little point in just engaging in some endless "no you didn't"/"yes, I did" harangue.

So.... it is STILL my feeling that the British govt. has every 'right' to give Rushdie a literary honor, but they need be aware that radicals are LOOKING for an excuse to foment more violence. This situation MEANS that some sort of conflict is likely....it does not mean that either Rushdie or Britain 'planned' it, or is intentionally baiting Muslims, anymore than my walking down the street past a yard where I know there is a bad-tempered dog is intentionally provoking the dog.
(and if anyone thinks they can claim I am somehow equating members of an ethnic group with dogs, I assure you, that was simply the first metaphor that came to mind!)

20 Jun 07 - 10:31 PM (#2082765)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

You're entitled to your opinion, Bill (as I am mine). I don't believe that I was including you when I made my point about people generalizing anger and/or hatred towards whole groups in this thread. It is a valid point, however, and sometimes needs to be made.

20 Jun 07 - 10:59 PM (#2082773)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

I tried reading "Satanic Verses" once and could NOT get into it, which is saying something, as I'm a voracious reader. I think the best thing that could happen to the book was the Fatwa (so long as it was not carried out). The artist formerly known as Cat Stevens got into a bit o' trouble in that era and the artist then and currently known as Richard Thompson had some pungent remarks as well, although I believe in the latter case he was simply commenting on Rushdie, not on the Fatwa.

Rushdie being interviewed on the wireless was pretty good.

I think there is a large disjunction in the concept of what is and is not heretical or blasphemous, and there is a literalism in the Islamic community which once was, but for the most part is no longer, in the Christian world. The reason is a combination of perceived status in the world, and the fact that Islam is a somewhat younger religion which has not entered its "Enlightenment" phase. 600 years ago people were treated as badly in Europe for perceived violations of the faith.

We're seeing not merely a clash of cultures but a disjunction in timelines.

20 Jun 07 - 11:05 PM (#2082777)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

All I have to do is quote your own words back to you, just as with Teribus. You said: "I suspect, in being given this honor, Rushdie is getting long-due recognition for his services to the UK government in the form of Muslim-baiting."

So..."Rushdie is getting long-due recognition for his services to the UK government in the form of Muslim baiting." That's what that sentence says.

Similarly, you said "You do it for sport" Then, when called on it: "I haven't imputed any particular motives to you on this particular topic". Sorry, I recognize the game--and, as you might be aware, I enjoy pointing out self-contradictions I see.

You're a master of back-pedalling---but, sorry, that's what the sentence says-- in each case.


Still waiting for any evidence that Muslim-baiting is either what Rushdie had in mind or what the UK government had in mind in knighting him.



But I'd also like to welcome you back. You're an excellent debater--and we're not always on opposite sides of the fence.

20 Jun 07 - 11:12 PM (#2082779)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

That's just not true, Mr. O'Matic. There are branches of Islam that haven't gone through their enlightenment phase, and those that have. Sufism, being a good example of one that has. And of course Islam as practiced by most Muslims in the US is no less enlightened than Christianity. The more fundamentalist of the Islamic sects are arguably more strict and backward than the more fundamentalist of the Christian sects, but you can't really boil all of Islam down into such a broad, sweeping generalization. It's just not that monolithic.

The term "the Islamic community" isn't really a valid term. There are many, many different Islamic communities which all have different degrees of enlightenment/fundamentalism.

20 Jun 07 - 11:18 PM (#2082781)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Ron, I stated an opinion. Can you dig that? It's an opinion.

And I think you do do it for sport (not just on this thread). You don't seem to be willing to let up when someone has indicated that they don't really want to argue with you. I don't have time to argue with you, because if I allow myself to do that, it will take over my life. Give it a rest, ok?

20 Jun 07 - 11:18 PM (#2082782)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

(But thank you for the kind words and the welcome back.)

21 Jun 07 - 12:01 AM (#2082796)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,282RA

I DARE Rushdie to insult Gary Lewis & the Playboys! I just dare him!

21 Jun 07 - 12:49 AM (#2082806)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I just realized something you said, Ron, that I do need to address.

You said:

So..."Rushdie is getting long-due recognition for his services to the UK government in the form of Muslim baiting." That's what that sentence says.


Are you trying to use that statement from me as proof that I am excusing the behavior of the extremist Muslims? Because if you are, you are entirely wrong about that, and I have been consistent in making that clear here in this thread. I repeat (I think for the fourth time in this thread)...

...one doesn't avoid engaging in Muslim baiting (or any kind of racial or ethnic baiting, for that matter) to protect the extremists, such as the ones who issued or who support the fatwas. One rejects the practice of Muslim baiting to protect the Muslims who do not agree with the fatwas, and those who support them, from the kind of generalized hatred of all Muslims and all forms of Islam that we see so amply demonstrated here in this thread.


I do not excuse the extremists who issued the death threats and fatwas, and I never have. That issue is entirely separate from the point I have been making consistently in this thread. My point is, and has been that in taking action that produces the result we now see, one doesn't hurt the Muslim extremists (in fact, when one does that, one actually helps the extremists' cause). When one takes action that produces the result we now see, one hurts the very people who disagree with and do not support the extremists, ie: the moderate Muslims. It is entirely possible for me to hold the UK government responsible for the harm that is done to the moderates by their actions while at the same time disagreeing with and disapproving of the behavior of the extremists. In fact, it's the most logical thing I could possibly do.

21 Jun 07 - 06:34 AM (#2082920)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

I don't think anyone has been saying the British government hasn't got the right to give this heraldic Academy Award. Just that they would have been better not to do it, and should have recognised that, rightly or wrongly, it would be seen as a provocative insult by many people and could have some very bad consequences. Insofar as there is seen to be some principle involved, this could have been reflected in other, less coat-trailing, ways.

I think that this is all far more likely to have been a matter of arrogant stupidity rather than malice or planned affront or a matter of principle. Rather like the Satanic Verses themselves in that way.

21 Jun 07 - 07:45 AM (#2082961)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

"I DARE Rushdie to insult Gary Lewis & the Playboys! I just dare him!"

After all, everybody loves a clown.

21 Jun 07 - 10:07 AM (#2083059)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: 282RA

How long before Muslim extremists demand Western women be required by law to cover their entire bodies in public, wear scarves over the hair and all married women must wear veils in public.

And what if they demand women stop working, driving or going to school? That if her husband beats her she must submit to it for it is his right as a man? That she cannot travel unless accompanied by her husband.

That if the West refuses to implement these changes then prepare for suicide bombings.

I wonder how Western women would take it if Western men said, "You'd better do it or they'll go crazy and we don't want upset them unnecessarily."

21 Jun 07 - 11:59 AM (#2083160)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,undertheradar

Since Bin Laden has already called for the killing of all Christians and Jews, anything more, like the Rushdie business, is just piling on.

21 Jun 07 - 02:07 PM (#2083260)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

Is Salman Rushdie just good at pissing off Muslims, or should he be taken serious as a writer?

21 Jun 07 - 02:19 PM (#2083272)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

Sailing off into the wild blue yonder and making up stuff like 282RA and "GUEST,undertheradar" is a bit silly. There are real things to worry about, no need for fantasies and exaggeration.

21 Jun 07 - 02:46 PM (#2083289)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Wolfgang

Yassin Musharbash (in his own words an "Arab Christian", a Palestinian living in Germany) in DER SPIEGEL (my translation):

The Islamist mob has looked for a replacement for the Danish caricatures from last year and has found it in the award of the knighthood to Rushdie. Normally, a card carrying Islamist should be as indifferent as he can be towards an honour given by an infidel head of state to an infidel writer. But it is the timeing that fits into the Islamists agenda: The memories of the caricature crisis fade, but the principled outrage about the West needs new outlets. And Rushdie always works...

The orchestrated outrage is completely inacceptable. What comes next? A congress of neurophysiologists is targeted for one of the speakers dares to repeat the well known speculation that Muhammed might have received his messages during epileptic fits? Historical critical research about the origins of the Islam is targeted for some of the results run counter some teachings of the religion? Religious thoughts and teachings are just as amenable to critique as any other theories about the world are.

Prinipiis obsta.

Wolfgang

21 Jun 07 - 03:00 PM (#2083296)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

"Sailing off into the wild blue yonder and making up stuff like 282RA [...]is a bit silly. There are real things to worry about, no need for fantasies and exaggeration."

Hmmm. I don't agree. He/She's not using some illogical device -- he's merely asking a person to imagine how far up or down the scale you'd be willing to allow a culture, separate from one's own, to dictate how they must live their life.

Simili, metaphor, analogy, allegory bother you that much, huh? Isn't "Sailing off into the wild blue yonder" exactly the same thing your asking others to stop?

Unless someone is clearly using logical fallacy to make a point, isn't it better to argue a point rather than tell someone else how they're not doing it right?

21 Jun 07 - 03:03 PM (#2083298)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

But it is the timeing that fits into the Islamists agenda

Precisely. And the West just keeps on doing all the heavy lifting for the extremists, providing them with endless opportunities for recruitment.

The answer is for the West to stop pursuing it's imperialist agendas in the Middle East (and stop the slaughter of civilians in its pursuit of those agendas). That's the only thing that will take the air out of the extremists' methods. Every single other thing that the West does simply assists the extremists in their efforts, and makes their job a lot easier.

21 Jun 07 - 03:15 PM (#2083304)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

The obvious bigotry of demanding a double standard ( We have to change what we do because they might not like it, but they do not ever have to change what they do, regardless of our opinions, because it is their culture) has still not been addressed.

If the Islamic nations are to be allowed to change OUR actions, because of what THEY feel, and we are not supposed to demand that they change theirs to accomodate OUR feelings, then they are obviously NOT equal to us- You are treating them as non-responsible children, and that seems to me, IMHO, to be bigotry. The so- superior
Western culture accommadating the desires of the poor natives: Can't expect THAT kind of people to be able to act civilized, you know, old boy.

As for moderates vs extremists, the numbers of people demonstrating against the knighthood, especially compared to the number demonstrating against the actions in Darfur ( none) give a pretty good idea of what the "average" Moslem in those countries either feels or is forced to pretend to feel about the problems. But the words and actions OF THE ISLAMIC GOVERNMENTS is clearly stated by their OWN spokesmen and support (or control) of those demonstrations.

21 Jun 07 - 03:29 PM (#2083310)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

The double standard is the West going into Muslim countries and doing pretty much whatever it wants to in those countries (utterly destroying some of them and killing obscene numbers of civilians in the process, as well as destroying their economies, their ancient cultural heritage, their civil infrastructures, stealing their natural resources, and destroying pretty much everything they have or ever had) and then getting all righteously indignant and morally superior when it suffers a backlash from this hideous foreign policy.

21 Jun 07 - 03:36 PM (#2083318)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

"killing obscene numbers of civilians "?

Care to look at the numbers of civilians killed by the US et al vs the number killed by the Iraqis and foreign "resistance" fighters?

They have us beat by a factor of 4 or 5.


And YOU seem to think that we should not do anything about that- just let them die, like in Cambodia, Bosnia, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan... Can't do anything that might get them upset- as long as they are only killing other inferior natives we should not get involved or risk any far more valuable Western lives- After all, WE are worth far more than any of them are in the scheme of things...

21 Jun 07 - 03:39 PM (#2083320)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

Giving an "honour" to an author is not "something we do", analogous to how people should dress or eat or drink. It is something that a government did as part of its public relations programme, which is what the honours system is basically all about. The over the top reaction to it is nothing to do with any effort to change the way of life of non-Moslems in those kinds of ways.

I think that the comment quoted by Wolfgang is probably quite correct - this is being picked up and used by confrontational extremists as a way of causing dissension and division. But that tactic only works because the award is inevitably seen by any Moslems as a hostile gesture.

It was insensitive and highly unwise for that very reason. It was an own goal.

21 Jun 07 - 03:49 PM (#2083326)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Care to look at the numbers of civilians killed by the US et al vs the number killed by the Iraqis and foreign "resistance" fighters?

They have us beat by a factor of 4 or 5.


All of them are dead as a direct result of the forgeign policy of the US and the UK.


And YOU seem to think that we should not do anything about that- just let them die, like in Cambodia, Bosnia, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan... Can't do anything that might get them upset- as long as they are only killing other inferior natives we should not get involved or risk any far more valuable Western lives- After all, WE are worth far more than any of them are in the scheme of things...

In most of these cases it was Western imperialism that set up the conditions that lead to the people being killed. In Cambodia, it was US bombing of that country that destroyed its civil infrastructure, leading to the rise of Pol Pot. In Rwanda, it was Belgium pitting one ethnic group against the other as a part of the enforcement of its colonialist agendas (and killing obscene numbers of Hutus in the process), in Sudan, the West hypocritically points the finger at "Arabs" for genocide of the farmers, all the while assisting the rebels in their own slaughter of the farmers, because the West has the same objective as the "Arabs", ie: get the farmers off their land and take the oil. Western imperialism is responsible for, or at the very least has contributed to the vast majority of the situations you have listed, beardedbruce.

21 Jun 07 - 03:57 PM (#2083330)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

so it is ok to not do anything about those problems, because YOU have decided we contributed to them?

And I would not call China "the West". They might resent it, and there are a LOT more chinese than there are Moslems...

21 Jun 07 - 04:16 PM (#2083343)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

No, it's NOT ok to not do anything about those problems. We should definitely do something about those problems. What we should do is we should STOP creating them and STOP making them worse.

21 Jun 07 - 04:19 PM (#2083349)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Stringsinger

The problem is this. Religious moderates are often in collusion with fundamentalists. The fatwah against Rushdie is a case in point. There have been virtually no Muslims that have decried the issue of fatwah on Rushdie, probably due to reprisals by the more extremist groups.

The idea that the British govenment made Rushdie a Knight to bait Muslims is specious.
Fundamentalist Muslims will cry injury at the slightest disagreement by anyone toward their fanaticism. In this way, it is the same attitude as we see toward atheists by fundamentalist Christian believers in the US. Or hard liner Jewish politicians if anyone criticizes Israel.

It's all the same repression.

Salmon Rushdie is a sensible and rational man of letters and has a literary reputation throughout the world. Why shouldn't he be honored instead of being castigated by an association with the Blair administration? This might be the only thing that Blair did right if he did it at all.

Whenever anyone who criticizes fanaticism or dogma is diminished by those who are fearful or religious zealots, the world is left worse for it.

Fortunately, we have not got to the point yet in the US where people are put to death for disagreement with religious or political policy. That could change if we're not careful to express our unhappiness with repression by religion or political demoguogery.

21 Jun 07 - 04:19 PM (#2083351)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

And, looking at history, perhaps the fault for the "Westerm Imperialism" in the Middle East has SOMETHING to do with the Ottoman Empire, its actions from the 16th to the 20th century, and its being involved on the losing side in the conflict known as WW I. ALL of the nations in the middle east were broken out of that empire, with all but Turkey being distributed to European powers for disposition.

And in 1923 the bulk of the Mandate of Palestine was split off by the British to form the Arab MOSLEM Palestinian homeland, where NO Jews were permitted to settle. ( In violation of the San Remos treaty that Turkey, as heir to the Ottoman Empire, agreed to.)

21 Jun 07 - 04:21 PM (#2083353)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

And I"m not calling China the West. I'm calling the West the West. China contributes to a lot of problems, but that doesn't negate the responsibility that Western governments have for creating and/or contributing to the problems you listed. And since you and I live in Western countries, it's pretty hypocritical for us to point the finger at China if we don't first take responsibility for what our own governments do in our names.

21 Jun 07 - 04:26 PM (#2083356)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Beardedbruce, the West got rid of the Ottoman Empire for their own selfish purposes (to control the resources of the Middle East), not out of concern for the wellbeing of the people of the region. The Ottomans may not have been very nice people, but what the West has done since they fell has done far more harm to the region than anything the Ottomans did to it. And Europe had no right to partition any part of the Middle East for any reason.

21 Jun 07 - 04:26 PM (#2083357)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

"in Sudan, the West hypocritically points the finger at "Arabs" for genocide of the farmers, all the while assisting the rebels in their own slaughter of the farmers, because the West has the same objective as the "Arabs", ie: get the farmers off their land and take the oil."




'China wants Sudan's oil'
10/04/2006 20:19 - (SA)   

Athens - Anti-poverty campaigner and Live 8 organiser Sir Bob Geldof has accused China of responsibility for the continuing civil war in Sudan's Darfur region.

On Monday the Irish rock star, nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for organising last year's Live 8 benefit concerts, said China was protecting the Sudanese government because it provides 6% of China's oil.

Geldof said: "I was in Darfur 20 years ago and people were killing each other then.

"It's an ancient battle between nomadic people and settled people, between Arab Africans and black Africans, between Islam and Christians.

"The reason why it has not been resolved is because of China.

"The Chinese protect the Khartoum government, who are killers, and they will not allow a vote in the Security Council so 250 000 people die in Darfur."

There are no official figures for the death toll in the Sudanese war.

The conflict is estimated to have claimed more than 180 000 lives since 2003 and driven millions from their homes.

Geldof was speaking in Athens, Greece, where he was presented with a humanitarian award from the Greek branch of Doctors of the World.

The 54-year-old also said Africa received "too little attention" compared to places like Iraq.

Geldof said: "Everbody is aware of Iraq. Iraq is a nightmare and many people will die before it's over. But it will pass."

Today's greatest political problem, Geldof said, was the "continuing economic decline of a continent that is 13 kilometres from Europe.""

21 Jun 07 - 04:28 PM (#2083358)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

China Invests Heavily In Sudan's Oil Industry
Beijing Supplies Arms Used on Villagers

By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, December 23, 2004; Page A01

LEAL, Sudan -- On this parched and dusty African plain, China's largest energy company is pumping crude oil, sending it 1,000 miles upcountry through a Chinese-made pipeline to the Red Sea, where tankers wait to ferry it to China's industrial cities. Chinese laborers based in a camp of prefabricated sheds work the wells and lay highways across the flats to make way for heavy machinery.

Only seven miles south, the rebel army that controls much of southern Sudan marches troops through this sun-baked town of mud huts. For years, the rebels have attacked oil installations, seeking to deprive the Sudan government of the wherewithal to pursue a civil war that has killed more than 2 million people and displaced 4 million from their homes over the past two decades. But the Chinese laborers are protected: They work under the vigilant gaze of Sudanese government troops armed largely with Chinese-made weapons -- a partnership of the world's fastest-growing oil consumer with a pariah state accused of fostering genocide in its western Darfur region.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21143-2004Dec22?language=printer


Try looking at the facts and not deciding what is going on by your own desires.

21 Jun 07 - 04:29 PM (#2083359)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

There have been virtually no Muslims that have decried the issue of fatwah on Rushdie, probably due to reprisals by the more extremist groups.

Frank, it really surprises me to see you say this. Nothing could farther from the truth. The fact that you believe this is a testament to the efforts of the Western media to paint all Muslims in a bad light.

21 Jun 07 - 04:29 PM (#2083360)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

Quote beardedbruce:
"The obvious bigotry of demanding a double standard ( We have to change what we do because they might not like it, but they do not ever have to change what they do, regardless of our opinions, because it is their culture) has still not been addressed."

Millions of Muslims have had to change what they do because of us. Palestinians kicked out of their homeland to accommodate the state of Israel. Those left in Gaza and the West Bank forced to give up farming because the land was stolen or cut off from them by illegal occupiers whom we bankroll and arm to the teeth in spite of UN resolutions. Millions of innocent Iraqi civilians with their lives ruined, family members slaughtered and homes destroyed as a result of an invasion predicated on a lie. And you can go a long way back if you like. Ruthless exploitation of Iranian oil by the Brits. Even the foundation of Iraq was a balls-up of major proportions. And so on ad nauseam. Oh yes, we have made an awful lot of Muslims change what they do. Mostly it has been to our benefit and to their impoverishment.   Or are you basing your argument on half-understood nonsense picked up from the Daily Mail about Sharia law?

21 Jun 07 - 04:30 PM (#2083361)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

from the article:

"Ultimately, it may be peace that presents the Chinese firm with its greatest challenge. Under the terms of an agreement still being negotiated, oil contracts are supposed to remain secure. But three commanders of the southern Sudan rebel group said in interviews that the SPLA will seek to punish China once the rebels gain a formal decision-making role in the government.

The stakes could be considerable: Peace would allow the world's major energy companies to enter Sudan's oil patch. Moreover, roughly two-fifths of all known reserves -- oil worth more than $16 billion -- are now in rebel-controlled territory, according to the study by PFC, the strategic analysis group.

"The suffering of the people is on the hands of the Chinese," said commander Deng Awou. "The agreements for the Chinese company may be terminated." "

21 Jun 07 - 04:30 PM (#2083363)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Try reading my posts, beardedbruce. I did say that China is contributing. But as I said, we are responsible for what our OWN governments are doing first. And our own government is up to its little eyeballs in complicity in the situation in Sudan.

21 Jun 07 - 04:35 PM (#2083369)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

re Sudan- Please show me how the US is involved, other than in attempts to get the UN to do something.

re:"Palestinians kicked out of their homeland " I did not know anyone had invaded Jordan recently. Or do you mean the JEWISH Palestinians who were driven out of the West Bank when Jordan occupied it?

21 Jun 07 - 04:36 PM (#2083371)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

China is backing the "Arabs" (Arabic speaking Africans, "Arab" in the same sense that Morrocans are French), and the West is backing the rebels, and ALL of them are committing genocide on the farmers, who don't have a voice with either the "Arabs" or the rebels.

21 Jun 07 - 04:39 PM (#2083373)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

"It's an ancient battle between nomadic people and settled people, between Arab Africans and black Africans, between Islam and Christians.

"The reason why it has not been resolved is because of China.

"The Chinese protect the Khartoum government, who are killers, and they will not allow a vote in the Security Council so 250 000 people die in Darfur." "

21 Jun 07 - 05:25 PM (#2083428)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

China, Malaysia and India are dominant in Dafur oil exploration. Canadian companies have sold out, and the U. S. has been barred by their government since 1997. A few European companies maintain small interests.

beardedbruce is essentially correct about the conflict; Islamic Arabs and Blacks (Sunni 70%) on one side, and black Christian (5%) and indigenous native (mostly Nilotic) religious groups (25%) on the other. The conflict will persist with or without outside intervention unless the latter is massive.

21 Jun 07 - 05:59 PM (#2083464)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

No, beardedbruce is entirely wrong about the conflict.


"It's an ancient battle between nomadic people and settled people, between Arab Africans and black Africans, between Islam and Christians.


This is a very misleading synopsis. Certainly all of these groups are involved, but hardly in the way that the Western media is representing them.

All of the people being genocided in Darfur are Muslims. The rebels are mostly Christians, but they are participating in the genocide against the Muslim farmers themselves (for their own selfish reasons). The rebels are not being genocided in Darfur. The farmers are being genocided in Darfur (the farmers are not the same people as the rebels). The "Black African" rebels and the "Arabs" are committing genocide upon the African Muslim indigenous farmers. They are doing it for control of oil and control of oil profits. The rebels are backed by Western governments, and the "Arabs" are backed by China. In that sense, the conflict is a proxy war between China and the West. The conflict in Darfur did exist in a very small way prior to oil becoming a part of the equation, over land, but it was mostly in the form of small raids, and the scope of death and destruction in that region didn't begin to take on tragic proportions until oil became a factor.

The conflict in the rest of Sudan involves various groups (not all of them the same ones as in Darfur), in different ways.

21 Jun 07 - 07:34 PM (#2083544)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

What are you on about, Bruce? Are you revising history here? Are you denying that thousands of Palestinians were displaced from their homelands in 1948 to make room for the state of Israel?

21 Jun 07 - 08:30 PM (#2083592)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Most of us try to simplify the Darfur conflict into something we can understand. I admit that my partial acceptance of beardedbruce's comments is over-simplistic because Darfur is a complicated region.
It must be admitted that Darfurian black Muslims are being entrapped and many are now in the same situation as the Black non-Muslim population. Rule from the north is being escalated to a point of totality. Money from Asia (China, Malaysia, India) is strengthening the Sudanese government, but the desire for control would be the driving force regardless of the outside finances.

The following article explains something of the history, make-up and complexities of the Darfur problem:
http://conconflicts.ssrc.org/hornofafrica/dewaal/
Contemporary Conflicts

Ouside of division of Sudan I see no resolution in sight and I doubt that effective support for division can be garnered.

21 Jun 07 - 09:21 PM (#2083626)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,beardedbruce

1. My comments were in quotes because I was quoting from the article I had previously mentioned. I figured most here would not bother to read anything that might conflict with their pre-set notions of what was going on.

2. Are YOU revising history and ignoring the creation of Transjordan as an Arab Moslem Homeland from over 75% of the Mandate Palestine land? Were you aware that Jews were prohibited from settling there?

Are YOU ignoring the greater number ( 820,000 vs 640,000) of Arab Jews who were driven from THEIR homes, and resettled, mostly in Israel?

Can you tell me why Jordan did not settle the Arab Moslem refugees in the West Bank, when from 1948 to 1967 Jordan had comntrol of it, and removed almost all the Jews who were living there?

Can you tell me how many Jews are now living in the Arab Moslem Palestinian Homeland ( Jordan)?

Can you tell me how many Arab Moslems are now living in Israel?

Can you tell me why you feel that Arab Moslems should be treated by Jews any differently than Jews were and are treated by Arab Moslems?

22 Jun 07 - 01:36 AM (#2083729)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Lonesome EJ

Hey, maybe if we're really quiet and don't do anything to provoke them they'll leave us alone. After all, they're reasonable people aren't they?

22 Jun 07 - 08:48 AM (#2083924)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Beardedbruce

more from the article:

"Sudan is China's largest overseas oil project. China is Sudan's largest supplier of arms, according to a former Sudan government minister. Chinese-made tanks, fighter planes, bombers, helicopters, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades have intensified Sudan's two-decade-old north-south civil war. A cease-fire is in effect and a peace agreement is expected to be signed by year-end. But the fighting in Sudan's Darfur region rages on, as government-backed Arab militias push African tribes off their land.

China in October signed a $70 billion oil deal with Iran, and the evolving ties between those two countries could complicate U.S. efforts to isolate Iran diplomatically or pressure it to give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons. China is also pursuing oil in Angola.

In the case of Sudan, Africa's largest country, China is in a lucrative partnership that delivers billions of dollars in investment, oil revenue and weapons -- as well as diplomatic protection -- to a government accused by the United States of genocide in Darfur and cited by human rights groups for systematically massacring civilians and chasing them off ancestral lands to clear oil-producing areas. The country once gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden and is listed by Washington as a state supporter of terrorism. U.S. companies are prohibited from investing there."

22 Jun 07 - 12:51 PM (#2084150)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: heric

Excerpt from Bloomberg:

. . . Rushdie has since left Britain to live in New York with his fourth wife, Padma Lakshmi, host of a TV reality show, ``Top Chef.''

Honor or Epitaph?

All of which makes his honoring by a country he forsook perplexing, even to admirers. Other oddities aside, he is the first of his literary generation to be honored -- ahead of Martin Amis, Ian McEwan and Julian Barnes who are producing work of high quality well into their middle years. Was it not so much an honor as an epitaph?

The arts and media committee that advises the honors panel is chaired by the investment banker Jacob Rothschild and peopled by the impeccably great and good -- Jenny Abramsky, head of BBC Radio; former editor of the Independent, Andreas Whittam Smith; novelist Ben Okri; theater critic John Gross and two senior civil servants.

My understanding is that the committee was looking to honor a writer. When Rushdie's name came up, no-one could object for fear of endorsing censorship. Rushdie was contacted and pronounced himself ``thrilled and humbled.'' There was no intention to offend, no extensive consultations.

It seems the world and its rowdy sensitivities never got onto the Whitehall agenda. Sir Salman will arise because nobody looked out of the window.

(Norman Lebrecht is a critic for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

22 Jun 07 - 03:21 PM (#2084294)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

from the Washington Post

Knighthood for a Literary Lion

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, June 22, 2007; Page A19

Later in this column, I'm going to defend Britain's decision to award a knighthood to author Salman Rushdie, despite a sharp official complaint from the Pakistani government and bitter protests elsewhere in the Muslim world. But first, a story and some shameless name-dropping.

One day in 1993, when I was The Post's bureau chief in London, I got a phone call from a journalism acquaintance I barely knew, inviting me and my wife to dinner. I accepted, then almost immediately started thinking of reasons to back out -- I had other things to do, I needed a break from socializing, who was this guy anyway. A few days later, I called back with some lame excuse.

"No, you don't understand, you have to come," he said.

I persisted.

"No, you want to come. Trust me." Before I could say anything in response, he went on: "Listen, I'm not supposed to tell you this, but Salman Rushdie is going to be there."

That changed everything. At the time, Rushdie was in deepest hiding, under threat of assassination. His novel " The Satanic Verses," published five years earlier, had been deemed unforgivably blasphemous to Islam; Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, had issued a fatwa sentencing Rushdie to death. I was being offered the chance to meet a man who stayed in the shadows.

It turned out that the host lived just a couple of blocks from our house in Hampstead, a high-toned and expensive neighborhood. (We used to see Trudie Styler, better known as Mrs. Sting, at the neighborhood grocery store.) This was back when newspapers were flush and no one paid close attention to the details of foreign correspondents' expense accounts. Now you'd need a receipt for an order of fish and chips.

Anyway, on the appointed evening we strolled over and rang the bell. Two beefy men in ill-fitting suits lounged attentively in the living room. We were led through the house to a patio, where, at a table set for an alfresco supper, we found a London newspaper columnist of my acquaintance and his wife; our host (who did something for the BBC) and hostess (also BBC, I think); a wan and ethereal woman who was introduced as a poet and intellectual; and, in a merry mood, the most wanted man in the world.

Salman Rushdie was clever and charming. He showed patience and uncommon good humor as we grilled him on his nomadic existence, which basically entailed moving from borrowed house to borrowed flat to borrowed cottage, always with a security detail in tow, never staying anywhere too long. Every journey of any length required cloak-and-dagger intrigue of the kind you might find in, say, a John le Carré novel.

We hit on only two sore subjects. One was that despite fulsome expressions of solidarity from governments and other institutions throughout the West, there was only one airline that would allow Rushdie to fly on its planes. (He wouldn't tell us, even off the record, the airline's name.) The other source of bitterness was that while most British writers had been clear in support of his right to free speech, a few, he believed, had temporized.

He considered the prime offender to be none other than le Carré, whose real name is David Cornwell and who also happened to be a neighbor of ours -- his city house, as opposed to the country house where he spent most of his time, was just across the way, and we had met him socially. So there we were, torn between literary lions.

Le Carré's position, as he later explained in a published letter, was that "like any decent person" he of course deplored Rushdie's persecution but that he also believed "there is no law in life or nature that says great religions may be insulted with impunity."

Leaving aside an earlier feud between the two authors over a book review, le Carré makes a reasonable point about gratuitous insult. It's basically the same point I made about those Danish cartoons that ridiculed the prophet Muhammad in a stunt whose only purpose was provocation.

The bard of espionage was wrong about Rushdie, though. "The Satanic Verses" is a true work of literature, meant to illuminate, not defile. I don't happen to think it is Rushdie's best novel. But " Midnight's Children," published in 1980, is a flat-out masterpiece. Even had he never set down another word, the queen would be right to say: Arise, Sir Salman.

eugenerobinson@washpost.com

23 Jun 07 - 07:22 AM (#2084756)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,JTT

I'm with McGrath et al: knighthoods are very political. Do the British offer knighthoods to the citizens of any other foreign country than Ireland, by the way? They've been making various Irish luminaries - media magnate Tony O'Reilly, do-gooder ex-songsters Bono and Bob Geldof, etc - knights. The only one with the honour to refuse the honour is Seamus Heaney.

So conferring a knighthood on Salman Rushdie, while leaving many superb English, Scottish and Welsh writers un-knighted seems a most political act to me. But I'm a simple soul.

I actually enjoyed The Satanic Verses, which I bought indignantly the day the fatwa was declared; I remember sitting in the mezzanine of Bewley's reading it, glared at by a woman in a hijab.

The writing was fine - kind of Joycean - and it was full of heartwarming stories, unlike his earlier book, Shame, which was just spiteful.

The central section about Mohammed in the desert, inspired by the angel Gabriel and tempted by Satan, was kind of boring - and it's this section that enrages fundamentalist Muslims.

And I think that if we're to think of 'fundamentalist Muslims', we must remember that they are little different from fundamentalist Christians: these are people who do not want others to think differently from them; and depending on the accepted mores of their own particular society, they will shun those who do, or deprive them of work, or kill them.

Anyway, before more discussion of the knighthood and the fatwa, may I suggest that everyone go out and buy The Satanic Verses (or borrow it from the library) and read it. That might give a better basis for discussion.

My own copy seems to have fallen victim to one of my periodic fatwas when my books are banished en masse to the thrift shops, or possibly to some passing borower, alas. I'd like to read it again.

23 Jun 07 - 08:46 AM (#2084789)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

No, fundamentalist Christians do not wish to "kill" people who don't believe as they do. No, on fundamentalist is not the same as another. The FUNDAMENTALS are different -- hence, those that adhere to them are different.

23 Jun 07 - 09:11 AM (#2084798)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,JTT

What I said was that fundamentalists behave according to the norm of their own society. American violence and Pakistani violence are different. (But Americans have killed more than Islamists, so far.)

23 Jun 07 - 10:33 AM (#2084834)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast

Guest,JTT--You have changed your argument today in answer to John Hardly. First you say that Islamic fundamentalists are the same Christian fundamentalists [a statement that I disagree with in today's environment] and in your next post you assert that Americans have killed more than Islamists, by which I guess you mean that Americans are Christian fundamentalists who kill authors with whom they disagree, or stone women who drive or dress immodestly, or blow up religious shrines or buildings of those who disagree doctrinally with them. Which century are you referring to? Certainly not this one.
I have not, I admit, read Rushdie's works...any of them...but I don't need to to know it is wrong to seek his death because of his writings, no matter how much they might offend. You should know that too.

23 Jun 07 - 11:40 AM (#2084866)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,undertheradar

Worth mentioning. While radical Islamists cry for Rushdie's blood, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion remains a bestseller in the Middle East, officially endorsed by political leaders. That is the antisemitic pamphlet written by the Tsar of Russia's secret police to plant the idea of an international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.

It has been proved totally frauduelent.

See Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Contemporary_usage_and_popularity

23 Jun 07 - 01:23 PM (#2084932)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

The FUNDAMENTALS are different -- hence, those that adhere to them are different.

The fundamentals aren't all that different if you include the Old Testament in your definition of fundamentalist Christianity. And most fundamentalist Christians do put a pretty big emphasis on the Old Testament.

And of course, Christianity has gone through phases in which it was far more blood-thirsty than Islam is today, even in its most fundamentalist manifestations. The differences in fundamentalisms arise from other factors, not from the fundamentals themselves.

23 Jun 07 - 01:36 PM (#2084945)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Although I should probably mention that for many fundamentalist Christians, Armageddon is a very important part of their belief system. And many of them support foreign policies that involve killing a lot of Muslims in order to hasten Armageddon. So in that sense, there are quite a few fundamentalist Christians who are no less blood-thirsty than the most fundamentalist of Muslims. They just are content to let others do their killing for them.

23 Jun 07 - 01:54 PM (#2084962)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic


That's just not true, Mr. O'Matic. There are branches of Islam that haven't gone through their enlightenment phase, and those that have. Sufism, being a good example of one that has. And of course Islam as practiced by most Muslims in the US is no less enlightened than Christianity. The more fundamentalist of the Islamic sects are arguably more strict and backward than the more fundamentalist of the Christian sects, but you can't really boil all of Islam down into such a broad, sweeping generalization. It's just not that monolithic.
The term "the Islamic community" isn't really a valid term. There are many, many different Islamic communities which all have different degrees of enlightenment/fundamentalism.

Carol, you can call me Robo- Sufism is a pretty small though important percentage of "The Islamic Community". This is a valid term, it merely means Muslims as taken as a whole. Muslims themselves consider it a very important term, they call it "Umma". Kind of one big family of faith. It can be erroneous to treat it as monolithic, which I think is your point, which stated this way is correct. But the history of Islam is, as I said, somewhat less lengthy than the history of Christianity by 600 years. Human culture is not stamped out, it develops, ages, (hopefully) matures. And the Koran is not the Torah or the New Testament, and it is 'marketed' as complete and perfect. This means that the majority of the Umma are taught to believe, and in fact believe that "that's it", even when a considerable portion of Muslims can't read Arabic and don't really know what's in the Koran.

So while partially agreeing with you I am resisting your argument that "Islam as practiced by most Muslims in the US is no less enlightened than Christianity." I maintain my argument that a great deal of what we are facing is a disjunction in time. No less an institution than the BBC broadcast a couple of learned Englishmen last night on "Politics UK" One of 'em was a Lord and the other was Christopher Hitchens. They were speaking English English so I don't know which was which but one of them said very nearly what I"ve been saying for years, only he said that Islam had not yet had a Reformation. I'm still trying to find out if I can find the thing as a BBC Podcast.

Christianity has been enlightened in my estimation for about a generation now. I sure hope Islam doesn't take another 600 years to catch up.

23 Jun 07 - 02:10 PM (#2084974)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Arram

I think it was a mistake to give him a Knighthood. It was an insult to many including myself. Britain is becoming a Muslim country, sadly few are willing to accept this.

23 Jun 07 - 02:35 PM (#2084991)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,JTT

Perhaps my point was too complex. Let me open it out:

a) There are Muslim fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists

b) Both Muslim fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists want to suppress the ideas of those who disagree with them

c) Muslim fundamentalists do this according to the mores of their society (by jihad) where Christian fundamentalists do it according to the mores of theirs (by suppression of opposing thought - actually, the Muslim fundamentalists do this too)

d) Unconnected with any arguments about Muslim versus Christian fundamentalists, I make the point that Americans have killed more human beings in their war against fundamentalist Islam (100,000 or so in Iraq, a few tens of thousands in Afghanisatan, I think) than Islamic fundamentalists have killed in their wars against the west (2,000 or so in the World Trade Center buildings and the planes that attacked them, I'm not sure how many in the Spanish and English train bombings, but probably only (only!) a few dozen.

I don't have any particular liking for *either* side. As far as I'm concerned I'd like both American killers and Islamic killers to keep well away from me and mine and do their quarrelling far from us.

I suspect that the basis of this - like the basis of the first and second world wars - is profit, when all of the excuses are stripped away.

Might I make the point that 99% of the time when someone says to someone else "But you've changed your argument", it's because they haven't listened.

23 Jun 07 - 02:38 PM (#2084994)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianavan

It was wrong to issue a fatwah and it was wrong to make Rushdie a knight.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Basically, the Brits are saying that the enemy of Islam is their hero in a very public way.

The Brits can do what they want but it certainly isn't a step toward peace.

23 Jun 07 - 03:01 PM (#2085015)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Well, I respect your right to resist portions of what I have said, but I nevertheless respectfully disagree with most of your 23 Jun 07 - 01:54 PM post, robomatic (may I call you robomatic?).

Human culture is not stamped out, it develops, ages, (hopefully) matures


In order for the point I am taking you to be making to be valid (ie: that Islam has not passed through a reformation, and that the Muslim religion develops at the same rate everywhere in the world at the same time), you would have to accept the premise that Islamic 'culture' is the same everywhere in the world. It is not. Muslims have the culture of their religion, but that is only one aspect of the 'culture' in which they function. Other aspects are the local cultures of the various localities in which they live, as well as the experiences they and their predecessors had while getting to the point where they are now. Each of these cultural elements plays a role in how the religion is practiced. Even in the separatist religions, such as the Amish religion, the prevailing culture of the surrounding communities has an influence. My Amish landlord (back in the 1980s) had a telephone and drove a gasoline powered tractor with rubber tires.

Also, time is not really the major determining factor in the progress toward enlightenment of any religion or culture. The Hindu religion is very, very old, and yet it's more fundamentalist elements are no more enlightened than the most fundamentalist of Muslims.

It really isn't possible to measure the progress toward enlightenment of all members of any group as large and as dispersed as Muslims are by the same yardstick. And that is regardless of what you think they are taught with regard to how literally they are to interpret the Quran. Islam, as it is practiced in the US, does have many levels of fundamentalism/enlightenment, but Muslims in the US frequently have about the same level of fundamentalism as the Christian denomination in which I was raised (which is to say, extremely liberal). Although you will tend to see a greater amount of fundamentalism in the parts of the country with more recent emigrant populations.

The reasons that I have seen given for this difference between the Muslims who emigrated to the US and the Muslims emigrating to many European countries is that the families of US Muslims often emigrated here more than two generations ago, and because they came from more highly educated and more prosperous families than the majority of those who emigrated to European countries.

This created a different experience for those who came here. They have not felt disenfranchised (until fairly recently), they were able to blend in fairly easily into the local culture, they did not experience any significant amounts of financial hardship or deprivation. This is not the case for large numbers of Muslims emigrants to Europe. As a result, these Muslims tend to practice a very liberal form of Islam that is no less enlightened than the liberal form of Christianity in which I grew up.

Plus, there is also Islam as practiced by African Americans who converted to Islam, which is a fairly liberal form of Islam.

You can't measure the developoment of a religion like Islam by only one yardstick. There is too much variation in the way it is practiced in different parts of the world and in different societies.

23 Jun 07 - 04:10 PM (#2085051)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

Christian fundamentalists don't believe there is anything one could do to hasten Armaggedon. I went to a fundamentalist elementary school. I went to a fundamentalist junior high. I went to a fundamentalist high school. I went to a fundamenmtalist college. I attended fundamentalist seminary classes. I NEVER ONCE heard anyone talk of even the remotest possiblity that ANYTHING man EVER did would hasten Armaggedon or the second coming of Jesus.

I consistantly heard it taught that the end times would come "as a thief in the night", and "of that hour knoweth no man".

If there was talk about end times being near, it was always in the context of where we MIGHT be on the prophetic timeline. It was NOT speculated as though there was anything we could do about it -- other than prepare our hearts and be living the kind of lives we'd want to living when caught by surprise by Jesus' return.

The first time I heard anyone even claim this of fundamentalism (that we were out to hasten the end times) was here on mudcat and by Bill Moyers who extrapolated the beliefs of a christian-related cult over the whole of fundamentalism in order to rile up his viewer to his anti-christian sentiment.

23 Jun 07 - 04:17 PM (#2085055)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast

Guest,JTT--
I not only read your statements once, but three times; I stand by my critique that you morph 'Christian fundamentalist' into 'American' in your posts to John Hardly.
Also, I know of no creditable, unbiased source that asserts that American troops have killed 100,000 Iraqis (a non-sequitur at any rate in discussing Mr. Rushdie.) The vast majority Iraqi casualties are Iraqi/Iraqi. If you care to, please provide the basis for your numbers actually killed by Americans.

23 Jun 07 - 04:56 PM (#2085083)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Christian fundamentalists don't believe there is anything one could do to hasten Armaggedon.

Some do. My mother was a fundamentalist in her later years. She very much believed that there were certain things that needed to be done, politically, in order to create the conditions that would bring about armageddon, and her voting patterns reflected that belief. I have other relatives who believe this way also. And I've heard plenty of fundamentalists preaching along these lines on Christian radio as well.

23 Jun 07 - 04:58 PM (#2085086)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

BTW, my mother belonged to an evangelical, charismatic Presbytarian church during her fundamentalist years, no more a 'cult' than any other Christian denomination.

23 Jun 07 - 05:26 PM (#2085110)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

which "radio preachers" do you listen to?

23 Jun 07 - 05:30 PM (#2085113)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ebbie

John Hardly, you call a Baptist minister ant-christian?

23 Jun 07 - 05:57 PM (#2085133)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

Ebbie, there is nothing -- even residual -- that resembles the Baptist theology of the past several hundred years in what Moyers believes.

Moyers claim to "baptist" is like the old guy who claims he bought George Washington's hatchet at an auction. Sure, the handle's been replaced 7 times and the head's been replaced twice in the past two hundred years -- but he SWEARS it's still George Washington's hatchet.

...and a charismatic Presbyterian, while maybe not a cult, would hardly be typical or exemplary of "fundamentalism".

23 Jun 07 - 06:08 PM (#2085135)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

which "radio preachers" do you listen to?

Just random ones while flipping around the dial from time to time.

23 Jun 07 - 06:10 PM (#2085137)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

oh yeah, those guys.

23 Jun 07 - 06:10 PM (#2085138)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Oops... missed this part:

...and a charismatic Presbyterian, while maybe not a cult, would hardly be typical or exemplary of "fundamentalism"


My mother and her congregation would disagree with you on that point.

23 Jun 07 - 06:12 PM (#2085139)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

oh yeah, those guys.

There's lots and lots of them. Sometimes it's really, really difficult to get away from them, like for instance when driving a car in any number of rural areas, particularly here in the US South, when it isn't possible to get other kinds of stations. They're pretty ubiquitous.

23 Jun 07 - 06:20 PM (#2085144)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

BTW, what is your denomination, John, and on what basis do presume to speak for all fundamentalist Christians, or even the majority of them?

23 Jun 07 - 06:34 PM (#2085150)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

You must have missed this...

"I went to a fundamentalist elementary school. I went to a fundamentalist junior high. I went to a fundamentalist high school. I went to a fundamenmtalist college. I attended fundamentalist seminary classes"

I don't "speak for" all fundamentalists. Don't claim to. But I doubt that anyone here has had more experience than I with being on the inside of Fundamentalist Christianity, nor more education in fundamentalist Christian theology. There may be someone else here, but they have, at this point anyway, kept that under their hat.

But if I'm interested in technogeek stuff, I ask John from Kansas or any number of other tech geeks here. When I'm interested in physics questions, I ask the physics geeks here. When I have a guitar question, I ask M. Ted or Mooh.

I never thought to ask Mooh or M. Ted what gives them the right to speak for all guitar players. I'll have to ask them next time.

Now you've got me kinda pissed at the HUBRIS of Mooh and M. Ted. The NERVE of those guys!

23 Jun 07 - 06:53 PM (#2085157)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: heric

lol I revoke the fatwah on you.



And I DO speak for the fathwahnians of Bakersfield.

23 Jun 07 - 07:18 PM (#2085167)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

The thing is that the term "fundamentalist" covers a whole range of different varieties, both in Christianity and in Islam. The mistake people fall into is to lump them all in together.

23 Jun 07 - 07:37 PM (#2085173)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

John, I think you are as aware as I am that there are many, many branches and different kinds of fundamentalist Christianity. You are familiar with the kind you grew up with. Clearly there are many kinds with which you are not familiar. There's lots and lots of them, and to try to suggest that the particular kind you come from is typical is pretty disingenuous. What is the name of your denomination? How many adherents are there in your particular denomination?

23 Jun 07 - 07:49 PM (#2085177)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

As an atheist I am constantly amused by this idea of one religion having gone through "an enlightenment" but not the other. The only true enlightenment for anyone of a religious persuasion is the sudden realisation that you'd actually better stand on your own two feet for once instead of invoking some "deity" or other to bale you out, and be prepared to turn into nowt more than compost in the fullness of time! ;-)

23 Jun 07 - 07:51 PM (#2085179)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

Oh, I'm pretty comfortable that I'm knowledgeable enough about why a Christian would refer to themselves as "fundamentalist" to assume a pretty predictable set of "fundamentals" of them.

And I'm knowledgeable enough to know when a group is rather "fringe". You pick up on these little details when you've had theology classes for 25 years of your life.

I'm not denominational. I am officially part of what the fundies used to refer to as the "unchurched". If you want my history of church attendance and affiliation I could give it. But as little as you know of Christianity, it wouldn't mean much to you.

23 Jun 07 - 07:58 PM (#2085185)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I don't adhere to any particular religion myself, Steve, and I'm also not an atheist. I have to agree with you to the extent that I think the term "enlightenment" is highly subjective. My use of it in this thread is using the meaning that I understand others to be using for that term.

To me "enlightenment" means something entirely different than the way it's being used in this discussion. And from my perspective, there are no current established religions have gotten to that point.

23 Jun 07 - 08:00 PM (#2085187)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I've spent enough time (several decades) listening to fundamentalist Christians of many different denominations and varieties argue and debate with one another to know that what you're saying is far from the truth, John.

23 Jun 07 - 08:12 PM (#2085193)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

Not far from truth at all.

I betcha dollars to donuts I can tell you what most, if not all, of those interdenominational/interchurch/innerchurch disagreements are, and I betcha those same donuts I could argue either side and, though I'm pretty rusty on doing so, I betcha the donut holes that I could even give you the main prooftexts that either side would use in their side of the debate.

I'm telling you... I don't just know about this stuff. I LIVED in the midst of it for forty years.

23 Jun 07 - 08:17 PM (#2085197)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

There are plenty of fundamentalist Christians about. Quite a lot of them swan around in cassocks or other such impractical vestments, eschew sex and marriage (at least officially ;-) )and preach to the world about the "evils" of masturbation/contraception/sex before marriage/the right of women to choose whether or not to have abortions. Oddly, most of the more influential of these happen to be men. Had it not been for increased knowledge and scientific advance, I'm certain that they'd still be propagating the message that wanking would not only consign you to hellfire but would also make you blind and give you hairy palms.

Steve (short-sighted and, well, wanna shake hands? :-D )

23 Jun 07 - 08:20 PM (#2085200)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I've lived it too, John. I've had them prosletizing at me for just about as long as I can remember. That's religious training, even if it's not formal church training. You learn a lot about a religion from being prosletyzed at. And although I'm pretty sure I know what you consider the fundamentals of your religion, and you probably aren't all that different from my mother in that regard, nevertheless there are many people who are self-described fundamentalist Christians who believe that there are certain things that need to happen in the Middle East in order to create the conditions that will allow the second coming of Christ.

I seriously doubt that any of them would describe that belief as being one of the fundamentals of their religions, but they do believe it, and their votes reflect that belief.

23 Jun 07 - 08:52 PM (#2085219)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

Yeah. Good rule of thumb -- you need to get your car fixed, the salesman's the guy to take it to.

23 Jun 07 - 09:19 PM (#2085241)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

John, try to trivialize my experiences all you want. It doesn't change the facts. And as I've said, my experience covers the whole spectrum. Listening to the prosletyzers, listening to adherents discussing, debating and arguing amongst themselves, as well as discussing, debating and arguing with them myself. I know what the fundamentalist Christians I've spent a large portion of my life with believe.

And if we can't trust your salesmen, what does that say about your savior? He was your first salesman, wasn't he?

23 Jun 07 - 09:21 PM (#2085242)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Anyway, my car's not broken.

23 Jun 07 - 09:28 PM (#2085244)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

"He was your first salesman, wasn't he?"

If you think that, then you really don't understand fundamentalism.

23 Jun 07 - 10:03 PM (#2085265)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I won't say I understand it, but I know what the fundamentals are, and I know what the fundamentalist Christians I've spent time with believe.


But he was a salesman before he was your savior. That is, if we are to accept your premise that those who prosletize are salesmen. According to your holy book that's what he devoted most of his life to right up until the time of his death.


I'll tell you what I think the fundamentals of your religion are, and you tell me if I'm wrong. The fundamentals of your religion are that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died for your sins, and that a personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ, and acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal savior are the requirements for salvation. Am I close? Pretty much all of the fundamentalist Christians I have encountered hold those beliefs as the fundamentals of their religion.


However, as I said before, the belief I have been talking about with regard to the second coming has never been presented as one of the fundamentals of the religion of those fundamentalist Christians who believe it. I don't need to understand them or their religion to know what they themselves have said they believe.

23 Jun 07 - 10:58 PM (#2085306)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ebbie

John, they don't come much more fundamentalist than the Amish. Want to try arguing their side?

"I betcha dollars to donuts I can tell you what most, if not all, of those interdenominational/interchurch/innerchurch disagreements are, and I betcha those same donuts I could argue either side and, though I'm pretty rusty on doing so, I betcha the donut holes that I could even give you the main prooftexts that either side would use in their side of the debate."

24 Jun 07 - 02:12 AM (#2085358)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

I believe the term "Enlightenment" and possibly also "Reformation" has some definite meanings which are important to the points I've been trying to bring to the fore:

A) Tolerance of other faiths to the extent of accepting that other people believe and practise differently.
B) Relaxation or elimination of state control of religion or state religion.
C) Acceptance (or toleration) of the methods and results of the scientific approach.

Only recently has there been this development in the West, and it was long and bloody in coming. This has definitely not penetrated the Islamic world anything close to the West, and if the history of the West is anything to go by, the Islamic world has a long way to go.

24 Jun 07 - 02:35 AM (#2085363)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianavan

HELLO!

A) Tolerance of other faiths to the extent of accepting that other people believe and practise differently.
B) Relaxation or elimination of state control of religion or state religion.
C) Acceptance (or toleration) of the methods and results of the scientific approach. - Robomatic

If the west is so enlightened and/or reformed, why did the Christian Brothers sexually abuse all those heathen Indian kids? Why was it unlawful to practice the ghost dances?

Why were the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland fighting?

Why did the holocaust occur?

Why is polygamy outlawed? Why has stem cell research been curtailed?
Why are women denied the choice of abortion? Why are homosexuals denied same-sex marriage?

24 Jun 07 - 07:04 AM (#2085451)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Teribus

HELLO! Dianavan, I believe that Robomatic was referring to the situation as exists today when he stated:

A) Tolerance of other faiths to the extent of accepting that other people believe and practise differently.
B) Relaxation or elimination of state control of religion or state religion.
C) Acceptance (or toleration) of the methods and results of the scientific approach. - Robomatic

So your questions are irrelevant and only serve to show how the west has progressed.

1) "If the west is so enlightened and/or reformed, why did the Christian Brothers sexually abuse all those heathen Indian kids? Why was it unlawful to practice the ghost dances?"

Note use of past tense - "why did" and "why was"

2) "Why were the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland fighting?"

Fallacy, the fighting in Ireland was deliniated not by religion but by political aspiration - Nationalist/Republican V Unionist. I have met and known both Protestants and Catholics who were supporters of both sides.

3) "Why did the holocaust occur?"

Again past tense, and exactly how many of them has there been?

4) "Why is polygamy outlawed?"

In and around Salt Lake City Dianavan how many wives can a Morman have?

5) "Why has stem cell research been curtailed?"

Stem cell research has been curtailed where dianavan? Throughout the western world? How much stem cell research is being carried out in Islamic countries? Is it ultimately being carried out to benefit mankind?

6) "Why are women denied the choice of abortion?"

Are women throughout the western world denied the choice of abortion? Somehow don't think so dianavan, certainly not on this side of the pond

7) "Why are homosexuals denied same-sex marriage?"

Are they?

Now then dianavan take a look at the state of things in all those wonderfully enlightened Islamic countries and come back to us on the points made by Robomatic and yourself.

Dianavan I bet the number of homosexuals who got stoned in sunny California, or down there in Florida at anyone time was quite high. A number of them also got stoned in Saudi Arabia and Iran - but it was not quite the same thing.

24 Jun 07 - 07:45 AM (#2085477)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

5) "Why has stem cell research been curtailed?"

How has it been curtailed? The US Government has decided not to fund it, but private funds are certainly legal to use. Are you claiming that anything NOT funded by the government is thus being curtailed?????

If so, I have a number of examples that are not presently being funded, in spite of the fact I think they are things we shouls be doing.


6) "Why are women denied the choice of abortion?"

Are they being denied the choice, or just US Government funding for that choice.

Are YOU ( or rather, the US citizen who objects to something) to be forced to PROVIDE something by the use of taxes), just because anyone else wants it? We have a process by which, if the MAJORITY of people want the government to pay for something, they can elect a like minded administration and Congress. But should that mean the enforced provision ( by those tax dollars paid to support the government) of those things that some object to?

24 Jun 07 - 01:15 PM (#2085678)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

All of your points have been realized by the majority of Christians, robomatic (but not all, by any stretch of the imagination), but there are factions that grow more politically powerful every day who are trying to reverse all of that. They are working very hard to reverse all of your criteria, and they are making progress toward that goal. Their goal is nothing less than a (right-wing) Christian theocracy in the US (with capital punishment for everything from adultery to apostasy to striking a parent).

Google "Christian Reconstructionism" and "Dominionism".

24 Jun 07 - 01:17 PM (#2085681)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Almost forgot, they also want capital punishment for anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

24 Jun 07 - 01:18 PM (#2085683)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Ingrowing Toenail

Agreed it was wrong to issue a fatwah against him, but which mudcatter would you issue one against !

Come on there has to be a thread in this one.

24 Jun 07 - 07:46 PM (#2085959)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

Beardedbruce is Pontius Pilate! I knew it!

24 Jun 07 - 08:02 PM (#2085964)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST, hi lo

two points, many people are outraged for the wrong reason,some who should be outraged are silent, secondly, snd this is only my opinion, Mr. Rushdie is not really a very good writer. He is famous for all of the wrong reasons.

24 Jun 07 - 09:53 PM (#2086028)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

That's the issue that interests me. Is Rushdie really worth reading, or is he simply talked about in literary circles because of the timely death threats surrounding "Satanic Versus?" Threats which could have been fabricated pretty easily, by the way.

24 Jun 07 - 10:48 PM (#2086065)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dax

For someone with nothing more to say CarolC seems to suffer from verbal overload. Perhaps she would want to show her colours by stating her views on freedom of expression.

24 Jun 07 - 11:17 PM (#2086083)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Ad hominem, dax? Got nothing better to offer?


Freedom of expression is a fine thing, as long as it isn't outweighed by certain other kinds of considerations, like for instance, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and things like that. Rushdie had a right to publish his book. No one had a right to threaten his life because of it. I just am not of the opinion that this "honour" was bestowed for reasons having anything to do with "freedom of expression", or even necessarily his contributions to literature in the UK. But as I said, that's my opinion. You may feel differently.

25 Jun 07 - 04:45 AM (#2086183)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Keith A of Hertford

Awards that Rushdie has won include the following:

Booker Prize for Fiction
James Tait Black Memorial Prize (Fiction)
Arts Council Writers' Award
English-Speaking Union Award
Booker of Bookers or the best novel among the Booker Prize winners for Fiction
Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger
Whitbread Novel Award (twice)
Writers' Guild of Great Britain Award for Children's Fiction
Kurt Tucholsky Prize (Sweden)
Prix Colette (Switzerland)
State Prize for Literature (Austria)
Author of the Year (British Book Awards)
Author of the Year (Germany)
Mantua Prize (Italy)
Premio Grinzane Cavour (Italy)
Hutch Crossword Fiction Prize (India)
India Abroad Lifetime Achievement Award (USA)
Outstanding Lifetime Achievement in Cultural Humanism (Harvard University)
Aristeion Prize (European Union)

25 Jun 07 - 06:05 AM (#2086232)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

"John, they don't come much more fundamentalist than the Amish. Want to try arguing their side?"

If you're questioning my familiarity with the Amish, you're barking up the wrong tree. Grace College (my alma mater) is Grace Brethren -- from the same Anabaptist tradition as Mennonite and Amish. That, coupled with the facts that I regularly play music with a bunch of Mennonites, and live in the biggest Amish community in Indiana (one of the bigger ones in the country) that stretches from here in Warsaw (S) to Shipshewana (N) to LaGrange (E) to Nappanee (W), I have more than a passing acquaintance.

25 Jun 07 - 09:02 AM (#2086345)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dax

I would suppose that if Rushdie is a British subject the government has a right to bestow state honours upon him. I didn't read anywhere that it was a result of a specific book that he wrote. I seems that it is no business of countries such as Iran and Pakistan. Surely the civilized world should not have to pander to such foolish religious antics or perceived insult!

25 Jun 07 - 11:09 AM (#2086469)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

Booker Prize for Fiction
James Tait Black Memorial Prize (Fiction)
Arts Council Writers' Award
English-Speaking Union Award
Booker of Bookers or the best novel among the Booker Prize winners for Fiction
Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger
Whitbread Novel Award (twice)
Writers' Guild of Great Britain Award for Children's Fiction
Kurt Tucholsky Prize (Sweden)
Prix Colette (Switzerland)
State Prize for Literature (Austria)
Author of the Year (British Book Awards)
Author of the Year (Germany)
Mantua Prize (Italy)
Premio Grinzane Cavour (Italy)
Hutch Crossword Fiction Prize (India)
India Abroad Lifetime Achievement Award (USA)
Outstanding Lifetime Achievement in Cultural Humanism (Harvard University)
Aristeion Prize (European Union)



                         That's quite a list!

25 Jun 07 - 01:10 PM (#2086599)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Surely the civilized world should not have to pander to such foolish religious antics or perceived insult!

If this statement is addressed to me, I would have to assume that you haven't actually read any of my posts in this thread other than perhaps the ones on this page.

25 Jun 07 - 04:31 PM (#2086781)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

A) Tolerance of other faiths to the extent of accepting that other people believe and practise differently.
B) Relaxation or elimination of state control of religion or state religion.
C) Acceptance (or toleration) of the methods and results of the scientific approach.

Maybe we've got around to thinking that way now - but it certainly wasn't what the Reformation was about. And the Reformers would be turning in their grave at the notion that that was what they were trying to bring about. It took a good few centuries after that before those kind of ideas got too much of a hearing.

25 Jun 07 - 04:52 PM (#2086803)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

Yeah, tolerance of any faith at all seems like a really bad idea to me.

25 Jun 07 - 09:57 PM (#2086979)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

Good to see your clear statement--blessedly free from any allegation of "Moslem-baiting"-- that killing somebody for what he writes is totally unacceptable.   Now, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to the mysterious reason the UK knighted Rushdie--since you don't seem to accept the idea that it was entirely for literary merit. Though, based on the acclamation he has already had--as in the recent list--his literary merit seems clearly established.

Perhaps you have some new source you'd like to share. I'm sure we'd all be interested in your unique revelation.

25 Jun 07 - 11:53 PM (#2087026)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

My OPINION is that it was Muslim-baiting.

26 Jun 07 - 02:05 AM (#2087062)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Keith A of Hertford

Carol, I have provided a list of his achievements.
These make him better qualified for recognition than most recipients of honours.
There is no reason to come up with an ulterior motive because none is needed.

26 Jun 07 - 02:37 AM (#2087076)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ebbie

As long as you don't know their language, John Hardly, you don't know the Amish. Nothing personal nor am I putting them down - or you. They have many good qualities- I used to say that as a lifestyle, it was ideal, but to raise a kid in it was a crime. There is/was no way to win- if a kid rebelled against the parents or questioned the religion they were rebelling against God. It's a very patriarchal religion.

And that's just part of it.

26 Jun 07 - 03:31 AM (#2087106)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Someone else showed that there are others who might have deserved it more, who even still live in the UK, Keith A of Hertford, but didn't get it. Your list doesn't impress me.

26 Jun 07 - 05:26 AM (#2087168)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

I haven't met a single person (or a married one come to think of it ) who is at all impressed that this somewhat obscure (apart from his fortuitous bout of notoriety) and minority-taste author should have been honoured with a knighthood. I'd love to have been a fly-on-the-wall in whatever committee meeting decided to give it him:

"Right, chaps, next up is this Rushdie bloke."

"Who?"

Y'know, the one we had to hide for ten years from that Ayatollah feller?"

"Oh, him. Thought he was dead. Anyone ever read his books?"

"Nah. Bloody unreadable I've heard. Anyway, I didn't know he'd written more than one."

"Yeah. Got a list of things here that he's won.   Booker this, literary award that, Whitbread the other. Usual trendy bullshit stuff that no-one really takes much notice of, let alone ever agrees with. Think Oscars and Baftas and all that other self-aggrandising stuff. A lot of 'em seem to be foreign awards. Switzerland, Austria, Italy. Must be bloody masochists - it's hard enough to read his stuff in English!   Even one from the US. Probably got that for getting up Iran's nose - heheh!"

"Yeah, that's a thing though, innit. Things are a bit delicate again there at the minute. What if we give him this and it causes a bit of bother?"

"We should give it him or not give it him on pure literary merit, nowt else! If it gets up I'm-in-a-dinner-jacket's nose, TOUGH!"

"Mind you..."

26 Jun 07 - 11:45 AM (#2087442)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

Good dialogue!

26 Jun 07 - 11:50 AM (#2087446)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

LOLOLOL

26 Jun 07 - 01:29 PM (#2087523)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Stilly River Sage

Steve Shaw wrote I haven't met a single person . . . who is at all impressed that this somewhat obscure (apart from his fortuitous bout of notoriety) and minority-taste author should have been honoured with a knighthood. I'd love to have been a fly-on-the-wall in whatever committee meeting decided to give it him:

Obscure? Salman Rushdie? I think not. Consider for a moment the periodicals you read and the company you keep--they may be at fault. Bibliophobia and Xenophobia are not good lenses through which to view modern literature.

SRS

26 Jun 07 - 02:29 PM (#2087572)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

Agreed there. If you think Salman Rushdie is obscure you are definitely not too knowledgeable about modern English language literature.

I don't think there's any mileage in criticising the award from that direction.

26 Jun 07 - 04:09 PM (#2087644)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

You guys could be right. It's just that his notoriety has undoubtedly done him a few favours. As for the company I keep, I'm hardly going to judge them on whether they read Sir Salman! As for periodicals, I stopped reading The Eagle in 1959 because I thought Flash Gordon was getting a bit too full of himself, and I've never recovered.

26 Jun 07 - 04:17 PM (#2087653)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

Flash Gordon in The Eagle?   I don't think so.

26 Jun 07 - 06:24 PM (#2087765)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

*Splutter* How wrong can a man be! He was the front page, the headliner, the main man! OF COURSE Flash Gordon was in The Eagle! He WAS The Eagle!

26 Jun 07 - 06:31 PM (#2087775)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

Bugger. I grovel at your feet and eat mud. I was of course confusing Flash Gordon with Dan Dare, pilot of the future.   A bit like confusing Salman Rushdie with Enid Blyton. I creep away back into my pathetic hole.

26 Jun 07 - 07:00 PM (#2087803)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

I heard that Democrats have issued a fatwah on Salman Rushdie Limbaugh. I wonder if they know that he's not so fatwah anymore after going on a dietwah.

26 Jun 07 - 07:17 PM (#2087817)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

Now that he's off Oxycodone--if he really is off Oxycodone--he'll probably become fatwah again.

26 Jun 07 - 07:34 PM (#2087825)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

hey, I saw your picture in the latest Fretboard Journal. You were one slim fella back then! No fatwah on those bones.

26 Jun 07 - 11:46 PM (#2087926)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

So you do think the knighthood is "Moslem-baiting"? (Oh well, back to square one).

Then perhaps you'll share your evidence of this-- as distinguished from amorphous dark imaginings.

Please be sure to say exactly why the committee which recommended Rushdie wanted to inflame Moslem radicals. And exactly why inflaming Moslem radicals would benefit the UK.

Thank you.

27 Jun 07 - 12:16 AM (#2087941)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I look at patterns, Ron. And so far, I've been able to make quite a few predictions that way (invasion of Iraq, for instance, long before very many other people were predicting it), as well as being able to see through quite a few subterfuges on the part of the US and UK governments. Ones that are generally accepted as subterfuges by the majority of people now, such as the bogus reasons for invading Iraq. You don't have to believe me, but I trust my track record.

The people who benefit in the UK are the same ones there who benefited with from the Iraqi invasion. This time, it's to shore up sagging support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as softening people up for war against Iran (as I already pointed out here in this thread). Any time the West does something that pisses off large numbers of Muslims, that is what it's all about.

27 Jun 07 - 12:28 AM (#2087946)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

Does not compute.

You were asked a specific question of why you think the knighthood offered Rushdie was done intentionally to inflame Moslem radicals.

General observations about "track record" does not answer the question.

If you do not provide a specific answer of what you envision this specific move was to do, we may be forced to the conclusion that you in fact have no idea--that it is precisely just your amorphous dark imaginings.

So far, that appears to be the case.

27 Jun 07 - 12:50 AM (#2087951)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianavan

I think its quite possible that the knighthood of Rushdie was a move to "to shore up sagging support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as softening people up for war against Iran."

ie) If we make Rushdie a knight, there will be an outcry from the Muslim world which in turn will show the western world exactly why we need to conquer these blood-thirsty fanatics."

It might be a very twisted form of propaganda.

Either it was a very calculated move or a very ignorant move.

27 Jun 07 - 01:03 AM (#2087954)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Draw any conclusion you like, Ron. I'm not your performing monkey.

27 Jun 07 - 08:24 AM (#2088149)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

"Either it was a very calculated move or a very ignorant move."
            
          dianavan - I don't have any idea who the folks are who make the decision for knighthood, but if a similar thing happened in the US, given what we know about the people in charge here, I would come out on the side of ignorant move.

27 Jun 07 - 07:10 PM (#2088642)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Stilly River Sage

dianavan - I don't have any idea who the folks are who make the decision for knighthood, but if a similar thing happened in the US, given what we know about the people in charge here, I would come out on the side of ignorant move.

You think it would be an "ignorant move" if Dubya offered someone a knighthood in the U.S.?


























I"m speechless.

SRS

27 Jun 07 - 07:24 PM (#2088652)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

"You think it would be an "ignorant move" if Dubya offered someone a knighthood in the U.S.?"


                Yeah, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him try it.

27 Jun 07 - 11:08 PM (#2088751)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

Thanks for giving me permission to draw whatever conclusion I'd like.

Let's try this one.

You have provided precisely zero evidence of any supposed hoped-for effect, in offering the knighthood to Rushdie, of shoring up support for Mideast or other wars. As well as zero evidence that the committee who chose Rushdie would ever want to inflame Moslems.

Unless, of course, the committee is in the pocket of the warmongers of the UK-- (which warmongers are these? one might ask--since Blair was on the way out.) And naturally these undetermined warmongers have foreseen exactly how the knighthood would be taken. Of course, how could it be otherwise?

This idea sounds surprisingly like the wooly-headed conspiracy theories of the Left which are constantly lampooned in the WSJ. (And entertaining reading too, I might add). As an added bonus, such theories provide a nice balance to the apocalyptic visions of the Teribus and his fellow brilliant thinkers on the Right--who, among their flights of fancy, predict headscarves for all Western women if the Iraq war is lost.

Did you by some chance miss the posting by Peace (from the Guardian 20 June 2007): The writers' organization "that led the lobbying for (Rushdie) to be knighted had originally hoped the honour would lead to better relations between Britain and Asia".

Now that has the ring of truth--what's the phrase? "No good deed goes unpunished". So the committee has a tin ear for the nuances of international politics? We should be surprised? They're literary folk, not statesmen.

Pardon me if I don't buy conspiracy theories with no evidence. Conspiracies do exist--the Iraq propaganda campaign is a perfect illustration--with lots of evidence, as you know.

But the knighthood does not qualify as part of a conspiracy.

Sorry.

27 Jun 07 - 11:11 PM (#2088753)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

"of Teribus"

"20 June 2007?"

27 Jun 07 - 11:17 PM (#2088756)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dax

Would not the cause of the damn fools who rise in outrage be better served in protesting the civil strife in Iraq where mosques are being destroyed by other Muslims. Hardly a peep of protest from Iran or Pakistan.

27 Jun 07 - 11:25 PM (#2088759)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

dax--

Absolutely right. But it ain't gonna happen. And it doesn't really help when imaginative Westerners come up with scenarios whereby the knighthood is pictured as a deliberate provocation. ( So there's bound to be response to the provocation. Any bad behavior by Moslems is due to Western imperialism and colonialism, as I'm sure you know.)

28 Jun 07 - 12:35 AM (#2088782)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Good night, Ron.

28 Jun 07 - 12:37 AM (#2088783)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

(BTW, Ron, for answers to some of your questions, I suggest reading the thread.)

28 Jun 07 - 04:07 PM (#2089397)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Hardly a peep of protest from Iran or Pakistan.

How do you know this, dax?

28 Jun 07 - 04:18 PM (#2089411)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

CarolC,

How do you know any Moslems objected to the knighting?

If they can riot over that, and there is NO activity to protest the other, it is obvious that there is less concern.

28 Jun 07 - 05:19 PM (#2089462)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Keith A of Hertford

There were demos. in Pakistan, with Union Flag burning.
A government minister said it justified suicide bombing of UK

28 Jun 07 - 06:52 PM (#2089528)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

beardedbruce, how do know there was NO activity to protest the other?

28 Jun 07 - 07:02 PM (#2089538)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

Hey, has anyone done that hilarious Salmon Rushed-y-on-the-seafood-menu joke yet?

I'll hang up and wait for the answer.

28 Jun 07 - 08:31 PM (#2089590)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,JTT

Is Rushdie worth reading? Depends on what you like to read. He likes playing with words and images, but he's not what you'd call *plotty*.

28 Jun 07 - 08:32 PM (#2089591)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: heric

Too bad. I like a book with plotty humor.

28 Jun 07 - 09:42 PM (#2089632)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--


Nice dodge. Congratulations.

However, we're still waiting for any evidence that the committee which chose Rushdie intended to enrage Moslems. I get the feeling it will be a long wait.

So far all you've proven is that you have a good imagination.   You ought to talk to Teribus--he has a good imagination too.

And you might want to tell us why the "Guardian" 's observation----a well-intentioned gesture not received in the spirit intended, to say the least---- does not sound much more likely an explanation than any intended "Moslem-baiting".

Sure is interesting--it's a mystery why you guys pick such unseaworthy vessels when you lash yourselves to the mast. Perhaps you'd like to compare notes with Teribus on that. (And they say only males are prisoners of ego.)

29 Jun 07 - 01:36 AM (#2089720)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianvan

I doubt if you'll find "evidence that the committee which chose Rushdie intended to enrage Moslems."

Lets just say that if they didn't know that, they have their heads in the sand. It requires only a small amount of common sense to know that it was absolutely predictable.

Please don't try to tell me the Moslem world would applaud their choice, since the Moslem world has long standing hatred of all that is British.

29 Jun 07 - 01:45 AM (#2089723)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Ron, if you notice an absence of any kind of response from me at any point in the future (beginning right after I finish this post, most likely), it is because I am ignoring you. If you can't take a hint, take a bus...

29 Jun 07 - 01:53 AM (#2089726)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Actually (this is addressed to dianavan, because I'm probably ignoring Mr. Davies... but not intending to rebut anything dianavan herself has said in her last post), I actually never made the charge that the committee had any such intention, which anyone who has read my posts in this thread will know.

29 Jun 07 - 03:26 AM (#2089752)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: goatfell

they all must have the same father and mother because all the sirs have BLOODY as a middle name, good old SIR SALMAN RUSHDIE.

29 Jun 07 - 07:21 AM (#2089901)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow

Hardly a peep of protest from Iran or Pakistan.

Just because something doesn't get reported in our media, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The implication, for example, that people in Iran, and the Iranian government don't care about mosques of their co-religi0oniusts in Iraq being destroyed is pretty implausible.

29 Jun 07 - 04:19 PM (#2090316)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: podman

Rushdie's latest book:

"buddha you fat bastard!"

01 Jul 07 - 09:28 PM (#2092001)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

Seems painful for you to admit you made a mistake, it appears.   (Obviously you were not ignoring me--since you responded.   I suspect you know you didn't really have to--so your claim to be above it all rings slightly hollow.)   I can't help thinking ego may be mixed up in this somewhere.

But we all make mistakes. I made a mistake recently in mixing up ESL and bilingual education. When a poster came on who knew a lot more about the subject than I did, I admitted I was wrong and backed right off.

You might want to try it sometime.

It does appear that neither you nor anybody else has yet managed to come up with one iota of evidence that the knighthood was given Rushdie in order to inflame Moslems.

It begins to look as if there is no such evidence. Not really surprising.

Just perhaps there is something to the idea that the West actually does try to do the right thing once in a while--that the committee really did hope the knighthood would result in better relations between Asia and the UK.

So they guessed spectacularly wrong? Even diplomats can guess wrong on the impact of what they may say or do.   Look at April Glaspie. Or do you think she said what she did in order to entice Moslems into a war?




It's clear--to me at least-- that, as I've said before, Mr. Bush belongs in the circle of Hell reserved for those who started unnecessary wars by choice--and by means of a despicable propaganda campaign. Mr Bush would be placed right next to Herr Hitler.

It's also clear that Mr. Bush is directly or indirectly responsible for much of the terrorism we now see all over the world--since the Iraq war has been a wonderful radicalizing element for Moslems ever since it started.

But that does not relieve individual Moslems from responsibility for what they do--or mean that the West is evil incarnate--that anything a Western group tries to do is meant to serve the interests of an all -powerful aggressive Western capitalist machine.

Not everything the West does is intended to serve the mythical $ystem we hear so much about on Mudcat--and it would be refreshing to hear left-of-center posters admit this once in a while. Yes, there are--many--abuses of capitalism--yes, capitalism needs a tight rein on it--and is not getting it in the US these days.

But the knighthood seems clearly to be an example of non-aggressive, non-acquisitive Western behavior. In fact, as I said earlier, a sterling example of "No good deed goes unpunished".

And so far there has been absolutely zero evidence that this is not the case.

02 Jul 07 - 01:12 PM (#2092486)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

Looking at the photograph of Rushdie and his newly estranged wife, makes one wonder why anyone would afford any kind of honor on him.

02 Jul 07 - 01:21 PM (#2092496)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce

Looking at the photograph of Rushdie and his newly estranged wife, makes one wonder why anyone would QUESTION giving him an honor.

02 Jul 07 - 01:48 PM (#2092519)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Ok, Ron. I'll respond to you. (LOL... you're such a troll.)


Please show me where, on this thread, I have even hinted that I thought the committed nominated him for any reason other than the one you indicated. (And then, when you cannot, you might want to take your own advice about ego and admitting when you're wrong.)

02 Jul 07 - 02:13 PM (#2092530)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianavan

Has anyone read his essay, "The East is Blue"?

02 Jul 07 - 02:17 PM (#2092532)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

BTW, Ron. I should tell you that if I make a decision to ignore you, it really is more for your benefit than my own. It's possible that you won't immediately understand what I'm saying when I tell you that, but you will eventually, if I decide to not ignore you.

02 Jul 07 - 11:04 PM (#2092902)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

"Show me where on this thread I have even hinted that I thought the committed (sic) nominated him for any other reason than the one you indicated".

OK, no problem.

Among others, let's try 25 June 2007 11:53 PM--"My opinion is that it was Muslim-baiting".

As I'm sure you know, the word "baiting" in this context conveys intent.

Yes, it was your "opinion". Point is, it is --so far --without any evidence to back it up. You are-still--cordially invited to provide any.

02 Jul 07 - 11:56 PM (#2092935)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Please show me where in that post I ever mentioned the committee, Ron.

05 Jul 07 - 03:54 PM (#2094971)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

( ...I guess the cat got his tongue)

06 Jul 07 - 10:06 PM (#2096097)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

Carol---

Sorry, I have other things to do from time to time. As, I suspect, you do too.

You sure are a bit slippery sometimes. Let's see if we can get you to commit to a stand.

So you are saying that although the committee was not Muslim-baiting, the selection of Rushdie was? Do you not think the committee had a lot to do with that selection? Or is my theory of several posts ago closer?---that there is some sort of nebulous group which has veto power over the committee's selection, and by not vetoing their selection, that shadowy group has proven its determination to inflame Muslims? Doesn't that logic sound a bit tortured?

If that's not your view, would you please clearly state your view?

I'm still waiting for---any----evidence that "Muslim-baiting" was in any shape or form involved with the knighthood.

06 Jul 07 - 10:07 PM (#2096098)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Oh, Carol---(shades of Neil Sedaka)

06 Jul 07 - 11:03 PM (#2096122)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Read the thread, Ron. I've already addressed your questions.

07 Jul 07 - 07:52 AM (#2096280)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Sorry, Carol, you have not in the least addressed the issue.



Carol--


Well, I'm sorry to say that you're sounding more and more like Teribus-- flip sides of the same coin.

He strove mightily--- but unfortunately, totally unsuccessfully-- to deny the overwhelming evidence of the Iraq propaganda campaign.   He succeeded in nothing but ridiculing himself.

And you are trying desperately to somehow find evidence of "Muslim baiting" behind the knighting of Rushdie.

Both you and he have lashed yourselves to the mast of a ship that's obviously going down.



If you claim to have answered the question, please be so good as to say exactly where and when you have done so. Exact quotes, please.

07 Jul 07 - 11:30 AM (#2096376)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Too lazy to do your own work, I see, Ron.

Ok, I'll help you out a little.

Do you not think the committee had a lot to do with that selection?

Find the post from me that contains a quote that specifically addresses this question. It's in the thread, Ron, and if you can't find it, it's because of your own intellectual laziness and not because the question was not addressed.

07 Jul 07 - 11:36 AM (#2096380)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I'll give you your next assignment now, just in case you somehow manage to complete the first assignment before I get back:

Find the post from me in which I clearly specify who I hold responsible for the decision to give Mr. Rushdie the honor.

11 Jul 07 - 02:28 PM (#2100021)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Wolfgang

Günter Wallraff is a German writer and jounalist with a long time record of fighting for the suppressed. To give you just two examples:
He chained himself to a lamppost at a large central place in Athens during the military dictatorship as a protest against the general and was beaten and tortured before they found out his identity (he had no identification with him on purpose and he is fairly dark skinned) and sentenced him to 14 months.
He has posed as a Turkish worker in Germany to find out first hand how these workers are treated.

Now to Rushdie. In the first couple of days after the fatwa, Rushdie was hiding in Wallraff's home and they consider themselves friends since.

Wallraff has now proposed to read from the Satanic Verses in a mosque in Cologne and to discuss with those attending the reading (Wallraff has never shirked from any personal danger). One Muslim organisation in Cologne has responded with initial openness. I don't believe the reading will happen but would be delighted to be proved wrong. I can imagine Zawahiri's reaction if the reading should take place.

Wolfgang

11 Jul 07 - 09:41 PM (#2100417)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--



No 20 questions. I asked you politely for direct quotes. It's a reasonable request, especially since I have given you a direct quote against the "Muslim-baiting" idea. The fact that you have not seen fit to give any quotes--even from your own collected works--- undercuts your argument--rather badly.

It's becoming painfully obvious that you have absolutely no evidence that "Muslim- baiting" is behind the knighthood in any shape or form.

Unsurprisingly, since it would make no sense--inflaming Muslims is not really a British goal, for obvious reasons.

Look, you and I are on the same side in the fight against the Bush regime, as I think you know. But it's important that the other side not be able to ridicule the opposition ( to the Bush regime and other Neanderthals) as fuzzy-headed leftists. If we want credibility--and I would think you'd agree, that's a worthwhile goal--we have to demand proof for outlandish theories, and insist on fact and logic, rather than knee-jerk anti-West slurs. I don't see why you can't recognize this.

If we reject unsupported ideas such as the theory that the WTC was blown up by the US----or that the knighthood to Rushdie was made for "Muslim-baiting"-- we can much more credibly attack the Bushites' crackpot ideas that we must fight the Islamic hordes "in Baghdad or in Brooklyn" or that a loss in Iraq will mean headscarves for all Western women.

11 Jul 07 - 09:47 PM (#2100420)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Already gave you what you're asking for, Ron. If you can't be bothered to read what I've already posted, I can't be bothered to post it a second time.

11 Jul 07 - 10:04 PM (#2100431)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol---


You gave absolutely no evidence that "Muslim-baiting" is in back of the knighthood--and for some reason can't find even one quote--even from yourself--to back up your theory.

You even admitted that the committee probably chose Rushdie for the reason the Guardian cited.

But somehow in the back of your mind there's still a shadowy conspiracy----(unknown, it seems, to everybody but you--and you must be sworn to secrecy, on pain of, who knows?)--- which caused the knighthood to be given for other reasons than the Guardian's.    It's amazingly cloak-and-dagger.

It's just a bit strange that your idea has neither logic nor evidence.

I'm afraid you're edging back into flaky leftist territory. Unless we can give up these--admittedly fun--conspiracy theories with no evidence--the Bushites will have some easy targets.

11 Jul 07 - 10:19 PM (#2100440)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Answer my question, Ron, if you want me to continue discussing this with you.

11 Jul 07 - 10:20 PM (#2100442)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

*my questions*

11 Jul 07 - 10:36 PM (#2100450)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

Look, it really won't break my heart if you don't want to continue the discussion--hard as it might be for you to accept that. I've asked you politely several times for--any-- evidence that, in your charming phrase, "Muslim-baiting" is in any shape or form behind the knighting of Rushdie.

So far, you have come up with precisely zero evidence--with good reason--since such evidence does not exist.

Your response speaks worlds about the credibility of your argument. Perhaps you don't care about credibility. That would explain it--but it won't help you in the future.

Sweet dreams.

11 Jul 07 - 10:43 PM (#2100455)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Too intellectually lazy to actually debate this subject with me, I see, Ron. Instead you think you can substitute personal attacks and badgering for real, reasoned debate. I'm not surprised, though. It's what I've come to expect from you.

Prove to me that you're not too lazy to read what I've already written. Answer my questions.

12 Jul 07 - 03:54 PM (#2100953)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Herga Kitty

I read (and enjoyed) the Booker Prize-winning Midnight's Children about a quarter of a century ago. IIRC Rushdie was very critical of Indira Ghandhi (the Black Widow) for declaring a State of Emergency, taking emergency powers and subverting Indian democracy.

I haven't read his other books (or many Booker Prize winners) since, and I did wonder (after the Government to which I pay taxes had incurred vast expense protecting SR after the publication of the Satanic Verses and the issuing of the fatwah) why nobody had flagged up that the knighthood might revive the hostility.

It's not a peerage, so he doesn't get to vote in the House of Lords.... (though any future wife will be a Lady).

But to say as CarolC did on 25 June that the knighthood was conferred for "Muslim baiting" purposes is rubbish.

Kitty

12 Jul 07 - 04:02 PM (#2100956)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

You're entitled to your opinion, Herga Kitty. I happen to disagree.

12 Jul 07 - 04:36 PM (#2100988)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Herga Kitty

Which of course, Carol, you're entitled to do. But Labour Party politicians in England don't do "Muslim-baiting" - they are mostly hoping to secure votes from the Muslim voters in their constituencies.

K

12 Jul 07 - 04:40 PM (#2100991)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Is that why Labour Party politicians assisted in the US led invasion and occupation of Iraq, Herga Kitty? Because they wanted to court Muslim votes?

12 Jul 07 - 05:05 PM (#2101012)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Herga Kitty

They probably did think that a lot of Muslims in Iraq would be grateful to be liberated from Saddam, even if they weren't bright enough to realise that having electricity, water and working hospitals, and not being plunged into sectarian strife verging on civil war would be more important to most of the inhabitants and that the occupying forces wouldn't be offering much of an improvement. That's not the reason for the Rushdie knighthood though.

I'm with Ron on this one. I've met him in England, so I think he knows how daft we are.

Kitty

12 Jul 07 - 05:43 PM (#2101037)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I've met Ron, too.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one, Herga Kitty (and Ron and I will just have to disagree). I think they did it for oil and regional hegemony, just like the US administration, and that promoting hatred of Muslims helps them accomplish their goals.

12 Jul 07 - 05:51 PM (#2101041)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--


"Intellectually lazy"--gee, you must be looking in the mirror.

As Herga Kitty says, you're entitled to your opinion. It's just that it would possibly carry more weight if you had perhaps an iota or two of evidence. It doesn't seem unreasonable.

You're an intelligent person. It's shame your idea of intellectual rigor seems to require nothing but repeating the same lame unsupported conspiracy theory--over and over. Don't you want to exercise that brain?



Well, let's see where we stand.

You have--still--provided precisely zero evidence that the knighthood was done for purposes of "Muslim -baiting". You have indulged in impressive flights of fancy having to do with the knighthood as a means to infuriate Moslems, thereby prompting them to do unspecified acts which would then, as I recall, make an invasion of Iran more likely. Very imaginative.

Some-- not many-- Moslems have indeed threatened Mr. Rushdie (again). But the question, as I suspect you know, is if this was the intent of the committee which chose Rushdie--or possibly the shadowy conspiracy that only you seem to know about, by another group which exercised veto power over the committee--and for some reason wanted to infuriate Moslems. It seems to be all very cloak and dagger, as I said earlier. I'm impressed by your connections in the espionage community.

What's interesting is that you concede that the committee itself did not intend to inflame Moslems. Yet you still hold to your opinion that somehow it was still "Muslim baiting". Two contradictory views--are you also a theologian or philosopher, in addition to being a secret agent?

At any rate, you still have the same two options:

1) You can provide the evidence asked. So far your opinion stands pure and unsullied by any support.

2) You can ignore me--(and anybody else who comments). Regarding ignoring me, your stance here is also intriguing. You talk a good game--but somehow, follow-through is a bit lacking. Also, you might want to consider for the future that "Cat got his tongue?'" is possibly not the best way to ignore someone.

Just a bit of friendly advice.

Looking forward to your next contribution. (Why do I get the distinct impression that you are constitutionally unable to ignore me?)

12 Jul 07 - 05:52 PM (#2101042)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Herga Kitty

Ah, Carol - there's a significant difference, this side of the Atlantic, between "Muslims" and "Islamist extremists". There are issues here about immigrating Islamic clerics who've been educated in seminaries about ancient lore and preach quite extremist interpretations in Urdu.

Kitty

12 Jul 07 - 05:57 PM (#2101044)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

" It's a shame.."

12 Jul 07 - 06:00 PM (#2101048)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Still unwilling to demonstrate any actual knowledge of what I've already posted, I see, Ron.

Your comments to and about me carry no credibility whatever unless you have read what I've already posted. So far you have shown that you have no idea whatsoever about what I've said in my previous posts in this thread, with the one exception of my central premise. You obviously have not bothered to read any of the supporting comments or documentation that I've provided. If you had, you wouldn't be asking me to post them a second time.

I will say it again... prove that you're not too intellectually lazy to read my posts. It's not that hard to do. All you have to do is answer my questions. There cannot possibly be any other reason than that you just can't be bothered, for your unwillingness to answer my questions, and thereby demonstrate that you have, in fact, actually read my previous posts.

Put up or shut up, Ron.

12 Jul 07 - 06:04 PM (#2101052)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I understand that, Herga Kitty.

What I am suggesting is that the policies of both the Bush as well as the Blair governments (too early to tell about Brown, but I suspect he will be the same) are causing the radicalization of a lot of Muslims who would not otherwise become radicalized (becoming Islamist extremists). My contention is that this result is not an accident, but is by design, because it helps the hegemonic agenda of the governments of countries like the US and the UK.

12 Jul 07 - 06:16 PM (#2101065)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--

Temper, temper, little girl.

Haven't you even learned that losing your temper is the fastest way to lose an argument? You might want to note that for the future.

You're sounding more and more like Teribus. Well I suppose it's opposite ends of the spectrum. As I said earlier, he has a good imagination too--perhaps you'd like to consult with him

Still waiting for the evidence for your theory--which I'm sure you have--right?

12 Jul 07 - 06:19 PM (#2101071)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Herga Kitty

Carol - the people who are being radicalised will argue that it's because of the reasons you've given. Government policies may have helped to fuel radicalism, but I think it's been fanned by bigoted teaching in mosques.

K

12 Jul 07 - 07:11 PM (#2101109)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Actually, there is another possible reason you are unwilling to answer my questions, Ron (temper? LOLOL... You wish.), and that reason, the real reason, in my opinion, is the same reason you haven't made a single post addressed to me in this thread that wasn't full of personal attacks and badgering.

That reason is that you really have no interest whatever in carrying on a reasonable discussion about the subject as, for instance, Herga Kitty and I have been doing. As always, all you're really interested in is trolling (for sport). That's why I have no interest in discussing anything with you. When you show an actual interest in discussing the subject in a reasonable and adult manner, instead of constantly making personal attacks, badgering, and trolling, that's when I'll begin to take you seriously. Until then, you're just a troll to me.

12 Jul 07 - 07:17 PM (#2101115)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Government policies may have helped to fuel radicalism, but I think it's been fanned by bigoted teaching in mosques.

I don't disagree that bigoted teaching in some mosques has contributed to increased radicalization. But I think that teaching would be far less likely to fall on fertile ground were people not being angered by foreign policies of countries like the US and the UK that are resulting in a massive of loss of civilian life in Muslim countries, and the utter destruction of whole societies in Muslim parts of the world. And, in my opinion, that is exactly the result that the governments of countries like the US and the UK have in mind.

12 Jul 07 - 07:25 PM (#2101122)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

Carol--


I would say that "Put up or shut up" is not the most civil suggestion. I recognize a temper being lost. I've seen Teribus, among others, do it.   And you may want to guard against this. Again, just a friendly suggestion.

You may also want to finally provide the evidence of "Muslim baiting" you must have-- you would not have wasted so much time on a conspiracy theory, being an intelligent woman.


And surely you know how to treat a troll, if you are convinced that's what I am. Interesting concept--for you being a troll consists in somebody who uses his own name asking for an answer to a perfectly reasonable question. More of your delightful imagination, it seems.

You were going to ignore me, as I recall. A worthy goal. Then somehow it was "Cat got his tongue?" Now exactly how is that ignoring me? Inquiring minds need to know.

.

12 Jul 07 - 07:37 PM (#2101127)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Teribus

By Christ Ron!! Are you going to lose some "street cred" on this one!! I happen to be 100% in your corner on this.

Going to be hard to see how you're going to live with that.

12 Jul 07 - 07:39 PM (#2101128)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Teribus

Oh, by the bye CarolC, how many of SR's, sorry apologies, Sir Salman's books have you read?

12 Jul 07 - 07:45 PM (#2101134)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

None, Teribus. But I don't need to read any of them to form the opinion I have, since I haven't ever suggested that they don't have any literary merit.

12 Jul 07 - 07:57 PM (#2101142)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I just wanted to give you an opportunity to show your true colors for everyone to see, Ron. That's the only reason I ever bothered to respond to you at all. I'll go back to ignoring you now.

12 Jul 07 - 09:00 PM (#2101176)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Teribus

Now then CarolC, somewhere in the vast number of posts to this thread, is listed the not inconsiderable literary honours, prizes and awards bestowed upon Sir Salman Rushdie.

The UK, via it's own honour system, awarded Salman Rushdie a Knighthood, for what exactly? I believe that it had something to do with literature.

Now CarolC, I may well not be a rocket scientist, or a brain surgeon, purely a simple sailor, but I can see a link there that has got absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with race, or religion.

Please, provide some form of evidence, or proof, to substantiate your "Muslim Baiting" accusation. If you cannot, please have the decency to admit as much.

12 Jul 07 - 09:31 PM (#2101196)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Obviously I haven't got any 'proof', Teribus. And you don't have any 'proof' to support your position, either. You have only opinion. But can show you some of the things have contributed to my opinion on this matter. This one, for instance...


The arts and media committee that proposed him for a knighthood is one of eight similar committees that make recommendations to the main committee, which then forwards the final names to the prime minister...

..."Very properly, we were concerned only with merit in relation to the level of the award," Mr Whittam Smith said yesterday.

He added that it would be for the main committee to assess any other aspects of the honour. The Foreign Office is represented on the main committee by the permanent secretary, whose job it would be to raise any potential international ramifications. A Foreign Office spokesman said he was not aware of any request by the honours committee to gauge likely Muslim reaction to the knighthood before the decision was taken...

Pakistan's foreign minister, Kurshid Kasuri, said on a visit to Washington that Britain could not have been surprised by the outrage.

The chairman of the all-party group on Pakistan, the Conservative MP Stewart Jackson, also attacked the decision to knight Rushdie. "We do not need a situation where we are gratuitously offending our allies in the fight against terror," he told the ePolitix website. "I think the prime minister's office should think very carefully about that decision."


This is an honour that could have waited. There is no reason why they couldn't have waited to bestow it at a time when it would have had less potential for stirring up more hatred during a time when there is already more of that sort of thing than we really need. They could have and should have waited.

12 Jul 07 - 09:33 PM (#2101197)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Stringsinger

Aw, c'mon Carol. Baiting? Next they'll go after those who criticize Christianity. Dawkins, Harris, and others who see things differently will now have to fear for their lives. After all didn't they make the best seller list? Some would call that provocative. BTW Madeleine Murray O'Hare was murdered for her stand against Christianity too. I think it was a Christian Fatwah.

If the UK for whatever reason wants to Knight Rushdie, why should they stand in fear and walk on eggshells for real terrorists?

Rushdie wrote a book criticizing Islam. It could have just as well criticizing Christianity.
Are we to drop free speech because some crazy-assed religious wing-nut of whatever stripe happens to threaten us?

BTW I don't see any difference between Robertson threatening Chavez (yes, threatening him, that's what he did) and the stupid Fatwah against Rushdie.

When religion becomes this crazy, it has to be examined as a pathology.

Frank

12 Jul 07 - 09:33 PM (#2101198)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

How many who have posted here have read anything by Rushdie (other than extracted lines and paragraphs selected to make a point), or have any qualifications to comment on the literary merits of his writings?

Should selection committees abandon principles and bow to extremists, Islamic or whatever? That is what is demanded by some who post here.

12 Jul 07 - 09:34 PM (#2101199)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Correction:

This is an honour that could have waited. There is no reason why they couldn't have waited to bestow it at a time when it would have had less potential for stirring up more hatred instead of during a time when there is already more of that sort of thing than we really need.

12 Jul 07 - 09:38 PM (#2101203)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Not the selection committe, Q. It was the job of the foreign office to vet the committee's nominations for potentially troublesome nominations. It could have waited.


Frank, it looks to me like you haven't actually read any of my posts in this thread except for those on this page. I would suggest that you go and read my posts in the rest of this thread before forming judgments about my opinion, because you are attributing things to me that I have never said.

12 Jul 07 - 10:27 PM (#2101227)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

well, at least I now see why I so easily mixed up "Stringslinger" and "riginslinger".

12 Jul 07 - 10:40 PM (#2101234)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

In other words, the 'Foreign Office' should have insured that the awards are politically correct, merit ignored.
Nonsense!

12 Jul 07 - 10:46 PM (#2101236)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

No, not politically correct. Timely and not counterproductive.

12 Jul 07 - 10:50 PM (#2101240)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Obviously the Foreign Office does concern itself with these kinds of issues in other cases, or they wouldn't have a permanent secretary serving on the main committee.

12 Jul 07 - 11:37 PM (#2101254)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Extremist Islamic views will persist for another century and probably longer. Accommodation by western civilization to Sharia views and practices is not possible, moderates can be tolerated but not extremists.
Unfortunately extremist Islamists have been admitted to the UK, along with their views and practices, including female genital mutilation, which has led to deaths of several children in the UK.

You suggest withholding the award until Rushdie is long dead and extreme Islamists disappear.
Nonsense!

General Musharraf is in the fight of his life in the hope of establishing a secular Pakistan. I am fearful that he is losing and if other governments knuckle under to the Islamists and their demands for Sharia law, they are abetting his enemies- and ours.

13 Jul 07 - 12:20 AM (#2101272)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

You suggest withholding the award until Rushdie is long dead and extreme Islamists disappear.

You're putting words in my mouth, Q. That is NOT what I'm saying.

I think they ought, at the very least, to have waited until they no longer have any troops in Iraq or any other Muslim country. They should have waited until they were not involved in any way in any actions that could cause this award to look to Muslims who are not Islamist extremists, like an extension of an aggressive and murderous foreign policy.

Don't tell me what I'm saying. Ask me what I'm saying, and I'll be happy to tell you. But don't project your own ideas onto me.

13 Jul 07 - 12:25 AM (#2101275)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I am fearful that he is losing and if other governments knuckle under to the Islamists and their demands for Sharia law, they are abetting his enemies- and ours.

I think Musharraf would tell you that this move by the government of the UK, did exactly the opposite of helping him to keep his hold on power in Pakistan. This sort of thing undermines the governments of people like Musharraf, rather than help them, and causes them to lose credibility with their people.

13 Jul 07 - 01:25 AM (#2101286)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

In "Shogun" there's a scene where the Japanese are trying to ferret out the 'secret Christians' amongst themselves, so they have all of their recruits spit on a cross before allowing them to drill.

Maybe there IS something to what Carol is saying, and allowing Rushdie public recognition in Britain is a way of distinguishing between the crazies and the slightly less than crazies.


Meanwhile someone awhile ago posted: "Two wrongs don't make a right."

They are quite correct. It takes three.

13 Jul 07 - 04:13 AM (#2101355)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianvan

Lets think of possible parallels.

What if Syria honored an author who wrote a book ridiculing Moses or Jesus and basically calling him an imposter. Its one thing to write the book (thats a freedom) but to be given an honor for insulting Christians would be inappropriate considering the present political climate.

Has anyone written a novel insulting Abraham or Jesus? If so, were they applauded by the queen? If not, I guess I'd better get busy. I might become a baroness or something.

I think Jesus as a self-loathing Jew, a momma's boy or a homosexual should go over big.

Mind you, I doubt if Christians would threaten to kill me but I'm sure I'd get an earful from the right wing fundamentalists. At the same time, I would certainly watch my back.

It was either intended to provoke or just plain inconsiderate, take your pick.

13 Jul 07 - 04:21 AM (#2101360)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Teribus

Now let's see CarolC:

I said - "somewhere in the vast number of posts to this thread, is listed the not inconsiderable literary honours, prizes and awards bestowed upon Sir Salman Rushdie.

The UK, via it's own honour system, awarded Salman Rushdie a Knighthood, for what exactly? I believe that it had something to do with literature."

To which you responded:
"Obviously I haven't got any 'proof'(regarding your statement that the award of the honour was "Muslim Baiting"), Teribus. And you don't have any 'proof' to support your position, either. You have only opinion."

Well no actually CarolC, it states rather clearly in official documentation/citation that Salman Rushdie was awarded a knighthood for services to literature in the Queen's Birthday Honours on June 16, 2007. Which I think supports my "position" rather well, far from being my opinion, the fact that Salman Rushdie was honoured for services to literature can be substantiated as plain a pikestaff in black and white on HM Government letterhead, and no doubt upon a rather handsome scroll, or certificate.

13 Jul 07 - 05:21 AM (#2101401)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

I think that not only is it necessary to have read something of what Salman Rushdie has written in order to express a cogent argument on the subject Carol. It would also help if you read something about the history of Pakistan if you're going to include that in your argument.
How did Musharraf come to power? What happened to Benazhir Bhutto. What happened to her father. Which Pakistani scientist and national hero gave the secrets of nuclear bomb manufacture to Iran and several other unstable powers,thus escalating the tension and threat of nuclear war in the region?
Now that's where you'll find real conspiracy, and not the imagined one you see in the elevation of an author, as a reward for his work.
Giok

13 Jul 07 - 06:16 AM (#2101427)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

Q writes:

"Should selection committees abandon principles and bow to extremists, Islamic or whatever? That is what is demanded by some who post here."

We are not talking about bowing to extremists here as far as I know. That is not the tone of this thread at all. Nor is anyone making a demand. Your Aunt Sally don't stand up to close scrutiny. I also note that you post in support of General Musharaff, that well-known democrat and friend of the West who harbours Al Qaida within his borders and who is nobbut a military dictator, truth to tell.

13 Jul 07 - 06:29 AM (#2101434)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

Ah Steve, how true. It would do some people a lot of good if they would remember that the unlovely Saddam Hussein was once our friend, in the same fashion as General Musharraf is now.
It's all done on the basis of the old saying 'My enemy's enemy, is my friend'

Giok

13 Jul 07 - 08:49 AM (#2101504)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Dickey

On February 6, 2006, Farid Mortazavi, graphics editor of Hamshahri, announced a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust, in response to the twelve cartoons published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (see Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy), to challenge Western use of the Freedom of Speech. The twelve best contributions were to be rewarded with a golden coin each, which were later increased to $5000 to $12000 prizes for the top 3 cartoons and 3 gold coins each for 12 other cartoonists. Later, Hamshahri published an English introduction to the contest, as well as preliminary rules. In that introductory message for the contest, they denounced what they called Western hypocrisy on the freedom of speech, alleging that "it is impossible in the West to joke upon or even discuss certain topics related to Judaism, such as the Holocaust, and the pretexts for the creation of Israel."

On February 14, 2006, the editor in chief of Hamshahri commented in Persian that "the purpose of establishing such a competition is not to offend or ridicule anyone, but to do a discussion about the realities of the Holocaust." He also indicated that Hamshahri tries really hard not to cause pain for anyone and also added that the newspaper has no contention with the Jews in Iran or any other place, but that it has problems with Zionism. Masood Shojaei, the director of Iran's Caricature House which cosponsored the competition also said: "Iran's Caricature House, as the only technically qualified center involved in the competition regards the holocaust topic as a terrible and saddening issue". The exhibition put on by The Iran Cartoon Organisation and Hamshahri newspaper opened on August 14, 2006.

After the winners were announced in November 2006, Shojaei said the competition would become an annual event. The Associated Press quoted him as saying "Actually, we will continue until the destruction of Israel". However, Shojaei categorically denies that he even spoke to the Associated Press reporter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Holocaust_Cartoon_Contest

13 Jul 07 - 08:56 AM (#2101510)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

"Mind you, I doubt if Christians would threaten to kill me "


This idea has been offered up several times (the last two times from Stringslinger and now by dianavan) in this thread...

...each time as though to say that Christianity and Islam would demonstrate the same response to a blasphemy of their God.

...each time as though there is no meaningful difference between THREATS/COMMANDS to KILL and expression of displeasure.

I don't see it. No, Stringslinger, even Robertson, as nuts as he is (and he is) did NOT threaten Chavez. And, NO, Dawkins, et al, are at no risk of Christian jihad.

And, no, displeasure is not the same as ordering the death of another. It just isn't.

13 Jul 07 - 09:04 AM (#2101515)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

Furthermore, what "was" is not the same as what "is". Even if you could make the case that some time back in history, Christianity ordered the death of heretics, that is a very long time ago and has no bearing on the present.

You don't say that doctors use leaches. You say that doctors used to use leaches. If there was no difference between the two phrases, I doubt that you would be going to a doctor.

Physicist used to thing that gravity was a magnetic force. They don't now. I don't fault the physicist who used to think it magnetism. I wouldn't believe one now who said that it was magnetism.

Yet, to everyone on this thread, "used to" or "was" is exactly the same thing as "is".

Funky world you occupy.

13 Jul 07 - 09:40 AM (#2101547)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

it states rather clearly in official documentation/citation that Salman Rushdie was awarded a knighthood for services to literature in the Queen's Birthday Honours on June 16, 2007. Which I think supports my "position" rather well

Sure, it supports it. But it doesn't prove anything. Sometimes governments lie. We know this for a fact. And neither of us can prove one way or another whether or not this is one of those cases. Your opinion is that they are telling the truth in this case.

13 Jul 07 - 09:47 AM (#2101551)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I think that not only is it necessary to have read something of what Salman Rushdie has written in order to express a cogent argument on the subject Carol.

I disagree.


It would also help if you read something about the history of Pakistan if you're going to include that in your argument.
How did Musharraf come to power? What happened to Benazhir Bhutto. What happened to her father. Which Pakistani scientist and national hero gave the secrets of nuclear bomb manufacture to Iran and several other unstable powers,thus escalating the tension and threat of nuclear war in the region?

So you would prefer that the Islamist extremists in Pakistan prevail in that country and become the new government there?. Interesting stance for someone who claims to not approve of Islamist extremists. Musharraf is the puppet who is being propped up by the US government in that country. He's their man. They want him there. The reason they want him there is because he is willing to do their bidding. I don't particularly approve of him myself, but on the other hand, I don't think having the Islamist extremists in power in Pakistan is necessarily the best thing that could happen either.

13 Jul 07 - 09:51 AM (#2101556)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Yet, to everyone on this thread, "used to" or "was" is exactly the same thing as "is".

Everyone, John?

13 Jul 07 - 10:04 AM (#2101564)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie

So he may be a thief but he's our thief is the basis of US foreign policy, is that it?
I also think that to assume that Islamists would gain the upper hand in Pakistan when Musharraf is deposed/assassinated is a tribute to the success of the US governments propaganda that paints all Islamists as extremists.
They certainly learned their lesson well from Senator McCarthy.

And it's people who kill other people for exercising their civil rights I despise, not the label they are given by others, or the one they stick on themselves.


Giok

13 Jul 07 - 10:05 AM (#2101566)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly

wow, you got me there. That changes everything I said. Can't slip anything past you, can I?

13 Jul 07 - 10:32 AM (#2101599)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

John 'Giok' MacKenzie, I think your argument is with Q, since he is the one who brought up the subject of Musharraf and I was only responding to what he said. As far as I'm concerned it's a tangent that I feel no need to explore further on this thread.

13 Jul 07 - 10:32 AM (#2101603)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Can't slip anything past you, can I?

Apparently not.

13 Jul 07 - 10:33 AM (#2101604)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

"Musharraf is the puppet who is being propped up by the US government in that country. He's their man."


                   You'll remember George W. Bush didn't even know who Musharraf was during the events leading up to the 2000 election. Does he know now? Will he miss him when he's gone?

13 Jul 07 - 03:34 PM (#2101872)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianavan

"General Musharaff, that well-known democrat and friend of the West who harbours Al Qaida within his borders and who is nobbut a military dictator, truth to tell."

Aint that the truth!

13 Jul 07 - 04:33 PM (#2101923)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

A few years ago an Italian newspaper printed a cartoon of a baby Jesus afraid of Israeli troopers saying "They're not coming for me again?" and I've heard of many instances of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion published as books or as newspaper inserts without any historical footonoting to indicate that they are not what they represent themselves to be.

That's lying in aide of Genocide which is currently going on and far beyond anything Mr. Rushdie has done, and it (Protocols) is even more unreadable than Mr. Rushdie. In fact I think 90% of its cachet is to have the word "Protocols" in the title.

13 Jul 07 - 06:03 PM (#2101979)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Well, I would be just as critical, no, I would be much more critical of anyone trying to defend the protocols here in the Mudcat, than I would be of someone supporting Mr. Rushdie getting the knighthood in this thread. There's no excuse for that sort of thing.

That doesn't make Muslim-baiting (or spreading hatred of Muslims) ok, though. Both are wrong.

13 Jul 07 - 06:46 PM (#2101998)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

Mudcat has had room for baiting in every direction possible.

I was comparing actual published copies of Protocols in more than one Muslim press, and not even extremist outlets, but moderate outlets, to anything that Mr. Rushdie has published in any press.

Unless you consider Mr. Rushdie a Muslim-Baiter there is no equivalence.

13 Jul 07 - 06:51 PM (#2102001)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I have not tried to make an equivalence between anything Mr. Rushdie has done and the cases to which you refer. I have been talking specifically about what the governments of the US and UK have been doing, which is also an ongoing genocide.

13 Jul 07 - 06:55 PM (#2102002)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

One can find an informative article on the Protocols here:
Wikipedia Article on Protocols

The articles and their use did not originate in the Arab world. Henry Ford sponsored an edition in the US in 1920.

My point is that when one finds that this kind of exploded mythologizing of Jews qua Jews in mainstream press editions in the Arab/ Muslim worlds, it tends to make demonstrations against cartoons, beauty contests, and authors under death sentence to be part of an overall warped bias in which demonstrations feed the Arab/ Muslim media, and the Arab/ Muslim media feed the demonstrations.

In other words, Muslim baiting is wrong, particularly when Muslims do it themselves.

13 Jul 07 - 06:57 PM (#2102003)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

Hey Carol:

My last post was meant as a follow on to myself to embellish my previous point. I hadn't had a chance to read your message in between 'em.

14 Jul 07 - 05:18 AM (#2102263)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Teribus

genocide
One entry found for genocide.
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group


CarolC - "I have been talking specifically about what the governments of the US and UK have been doing, which is also an ongoing genocide."

Now then CarolC would you like to let us in on the secret and tell us exactly where the Governments of the US and the UK are engaged in, "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"?

Or is this, like the "Muslim Baiting" yet another of your wild accusations that cannot be substantiated or proved, by logic, reasoning or evidence.

14 Jul 07 - 11:16 AM (#2102433)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

If we apply the same standard for the word 'genocide' to the results of the foreign policies of the US and UK with regard to Muslim countries as we are using to define genocide in Sudan, then we can definitely call it genocide.

If we can use the term genocide to describe the actions of the people who set up the conditions in Rwanda that resulted in genocide (without necessarily doing any of the actual killing themselves), then we can most definitely apply the term genocide to the actions of the US and UK that have resulted in close to a million people being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since the US and UK invaded and occupied those countries. And genocide also applies to the systematic destruction of the culture and society of a group of people as well. The actions of the US and UK are responsible for the destruction of the Iraqi society and ancient as well as modern culture.

And it's ongoing because we can expect the governments of these two countries to expand it to include other Muslim countries in the not too distant future.

14 Jul 07 - 12:24 PM (#2102477)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

Genocide is accepted, even by the OCD, as being a word applicable to the killing of a very large number of people in a nation. If you hold, as many do, that the US and UK governments are culpable in the case of the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq since the invasion, then Carol's use of the word is not inappropriate and to single it out is just nit-picking.

14 Jul 07 - 01:43 PM (#2102545)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast

Well, Steve (and Carol) if you use half a definition of a word I guess it can mean anything you want it to mean ala Humpty-Dumpty. However, if you complete the definition, as it is commonly used, to further define that these killings are done for the purpose of eliminating a group, racial or ethnic, then there is a quantum difference. This is not nit-picking.

14 Jul 07 - 01:55 PM (#2102557)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Not so in the case of the people in Sudan, John. They are not being eliminated as a group. They are being cleared off their land as a group. But we are still calling what is being done to them 'genocide'.

14 Jul 07 - 02:13 PM (#2102577)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast

This, then, is an inappropriate use of the word. Please do not write and tell me I'm insensitive to the plight of those Sudanese being forced to move. I think it is wrong, and I do wish the U.N. (worthless as I think it is) would do something about it. I admit Sudan has not been in the forefront of my thoughts, but I understand that there are mass killings in Darfur, which, sadly, may qualify for the use of the term 'genocide.' AAMF, the Social Action committee at my synagogue is raising money and goods for Darfur refugees.
Actually it is not 'my' synagogue, I am just a member there, just to be clear on ownership.

14 Jul 07 - 04:29 PM (#2102674)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

I'm not going to argue with you on that point, John. But we need to be consistent about our use of the word genocide, and it has become commonly accepted by most of the governments of Western countries, as well as most of the citizens of those countries, to use the word genocide in reference to what is happening in Sudan. If we are going to use it for that purpose, we should also use it for other, similar cases.

14 Jul 07 - 04:33 PM (#2102677)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

Missed this part...

I admit Sudan has not been in the forefront of my thoughts, but I understand that there are mass killings in Darfur, which, sadly, may qualify for the use of the term 'genocide.'

The mass killings are not being done for the purpose of eliminating the group involved. They are being done for the purpose of terrorizing the rest of the people into abandoning their land. This is not the systematic elimination of a group, since the government of Sudan doesn't really care if they live, as long as they don't live on the land that has the oil under it. So if the synagogue where you are a member is calling it genocide, they, too are using the term incorrectly.

14 Jul 07 - 04:38 PM (#2102683)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

You folks piss around tooo much. Mass murder is mass murder.

14 Jul 07 - 04:56 PM (#2102689)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

Adolf Hitler to his Army commanders, August 22, 1939:

"Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my 'Death's Head Units' with the orders to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the vital space that we need. Who still talks nowadays about the Armenians?"

The term 'Genocide' was coined by a jurist named Raphael Lemkin in 1944 by combining the Greek word 'genos' (race) with the Latin word 'cide' (killing). Genocide as defined by the United Nations in 1948 means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, including: (a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Recent to Past Occurrences

Bosnia-Herzegovina: 1992-1995 - 200,000 Deaths
Rwanda: 1994 - 800,000 Deaths
Pol Pot in Cambodia: 1975-1979 - 2,000,000 Deaths
Nazi Holocaust: 1938-1945 - 6,000,000 Deaths
Rape of Nanking: 1937-1938 - 300,000 Deaths
Stalin's Forced Famine: 1932-1933 - 7,000,000 Deaths
Armenians in Turkey: 1915-1918 - 1,500,000 Deaths

14 Jul 07 - 05:13 PM (#2102698)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast

If what you say about Darfur is true, I could agree. I'm not sure if they use the term 'genocide' at the temple. I did not mean to imply that is the case. I meant from what I know that term may apply. I do know that we are trying to help the refugees. I think I'll spend part of tomorrow reading about Darfur in more detail.

14 Jul 07 - 05:27 PM (#2102706)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

"The ongoing Darfur Genocide is no accident, no local tribal conflict. The genocide is the brutal plan of three men in the Sudanese national Government -- President Bashir, Vice-President Taha, Security Chief Gosh. Now they are spreading their system of terror to other African countries, including Chad and the Central African Republic . Yet our governments continue to cut deals with them - deals they repeatedly break. It is time for the US and European governments to stop appeasing genocide. We call on our governments to fully support the International Criminal Court to indict the perpetrators of genocide, and to help ensure their arrest. It is time for justice, because only justice can bring peace.

For Bashir, Taha and Gosh, it is time for handcuffs, not handshakes. "

14 Jul 07 - 06:38 PM (#2102748)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

"Unless you consider Mr. Rushdie a Muslim-Baiter there is no equivalence."


                     Yeah, I consider Rushdies a Muslim-Baiter. That's how he got his book on the map in the first place. Otherwise, hardly anybody would have any idea who he is.

14 Jul 07 - 07:05 PM (#2102769)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast

Riginslinger--even if it's your opinion that Rushdie is a Muslim-baiter, a debatable point, the fact that some people here support the reactions of certain muslims and muslim groups is indefensible. You don't kill people for what they write, and you don't foment violence against those that honor the merit of the work. How very 15th century!
Voltaire must be laughing from on high at the advanced folk of the 21st century.

14 Jul 07 - 07:11 PM (#2102772)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

Well said, John.

Next we'll have Rome with a contract out on Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh. Sheesh.

14 Jul 07 - 07:59 PM (#2102791)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

The meanings of words can, and do, drift. Even dictionaries acknowledge that. You might not like it but so be it. I don't like the way that the meaning of "beg the question" has drifted, for example, but there's sod all I can do about it. Genocide has come to mean the killing of very large numbers of people in a nation in a number of modern contexts. Tough if you don't like the way the word is so used. To pick up Carol on this technicality, as you apparently perceive it, is indeed a classic example of nit-picking. I suggest you stick to taking Carol on over the real issues. If you can.

14 Jul 07 - 08:13 PM (#2102799)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

What real issue? Idiots have put a contract out on a writer because some self-styled "I speak for God" guy was dissed in a book. We gonna bump off Bill Cosby for doing a good dialogue with God AND pretending to be Noah, too?

14 Jul 07 - 08:18 PM (#2102803)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

Flail ye not, Peace. I am merely addressing the question of the word at the moment. To quote your good self, sheesh.

14 Jul 07 - 08:26 PM (#2102808)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

And well addressed it was, too. I'm fed up with the mouths of Islam who decide who is and who ain't being respectful to their version of prophets and God. Religions that behave like that, politicians who behave like that, deserve to be sluffed away to meet their philosophical leaders, whether that leader be God or their real leader, Satan. I feel the same about the Christian right. A pox on both their houses.

14 Jul 07 - 08:39 PM (#2102812)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

I do agree with you generally, but it's important that we recognise that it is "the mouths of Islam" (or, at least, some of 'em), and not the whole of Islam, who behave like that. I don't suppose the average Christian would take too kindly to being associated with the mouthings of the venerable Pope (ex-member of the Hitler Youth as he is) or, indeed, the average member of the Labour Party being associated with the doings of Mr Blair. Being a godless sort of chap, and a militant one at that, I find it hard to take any religious movement seriously, but in the context of the modern world I find I have to.

14 Jul 07 - 08:39 PM (#2102814)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Rushdie uses his humor to take all groups to task for their foibles; I can't see that he has ever 'baited' any group. The best living writer on the human comedy.
I am reading his "Shalimar, the Clown," and find it hard to put down. His prose flows effortlessly. I saw the Spanish edition of this book recently, El Payoso Shalimar; the book is a best-seller in all its translations.

His tales are excellent for stretching the imagination and should be in all school libraries. Haroon and the Sea of Stories, The Moor's Last Sigh, etc.

14 Jul 07 - 08:49 PM (#2102819)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

Steve,

I have never felt otherwise. Blaming a whole people for the mouthings of a few idiots is just plain stupid. IMO, nail the bastards and leave the people alone. In a fair world, the minute someone issued a decree like that, well, he'd get 175 grains in the head. If that happened a bit more often, the people who just want to live their lives in peace would be allowed to speak aloud and take over their own countries. It's time for people who don't like war to be heard. If it takes the loss of a few thousand to save the lives of a few million--well, what's the issue?

Not very PC, but it's how I feel.

14 Jul 07 - 08:56 PM (#2102820)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

"You don't kill people for what they write, and you don't foment violence against those that honor the merit of the work."

                Of course you do. Martin Luther King Jr. is dead, along with a number of others I don't have time to list.

14 Jul 07 - 09:06 PM (#2102824)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

One shouldn't kill people for what they write . . . .

14 Jul 07 - 11:40 PM (#2102931)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

I know, but I didn't choose the pronoun.

15 Jul 07 - 12:09 AM (#2102947)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

. . . or the verb. Nevertheless, killing people for shit like that isn't very nice.

15 Jul 07 - 12:17 AM (#2102955)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast

R--I used the word 'you', perhaps lazily, as a substitute for impersonal 'one.' Mea Culpa. Happy? It doesn't invalidate the gist of the argument. 'Don't' serves as a synonym for 'shouldn't' in the context of my post. But you knew that...you just wanted to play little head games.

15 Jul 07 - 12:31 AM (#2102964)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

Not only is there no 'proof' that Rushdie intentional 'baited' anyone, there is considerable proof that Muslims have continuously baited other Muslims.

Incidentally, the history of the Satanic Verses goes way way back before Rushdie and is an important story all its ownself. It goes back to a vital question of whether the Koran had been tampered with heresy beyond the original dictation of Allah to Mohammed.

15 Jul 07 - 12:59 AM (#2102981)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

Maybe it wasn't baiting. Maybe it was a scam run by either Rushdie or the publisher designed to sell more books. Frankly, that's the first thing that came to mind for me, when the news of the threat first came out.

15 Jul 07 - 01:22 AM (#2102991)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Cluin

So, you're a cynic.

15 Jul 07 - 08:27 AM (#2103173)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

Yeah, but not without good reason.

15 Jul 07 - 12:26 PM (#2103346)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Cluin

A cynical reason? What's it gotten you?

15 Jul 07 - 01:01 PM (#2103387)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

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...

15 Jul 07 - 04:28 PM (#2103559)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

"What's it gotten you?"

             Wisdom!

15 Jul 07 - 06:03 PM (#2103627)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

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.

15 Jul 07 - 06:42 PM (#2103656)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,undertheradar

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.

15 Jul 07 - 06:43 PM (#2103657)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

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.

15 Jul 07 - 08:10 PM (#2103711)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

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).

15 Jul 07 - 08:16 PM (#2103714)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

"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! :-)

15 Jul 07 - 09:46 PM (#2103786)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Don Firth

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

15 Jul 07 - 10:21 PM (#2103802)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

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.

15 Jul 07 - 11:26 PM (#2103843)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

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.

16 Jul 07 - 12:13 AM (#2103862)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

"...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.

16 Jul 07 - 07:02 PM (#2104642)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

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

16 Jul 07 - 08:20 PM (#2104703)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

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.

16 Jul 07 - 08:49 PM (#2104726)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

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).

16 Jul 07 - 08:59 PM (#2104731)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

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.

16 Jul 07 - 09:50 PM (#2104767)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Don Firth

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

16 Jul 07 - 10:34 PM (#2104788)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

"...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.

16 Jul 07 - 10:40 PM (#2104795)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

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.

16 Jul 07 - 10:50 PM (#2104807)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

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

17 Jul 07 - 12:01 AM (#2104830)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast

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

17 Jul 07 - 08:46 AM (#2105054)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger

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


                               Thanks!

17 Jul 07 - 10:21 AM (#2105120)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Critic

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.

17 Jul 07 - 10:23 AM (#2105121)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Wolfgang

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

17 Jul 07 - 10:39 AM (#2105128)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,meself

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

17 Jul 07 - 12:25 PM (#2105170)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

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.

17 Jul 07 - 02:08 PM (#2105175)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Cire Notpalc

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

17 Jul 07 - 02:30 PM (#2105197)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

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

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

17 Jul 07 - 02:49 PM (#2105222)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

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.

17 Jul 07 - 03:32 PM (#2105272)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianvan

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.

17 Jul 07 - 04:58 PM (#2105353)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

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.

17 Jul 07 - 05:19 PM (#2105365)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

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

17 Jul 07 - 06:49 PM (#2105432)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw

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

17 Jul 07 - 07:41 PM (#2105472)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

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.

17 Jul 07 - 09:26 PM (#2105524)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies

"...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.

17 Jul 07 - 09:57 PM (#2105541)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast

"[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.

17 Jul 07 - 10:35 PM (#2105549)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,meself

Well said.

17 Jul 07 - 10:44 PM (#2105555)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

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.

17 Jul 07 - 10:48 PM (#2105559)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

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".

17 Jul 07 - 10:58 PM (#2105570)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

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.

17 Jul 07 - 11:30 PM (#2105589)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace

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

Hanlon's Razor

17 Jul 07 - 11:34 PM (#2105597)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

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.

17 Jul 07 - 11:40 PM (#2105600)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

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

18 Jul 07 - 12:01 AM (#2105622)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC

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.

18 Jul 07 - 09:30 AM (#2105876)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,ibo

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?

18 Jul 07 - 10:06 AM (#2105892)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast

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.

19 Jul 07 - 05:49 AM (#2106637)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,ibo

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.

19 Jul 07 - 12:02 PM (#2106874)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

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

19 Jul 07 - 07:39 PM (#2107236)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic

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

20 Jul 07 - 09:50 AM (#2107582)
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Critic

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.